Field Specific Research Ethics Dilemma: Zebrafish Holding Conditions
A research group must decide whether to follow new guidelines limiting the number of zebrafish per tank, balancing ethical concerns with research quality and animal welfare.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Seminar II Field specific research ethics Group 2 Ludo, Berrit, TJ, Andr
Problem / case: The EU commission has decided to implement new holding conditions for Zebrafish. A maximum of 6 individuals per 3L-tank is allowed. This interferes with the natural requirements of Zebrafish, since they prefer to live in bigger groups. The new guidelines are a form of animal cruelty.
Problem owner and dilemma: Research group has to decide how to act. Should they follow the new guidelines, or ignore them for the wellbeing of the fish?
Research project Facility Commission Fish Follow the guidelines + Ethics permit is not endangered. - Damage to research quality. + Facility can be run without risks. - Might lose clients. + Researchers validate them. - Failure of mission (wellbeing of animals). + Under high stress, but kept alive. - Health & wellbeing lowered. Find loopholes + Damage to research quality limited. - Risk of commission revoking ethics permit. + Wellbeing of fish and clients is ensured. - Risk of closure / censure. + Not forced to justify their decision. - Authority is undermined. + Health & wellbeing ensured. - If commission finds out, all will be killed. Lodge appeal to review guidelines (with data) + Chance to improve future conditions. - Appeal process may be long. - Risk to future permits. + No risk of losing either permits or clients. - Extra work. + Rules to improve conditions for fish are optimized. - Authority is questioned publicly. + Wellbeing in the long term. - Short-term suffering.
Solution: Lodge appeal to review guidelines (with data) Missions of all groups depends on the wellbeing of the fish.
