Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Resource
  • Published:

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance

Lab Animal volume 41, pages 230–235 (2012)Cite this article

An Erratum to this article was published on 22 August 2012

Abstract

Nearly half of all external grants from the US National Institutes of Health require approval by the recipient organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the funds can be used for research with animals. Given that large sums of money are spent annually on research involving animals, studies evaluating the strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness of IACUCs and similar animal welfare committees are needed. The authors designed and carried out a self-assessment survey on IACUC function and effectiveness. They found that 98% of all respondents believed that their IACUCs advanced animal welfare, but in many instances, veterinarians' responses to individual survey items were significantly different from those of other IACUC members. Protocol compliance, protocol review training and better understanding among non-committee members of the need for regulatory oversight are some areas where improvements could be made. Less than 50% of respondents stated that literature searches to find alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures were helpful.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hall, M. A critical and experimental essay on the circulation of the blood: especially as observed in the minute and capillary vessels of the batrachia and of fishes. (Carey, E.L. & Hart, A., Philadelphia, 1835).

  2. Russell, W.M.S. & Burch, R.L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Methuen, London, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Silverman, J. Do pressure and prejudice influence the IACUC? Lab Anim. (NY) 26, 23–25 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Plous, S. & Herzog, H. Animal research. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293, 608–609 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. US Department of Agriculture. USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations (blisher: USDA, Riverdale, MD, 2000). <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/iacuc/iacucaugust.pdf>

  6. Graham, K. A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 5, 75–81 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hawkins, P. Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: a survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Lab. Anim. 36, 378–395 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schuppli, C.A. & Fraser, D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J. Med. Ethics 33, 294–301 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gomez, L.M., Conlee, K.M. & Stephens, M.L. Noncompliance with Public Health Service (PHS) policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals: an exploratory analysis. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 13, 123–136 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Animal Welfare Act. Public Law 89-544. Title 7 §2131 et seq.

  11. Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Public Law 99-158. (20 November 1985).

  12. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Parts 1–3.

  13. Public Health Service. Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended 2002).

  14. Galvin, S.L. & Herzog, H.A. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics Behav. 2, 263–286 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Karas, A. & Silverman, J. in The IACUC Handbook 2nd edn. (eds. Silverman, J. Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S.) 241–286 (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Plous, S. Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychologists. Am. Psychol. 51, 1167–1180 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Plous, S. Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychol. Sci. 7, 352–358 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2002 (NSB-02-01A) (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2002).

  19. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (NSB 08-01; NSB 08-01A) (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2008).

  20. Dresser, R. Review standards for animal research: A closer look. ILAR J. 32, 2–7 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. USDA APHIS AC. Animal Care Policy #12. Consideration of Alternatives to Painful/Distressful Procedures (21 June 2000). <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.php?policy=12>

  22. US Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General Western Region. Audit Report: APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities (Report No. 33002-3-SF) (2005).

  23. Brown, P. & Gipson, C. Noncompliance in survival surgery technique: a word from OLAW and USDA. Lab Anim. (NY) 39, 234 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keith-Spiegel, P. & Koocher, G.P. The IRB paradox: could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics Behav. 15, 339–349 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. Leading clever people. Harvard Business Review 85, 72–79 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gouldner, A.W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (Free Press, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stephenson, W. Deficiencies in the National Institutes of Health's guidelines for the care and protection of laboratory animals. J. Med. Philos. 38, 375–388 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tallman, W.T. RE: Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals [FR Doc. 2011–4172] (letter to Dr. Patricia Brown). FASEB (2011). <http://www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AZb%2F%2F57PrdI%3D&tabid=198>

    Google Scholar 

  29. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

  30. Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International About AAALAC: Council on Accreditation (2012). <http://www.aaalac.org/about/council.cfm>

  31. American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. Performance-based criteria as the basis for determining laboratory animal housing standards. <http://www.aalas.org/association/position_statements.aspx>

  32. Steneck, N.H. Role of institutional animal care and use committees in monitoring research. Ethics Behav. 7, 173–184 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Häyry, H. Should the decisions of ethics committees be based on community values? Med. Health Care Philos. 1, 57–60 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gluck, J.P. & Orlans, F.B. Institutional animal care and use committees: a flawed paradigm or work in progress? Ethics Behav. 7, 329–336 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stafleu, F.R., Grommers, F.J. & Vorstenbosch, J. Animal welfare: Evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Anim. Welf. 5, 225–234 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Houde, L., Dumas, C. & Leroux, T. Animal ethical evaluation: an observational study of Canadian IACUCs. Ethics Behav. 13, 333–350 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Orlans, F.B. Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics Behav. 7, 163–171 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sally Gore for carrying out the database searches for alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures and Molly Greene and Christopher Lyons for their help in determining the number of mailing list name duplications.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Jerald Silverman

  2. Departments of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cell Biology, and Information Services, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Stephen P. Baker

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Charles W. Lidz

Authors
  1. Jerald Silverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen P. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles W. Lidz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerald Silverman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silverman, J., Baker, S. & Lidz, C. A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance. Lab Anim 41, 230–235 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0812-230

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0812-230

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing