Search

The article focuses on the critical role of scientific toxicity information in environmental protection, particularly in key statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which require scientifically credible data for regulatory standards and enforcement actions. It mentions regulators heavily rely on toxicity studies involving animals, dating back to the early 1940s, following tragic incidents involving consumer and medical products.

Paul Locke NGOs can play an important role in the development, implementation, and reform of public health laws. To be effective, NGOs must recognize the critical role law plays in [...]

ABSTRACT Biomonitoring is the assessment of human exposure to environmental chemicals by measuring the chemicals or their metabolites in human specimens such as blood, urine, saliva, or tissue. It has [...]

Other branches of science, and especially history, are necessary to form a lawyer. --Thomas Jefferson (1) Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson suggested the need for a broader legal [...]

The article offers information on the laws and regulations that are made for reducing residential exposure to radon gas which is one of the leading cause of lung cancer among smokers and non-smokers in U.S. Topics discussed include the 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act for reducing the level of radon gas; the Indoor Air Quality and Radon Gas Act of 1986 for establishing a research program for radon and other issues of indoor air quality; and state laws and local ordinances for radon exposures.

Almost all researchers, veterinarians, technicians, and students who work with laboratory animals are familiar with the laws, regulations, and policies governing the use of animals in their jurisdictions. This knowledge can be learned in an academic setting, but is often gained by "on the job" training conducted by facilities and institutions where these professionals work. In addition, these laws and regulations exist along a continuum; some countries have detailed and expansive animal law regimes, while others have few, if any laws. Accordingly, those who carry out research involving animals know local laws and regulations, but might not be aware of the laws, regulations, and policies of other jurisdictions.As scientific research becomes increasingly globalized, there is a growing need to gain an understanding of the laws and regulations of other countries. This article seeks to help bridge this gap in knowledge by defining 10 fundamental legal terms and concepts that are important in understanding the similarities and differences among the legal traditions of different nations and international agreements that impact laboratory animal research. The article focuses on Western law terms and concepts, because many laboratory animal statutes that have been enacted in these countries and international treaties and protocols can be viewed through a Western legal lens.

This issue contains a collection of papers describing the state of animal laws, regulations, and standards in counties worldwide, grouped by geographic regions (i.e., North America, South America, Pacific Rim, Africa, and the Middle East). An overview of the US and Canadian legal requirements for animal welfare is provided, along with consideration of potential gaps in the US Animal Welfare Act. The EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and its transposition is discussed, and challenges facing laboratory animal protection regimes in Latin America and the Pacific Rim are examined. Legislation for laboratory animal use has been enacted in India and Australia, while animal protection regimes have not yet been enacted in the Middle East and Africa. International harmonization is a particularly important challenge for the global scientific community and private accreditation by organizations such as AAALAC International, plays a key role in promoting high standards for animal care and use programs globally. This article highlights three future trends. First, international efforts at harmonization will continue, and seek to keep pace with the globalization of science. Second, nations that have not yet developed robust legal systems applicable to laboratory animal welfare will seek out the expertise of those nations that have well established regimes. Third, for countries with mature animal protection systems, animal use in research will continue to be of societal concern, and efforts to change existing laws will not abate. The opportunity to use animals in laboratory research is not an entitlement. It is a privilege accorded by society to certain members of the scientific community and along with it comes the responsibility to adhere to, and seek improvement in, applicable laws, regulations, policies and standards.

The Canadian and United States' approaches to oversight of animals in research are both based on the "3Rs" principles outlined in Russell and Burch's classic text, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Each country seeks to protect the welfare of animals, while permitting the legitimate goals of scientific research to be attained according to the legal principles, cultures, and strengths and constraints of their jurisprudential and societal traditions. Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and regulation of activities is based to a great extent on custom and practice. The United States is more hierarchical and, at least with respect to laws governing animal research, more centralized. Accordingly, the Canadian approach is rooted in the concepts of social contracts, with a greater emphasis on guidance and policy and less reliance on legislation. No federal (national) direct legislation of laboratory animal welfare exists, although the federal government uses its criminal and spending authorities to shape behavior. The central feature of the Canadian system is the Canadian Council on Animal Care, which was formed to support universities and government departments involved in animal-based science. Animal care committees play a central role in implementing the guidelines and policies in facilities that carry out animal research. The United States has enacted two federal (national) laws applicable to animals in research. The Animal Welfare Act is a more traditional, command-and-control law that gives authority to the US Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations, inspect facilities, and enforce violations. The Health Research Extension Act, which amended the US Public Health Services (PHS) Act, applies to any activity conducted or supported by the PHS, including research efforts supported by the US National Institutes of Health. It is largely nonregulatory and establishes a system of assurances and policies that covered research facilities must follow. States play only a minor role in animal research protection. As in Canada, institutional animal care and use committees are tasked with self-regulation of activities that use animals for research.

The amount of imaging studies performed for disease diagnosis has been rapidly increasing. We examined the amount of radiation exposure that pediatric trauma patients receive because they are an at-risk population. Our hypothesis was that pediatric trauma patients are exposed to high levels of radiation during a single hospital visit.