2026-10-06T11:07:01Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/34056456 2026-10-02T11:54:15Z category_1280 portal_316 item_type_3 month_year_10_2026

Data Sheet 1_Purpose versus pragmatism: participant perspectives on the process of ethical review of animal research in Sweden.zip Svea Jörgensen (25302189) Helena Röcklinsberg (20446694) Elin M. Weber (3092886) Clara Iversen (25302192) Frida Lundmark Hedman (14207504) Farm Management, Rural Management and Agribusiness 3R animal ethics animal ethics committee animal research directive 2010/63/EU ethical review harm-benefit analysis research animals <p>All EU research projects involving non-human animals must undergo prior project evaluation, also known as ethical review, to safeguard animal welfare. This process is mandated by Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, to ensure that the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) are adequately addressed and that any harm to animals is justified by the expected benefits of the research. Although this ethical review and its implementation across Member States have been widely criticised, little is known about how the process is perceived by those directly involved in it: animal researchers applying for ethical approval and animal ethics committee (AEC) members reviewing such applications. This study addresses that gap. Based on questionnaire responses from Swedish animal researchers and AEC members, we found that respondents strongly value animal welfare and want the ethical review to comply with legal requirements. At the same time, respondents revealed that reviewed applications sometimes lacked important information and that 3R assessment, ethical deliberation, and a harm-benefit analysis were not performed by AECs for all reviewed projects. Despite this, many committee member respondents, particularly scientific community representatives (SCRs) and public representatives (PRs), appear overall satisfied with the review. Animal welfare organisation representatives (AWORs), however, were more critical, perceiving a gap between how the ethical review should function in theory and is implemented in practice. We argue that differences in perceptions of the ethical review process may stem from intersecting factors that shape how respondents understand its purpose, the responsibilities of participants, and key concepts. We identify a need for clearer alignment in these understandings, whilst preserving the diversity of perspectives that is central to the process. As it stands, the current system of ethical review cannot achieve this, and, as a result, some tasks and perspectives may be deprioritised in favour of others.</p> 2026-10-02T11:54:15Z Dataset Dataset 10.3389/fanim.2026.1864730.s001 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Sheet_1_Purpose_versus_pragmatism_participant_perspectives_on_the_process_of_ethical_review_of_animal_research_in_Sweden_zip/34056456 CC BY 4.0