Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Correspondence
Nature 408, 133 (9 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35041767
Guidelines work better than animal welfare law
Mary J. C. Hendrix1
- FASEB, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3998, USA
Your Opinion article, "In defence of animal research" (Nature 407, 659; 2000), incorrectly states that the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) urges dispensing with a definition of distress for animals used in research, testing and teaching.In a letter sent to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on 18 October, FASEB states that guidelines for the recognition of distress would be useful, but should not be included in USDA regulations or policy manuals because a single, standardized definition of distress would not help institutions to recognize, minimize or report animal distress across species and situations.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).