Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Last updated

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) are centrally important in applying laws about animal research in the United States. Similar systems operate in other countries, but generally under different titles; for example, in Canada a typical title would be the University Animal Care Committee (UACC) , while in the United Kingdom it would be the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) .

Contents

Most research involving laboratory animals in the United States is funded by the United States National Institutes of Health or, to lesser extents, other federal agencies. The NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) has been directed by law to develop policies that describe the role of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Every institution that uses certain animals for federally funded laboratory research must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Each local IACUC reviews research protocols and conducts evaluations of the institution's animal care and use, which includes the results of inspections of facilities that are required by law.

The corresponding, parallel, and equivalent local ethical body responsible for overseeing U.S. federally funded research involving humans is the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

History

The history of IACUCs evolved from the history of regulation of animal welfare in the USA. Prior to 1963, regulation was conducted solely by investigators, and research laboratories had inconsistent animal care policies and standards of care. A group of veterinarians formed the Animal Care Panel and began work in 1961, and in 1963 they published the first edition of The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, referred to hereafter as the Guide. Subsequent editions of the Guide were supported by NIH and published by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research branch of the National Academy of Science. Currently, the Guide is in its eighth edition. [1]

An accreditation committee was formed in 1963, and it was independently incorporated from the ACP. Its name was AAALAC, the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. In 1996 this committee changed its name to the "Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC)".

A series of reports on poor animal welfare in the US led to a major article in Life magazine in 1966. Public opinion was particularly galvanized by the case of a pet dog that was stolen from her owners in Pennsylvania and later died during an experimental surgery at a hospital in New York. [2] Thus catalyzed, and spurred by the efforts of Representative Joseph Y. Resnick, [2] Congress created the Animal Welfare Act (1966), which named the USDA the responsible agency. It inspected animal use facilities, but did not inspect or regulate individual laboratories.

In 1971, the Animal Welfare Act was revised, and compliance by institutions could be achieved through an animal care committee or via AAALAC accreditation. Compliance required adhering to the Guide, the Animal Welfare Act, and an additional set of "Principles for the Use of Laboratory Animals." In 1979, U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) policy took over, requiring an animal care committee for each animal-using grantee institution and expanding the species covered to include all vertebrates. The animal care committee was required to have five members with expertise to regulate animal welfare at that institution, including at least one veterinarian.

The term IACUC was formally introduced in 1986 with an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act and corresponding changes in PHS policy. Although much of the animal welfare law comes from the Animal Welfare Act, which is enforced by the USDA, the full set of regulations over IACUCs comes from PHS Policy. Twice-yearly inspections of animal use facilities were mandated. The modern composition of IACUCs was thus established. [3]

Composition

The IACUC must have a minimum of three members, appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the research facility. The appointed members must be qualified to regulate animal care at that institution. Membership requirements, as defined in 9 CFR §2.31, are as follows:

1. The committee shall be composed of a Chairman and at least two other members.
2. One of these members must be a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine with training or experience related to laboratory animal research
3. One member must have no relation with the institution except for serving on the IACUC.

Additionally, if the committee consists of more than three members, more than three members can not be from the same administrative unit of the facility.

Activities

Each local IACUC reviews research protocols and conducts evaluations of the institution's animal care. The evaluations include inspections of all animal use facilities every six months. The IACUC reports to the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) annually, and is issued an animal welfare assurance number by OLAW without which no federally funded use of animals in research may occur. The IACUC is required to report significant noncompliance with animal use protocols to OLAW, as well as IACUC actions taken to correct the noncompliance. [4]

Protocol review

Each animal use protocol (AUP) must be reviewed by full IACUC committee at least once every three years, and can be reviewed more frequently if the committee wishes. The protocol must cover at least these points:

a. Identification of the species and approximate number of animals to be used.
b. Rationale for involving animals, and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers used.
c. A complete description of the proposed use of the animals.
d. A description of procedures designed to assure that discomfort and injury to animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically valuable research, and that analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs will be used where indicated and appropriate to minimize discomfort and pain to animals.
e. A description of any euthanasia method to be used.

In review, the IACUC is required to ensure that the proposed work falls within the OLAW Animal Welfare Assurance, and that the following points are covered:

a. Procedures with animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals, consistent with sound research design.
b. Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals will be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia, unless the procedure is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator.
c. Animals that would otherwise experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure.
d. The living conditions of animals will be appropriate for their species and contribute to their health and comfort. The housing, feeding, and nonmedical care of the animals will be directed by a veterinarian or other scientist trained and experienced in the proper care, handling, and use of the species being maintained or studied.
e. Medical care for animals will be available and provided as necessary by a qualified veterinarian.
f. Personnel conducting procedures on the species being maintained or studied will be appropriately qualified and trained in those procedures.
g. Methods of euthanasia used will be consistent with the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia (PDF), unless a deviation is justified for scientific reasons in writing by the investigator. [5]

Whistleblowing policies

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees must have a way to correct problems in animal care, including fair treatment of whistleblowers who report animal welfare violations involving USDA species. [6]

Inspections

The actions of the IACUCs are subject to inspection by multiple agencies. PHS staff and advisors may inspect any PHS awardee at any time to verify adherence to PHS policy. [7] The APHIS branch of the USDA conducts surprise inspections of institutions that use species covered by the Animal Welfare Act up to every six months. These inspections verify compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, which is a subset of the PHS policies governing IACUCs. [8] AAALAC inspects facilities for accreditation at least every three years. Accreditation also requires an annual report to AAALAC. [9]

Reliability

The central importance of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees means that animal care and use is fundamentally dependent on the application of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals regulations by an institution's committee. It has been suggested that one measure of the success of the IACUC system is the reliability of protocol approvals between institutions. In other words, would a protocol for animal use, approved by the IACUC at one institution, be approved at another institution? This question was addressed specifically by researchers Plous and Herzog in 2001: [10] They concluded that, regardless of whether the research involved terminal or painful procedures, IACUC protocol reviews did not exceed chance levels of intercommittee agreement.

The Plous and Herzog work was criticized by some in the animal research community as drawing invalid conclusions because IACUCs rely on knowing the experience of the investigators and staff. The Plous and Herzog study compared responses of in-house IACUCs, who knew the investigators and staff, with blinded IACUCs, who did not know the investigators and staff. The blinded IACUCs did not necessarily have expertise in the species or procedures under consideration, or with the forms used to submit the protocol, and most of the lack of agreement between the non-blinded and blinded IACUC ratings took the form of requests for more information. [11] In response, Plous and Herzog pointed out that the absence of reliability did not vary by animal species; that 17 protocols were categorically disapproved by the second committee despite 16 of them being approved by the first committee; and that if reliable judgments can only be made when the reviewers know the researcher or use certain protocol forms, the protocol review process should be reexamined. [12]

A September 2005 audit report issued by the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Agriculture also spelled out problems with the reliability of IACUC oversight. The document described failure of some IACUCs to effectively review protocols and ensure compliance with federal animal welfare laws:

Some IACUCs are not effectively monitoring animal care activities, protocols, or alternative research methods. This situation exists because (1) the IACUCs are only required to conduct facility reviews on a semiannual basis, (2) IACUCs experience a high turnover rate, and (3) some members are not properly trained. In very few cases, the facilities are resistant to change, showing a general disregard for APHIS regulations. As a result, the facilities are not conducting research in compliance with the AWA or, in some cases, not providing humane conditions for research animals. [ failed verification ]

Notes

  1. ^ For example, at McGill University
  2. ^ For example at the University of Cambridge
  3. ^ Online resources of the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. tutorial
  4. ^ Animal Welfare Act
  5. ^ Historical review of animal care regulation, USDA Perspective on Environmental Enrichment for Animals by Jodie A. Kulpa-Eddy, Sylvia Taylor and Kristina M. Adams in ILAR Journal (2005) Volume 46(2).
  6. ^ Website of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
  7. ^ Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
  8. ^ Government principles for the utilization and care of vertebrate animals used in testing, research, and training
  9. ^ Online USDA inspection reports
  10. ^ USDA Inspector General Audit Report of APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities, Report No. 33002-3-SF, September 2005

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal welfare</span> Well-being of non-human animals

Animal welfare is the well-being of non-human animals. Formal standards of animal welfare vary between contexts, but are debated mostly by animal welfare groups, legislators, and academics. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these best indicate animal welfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal testing</span> Use of nonhuman animals in experiments

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. This approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environments or habitats. Experimental research with animals is usually conducted in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to the industry. The focus of animal testing varies on a continuum from pure research, focusing on developing fundamental knowledge of an organism, to applied research, which may focus on answering some questions of great practical importance, such as finding a cure for a disease. Examples of applied research include testing disease treatments, breeding, defense research, and toxicology, including cosmetics testing. In education, animal testing is sometimes a component of biology or psychology courses. The practice is regulated to varying degrees in different countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service</span> USDAs Animal, Plant Health Inspectors

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) based in Riverdale, Maryland responsible for protecting animal health, animal welfare, and plant health. APHIS is the lead agency for collaboration with other agencies to protect U.S. agriculture from invasive pests and diseases. APHIS's PPQ is the National Plant Protection Organization for the U.S., and the agency's head of veterinary services/veterinary Deputy Administrator is the Chief Veterinary Officer of the United States.

An animal model is a living, non-human, often genetic-engineered animal used during the research and investigation of human disease, for the purpose of better understanding the disease process without the risk of harming a human. Although biological activity in an animal model does not ensure an effect in humans, many drugs, treatments and cures for human diseases are developed in part with the guidance of animal models. Animal models representing specific taxonomic groups in the research and study of developmental processes are also referred to as model organisms. There are three main types of animal models: Homologous, Isomorphic and Predictive. Homologous animals have the same causes, symptoms and treatment options as would humans who have the same disease. Isomorphic animals share the same symptoms and treatments, only. Predictive models are similar to a particular human disease in only a couple of aspects. However, these are useful in isolating and making predictions about mechanisms of a set of disease features.

The regulation of science refers to use of law, or other ruling, by academic or governmental bodies to allow or restrict science from performing certain practices, or researching certain scientific areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal Welfare Act of 1966</span> U.S. federal law

The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 24, 1966. It is the main federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimally acceptable standard for animal treatment and care. The USDA and APHIS oversee the AWA and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have primary legislative jurisdiction over the Act. Animals covered under this Act include any live or dead cat, dog, hamster, rabbit, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, and any other warm-blooded animal determined by the Secretary of Agriculture for research, pet use or exhibition. Excluded from the Act are birds, rats of the genus Rattus, mice of the genus Mus, farm animals, and all cold-blooded animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oregon National Primate Research Center</span>

The Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC) is one of seven federally funded National Primate Research Centers in the United States and has been affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) since 1998. The center is located on 200 acres (0.81 km2) of land in Hillsboro, Oregon. Originally known as the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC), it was the first of the original seven primate centers established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The research center is administered and funded by the National Center for Research Resources, receiving $11 million in federal grants annually.

The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) oversees the care and use of research animals in any public or private organization, business, or agency. The Public Health Service consists of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The agencies of the PHS are a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program (NMMP) is a program administered by the U.S. Navy which studies the military use of marine mammals - principally bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions - and trains animals to perform tasks such as ship and harbor protection, mine detection and clearance, and equipment recovery. The program is based in San Diego, California, where animals are housed and trained on an ongoing basis. NMMP animal teams have been deployed for use in combat zones, such as during the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal testing regulations</span> Guidelines with regard to animal testing

Animal testing regulations are guidelines that permit and control the use of non-human animals for scientific experimentation. They vary greatly around the world, but most governments aim to control the number of times individual animals may be used; the overall numbers used; and the degree of pain that may be inflicted without anesthetic.

Scott Plous is an American academic social psychologist. He is currently a Professor of Psychology at Wesleyan University and Executive Director of Social Psychology Network.

Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in selling them to universities, medical and veterinary schools, and companies that provide contract animal-testing services. It is comparatively rare that animals are procured from sources other than specialized dealers, as this poses the threat of introducing disease into a colony and confounding any data collected. However, suppliers of laboratory animals may include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals, businesses that trade in wild animals, and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers, termed Class B dealers, have been reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as bunching.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research</span> Nonprofit organisation

Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. The organization was formed in 1974 by a group of researchers who sought to ensure that the concerns and experiences of those working in biomedical research would be reflected in the growing body of federal regulations governing the field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harlan (company)</span> Laboratory supplier

Harlan Sprague Dawley Inc. was a supplier of animals and other services to laboratories for the purpose of animal testing. It provided pre-clinical research tools and services for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, agrochemicals, industrial chemical, and food industries.

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) is one of six operational program units within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The PPQ works to safeguard agriculture and natural resources in the U.S. against the entry, establishment, and spread of animal and plant pests, and noxious weeds in order to help ensure an abundant, high-quality, and varied food supply.

A Designated Member Review (DMR) or Designated Subcommittee Review (DSR), also known as Designated Review, is a review of a protocol where a committee designates one or more members of the committee to review a decisionmaking process or a protocol or procedure, a review which would ordinarily require the full committee's review. Typically this pertains to IACUCs.

Animal welfare in the United States relates to the treatment of non-human animals in fields such as agriculture, hunting, medical testing and the domestic ownership of animals. It is distinct from animal conservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Envigo</span> Contract research organization and laboratory animal sourcer

Envigo (en-VEE-go) is a privately held contract research organization and laboratory animal sourcer that provides live animals and related products and services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, government, academia and other life science organizations engaged in animal testing. The company breeds and sells research animals – which are referred to in the industry as "research models"– including rodents, rabbits, and non-human primates. Envigo is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana and employs more than 1,200 people at 30+ locations across North America, Europe and the Middle East.

The Washington National Primate Research Center (WaNPRC) is a federally-funded biomedical research facility located on the University of Washington's Seattle campus. The WaNPRC is part of a network of seven National Primate Research Centers which conduct biomedical research on primates. The center opened in 1961, and as of 2020, houses over 500 primates.

The University of Washington practices animal testing for a variety of purposes, including biomedical testing and paramedic training. Testing is performed by faculty from various departments across the university, and is conducted on animals including dogs, rabbits, primates, pigs, sheep, gerbils, bobcats, ferrets, and coyotes. Testing on primates is done through the Washington National Primate Research Center, which is located on campus. Animal testing at UW is overseen by the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

References

  1. NABR Animal Law Section — Research Animal Protection Section[ dead link ]
  2. 1 2 Where's Pepper? Daniel Engber, Slate , June 1, 2009.
  3. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook [ permanent dead link ] 2nd Edition 2002, provided by the OLAW office of NIH
  4. OLAW FAQ
  5. PHS policy for OLAW
  6. OLAW policy document
  7. Visits OLAW inspections
  8. USDA APHIS Animal Welfare/Animal Care page Archived 2009-04-16 at the Wayback Machine
  9. AAALAC steps to accreditation
  10. Plous S, Herzog H (July 2001). "Animal research. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research". Science. 293 (5530): 608–609. doi:10.1126/science.1061621. PMID   11474086.
  11. Klemfuss H, Dess NK, Brandon SE, Garrison HH, Pitts M (November 2001). "Assessing the reviewers of animal research". Science. 294 (5548): 1831–2. doi:10.1126/science.294.5548.1831b. PMID   11732545.
    Rollin BE, Loew FM (November 2001). "Assessing the reviewers of animal research". Science. 294 (5548): 1831–2. doi:10.1126/science.294.5548.1831a. PMID   11732546.
  12. Plous, S; Herzog, HA (November 30, 2001). "Assessing the Reviewers of Animal Research". Science. 294 (5548): 1831–1832. doi:10.1126/science.294.5548.1831b. ISSN   0036-8075.

Further reading