Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals?

In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agricult...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: McCarthy, Charles R. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 1993
In: Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
Year: 1993, Volume: 3, Issue: 3, Pages: 293-302
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1826984771
003 DE-627
005 20221214052545.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221214s1993 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1353/ken.0.0257  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1826984771 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1826984771 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a McCarthy, Charles R.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals? 
264 1 |c 1993 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its current regulations governing exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used for biomedical research and to issue new regulations containing only minimum, measurable standards. Both plaintiffs and defendants contended that they were seeking the best interests of the laboratory animals. The issue at stake is whether animals are better protected if the government establishes limited minimal standards or is allowed to require institutions to provide additional standards, which will be judged on the basis of their effectiveness in maintaining healthy animals. The Court avoided this dispute, however, by placing primary emphasis on applying the Administrative Procedures Act and stating that it was merely interpreting the "plain meaning" of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended. In this article, arguments are presented for interpreting the law in a far more flexible way than Judge Richey did. The conclusion is also reached that there were no winners in the Animal Legal Defense Fund case and that the real losers are the laboratory animals. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Kennedy Institute of Ethics  |t Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal  |d Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1991  |g 3(1993), 3, Seite 293-302  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320481840  |w (DE-600)2009887-X  |w (DE-576)266818668  |x 1086-3249  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:3  |g year:1993  |g number:3  |g pages:293-302 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0257  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/251890  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 423089564X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1826984771 
LOK |0 005 20221214052545 
LOK |0 008 221214||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-06#2245F06DDE491128AA1F2B7FB8A42FFFCE6C2C15 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw