Data Sheet 1_Purpose versus pragmatism: participant perspectives on the process of ethical review of animal research in Sweden.zip

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>