####### ARENA/OLAW

########  Institutional Animal 

#########  Care and Use 

**Committee Guidebook**

*This Guidebook is provided for informational purposes only.*

*It neither establishes nor reflects a change in PHS Policy on*

*Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.*

> **Table of Contents**
>
> [Foreword](#Foreword) v

# [**Editorial Board**](#Editorial_Board) vii

> [Contributing Authors](#Contributing_Authors) viii
>
> [Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare](#Office_of) (OLAW) x
>
> [Abbreviations and Acronyms](#Abbreviations) xi

## *Sections*

> **A. [The IACUC](#The_IACUC)** 1
>
> A.1. [Timeline, Background and
> History](#a.1.-timeline-background-and-history) 3

#  A.2. [**Authority, Composition and Functions**](#A_2) 11

> A.3. [Operation and Administration](#A_3) 19
>
> A.4. [Training for Members](#A_4) 27
>
> A.5. [Legal Concerns](#a.5.-legal-concerns) 31
>
> **B. [Oversight of the Animal Care and Use Program](#Oversight)** 35
>
> B.1. [Program and Facility Review](#B_1) 37
>
> B.2. [Animal Environment, Housing and
> Management](#b.2.-animal-environment-housing-and-management) 43
>
> B.2.a. [General](#b.2.a.-general) 43
>
> B.2.b. [Animal Environment](#b.2.b.-animal-environment) 44
>
> B.2.c. [Husbandry](#b.2.c.-husbandry) 45
>
> B.2.d. [Facility Maintenance](#b.2.d.-facility-maintenance) 48
>
> B.2.e. [Emergency, Weekend and Holiday Care](#B_2_e) 49
>
> B.2.f. [Behavioral Management for Laboratory Animals](#B_2_f) 49

#  B.3. [**Role of the Veterinarian**](#b.3.-role-of-the-veterinarian) 53

> B.4. [Occupational Health and
> Safety](#b.4.-occupational-health-and-safety) 59
>
> B.5. [Personnel Training and Education](#B_5) 65
>
> B.6. [Emergency Preparedness](#b.6.-emergency-preparedness) 71
>
> B.6.a. [Security and Crisis
> Management](#b.6.a.-security-and-crisis-management) 71
>
> B.6.b. [Disaster Planning](#B_6_b) 74
>
> **C. [Review of Proposals](#Review)** 83
>
> C.1. [Fundamental Issues](#c.1.-fundamental-issues) 85
>
> C.2. [Protocol Review Criteria](#c_2) 97
>
> C.2.a. [Alternatives -- Replacement, Reduction](#C_2)
>
> [and Refinement](#C_2) 97
>
> C.2.b. [Euthanasia](#c_2_b) 101
>
> C.2.c. [Humane Endpoints](#C_2_c) 103
>
> C.2.d. [Minimization of Pain and
> Distress](#c.2.d.-minimization-of-pain-and-distress) 109
>
> C.2.e. [Personnel Qualifications](#c.2.e.-personnel-qualifications)
> 114
>
> C.2.f. [Veterinary Review and
> Consultation](#c.2.f.-veterinary-review-and-consultation) 117
>
> C.3. [Other Protocol Review Considerations](#C_3) 121
>
> C.3.a. [Agricultural Research](#C_3_a) 121
>
> C.3.b. [Antibody Production](#C_3_b) 125

#  C.3.c. [**Breeding Colonies**](#C_3_c) 130

> C.3.d. [Field Studies](#C_3_d) 134
>
> C.3.e. [Hazardous Materials](#C_3_c) 138
>
> C.3.f. [Instructional Use of Animals](#C_3_f) 142
>
> C.3.g. [Surgery](#C_3_g) 145
>
> C.3.h. [Transgenic Animals](#C_3_h) 148
>
> C.4. [Monitoring of Approved Protocols](#C_4) 153
>
> **D. [Evaluation of Animal Care and Use Concerns](#Evaluation)** 157
>
> **E. [Recordkeeping and Communications](#recordkeeping)** 167

E.1. [Recordkeeping and Reporting](#E_1) 169

#  E.2. [**Communications**](#e.2.-communications) 179

> **[Appendices](#Appendices)** 181

#  Appendix A. [**Resources**](#Appendix_A) 183

> Appendix B. [Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare](#Appendix_B)
>
> [Organizational Chart](#Appendix_B) 191
>
> Appendix C. [Mandatory IACUC Issues Identified](#Appendix_C)
>
> [During AAALAC International Site Visits](#Appendix_C) 193
>
> Appendix D. [Recommendations of the 2000 AVMA](#Appendix_D)
>
> [Panel on Euthanasia](#Appendix_D) 195
>
> Appendix E. [Federal and State Permits Required](#Appendix_E)
>
> [for Field Studies](#Appendix_E) 199
>
> Appendix F. [U.S. Government Principles for the
> Utilization](#Appendix_F)
>
> [and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in](#Appendix_F)
>
> [Testing, Research and Training](#Appendix_F) 209

## 

## *List of Tables by Section*

> **A.2. Table A.** [Comparison of
> IACUC](#a.2.-table-a.-comparison-of-iacuc-membership-requirements)
>
> [Membership
> Requirements](#a.2.-table-a.-comparison-of-iacuc-membership-requirements)
> 14
>
> **A.2. Table B.** [Federally Mandated Functions of the
> IACUC](#a.2.-table-b.-federally-mandated-functions-of-the-iacuc) 17
>
> **B.5. Table A**. [General Training
> Objectives](#b.5.-table-a.-general-training-objectives) 68
>
> **B.6. Table A.** [Examples of Categories of
> Emergencies](#b.6.-table-a.-examples-of-categories-of-emergencies) 79

#  B.6. Table B. [**Core Functions of an Animal Facility**](#b.6.-table-b.-core-functions-of-an-animal-facility) 80

> **C.1. Table A.** [Regulatory Criteria Applicable to
> Protocol](#c.1.-table-a.-regulatory-criteria-applicable-to-protocol-review-as-defined)
>
> [Review as Defined in PHS Policy
> and](#c.1.-table-a.-regulatory-criteria-applicable-to-protocol-review-as-defined)
>
> [USDA
> Regulations](#c.1.-table-a.-regulatory-criteria-applicable-to-protocol-review-as-defined)
> 86
>
> **C.2.a. Table A.** [Methods for Reduction of Numbers](#Table_C_2_a_A)
>
> [of Animals Used](#Table_C_2_a_A) 98

#  C.2.c. Table A. [**Examples of Humane Endpoints for Studies**](#c.2.c.-table-a.-examples-of-humane-endpoints-for-studies-with) 

#  [**with Potential Lethality**](#c.2.c.-table-a.-examples-of-humane-endpoints-for-studies-with) 107

#  C.2.d. Table A. [**Definitions of Terminology Related to**](#c.2.d.-table-a.-definitions-of-terminology-related-to-pain-and) 

#  [**Pain and Distress**](#c.2.d.-table-a.-definitions-of-terminology-related-to-pain-and) 112

> **C.2.d. Table B.** [Signs of Acute Pain](#Table_C_2_d_B) 112
>
> **C.2.d. Table C.** [Signs, Degree, and Length of
> Surgically](#Table_C_2_d_C)
>
> [Produced Pain](#Table_C_2_d_C) 113

#  E.1. Table A. [**Federal Requirements: Recordkeeping**](#e.1.-table-a.-federal-requirements-recordkeeping) 174

#  E.1. Table B. [**Federal Requirements: Assurance**](#e.1.-table-b.-federal-requirements-assurance-and-registration) 

#  [**and Registration**](#e.1.-table-b.-federal-requirements-assurance-and-registration) 175

> **E.1. Table C.** [Federal Requirements: Report
> of](#e.1.-table-c.-federal-requirements-report-of)
>
> [Semiannual
> Evaluations](#e.1.-table-c.-federal-requirements-report-of) 176
>
> **E.1. Table D.** [Federal Requirements: Annual
> Report](#e.1.-table-d.-federal-requirements-annual-report) 177

#  E.1. Table E. [**Federal Requirements: Suspensions**](#e.1.-table-e.-federal-requirements-suspensions-1) 

#  [**and Noncompliance**](#e.1.-table-e.-federal-requirements-suspensions-1) 178

> *This page intentionally left blank.*

[]{#Foreword .anchor}

> **Foreword**
>
> The original *OPRR/ARENA IACUC Guidebook* was published in 1992 and
> has served as a useful resource to the animal research community. This
> revised edition, the ARENA/OLAW IACUC Guidebook, continues to support
> the fundamental principle on which the animal care and use program is
> based: self-regulation with oversight. It clearly demonstrates the
> increased role of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
> (IACUC) in ensuring the ethical and sensitive care and use of animals
> in research, teaching and testing.
>
> This *Guidebook* is the product of an ARENA-established editorial
> board of knowledgeable individuals who have IACUC experience and are
> familiar with the evolution of IACUC issues and relevant documents
> published during the past decade. Sections from the original document
> have been updated, and new sections added to incorporate state of the
> art knowledge regarding the functioning of IACUCs and institutional
> animal care and use programs. This *Guidebook* does not create new or
> different interpretations of the *PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of
> Laboratory Animals*, legislation, or USDA animal regulations.
>
> The most current knowledge and understandings were sought through
> dis-tinguished authors with experience and expertise. New references,
> resources and contemporary scientific and "road tested" guidance have
> been incorporated. For example, the emphasis of the 1996 edition of
> the *Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals* on performance
> goals as opposed to engineering approaches is a theme that resonates
> throughout. Other new reports, such as the 1997 *Occupational Health
> and Safety in the Care and Use of Research Animals* and the 1998 *The
> Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates*, both published by the
> National Research Council have offered new insights and approaches
> that are reflected herein. The AVMA Panel on Euthanasia also published
> new guidelines in 2001.
>
> Additional knowledge and changing trends in research have mandated
> broader and deeper coverage of topics in this *Guidebook*. New topic
> areas include training IACUC members, disaster planning, managing
> breeding colonies, and the use of transgenic animals. New federal
> requirements and
>
> directives have been incorporated, and feedback from the field during
> the past ten years has resulted in emphasis on topics such as the role
> of the nonaffiliated member, the application of the three R's
> (reduction, refinement and replacement) of alternatives, and the
> development of humane endpoints.
>
> It is with a great sense of gratitude and respect for my colleagues
> who served on the editorial board and to the 30 authors who generously
> shared their time and expertise that I submit this document to the
> Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. I would especially like to
> express my appreciation to the Project Director, Carol Wigglesworth,
> and her colleagues in NIH's OLAW who gave untold hours of editing and
> guidance to make this project not only possible, but also enjoyable.
> ARENA also gratefully acknowledges the technical review for
> consistency with the provisions of the USDA animal welfare regulations
> provided by Dr. Ron DeHaven, Deputy Administrator, Animal Care, APHIS,
> and his headquarters staff. This has truly been a labor of love by
> many dedicated individuals in the animal research community and I feel
> honored to have been a part of this effort.
>
> ***Marky Pitts***
>
> Chair, Editorial Board
>
> []{#Editorial_Board .anchor}**Editorial Board**

***Marky Pitts, Chair***

Director, Animal Subjects Program

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA

***Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M.***

Co-Chair

Associate Director

AAALAC International

Rockville, MD

***Lynn C. Anderson, D.V.M.***

Senior Director

Comparative Medicine

MERCK Research Laboratories

Rahway, NJ

# *David B. Bernhardt*

Institutional Animal Care and

Use Committee

Albert Einstein Healthcare Network

Philadelphia, PA

***Molly Greene***

Director

Office of Academic Support

University of Texas Health Science

Center-San Antonio

San Antonio, TX

***Harry Klemfuss, Ph.D.***

Associate Director

Animal Subjects Program

University of California-San Diego

La Jolla, CA

***Gwenn S.F. Oki, M.P.H.***

Director

Research Subjects Protection

City of Hope/Beckman

Research Institute

Duarte, CA

***Harry Rozmiarek, D.V.M., Ph.D.***

Professor and Chief

Laboratory Animal Medicine

University Veterinarian

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA

***Peter Theran, V.M.D.***

Vice President

Division of Health and Hospitals

Massachusetts Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals, AHES

# Boston, MA

***Richard C. Van Sluyters, O.D., Ph.D.***

Professor, School of Optometry

Chair, Animal Care and

Use Committee

Faculty Assistant to the Vice

Chancellor for Research

University of California-Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

**OLAW Project Director:**

***Carol Wigglesworth***

Senior Policy Analyst

Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, MD

**Editorial Consultant:**

# *Liz McDonald*

Corporate Communications

San Diego, CA

[]{#Contributing_Authors .anchor}Contributing Authors

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *Lynn C. Anderson, D.V.M.*        | *Nicole Duffee, D.V.M., Ph.D.*    |
|                                   |                                   |
| Senior Director                   | Division of Comparative Medicine  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Comparative Medicine              | Washington University             |
|                                   |                                   |
| MERCK Research Laboratories       | School of Medicine                |
|                                   |                                   |
| Rahway, NJ                        | St. Louis, MO                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Michael B. Ballinger, D.V.M.*    | *James Fox, M.S., D.V.M.*         |
|                                   |                                   |
| Director                          | Division of Comparative Medicine  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Comparative Medicine              | Massachusetts Institute           |
|                                   |                                   |
| Abbott laboratories               | of Technology                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| Abbott Park, IL                   | Cambridge, MA                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D.,      | *Lauretta W. Gerrity, D.V.M.*     |
| D.V.M.*                           |                                   |
|                                   | Director                          |
| Associate Director                |                                   |
|                                   | Animal Resources Program          |
| AAALAC International              |                                   |
|                                   | University of Alabama-Birmingham  |
| Rockville, MD                     |                                   |
|                                   | Birmingham, AL                    |
| *B. Taylor Bennett, D.V.M.,       |                                   |
| Ph.D.*                            | #                                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| Associate Vice Chancellor         | # *Molly Greene*                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| for Research                      | Director                          |
|                                   |                                   |
| University of Illinois-Chicago    | Office of Academic Support        |
|                                   |                                   |
| Chicago, IL                       | University of Texas               |
|                                   |                                   |
| # *David B. Bernhardt*            | Health Science Center-San Antonio |
|                                   |                                   |
| Institutional Animal Care         | San Antonio, TX                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| and Use Committee                 | *J. R. Haywood, Ph.D.*            |
|                                   |                                   |
| Albert Einstein Healthcare        | Professor                         |
| Network                           |                                   |
|                                   | Department of Pharmacology­­­­­­­        |
| Philadelphia, PA                  |                                   |
|                                   | University of Texas Health        |
| *Marilyn J. Brown, D.V.M., M.S.*  |                                   |
|                                   | Science Center-San Antonio        |
| Director                          |                                   |
|                                   | San Antonio, TX                   |
| Animal Care & Use Program         |                                   |
|                                   | *Harry Klemfuss, Ph.D.*           |
| Dartmouth College                 |                                   |
|                                   | Associate Director                |
| Lebanon, NH                       |                                   |
|                                   | Animal Subjects Program           |
| *Terrie Cunliffe-Beamer, D.V.M.,  |                                   |
| M.S.*                             | University of California-San      |
|                                   | Diego                             |
| Head, Clinical Laboratory         |                                   |
|                                   | La Jolla, CA                      |
| Animal Medicine                   |                                   |
|                                   | *Joy A. Mench, Ph.D.*             |
| The Jackson Laboratory            |                                   |
|                                   | Director, Center for Animal       |
| Bar Harbor, ME                    | Welfare                           |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Christian E. Newcomer, V.M.D.,   | University of California- Davis   |
| M.S.*                             |                                   |
|                                   | Davis, CA                         |
| Director                          |                                   |
|                                   | *William S. Stokes, D.V.M.*       |
| Laboratory Animal Medicine        |                                   |
|                                   | Director                          |
| University of North Carolina      |                                   |
|                                   | National Toxicology Program       |
| Chapel Hill, NC                   |                                   |
|                                   | Center for Alternative Methods    |
| *Gwenn S.F. Oki, M.P.H.*          |                                   |
|                                   | National Institute of Environ-    |
| Director                          |                                   |
|                                   | mental Health Sciences            |
| Research Subjects Protection      |                                   |
|                                   | Research Triangle Park, NC        |
| City of Hope/Beckman              |                                   |
|                                   | *Jim Swearengen, D.V.M.*          |
| Research Institute                |                                   |
|                                   | Chief                             |
| Duarte, CA                        |                                   |
|                                   | Veterinary Medicine Division      |
| *Christine M. Parks, D.V.M.,      |                                   |
| Ph.D.*                            | USAMRIID, MCMR-UIR                |
|                                   |                                   |
| Director                          | Fort Detrick, MD                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| Research Animal Resources Center  | *M. Michael Swindle, D.V.M.*      |
|                                   |                                   |
| University of Wisconsin-Madison   | Professor & Chair                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| Madison, WI                       | Comparative Medicine              |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Ellen Paul*                      | Medical University of             |
|                                   |                                   |
| Executive Director                | South Carolina                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| The Ornithological Council        | Charleston, SC                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| Washington, D.C.                  | *James F. Taylor, D.V.M., M.S.*   |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Norman C. Peterson, D.V.M.,      | Director                          |
| Ph.D.*                            |                                   |
|                                   | Office of Animal Care and Use     |
| Assistant Professor               |                                   |
|                                   | National Institutes of Health     |
| Comparative Medicine              |                                   |
|                                   | Bethesda, MD                      |
| Johns Hopkins University          |                                   |
|                                   | *Peter Theran, V.M.D.*            |
| Baltimore, MD                     |                                   |
|                                   | Vice President                    |
| # *Marky Pitts*                   |                                   |
|                                   | Division of Health and Hospitals  |
| Director                          |                                   |
|                                   | Massachusetts Society for         |
| Animal Subjects Program           |                                   |
|                                   | the Prevention of Cruelty         |
| Director, Animal Research         |                                   |
| Information                       | to Animals, AHES                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| University of California-San      | Boston, MA                        |
| Diego                             |                                   |
|                                   | # *John G. Vandenbergh*           |
| La Jolla, CA                      |                                   |
|                                   | Department of Zoology             |
| *Gregory R. Reinhard, D.V.M.*     |                                   |
|                                   | North Carolina State University   |
| Director, Comparative Medicine    |                                   |
|                                   | Raleigh, NC                       |
| Schering-Plough Research          |                                   |
| Institute                         | # *Carol Wigglesworth*            |
|                                   |                                   |
| Kenilworth, NJ                    | Senior Policy Analyst             |
|                                   |                                   |
| *Harry Rozmiarek, D.V.M., Ph.D.*  | Office of Laboratory Animal       |
|                                   | Welfare                           |
| Professor and Chief               |                                   |
|                                   | National Institutes of Health     |
| Laboratory Animal Medicine        |                                   |
|                                   | Bethesda, MD                      |
| University Veterinarian           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| University of Pennsylvania        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Philadelphia, PA                  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

[]{#Office_of .anchor}**Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW)**

#### National Institutes of Health

# Office Of The Director

*Nelson L. Garnett, D.V.M*.

Director

## *Carol Wigglesworth*

Senior Policy Analyst

## *Margaret Quinlan*

Animal Welfare Program Specialist

## *Agnes Richardson*

Program Assistant

**Division Of Compliance Oversight**

*Stephen Potkay, V.M.D.*

Director

## 

## Division Of Assurances

## *Denis Doyle*

Director

*Axel Wolff, M.S., D.V.M.*

Senior Assurance Officer

## *Susann Machado*

Program Assistant

## *Diana M. Lancaster*

Program Assistant

> []{#Abbreviations .anchor}Abbreviations and Acronyms
>
> **Abbreviations**
>
> ***Guide*** ILAR [*Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
> Animals*](http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/)
>
> ***Policy Policy** [PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory
> Animals](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)*
>
> **Acronyms**

# *A*

> **AAALAC** Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory
>
> Animal Care International
>
> **AALAS** American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
>
> **AC** Animal Care, APHIS, USDA
>
> **ACLAM** American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine
>
> **AGRICOLA** National Agricultural Library's Agricultural OnLine
> Access (USDA)
>
> **APHIS** Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)
>
> **ARENA** Applied Research Ethics National Association
>
> **ASLAP** American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners
>
> **AV** Attending Veterinarian
>
> **AVMA** American Veterinary Medical Association
>
> **AWA** [Animal Welfare
> Act](http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm)
>
> **AWIC** Animal Welfare Information Center
>
> **AWRs** [Animal Welfare Regulations
> (USDA)](http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm)
>
> *C*
>
> **CAAT** Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
>
> **CCAC** Canadian Council on Animal Care
>
> **CDC** Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>
> **CEO** Chief Executive Officer
>
> **CFA** Complete Freund\'s Adjuvant
>
> **CFR** Code of Federal Regulations
>
> **CIRA** Center for Information on Research with Animals
>
> **CITES** Convention on International Trade in Endangered
>
> Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
>
> *D*
>
> **DHHS** Department of Health and Human Services
>
> **DOI** Department of the Interior
>
> **DVM/VMD** Doctor of Veterinary Medicine or Veterinary Medical Doctor
>
> *E*
>
> **EPA** Environmental Protection Agency
>
> **ESA** Endangered Species Act
>
> *F*
>
> **FASEB** Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology
>
> **FBR** Foundation for Biomedical Research
>
> **FDA** Food and Drug Administration
>
> **FEMA** Federal Emergency Management Agency
>
> **FOIA** Freedom of Information Act
>
> **FR** *Federal Register*
>
> *G*
>
> **GLP** Good Laboratory Practices
>
> **GPO** Government Printing Office
>
> *H*
>
> **HEPA** High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter
>
> **HREA** Health Research Extension Act, Public Law 99-158
>
> **HVAC** Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
>
> *I*
>
> **IACUC** Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
>
> **IATA** International Air Transport Association
>
> **IBC** Institutional Biosafety Committee
>
> **ICLAS** International Council for Laboratory Animal Science
>
> **IFA** Freund's Incomplete Adjuvant
>
> **iiFAR** Incurably Ill for Animal Research
>
> **ILAR** Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
>
> **IO** Institutional Official
>
> **IOM** Institute of Medicine
>
> **IRAC** Interagency Research Animal Committee
>
> *L*
>
> **LAMA** Laboratory Animal Management Association
>
> **LAT** Laboratory Animal Technician
>
> **LATg** Laboratory Animal Technologist
>
> **LD** Lethal dose
>
> **LD~50~** Lethal dose 50%
>
> *M*
>
> **mAb** Monoclonal Antibody
>
> **MRI** Magnetic Resonance Imaging
>
> *N*
>
> **NABR** National Association for Biomedical Research
>
> **NAL** National Agricultural Library
>
> **NARRC** National Advisory Research Resources Council
>
> **NAS** National Academy of Sciences
>
> **NIH** National Institutes of Health
>
> **NIOSH** National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
>
> **NRC** National Research Council
>
> **NSF** National Science Foundation
>
> *O*
>
> **OHSP** Occupational Health and Safety Program
>
> **OLAW** Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH
>
> **OMB** Office of Management and Budget
>
> **OSHA** Occupational Safety and Health Administration
>
> **OSTP** Office of Science and Technology Policy
>
> *P*
>
> **PHS** Public Health Service
>
> **PRIM&R** Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research
>
> *R*
>
> **RSC** Radiation Safety Committee
>
> *S*
>
> **SCAW** Scientists Center for Animal Welfare
>
> *U*
>
> **USDA** U.S. Department of Agriculture
>
> **USFWS** U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior
>
> *V*
>
> **VA** Department of Veterans Affairs
>
> W
>
> **WHO** World Health Organization
>
> **WVA** World Veterinary Association

**A.** []{#The_IACUC .anchor}**The IACUC**

*This page intentionally left blank.*

#  

# A.1. Timeline, Background and History

# 

# Timeline

> 1950 Formal establishment of Animal Care Panel.
>
> 1963 First edition of the *Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
> Animals* *(Guide)* developed by the Animal Care Panel.
>
> 1965 Incorporation of the American Association for the Accreditation
> of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC).
>
> 1966 Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (PL 89-544) and
> the USDA was named the responsible agency.

1967. Animal Care Panel changed its name to the American Association

> for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS).

1971. NIH Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals for PHS
      Supported Institutions.

> 1971 USDA promulgated standards known as Subpart F, Stolen Animals
> (AWA).

1973. First Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of
      Laboratory Animals.

> 1974 Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R)
> established.

1979. PHS Policy required each animal-using grantee institution to have
      a PHS Assurance and a committee to maintain oversight of its
      animal care program.

> 1979 USDA promulgated standards known as Subpart E, Identification of
> Animals (AWA).

1982. First PRIM&R Animal Care and Use meeting.

> 1985 U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of
> Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training promulgated.

1985. Health Research Extension Act (P.L.99-158) passed by Congress.

> 1985 Animal Welfare Act Amendments passed by Congress.
>
> 1986 Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) established.
>
> 1986 PHS Policy revised.
>
> 1989 USDA promulgated regulations (known as Parts 1 and 2)
> implement-ing the 1985 AWA amendments.

1990. The structure of the Office for Protection from Research Risks
      (OPRR) was changed to establish a Division of Animal Welfare.

> 1990 USDA promulgated standards known as Subpart B, Registration and
> Subpart C, Research Facilities (AWA).
>
> 1991 USDA promulgated standards known as Part 3. In addition,
> amend-ments were made to Part 2: Regulations in Subpart A, Licensing
> and Subpart D, Attending Veterinarian and Adequate Veterinary Care.
> (AWA).

1992. First Institutional *Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook* was
      developed by a committee under the auspices of the Applied
      Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) and OPRR.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1996. 7^th^ Edition of the *Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
      Animals* revised by an ILAR committee and published by the NRC.

> 1996 AAALAC became the Association for the Assessment and
> Accredita-tion of Laboratory Animal Care International.

2000. OPRR Division of Animal Welfare was separated from OPRR and became
      the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), NIH.

> 2002 *ARENA/OLAW Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
> Guide-book*. Second edition.
>
> **Background and History**
>
> Prior to the middle of the 20th century the responsibility for animals
> used in research in the United States was placed directly in the hands
> of the researchers and the quality of animal care and animal welfare
> varied tremendously among research institutions. Even within the same
> school or institution, research laboratories had inconsistent animal
> care policies and standards of care.
>
> In 1961, a group of veterinarians working for research institutions in
> the Chicago area formed the Animal Care Panel (ACP). The ACP appointed
> a committee charged with establishing animal care and use guidelines
> for research facilities. Their product was the publication of the
> first edition (1963) of the *Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
> Animals (*referred to in this document as the *Guide)*. Subsequent
> editions of this publication were supported by the NIH and developed
> under the auspices of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources
> (ILAR), which was subsequently renamed the Institute for Laboratory
> Animal Research. The National Academy Press, under the auspices of the
> National Research Council, published the most recent (seventh) edition
> in 1996. This single document serves as the primary source of
> laboratory animal care and use standards and guidelines in the United
> States. The 1996 edition has been translated and published in six
> languages, and over 400,000 copies have been distributed throughout
> the world.
>
> In 1963, the ACP saw a need to evaluate the standards of animal care
> and use practiced in research institutions based on the *Guide,* and
> appointed an Animal Accreditation Committee. This Committee soon
> determined that it should function independently of the ACP, and in
> 1965 incorporated in the state of Illinois as the American Association
> for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. This independent
> accrediting agency changed its name in 1996 to the Association for the
> Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International
> (AAALAC).
>
> Prior to 1966, no U.S. federal law addressed laboratory animal
> welfare. Local humane societies actively promoted responsible
> treatment of pets and farm animals. Concurrently, the scientific
> community was improving the quality of animal care and well-being in
> the research laboratory. During this time the increasing need for dogs
> and cats in research was partially fulfilled by animal dealers who
> obtained these animals in various ways and sold them to research
> laboratories. A series of articles and news reports
>
> on animal neglect, abuse and pet theft by animal dealers culminated in
> a 1966 major article and photographs in *Life* magazine. The article
> suggested a need for regulation and a system of enforcement,
> especially for dogs and cats used in research. Catalyzed in part by
> this article, the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, the first version of
> what is now known as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), was passed by
> Congress in 1966 (Public Law 89-544) establishing legal standards for
> laboratory animal care and use for the first time in this country. The
> United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was named the
> responsible agency for implementing and enforcing this new law and it
> promptly began promulgating regulations. Research laboratories and
> dealers were required to register or license their facilities and
> undergo inspection by USDA personnel who were authorized to issue
> citations for non-compliance. These early inspections did not extend
> into the research laboratory where animal care and use remained under
> the direction of the research investigator. A number of amendments to
> the Animal Welfare Act have led to regulations that now include animal
> transportation, marine mammals, and animals in the research
> laboratory. However, the USDA regulations currently exclude common
> laboratory rats (*Rattus norvegicus*) and mice (*Mus musculus*),
> birds, and farm animals used in production agriculture research.
>
> All Public Health Service (PHS) policies on this subject evolved from
> the 1971 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy, "Care and
> Treatment of Laboratory Animals." That policy referenced several NIH
> and PHS state-ments on appropriate care and humane treatment of
> laboratory animals, among them the *Guide*. It introduced the animal
> care committee as a means of local assurance of good animal care and
> use.
>
> The 1971 NIH Policy required institutions or organizations using
> warm-blooded animals in research or teaching supported by NIH grants,
> awards or contracts to \"assure the NIH that they will evaluate their
> animal facilities in regard to the maintenance of acceptable standards
> for the care, use and treatment of such animals.\" The institution
> could show that it was either accredited by a recognized professional
> laboratory animal accrediting body (AAALAC) or had established an
> animal care committee to carry out that assurance function. The
> minimum number of committee members was not stated, but at least one
> member had to be a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. Guidelines for the
> committee included the *Guide*, all applicable portions of the AWA,
> and an appended set of Guidelines known as the \"Principles for the
> Use of Laboratory Animals.\" The committee was
>
> required to inspect the institution's animal facilities at least once
> a year and report its findings and recommendations to responsible
> institutional officials. Records of activities and recommendations
> were required to be available for inspection by NIH representatives.
>
> The first PHS *Policy* regarding animal care and use replaced the NIH
> policy on July 1, 1973 and continued to accept AAALAC accreditation in
> lieu of an institutional committee. The January 1, 1979 revision of
> the PHS policy required each animal-using grantee institution to have
> \"a committee to maintain oversight of its animal care program" and
> expanded the definition of animal to include all vertebrates. The
> revised policy also required an institution to submit an Assurance
> statement to the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), now
> the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), that it is committed
> to follow the *Guide*, the Principles and the PHS policy requirements,
> before receiving PHS support for studies in which animals or animal
> facilities were used.
>
> Institutions were required to include in their Assurance a list of
> committee members with their position titles and credentials.
> Committees were composed of at least five members including at least
> one veterinarian. The members had to be knowledgeable regarding the
> care and use of animals used in research.
>
> The 1979 PHS policy continued to accept AAALAC accreditation as a
> means of demonstrating conformance with the *Guide*, but an
> alternative was annual review of the animal facilities and procedures
> by the institution\'s IACUC. Institutions were required to report to
> NIH (OPRR) any nonconformance with the *Guide* or problems encountered
> in implementing the PHS policy, and submit annual reports indicating
> progress toward full conformance. Review of individual proposals or
> projects by the IACUC was encouraged but not required.
>
> The most recent revision, officially the *PHS* *Policy on Humane Care
> and Use of Laboratory Animals*, (referred to in this document as the
> *PHS Policy),* was promulgated in 1986 and reprinted in 1996 and 2000.
> It further defined and outlined requirements of an animal care and use
> program. This revised *PHS Policy* includes provisions of the Health
> Research Extension Act of 1985, enacted on November 20, 1985 as Public
> Law 99-158. The 1986 *PHS Policy* applies to both extramural and
> intramural PHS research and requires the Institutional Animal Care and
> Use Committee (IACUC) members to be appointed by the Chief Executive
> Officer of the institution. The IACUC must evaluate and prepare
> reports on
>
> all of the institution\'s programs and facilities (including satellite
> facilities) for activities involving animals at least twice each year,
> and is required to review the care and use of animals in PHS-supported
> activities. The IACUC, through the Institutional Official (IO), is
> responsible for compliance with reporting requirements. Minority views
> filed by members of the IACUC must be included in reports filed under
> this *PHS Policy*. The *PHS Policy* also requires training or
> instruction for scientists, animal technicians and other personnel
> involved in animal care, treatment or use. This training or
> instruction must include information on the humane practice of animal
> care and use as well as training or instruction in research or testing
> methods that minimize the number of animals required to obtain valid
> results and minimize animal distress.
>
> The Interagency Research Animal Committee, made up of representatives
> of federal agencies that use or require the use of experimental
> animals, promulgated the "U.S. Government Principles for the
> Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research
> and Training" in 1985 (see Appendix F). These Principles were
> subsequently incorporated into the 1986 *PHS* *Policy*, and remain in
> effect today as a model for federal agencies that develop specific
> agency policies for the use of animals.
>
> With the promulgation of the 1986 version of the *PHS* *Policy*, OPRR
> (now OLAW) embarked upon an extensive national education program. The
> program began with the co-sponsorship of one- to two-day workshops in
> conjunction with Assured institutions at different geographical
> locations. Many of the early workshops focused on basic provisions set
> forth in the 1986 *PHS Policy*, such as protocol review and semiannual
> program evalu-ations. That cosponsorship of approximately four to five
> workshops a year continues today, although the topics are now
> generally more specialized, covering areas such as performance
> standards, field studies, and laboratory animal management and
> technology. Since 1995 OLAW has expanded its educational role to
> include development of a Web-based tutorial, an extensive Web site
> with sample documents to assist institutions in their implementation
> of the *PHS Policy*, co-sponsorship of ARENA's IACUC 101 program, and
> this revised ARENA/OLAW Guidebook.
>
> Special interest groups concerned about the acquisition and welfare of
> animals used in research continue to influence research animal care
> and use. These groups include local and national humane societies
> concerned about animal welfare and well-being, and antivivisectionist
> groups that are opposed to the use of animals in research. The
> activity of some animal rights groups escalated and became more vocal
> in the early 1980s. This activity peaked in a series of illegal
> break-ins and vandalism and was brought to the forefront of public
> opinion soon after two incidents involving alleged \"animal cruelty\"
> and \"insensitivity\" in two well-known research institutions. This
> climate raised public concern and visibility of animals in research
> and served as a catalyst for amendments and clarifications of
> guidelines and regulations providing for animal welfare.
>
> New USDA regulations based on the 1985 amendment to the AWA became
> effective between October 1989 and August 1991. These regula-tions
> require each registered research institution to appoint an IACUC of
> not less than three members, including a veterinarian, which \"serves
> as the agent of the research facility that assures that the facility
> is in full com-pliance with the Act.\" The regulations also require a
> member not affiliated with the institution representing community
> interests in the proper care and treatment of animals. These USDA
> Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) and the *PHS* *Policy* contain many
> common requirements.
>
> The Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW) was instrumental in
> pro-viding early guidance to institutions on IACUC functions and
> organization through regional conferences and workshops, culminating
> in a special 1987 American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
> (AALAS) publication entitled, \"Effective Animal Care and Use
> Committees\". Since 1983, training and guidance of this type has also
> been provided through annual animal care and use conferences sponsored
> by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) and the
> Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA), regional
> workshops supported by OLAW, and numerous similar activities. The
> first *Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook* was
> written by a committee of experts under the auspices of ARENA and
> published by NIH in 1992. The present edition, published in 2002, is
> the first revision.
>
> During the 1990s there was an evolution in the ways that IACUCs
> fulfilled their mandate. This was in part due to increased experience
> implementing the *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs, but may also be attributed
> to new reports, such as the 1996 *Guide* which emphasizes performance
> goals as opposed to engineering standards, and the 1997 ILAR report,
> *Occupational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Research
> Animals*, that shifted the focus of occupational health programs to
> risk based systems. Other factors contributing to this evolution came
> from the research community, such as the development of transgenic
> animals and *in vitro* alternatives to the
>
> production of monoclonal antibodies. The IACUC community has also
> gained a greater understanding of and appreciation for the role of
> nonaffiliated and nonscientific IACUC members. Humane endpoints in
> research and innovative ways to address environmental enrichment of
> primates are other areas that grew in sophistication during the 1990s.
> Training of IACUC members and animal users has received greater
> attention and the number of training programs and modules has
> increased significantly. Finally, OLAW, USDA and AAALAC International
> have all placed an increased focus on IACUC functions.
>
> While originally borrowed from the human Institutional Review Board
> structure, the concept of IACUCs to review and ensure animal welfare
> is now common practice in the animal research community. The goal of
> each IACUC is to ensure the humane care and use of animals used in
> research, and compliance with guidelines and regulations, while
> maintaining flexi-bility to best meet the unique needs of the
> institution. Active participation by research scientists allows for
> the scientific needs of research investigators to be considered;
> participation by nonaffiliated members incorporates a public
> conscience; and the involvement of veterinarians ensures appropriate
> medical care and animal well-being. A program of continuing education
> is essential to ensure that animal care and use standards and ethical
> principles continue to be applied at the highest possible level.

# *References* 

> Wayman, Stan. February 4, 1966. Concentration Camps for Dogs. LIFE
> 60:5:22-29.
>
> Care and Treatment of Laboratory Animals. June 14, 1971. (NIH 4206).
> *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts*, No. 7.
>
> National Institutes of Health Policy on Humane Care and Use of
> Animals. Effective January 1, 1979. (NIH 4206).

U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate
Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training. May 20, 1985. 50 FR
20864.

> *Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook*. 1992. NIH
> Pub. No. 92-3415. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
> Washington, DC.
>
> Fraser, Caroline. April 19, 1993. The Raid at Silver Spring. *The New
> Yorker* 66-84.
>
> McCabe, Katie. August 1986. Who Will Live, Who Will Die. *The
> Washingtonian* 21:11.
>
> Orlans, F., R. Simmonds and W. Dodds. 1987. Effective Animal Care
> Committees. Scientists Center for Animal Welfare. Laboratory Animal
> Science.
>
> []{#A_2 .anchor}**A.2. Authority, Composition and Functions**
>
> Each institution that receives PHS support for activities involving
> verte-brate animals or is subject to the authority of the Animal
> Welfare Act (AWA), must operate an animal care and use program with
> clear lines of authority and responsibility. The program must include:

-   a properly constituted and functioning Institutional Animal Care and

> Use Committee (IACUC);

-   procedures for self monitoring;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   an adequate veterinary care program;

-   an occupational health and safety program *(not required under the*

> *AWA)*;

-   a personnel training program;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   an environment, housing and management program for animals; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   appropriately maintained facilities for housing and support.

PHS requires an institutional Animal Welfare Assurance that provides
details on the institutional program in order to award funds; USDA
requires registration of facilities. Section E.1. and E.1. Table B
include additional detail concerning PHS assurances and USDA
registration.

> **Authority**
>
> IACUCs derive their authority from the law. They are mandated by the
> Health Research Extension Act (HREA) of 1985 and the AWA. The laws
> require the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization to
> appoint the IACUC, whose responsibilities are delineated in the law
> and federal policy and regulations. Office of Laboratory Animal
> Welfare (OLAW) considers the CEO to be the highest operating official
> of the organization. The CEO may delegate authority to appoint the
> IACUC if the delegation is specific and in writing.
>
> Once appointed, IACUCs report to a senior administrator known as the
> Institutional Official (IO). The IO must have administrative and
> operational authority to commit institutional resources to ensure
> compliance with the *PHS* *Policy* and other requirements. The CEO and
> IO may be the same
>
> individual, although at large institutions the CEO is typically
> somewhat removed from operational program involvement. Occasionally
> IOs are also appointed to serve on IACUCs but this is not advisable
> because the IACUC reports to the IO, creating potential for conflict
> of interest.
>
> The IACUC's mandate to perform semiannual program evaluations as a
> means of overseeing the animal care and use program puts the IACUC in
> an advisory role to the IO. In its semiannual reports the IACUC
> advises the IO of the status of the institution's compliance,
> establishes plans and schedules for correcting deficiencies necessary
> to either maintain or achieve compliance, and makes recommendation to
> the IO regarding any aspect of the institution's animal program,
> facilities, or personnel training. This approach of "enforced
> self-regulation" requires that the IACUC have the full support of the
> IO responsible for the program.
>
> The IACUC's authority to review and approve protocols is independent
> of the IO who may not overrule an IACUC decision to withhold approval
> of a protocol. (The converse is not true, i.e., if an IACUC approves a
> protocol, the institution is not required or obligated to conduct the
> research activity.) An institution may also subject protocols to
> additional institutional review (e.g., department head, biosafety
> committee, etc.)

## Committee Composition 

> Some IACUC members fulfill specific regulatory requirements (e.g.,
> veterinarian with program responsibility, an individual nonaffiliated
> with the institution); others have unique roles by virtue of their
> position (e.g. chairperson).
>
> There are no specific prohibitions regarding individuals filling more
> than one role on the IACUC, but OLAW strongly recommends against the
> same person serving multiple roles because the responsibilities and
> authorities vested in each of the positions are distinct and often
> require different skills. Appointing one individual to more than one
> of these roles may circumvent intended checks and balances. Also of
> importance is the perception of conflict of interest, which can lead
> to allegations of impropri-eties from various sources.
>
> **Veterinarian**: The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs mandate the appointment
> of a veterinarian with direct or delegated program responsibility to
> the IACUC. CEOs may appoint more than one veterinarian to the IACUC
> but the veterinarian with direct or delegated program responsibility
> must be
>
> designated as such. The veterinarian with program responsibility must
> have training or experience in laboratory animal science and medicine
> or in the care of the species being used.
>
> **Chair**: A knowledgeable and effective leader is crucial to an
> effective IACUC. This individual needs the full support of the IO. A
> chair with suffi-cient stature (e.g. seniority or tenure) can perform
> the functions of this position without jeopardy to his/her career. In
> the case of a large program of animal care and use, a co-chair may be
> desirable.

## Nonaffiliated member: The nonaffiliated member is intended to represent general community interests. An informed nonaffiliated member can bring significant value to the committee by bringing a non-institutional perspec-tive to the research endeavor. This member has equal status to every other committee member and should be provided the opportunity to parti-cipate in all aspects of IACUC functions. 

## 

## While in the majority of instances effective nonaffiliated members may be willing to serve without reimbursement, in other instances remuneration for expenses or compensation for time may allow for participation by effective individuals that would not otherwise be possible. OLAW and USDA main-tain that nominal compensation is permissible without jeopardizing a member's non-affiliated status, if it is only in conjunction with service on the IACUC and if the amount of compensation is not so substantial that it could be considered to influence voting on the IACUC.

> **Scientist and nonscientist**: *PHS* *Policy* requires that the IACUC
> include a practicing scientist experienced in research involving
> animals, and a member whose primary concerns are in a nonscientific
> area. Examples of the latter include, but are not limited to,
> ethicist, lawyer, member of the clergy, and librarian.
>
> Institutions should consider persons with expertise in the disciplines
> involved in institutional research and teaching programs for service
> on their IACUCs. In addition to the required categories of membership,
> it is suggested that individuals with expertise in specific areas
> pertinent to protocol review and program oversight be considered (e.g.
> statisticians, occupational health experts, information resource
> specialists, animal health technicians, and scientific research
> staff).
>
> There is no requirement that any particular member or category of
> members be present at all IACUC meetings. However, an institution must
> have a properly constituted IACUC in order for the IACUC to conduct
> valid
>
> official business. Many institutions have found that appointing more
> than the minimum number of members who meet the respective criteria
> obvi-ates problems when an unexpected vacancy occurs**,** and can help
> the committee meet the quorum requirements necessary for certain
> official committee actions.

## A.2. Table A. Comparison of IACUC Membership Requirements

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| # PHS Policy                   | # USDA Regulations                  |
|                                |                                     |
| PHS Policy IV.A. 3. a., b.     | 9 CFR, 2.31 (a) (b)                 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Appointed by the CEO           | Appointed by the CEO                |
|                                |                                     |
| Minimum of five members:       | Minimum of three members:           |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| One Doctor of Veterinary       | At least one Doctor of Veterinary   |
| Medicine with training or      | Medicine with training or           |
| experience in laboratory       | experience in laboratory animal     |
| animal science and medicine    | science and medicine, and who has   |
| who has direct or delegated    | direct or delegated program         |
| program authority and          | responsibility for activities       |
| responsibility for activities  | involving animals at the            |
| involving animals at the       | institution.                        |
| institution.                   |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| One practicing scientist       |                                     |
| experienced in research        |                                     |
| involving animals.             |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| One member whose primary       |                                     |
| concerns are in a              |                                     |
| nonscientific area (for        |                                     |
| example, ethicist, lawyer,     |                                     |
| clergy).                       |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| One member not affiliated in   | One member not affiliated in any    |
| any way with the institution   | way with the institution and not a  |
| and not a member of the        | member of the immediate family of a |
| immediate family of a person   | person who is affiliated with the   |
| who is affiliated with the     | institution; person who represents  |
| institution.                   | the general community interests in  |
|                                | the proper care and treatment of    |
| The *PHS* *Policy* requires    | animals; and is not a laboratory    |
| institutions to follow the     | animal user (USDA Policy \# 15)     |
| *Guide*, which states that     |                                     |
| committee membership should    |                                     |
| include at least one public    |                                     |
| member to represent general    |                                     |
| community interests in proper  |                                     |
| care and use of animals, and   |                                     |
| that public members should not |                                     |
| be laboratory animal users.    |                                     |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|                                | Not more than three members from    |
|                                | the same administrative unit of the |
|                                | institution.                        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

> **Alternate members** may be appointed to the IACUC as long as they
> are appointed by the CEO or other official with authority to appoint
> members, and there is a specific one-to-one designation of IACUC
> members and alternates. An IACUC member and his/her alternate may not
> count toward a quorum at the same time or act in an official member
> capacity at the same time. Alternates should receive training similar
> or identical to the training provided to regular IACUC members.

## Conflict of Interest

> Both the AWRs and *PHS* *Policy* state that no IACUC member \"may
> par-ticipate in the IACUC review or approval of an activity in which
> that member has a conflicting interest, (e.g. is personally involved
> in the activity) except to provide information requested by the
> IACUC.\"
>
> If the investigator submitting a protocol believes that an IACUC
> member has a potential conflict, the investigator may request that the
> member be excluded. When a member has a conflict of interest, the
> member should notify the IACUC Chair and may not participate in the
> IACUC review or approval except to provide information. Members who
> have a conflict of interest may not be counted toward a quorum and may
> not vote.
>
> Other possible examples of conflict of interest include cases where:

-   a member is involved in a potentially competing research program;

-   access to funding or intellectual information may provide an unfair

> competitive advantage; or

-   a member\'s personal biases may interfere with his or her impartial

> judgment.
>
> **Quorum Requirements**
>
> Certain official IACUC actions require a quorum: full committee review
> of a research project (Policy IV.C.2. and AWR §2.31(d)(2)) and
> suspension of an activity (Policy IV.C.6. and AWR §2.31(d)(6)).
> \"Quorum\" is defined as a majority (\>50%) of the voting members of
> the IACUC. Therefore, a protocol is approved only if a quorum is
> present, and if more than 50% of the quorum votes in favor. *PHS*
> *Policy* and AWRs require that in order to
>
> suspend an activity, the IACUC must review the matter at a convened
> meeting of a quorum of the IACUC and the suspension must be approved
> by a majority vote of the quorum present.
>
> For reasons other than conflict of interest, abstentions from voting
> do not alter the quorum or change the number of votes required. For
> example: If an IACUC has 20 voting members, at least 11 members must
> be present at a convened meeting to constitute a quorum and approval
> of a protocol would require a minimum of six votes whether or not
> there were abstentions.
>
> The requirements of the *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs take precedence even
> though they may differ from some commonly used parliamentary
> proce-dures. Institutions may develop their own meeting procedures as
> long as the procedures do not contradict or are not inconsistent with
> the require-ments of the *PHS* *Policy* or the AWRs.

## A.2. Table B. Federally Mandated Functions of the IACUC 

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| # PHS                            | # USDA                            |
|                                  |                                   |
| PHS *Policy*. IV.B.1-8           | 9 CFR. 2.31 (c) (1) -- (8) and    |
|                                  | 2.31(d) (5) (6) & (7)             |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1\. Review, at least once every  | 1\. Review, at least once every   |
| six months, the research         | six months, the research          |
| facility's program for the       | facility's program for humane     |
| humane care and use of animals,  | care and use of animals, using    |
| using the *Guide* as a basis for | title 9, chapter 1, subchapter    |
| evaluation                       | A---Animal Welfare, as a basis    |
|                                  | for evaluation                    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2\. Inspect, at least once every | 2\. Inspect, at least once every  |
| six months, all of the           | six months, all of the research   |
| institution's animal facilities  | facility's animal facilities,     |
| (including satellite facilities) | including animal study areas,     |
| using the *Guide* as a basis for | using title 9, chapter 1,         |
| evaluation. Satellite holding    | subchapter A---Animal Welfare as  |
| facilities (a facility outside   | a basis for evaluation. Areas     |
| of a core facility or centrally  | where animals are housed for more |
| designated area in which animals | than 12 hours are defined as      |
| are housed for more than 24      | "study areas".                    |
| hours) and areas in which        |                                   |
| surgical manipulations are       |                                   |
| performed must always be         |                                   |
| included.                        |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3.Prepare reports of the IACUC   | 3.Prepare reports of its          |
| evaluations and submit the       | evaluations (using the title 9,   |
| reports to the IO. The reports   | chapter 1, A -- AWR) and submit   |
| must contain a description of    | to the IO. The IACUC may          |
| the nature and extent of         | determine the best means of       |
| adherence to the *Guide* and     | conducting evaluations of the     |
| *PHS* *Policy* and identify      | research facility's programs and  |
| specifically any departures from | facilities, provided that no      |
| the provisions of the *Guide*    | member wishing to participate in  |
| and PHS *Policy* and state       | any evaluation is excluded.       |
| reasons for each departure. The  |                                   |
| IACUC may determine the best     | Reports must distinguish          |
| means of conducting an           | significant deficiencies from     |
| evaluation of its program and    | minor deficiencies and must       |
| facilities. The IACUC may invite | contain a reasonable and specific |
| *ad hoc* consultants to assist   | plan and schedule with dates for  |
| in conducting the evaluation.    | correcting each deficiency. A     |
| However, the IACUC remains       | significant deficiency is one     |
| responsible for the evaluation   | that is or may be a threat to the |
| and report.                      | health and safety of the animals. |
|                                  | A significant deficiency          |
| Reports must distinguish         | remaining uncorrected beyond the  |
| significant deficiencies from    | scheduled correction date shall   |
| minor deficiencies and must      | be reported in writing within 15  |
| contain a reasonable and         | business days by the IACUC,       |
| specific plan and schedule for   | through the IO, to APHIS and any  |
| correcting each deficiency. A    | federal agency funding that       |
| significant deficiency is one    | activity. Reports must be made    |
| that is or may be a threat to    | available to APHIS and to         |
| the health and safety of the     | officials of federal funding      |
| animals. Reports must be made    | agencies for inspection and       |
| available to OLAW upon request.  | copying upon request.             |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4\. Review concerns involving    | 4\. Review, and if warranted,     |
| the care and use of animals at   | investigate concerns involving    |
| the institution.                 | the care and use of animals       |
|                                  | resulting from public complaints  |
|                                  | and from reports of noncompliance |
|                                  | received from laboratory or       |
|                                  | research facility personnel or    |
|                                  | employees.                        |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5\. Make recommendations to the  | 5\. Make recommendations to the   |
| IO regarding any aspect of the   | IO regarding any aspects of the   |
| animal program, facilities or    | animal program, facilities or     |
| personnel training.              | personnel training.               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6\. Review and approve, require  | 6\. Review and approve, require   |
| modifications in, or withhold    | modifications in, or withhold     |
| approval of those components of  | approval of those components of   |
| PHS-conducted or supported       | proposed activities related to    |
| animal care and use activities.  | the care and use of animals.      |
| A complete review is required at |                                   |
| least once every three years.    | Continuing review of activities   |
|                                  | required not less than annually.  |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| # PHS                            | # USDA                            |
|                                  |                                   |
| PHS *Policy*, IV, B, 1-8         | 9 C                               |
|                                  |                                   |
|                                  | FR. 2.31 (c) (1) -- (8) and       |
|                                  | 2.31(d) (5) (6) & (7)             |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 7\. Review and approve, require  | 7\. Review and approve, require   |
| modifications in, or withhold    | modifications in, or withhold     |
| approval of proposed significant | approval of proposed significant  |
| changes regarding the use of     | changes regarding the care and    |
| animals in ongoing activities.   | use of animals in ongoing         |
|                                  | activities                        |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8\. Be authorized to suspend an  | 8\. Be authorized to suspend an   |
| activity involving animals in    | activity involving animals if it  |
| accordance with specifications   | determines that the activity is   |
| in IV.C.6 of *PHS* *Policy*      | not being conducted in accordance |
| (i.e., an activity that is not   | with the description provided by  |
| being conducted in accordance    | the investigator and approved by  |
| with applicable provision of the | the IACUC. This may be done only  |
| AWA, the *Guide*, the            | after review at a convened        |
| institution's Assurance, or      | meeting of a quorum of the IACUC  |
| *PHS* *Policy*.) This action may | with the suspension vote of a     |
| be taken only after review of    | majority of the quorum present.   |
| the matter at a convened meeting | The IO, in consultation with the  |
| of a quorum of the IACUC and a   | IACUC, shall review the reasons   |
| vote for suspension by the       | for the suspension, take          |
| majority of the quorum present.  | appropriate corrective action,    |
|                                  | and report that action with a     |
| The IO in consultation with the  | full explanation to APHIS and any |
| IACUC shall review the reasons   | federal agency funding that       |
| for suspension, take appropriate | activity.                         |
| corrective action, and report    |                                   |
| that action with a full          |                                   |
| explanation to OLAW.             |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

> ***References***
>
> The Public Health Service Responds to Commonly Asked Questions. Fall
> 1991. *ILAR News* Volume 33(4):68-70.
>
> Robb, J. Wesley. 1993. Personal Reflections: The Role and Value of the
> Unaffiliated Member and the Non Scientist Members of the IACUC. *ILAR
> News* Volume 35:3-4.
>
> OPRR Reports. 1997. 97-03, June 2, 1997.
>
> *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts*, Notice OD-01-017. February 12,
> 2001.
>
> Frequently Asked Questions about The PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use
> of Laboratory Animals. Summer/Fall, 1993. *ILAR News* Volume
> 35(3-4):47-49.
>
> Protocol Review. A Note from the NIH and USDA. 1996. *Lab Anim*.
> 25(5)22.
>
> []{#A_3 .anchor}A.3. Operation and Administration
>
> **Institutional Responsibility for Animal Welfare**
>
> Assuring laboratory animal welfare necessitates a partnership among
> the Institutional Official (IO), the IACUC, the veterinarian and the
> investigators. Ultimately, accountability for assuring humane care and
> use of animals resides with the institution, but this may only be
> achieved when all of the players, i.e., the investigators and their
> research staff, the veterinary staff, animal caretakers and
> technicians, and the IACUC, contribute to a shared goal.
>
> Each institution should provide a framework with appropriate resources
> for an animal care and use program that is managed in accordance with
> the PHS *Policy*, the *Guide*, and the Animal Welfare Regulations
> (AWRs). Organizations that function effectively have simple, clear and
> direct lines of responsibility and corresponding authority.
>
> **Components of an animal care and use program**. Heavy lines
> represent the mandate from the Animal Welfare Act and Health Research
> Extension Act that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human
> Services develop guidelines for the use of animals in research,
> including IACUCs, and require established lines of authority from the
> IO to the IACUC, IACUC staff, and veterinarian, Dotted lines represent
> the need for cooperation and communication among components.
>
> The *PHS Policy* and AWRs place a strong emphasis on senior
> manage-ment level responsibility and on use of the IACUC as an
> oversight committee to evaluate the program. The committee needs to
> work closely with the animal users, the animal care staff, and the
> responsible veteri-narians to ensure a high quality animal care and
> use program. The IO must support the IACUC by providing appropriate
> resources.

# Responsibilities of the Institutional Official

> The IO must have the authority to allocate organizational resources
> needed to maintain a smoothly functioning animal care and use program
> based on the recommendations and advice received from:

-   the IACUC,

-   the veterinarian, and

-   the IACUC professional and administrative staff.

> The IO should also clearly define and assign responsibilities and
> reporting channels for other essential program elements such as:

-   personnel training,

-   occupational health and safety, and

-   maintenance of facilities.

> The IACUC, appointed by the organization's Chief Executive Officer
> (CEO), must report directly to the IO and be empowered to perform its
> duties without undue interference. OLAW's experience is that it is
> usually best for the veterinarian also to report directly to the IO in
> connection with his or her responsibility for implementing the animal
> care and use program. In order to provide the intended checks and
> balances in the system of self-regulation, it is advisable that the
> veterinarian not serve as Chair of the IACUC or as IO. While it is
> important that there be a collegial and effective working relationship
> between the IACUC and the veterina-rian, it is important to avoid the
> potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest.

# Role and Responsibilities of the IACUC staff 

> The nature of the institution and the volume of animal-based research
> determine the staffing requirements of an IACUC and the animal care
> program. Institutions with a high volume of proposals involving
> animals may require full time IACUC staff. A professional staff with
> expertise in animal welfare laws, regulations and policies is
> especially important to provide stability and continuity to animal
> care and use programs where IACUC chairs and members serve on a
> rotating basis.
>
> The role of the IACUC staff is to provide administrative support to
> the IACUC and the IO. It is important however, that neither the IO nor
> the IACUC Chair over-invest authority or responsibility in the IACUC
> staff.
>
> The IACUC staff often serve as the gatekeepers of information and
> com-munications for the IO, the IACUC Chair and members, the
> veterinarian, the animal resource program, the investigators, and
> other offices within the institution such as public relations and
> sponsored research. It is important that training and continuing
> education be provided to program staff so they are knowledgeable of
> current animal care and use policies and regulations and aware of
> proposed changes. OLAW workshops, ARENA and PRIM&R annual meetings,
> ARENA IACUC 101 Training, and SCAW meetings, are examples of useful
> training and educational opportunities.
>
> IACUC staff responsibilities range from clerical and administrative to
> pro-fessional, depending on the size and complexity of the program.
>
> Some examples of **clerical tasks** are:

-   data entry;

-   screening protocols for completeness;

-   preparing agendas and distributing protocols and other materials to

> IACUC members;

-   sending out reminders of protocol expirations and approval letters;

-   maintaining records of protocols and minutes of the meetings,
    policies and procedures, program reviews and facility inspection
    reports; and

-   coordinating and scheduling the IACUC\'s meetings, facilities
    inspec-

> tions and laboratory site visits.
>
> **Administrative duties** include:

-   preparation of minutes and other correspondence and reports, such as
    the PHS Assurance document, and annual PHS, USDA and AAALAC reports;
    and

-   serving as an information resource for investigators and IACUC
    members regarding regulatory issues and the status of protocols.

> **Professional staff duties** include:

-   providing orientation and training of new IACUC members;

-   grant proposal review to ensure consistency in the animal care and
    use components of the proposal and the protocol submitted to the
    IACUC;

-   pre-review of protocols for federal assurances, scientific and
    statis-tical validity;

-   review of literature searches; and

-   drafting of institutional policies.

> The IACUC staff also maintains federal documents such as the
> institution\'s PHS Assurance, USDA registration and reports, and
> AAALAC accreditation materials.
>
> **Review of Grants and Contracts Submitted to PHS**
>
> In order to approve a protocol that involves the use of animals, the
> IACUC must review the proposed care and use of animals and determine
> that federal criteria have been met. PHS requires that the project be
> conducted in accordance with the *PHS Policy*, the AWA, the *Guide*,
> the institution\'s Assurance, and all other applicable federal
> statutes and regulations related to animals. The project should also
> comply with all institutional policies.
>
> Most IACUCs require use of a standardized protocol application form to
> assist the investigator in providing the information necessary to
> ensure compliance. While there is no explicit requirement for the
> IACUC to do a side-by-side comparison of the information contained in
> the IACUC proto-
>
> col review form and the information submitted to PHS, it is imperative
> that the protocol that the IACUC approves is consistent with the
> information submitted to PHS. Institutions should devise a mechanism
> to verify that consistency. If the IACUC requires changes to the
> protocol that are not
>
> reflected in the grant application, then the PHS funding component
> must be notified in the follow-up certification of IACUC approval.
>
> Institutions are required to provide PHS with the date of IACUC
> approval. There is no provision for providing a contingent approval
> date; the date provided must signify full approval by the IACUC. If an
> institution has a PHS Assurance, then in most cases the PHS allows a
> 60-day grace period following the receipt deadline date during which
> the investigator may secure IACUC approval; otherwise, the application
> cannot be peer reviewed. If the IACUC review occurs subsequent to the
> grant submission, then a letter verifying IACUC approval, and stating
> any modifications required by the IACUC, must be submitted to the
> funding agency. This grace period is non-existent for some
> non-federally funded projects and investigators are required to submit
> evidence of IACUC approval coincident with the grant or contract
> submission.
>
> If an institution does not have a PHS Assurance, the signature of the
> official signing the grant application for the organization
> constitutes a declaration that the institution will submit an
> Assurance and verification of IACUC approval upon request by OLAW.
>
> **Responsibility for Collaborations and Subcontracted Research**
>
> Collaborations between institutions can sometimes create ambiguity
> regarding responsibility for animal welfare. In cases where an
> individual investigator has appointments at several institutions, or
> where collabora-tions occur between institutions, it is advisable to
> have a formal written agreement, contract or memorandum of
> understanding between the institutions. This document should originate
> from the primary collaborative institution (i.e., the institution
> primarily responsible for directing and/or funding the research) and
> signed by the secondary institution.
>
> When an institution receiving PHS funds contracts with a commercial
> vendor using animals to produce a product, there may need to be IACUC
> involvement. If a company produces standard antibodies for general
> sale, that company is not required to file an Assurance with OLAW.
> However, if a supplier or contractor produces antibodies in animals
> using an antigen provided by or at the request of an investigator, the
> antibodies are con-sidered "custom" and the vendor must have an
> Assurance on file. The vendor Assurance must be identified on the PHS
> grant application, and the awardee institution is responsible for
> verifying that the work is done at an Assured institution.
>
> In addition, while the approaches of funding and regulatory agencies
> are complementary, they also differ. The *PHS Policy* invests
> responsibility for animals in the entity that receives PHS funding,
> known in grant parlance as the \"awardee\" or \"grantee\" institution.
> Accordingly, if there is a concern about a PHS-funded animal activity
> PHS will likely \"follow the money\" to determine institutional
> accountability. Under the AWRs, responsibility generally resides with
> the institution that houses the animals and with the institution that
> owns the animals, which may not be the same institution.
>
> PHS may award funds for an activity involving animals only to an
> entity that has an approved PHS Assurance. When more than one
> institution is involved, one of the following four scenarios generally
> apply:

-   An awardee institution and/or a subcontractor or collaborating
    insti-tution can both have PHS Assurances. In this situation, two
    assured entities are responsible for determining which IACUC will
    review the research and under which institutional program the
    research will be covered. While PHS and USDA do not require dual
    review by both awardee and subcontractor IACUCs (i.e., only one of
    the assured IACUCs must review and approve the research), OLAW
    recommends the IACUC of the awardee institution have a mechanism for
    obtaining a copy of the performance site\'s IACUC approval. Many
    times however, both IACUCs will elect to review the research as
    evidence of shared responsibility and to ensure the research will be
    conducted in compliance with their own institutional policies and
    practices in addition to meeting the federal laws and regulations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If the awardee institution has a PHS Assurance, but the
    subcontrac-tor or collaborating institution does not, the latter may
    be required to obtain one. The grant or contract may not be awarded
    until the Assurance is solicited by OLAW, submitted by the
    subcontractor, and approved by OLAW. The subcontractor must also
    submit the date of IACUC review.

-   If the awardee institution has a PHS Assurance but the subcontractor
    or collaborating institution does not, the latter may be brought
    under the awardee institution\'s Assurance by an amendment to the
    Applica-bility section of that Assurance. The IO signing the
    Assurance would then be responsible for the facilities and
    activities of the subcontrac-tor, and the IACUC would be required to
    include relevant aspects of the subcontractor\'s facility and
    program in its semi-annual program review. The subcontractor, in
    turn, would be required to recognize the authority of the IO and the
    IACUC of the awardee institution. Most awardee institutions do not
    elect this option.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Another possible collaboration, that may or may not involve
    sub-contracting, occurs if an awardee institution does not have an
    animal program or facility and is therefore not assured, but the
    investigator will use the facilities of an assured institution.
    Under these circum-stances OLAW requires an \"Interinstitutional
    Agreement Assurance\" whereby both IOs agree that the project will
    be conducted in accor-dance with the assured institution\'s
    Assurance and the investigator will abide by the determinations of
    the assured institution\'s IACUC. The effect of such an agreement is
    to extend the IACUC\'s oversight to include the particular project,
    and to meet the *PHS* *Policy* require-ment that the grantee
    institution be assured.

> ***References***
>
> Garnett, N.L., and W.R. DeHaven. Commentary: Protocol ReviewWho\'s to
> Blame? *Lab Animal* 28(7), 1999.
>
> *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts*, Notice OD-01-017, February 12,
> 2001.
>
> *This page intentionally left blank.*
>
> []{#A_4 .anchor}**A.4. Training for Members**
>
> For the IACUC to discharge its responsibilities a program of education
> and training is essential. A well-defined and implemented program,
> while primarily directed to the IACUC member, would also be of value
> to researchers, administrators and others with responsibilities
> associated with research involving animals.
>
> It is the responsibility of the institution to provide suitable
> orientation, appropriate materials, adequate resources and training to
> enable IACUC members to carry out their duties consistent with the
> *Guide*, the *PHS Policy* and the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs).
> It is important to provide the tools necessary to assist members in
> understanding and evaluating issues that are brought before them.
> Appropriate training depends on the size, scope and needs of the
> research facility, but must incorporate the federal mandates of the
> IACUC.
>
> Local institutional policies and procedures need to be a part of the
> training and education program. Frequently, new members find it
> confusing to understand the differences between the federal policies
> and requirements and institutional policies and procedures. It is
> useful to provide an insti-tutional policy manual as well as the Web
> sites for pertinent federal rules and regulations.
>
> Although the plan for training and education can take many different
> forms, a recommended syllabus with suggested topics for the
> orientation module and the continuing education module follows.
>
> In addition, ARENA sponsors a basic one-day training course for new
> IACUC members and persons with IACUC responsibilities -- ARENA IACUC
> 101 -- and ARENA IACUC 101 "On the Road". To learn more about this
> training program, contact the ARENA office at (617) 423-4112 or OLAW
> at (301) 496-7163, or visit the ARENA or OLAW Web sites (see Appendix
> A).

# Program of Education and Training for New IACUC Members

## *ORIENTATION MODULE*

> (Suggested time -- approximately 2 hours)

### Suggested Topics 

# Objectives

1.  To introduce members to the role of the IACUC and its evolution

2.  To provide the basic information necessary for IACUC members to
    discharge their responsibilities

3.  To provide a forum for response to, and discussion of, members\'
    concerns and questions

> **Conducted by**
>
> The IACUC staff, the IACUC Chair or designee, veterinary staff, or
> consultants. Training can be provided by one or more of these
> individuals.
>
> **Syllabus:**

1.  The IACUC \-\-- its evolution and responsibilities

    1.  Genesis and chronology

    2.  U.S. Government Principles

> 1.3. Benefits and pitfalls of IACUCs

4.  Criteria for membership

5.  Authority of the IACUC

6.  The unique role of the IACUC within the organization

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Operation and procedures

    1.  Proposal (protocol) submission

    2.  Proposal review

> 2.2.1. Process
>
> 2.2.2. IACUC review criteria
>
> 2.2.3. Review by quorum

4.  Review by designated reviewers

5.  Post-meeting process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Monitoring of approved protocols

    1.  Periodic review (continuing review)

    2.  Protocol changes (amendments)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Records

4.  Semiannual reviews

    1.  Animal care and use program

    2.  Institutional animal facilities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  Handling animal welfare concerns

7.  Roles, responsibilities, relationships

    1.  IACUC

    2.  IACUC Program office

    3.  Veterinarian

    4.  Animal Care Program (e.g., Department of Comparative Medicine or
        Laboratory Animal Resources)

    5.  Institutional Official (IO)

    6.  Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), NIH

    7.  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA

    8.  Project sponsor/grantor

    9.  Community

#### Suggested Resource Materials 

-   *Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory
    Animals*. NIH. Reprinted 2000.

-   Health Research Extension Act, P.L.99-158.

-   Animal Welfare Act - P.L. 89-544 as amended by P.L. 94-279, P.L.
    99-198, P.L. 91-579 and P.L. 101-624.

-   Animal Welfare Regulations. 9 CFR.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Institutional Administrator\'s Guide for Animal Care and Use*. NIH.
    1988.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals*. NRC. 1996.

-   *ARENA/OLAW Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook*.
    2002.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Institutional IACUC Policies and Procedures Manual.

> For additional suggestions see the Core Module in the National
> Research Council's *Education and Training in the Care and Use of
> Laboratory Animals -- A Guide for Developing Institutional Programs*,
> pages 11 through 15.
>
> **Program of Education and Training for IACUC Members**
>
> **Recommended Continuing Education Module**
>
> (Varying amounts of time\-\--can be incorporated in each IACUC meeting
> and/or designated or *ad hoc* meetings)

### Suggested Topics

> **Objectives**

1.  To increase members\' knowledge, understanding and awareness

> 2\. To keep members current on:

1.  Laws (federal, state, local)

2.  Regulations (proposed, promulgated/issued)

3.  Directives

4.  Guidelines

5.  Developments and trends

6.  Institutional policies

> 3\. To address issues, concerns and questions raised by IACUC members,
> institutional staff, and the community.
>
> **Conducted by**
>
> The IACUC Staff, the Chair or designee, veterinary staff, or
> consultants.
>
> **Syllabus**
>
> Agenda based on:

1.  Questions and concerns brought to the attention of the IACUC

2.  Official directives

3.  Publications

4.  Notices of, and reports from, conferences, seminars, etc.

5.  Animal facility staff and/or veterinarian's observations and
    recommendations

6.  Facility inspections and program evaluations

7.  Problem situations

> **Suggested Resources: See Appendix A.**

#  {#section-6 .Table}

# A.5. Legal Concerns

> The functions and activities of IACUCs are based on two federal laws:
> the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (P.L.99-158) (HREA) and the
> 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Improved
> Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198). In
> addition, other federal rules may pertain to IACUCs, such as the
> Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA), Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) regulations and
> the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Committee members need to be aware
> of the legal obligations of their institutions, the responsibilities
> of the IACUC in relation to these institutional commitments, and the
> regulatory requirements for which they may be personally accountable.
>
> Many states have statutes and regulations in place relevant to
> laboratory animals as well. Institutional Officials (IOs) and IACUC
> administrators should ensure that procedures are in place to enable
> IACUCs to be cogni-zant of and compliant with state and local laws and
> regulations that may affect their institution's animal care and use
> program. A useful reference is the National Association for Biomedical
> Research (NABR) publication, *State Laws Concerning the Use of Animals
> in Research.*
>
> Institutions are responsible for informing IACUC members of their
> re-sponsibilities, providing training relative to their role on the
> IACUC, and ensuring that members have the information necessary to
> fulfill their duties as IACUC members:

-   IACUC members should be provided with documents such as the PHS
    Assurance with the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH (OLAW),
    the *PHS* *Policy*, the *Guide* and the Animal Welfare Regulations
    (AWRs). Committee members should be aware of their institutional
    registration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
    reports of inspections and other interactions with Animal and Plant
    Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IACUC members should be free to request through the IACUC Chair or
    IO, guidance from the institution's legal counsel with regard to
    Committee actions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IACUC members should be provided with information regarding their
    obligation to treat material as privileged or confidential,
    especially

> prior to final Committee action, or agency funding. In the case of
> trade secrets or patent applications, such information is protected by
> law (7USC 2157, Section 27).

-   IACUC members should understand that their signatures are legally
    binding on official IACUC reports such as the six-month program
    review and facilities inspection report.

# Liability

> Under *PHS* *Policy*, the primary responsibility for meeting
> applicable federal and state rules rests with the research facility or
> PHS awardee institution. The IO is the individual held responsible on
> behalf of the research facility for ensuring compliance. Failure to
> comply with *PHS* *Policy* could result in OLAW's withdrawal of
> approval of the institution's Animal Welfare Assur-ance, thereby
> making the institution ineligible to receive funds for activities
> involving animals.
>
> Under applicable statutory provisions (7 U.S.C. Section 2149), the
> USDA has the authority to order a facility to cease and desist, and to
> impose a fine for noncompliance with the AWRs and AWA. The AWA
> provides for penalties of up to \$2,500 per count and one year in
> prison, or both for violations of the AWRs.

# Freedom of Information

> The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5.U.S.C.552, provides
> individuals with a right to access to records in the possession of the
> federal govern-ment. The government may withhold information pursuant
> to the nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the Act.
>
> The Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-231) amended
> the law in a number of ways that primarily address information
> systems, use of telecommunications, and electronic reading rooms. Most
> federal agencies provide guidelines for submitting FOIA requests
> through their agency Web sites.
>
> Information about federally conducted or supported research projects,
> PHS Assurance documents, USDA annual reports filed by research
> facilities, and inspection reports of USDA, Environmental Protection
> Agency (EPA) and FDA, are generally available to the public under
> FOIA.
>
> Many states have public records laws and/or open meetings acts, known
> as "sunshine" laws, which may permit public access to information
> re-viewed and generated by the IACUC, and public attendance at IACUC
> meetings. However, even in some "sunshine" law states, the IACUC,
> because it serves in an advisory capacity to the IO, may hold closed
> sessions. IACUC members need to be aware of specific state laws
> regarding these issues and should always seek legal counsel if
> necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

*This page intentionally left blank.*

> **B.** []{#Oversight .anchor}**Oversight of the**
>
> **Animal Care and**
>
> **Use Program**
>
> *This page intentionally left blank.*
>
> []{#B_1 .anchor}**B.1. Program and Facility Review**
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) stipulate
> that the IACUC must review the program for humane care and use of
> animals at least once every six months, using the *Guide* as the basis
> for evaluation for the PHS *Policy* and title 9, chapter I, subchapter
> A-Animal Welfare for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
> Federal requirements also state that the IACUC must inspect all
> institutional animal facilities at least once every six months.

# Benefits of the Reviews

-   Reviews provide an ongoing mechanism for ensuring that the
    insti-tution maintains compliance with applicable animal care and
    use policies, guidelines and laws.

-   Reviews serve as an opportunity for constructive interaction and
    education for the animal care personnel, research staff and IACUC
    members.

-   Reviews can help an institution prepare for subsequent visits by
    outside evaluators, such as USDA inspectors, Office of Laboratory
    Animal Welfare (OLAW) staff and Association for Assessment and
    Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) site
    visitors.

> A summary of recurring IACUC issues related to semiannual program
> review and facility inspection identified by AAALAC during site visits
> is provided in Appendix C.

# Resources

> OLAW has developed a sample format for the program review and facility
> inspection that may be modified to meet the institution's needs (see
> the OLAW Web site). The Table of Contents of the *Guide* or an
> institution's AAALAC Program Description can also serve as an outline
> for the semi-annual evaluation.

# 

> **Conducting Program Evaluations**
>
> Key aspects of an animal care and use program that should be
> emphasized in the semiannual evaluation include:

-   IACUC membership, functions and procedures, including protocol
    review (e.g., using page 10 of the *Guide* as a template, and *PHS*
    *Policy* IV.B. and C.);

-   facility inspection process;

-   provisions for reviewing and investigating concerns regarding animal
    care and use;

-   recordkeeping practices;

-   methods employed to meet reporting requirements;

-   occupational health and safety program;

-   veterinary medical care program; and

-   personnel qualifications and training.

> Specific procedures to accomplish program evaluation may include
> pre-sentations by appropriate individuals (e.g., the veterinarian, an
> occupational health and safety representative, etc.) and review of
> written institutional policies such as standard operating procedures,
> guidelines on use of anes-thetics and analgesics, and euthanasia
> procedures. Verifying conformance with the USDA Animal Care Policies
> (1999 *et seq*.) during the semiannual program review will help ensure
> that current practices are consistent with USDA regulatory
> interpretations.

# 

# Facility Review

> All animal housing facilities must be inspected in the semiannual
> review, including:
>
> satellite facilities (containment areas outside the central/core
> animal facility where animals are housed for more than 24 hours *(PHS
> Policy)*,
>
> areas in which surgical manipulations are performed *(PHS Policy)*,

-   animal study areas (locations where USDA-covered species are held
    for more than 12 hours) (AWRs), and

-   holding facilities (AWRs).

> Laboratories in which routine procedures, such as immunization,
> dosing, and weighing, are conducted may be evaluated by other means
> such as random inspections. However, the institution, through its
> IACUC, is still responsible for all animal-related activities
> regardless of where animals are maintained or the duration of the
> housing. The IACUC must have reason-able access to these areas for the
> purpose of verifying that activities involving animals are being
> conducted in accordance with the proposal approved by the IACUC.

# Staffing and Scheduling the Facility Inspections 

> The IACUC must conduct inspections of facilities at least once every
> six months. This may be accomplished by assigning specific facilities
> to sub-ommittees, which must consist of at least two IACUC members
> (AWRs). No IACUC member should be excluded should she or he wish to
> partici-pate in an inspection. *Ad hoc* consultants may be used
> although the IACUC remains responsible for the evaluations and
> reports. The inspec-tion team should have a working knowledge of the
> *Guide* and AWRs in order to fully evaluate the facilities that are
> being inspected. Section B.2. of this Guidebook also provides general
> guidance in this regard.
>
> **Categories to be Inspected**
>
> It is helpful for the inspection team to use a list of categories such
> as:

-   sanitation,

-   food and water provisions,

-   animal identification,

-   waste disposal,

-   animal health records,

-   controlled and/or expired drugs,

-   environmental control,

-   occupational health and safety concerns,

-   staff training,

-   knowledge of applicable rules and regulations, and

-   security.

> The IACUC may determine whether the supervisory personnel of various
> facilities should be notified of the date and time of an inspection.
> Advance notification allows individuals to be available to answer
> questions; an unexpected visit may show the facility during usual
> operations but also may result in a visit having to be rescheduled if
> key individuals are not available.
>
> **Performing Inspections**
>
> Adherence to the following recommendations will assist the IACUC in
> performing inspections:

-   An updated list of all facilities to be inspected should be
    maintained by the IACUC.

-   All proposals submitted to the IACUC should specify locations where
    animal procedures will be performed.

-   It is helpful to maintain a list of all facilities including room
    number, function of the room, species and deficiencies identified
    during the previous inspection.

-   For satellite areas, a contact person is useful.

-   For facilities with multiple rooms, a floor plan can assist the
    inspectors.

-   If a subcommittee is performing the inspection, a blend of Committee
    members who last inspected the area with members who did not can
    bring both continuity and a fresh perspective to the inspection
    process.

-   Notes should be taken throughout the visit to assist in preparation
    of the final report.

-   Apparent deficiencies should be discussed with the person in charge
    of the facility to ensure that the team\'s perception of the
    situation is accurate. In some cases an apparent deviation will be
    due to the experiment in progress, e.g., withholding of food prior
    to surgery.

-   Use of a checklist provides consistency and helps document that all
    categories were assessed.

> While the inspection of each facility must occur semiannually, there
> is no regulatory requirement that all facilities at an institution
> must be inspected at the same time (e.g., during the same month).
> Therefore, IACUCs at large institutions can stagger these inspections
> throughout the year, as long as each animal area is inspected at least
> every six months.

# Use of AAALAC Activities as Program Evaluation

> Provisions permitting use of *ad hoc* consultants may be invoked by
> IACUCs to make use of either of the two AAALAC assessment programs
> (Program Status Evaluation or Accreditation), or pre-assessment
> preparation activi-ties, to meet the requirements for an IACUC
> semiannual program evaluation and subsequent report. In order to
> utilize one of these AAALAC related activities as a semiannual
> evaluation, the IACUC must ensure that the report complies with
> IV.B.3. of the *PHS* *Policy*, and officially endorse the report and
> submit it to the IO. If an institution is covered by the AWRs, the
> report must comply with §2.31(c) of the AWRs, at least two IACUC
> mem-bers must participate, no member wishing to participate may be
> excluded, and the report must be signed by a majority of the IACUC
> members and include any minority views.

# Documentation

> A written report of the semiannual program review and facility
> inspection must be prepared. The AWRs require the report to be signed
> by a majority of the IACUC. The report must describe the institution's
> adherence to the AWRs, *PHS Policy*, and the *Guide*, and identify
> specifically any deviations from these documents.
>
> Any deficiencies identified in these reviews must be designated by the
> IACUC as minor or significant. A significant deficiency is defined as
> a situation that is or may be a threat to animal health or safety. The
> IACUC, through the IO, must promptly report to OLAW any serious or
> continuing noncompliance with the *PHS* *Policy* or any serious
> deviation from the provisions of the *Guide*. For both categories of
> deficiencies, a reasonable and specific plan and schedule with dates
> for correction must be included in the final report. All individuals
> to be involved in the corrections should be consulted to ensure that
> the plan is realistic. If the institution is unable to meet the plan,
> the IACUC, through the IO, must inform Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service (APHIS) officials within fifteen business days of
> the lapsed deadline (AWRs). If the activity is federally funded, the
> relevant funding agency also must be informed.
>
> The report should indicate whether or not any minority views were
> filed, and minority views must be included in the final document. A
> copy of the report is sent to the IO and must be kept on file for a
> minimum of three years. It is often useful for the report to be
> delivered in person in order to emphasize the findings and plans for
> action. The institution must notify OLAW of the dates of the
> semiannual program evaluations and facility inspections in an annual
> report.
>
> ***References***
>
> OPRR. 1991. The Public Health Service Responds to Commonly Asked
> Questions. *ILAR News* 33(4): 68-70.
>
> Potkay, S., N. Garnett, J. Miller, C. Pond, and D. Doyle. 1997.
> Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Health Service Policy on
> Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. *Contemporary Topics*
> 36(2): 47-50.
>
> *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts*. December 12, 1999. Notice
> OD-00-007.

# 

# B.2. Animal Environment, Housing and Management

> This section provides an overview of the IACUC's role regarding animal
> environment, housing and management. The *Guide* provides
> recom-mendations that are written in general terms and require the
> application of sound professional judgment (i.e., current best
> practices). The use of performance standards, or an outcome approach,
> will direct decisions to optimizing animal well-being while providing
> a refined animal model for the researcher. Variances from *Guide*
> recommendations in animal care and husbandry should be based on clear
> scientific justification, or rationale for an alternative approach to
> accomplish a performance based *Guide* stan-dard, and must be approved
> by the IACUC.

# 

# B.2.a. General

> The *Guide* states:
>
> Proper housing and management of animal facilities are essential to
> animal well-being, to the quality of research data and teaching or
> testing programs in which animals are used, and to the health and
> safety of personnel. A good management program provides the
> environment, housing, and care that permit animals to grow, mature,
> reproduce, and maintain good health; provides for their well-being;
> and minimizes variations that can affect research results. Specific
> operating practices depend on many factors that are peculiar to
> individual institutions and situations. Well‑trained and motivated
> personnel can often ensure high quality animal care, even in
> institutions with less than optimal physical plants or equipment.
>
> Animals should be housed in a manner that facilitates the expression
> of species-typical behavior and minimizes stress-induced behaviors.
> For social species, housing systems should be designed to accommodate
> pair or group housing of animals. The *Guide* places responsibility
> with the IACUC for the review and approval of housing systems; it
> further recommends follow-up objective evaluations to ensure the
> housing system is appropriate for the health and well-being of the
> species and consistent with research objectives.

## B.2.b. Animal Environment

# *Housing*

> Adequate animal husbandry practices and health maintenance are
> facilita-ted by well‑constructed and maintained caging or housing
> systems.
>
> Cages should:

-   allow for conspecific social interaction within or between
    enclosures, adequate ventilation, and observation of animals with
    minimal dis-urbance of them;

-   provide a safe and secure environment that permits the normal
    physi-logic and behavioral needs of the animals to be expressed;

-   enable ready access to food and water receptacles and be constructed
    of materials that balance the needs of the animal with sanitation;
    and

-   be constructed with materials that resist corrosion and withstand
    chip-ing, cracking or rusting.

> Unsealed wood may be acceptable for use as perches or other climbing
> structures, resting areas, or in the construction of perimeter fences,
> runs and pens, but wooden items need to be replaced periodically
> because of wear, damage, and to achieve adequate sanitization.
>
> Cage size requirements/recommendations for most common laboratory
> animal species are provided by the AWRs and the *Guide*. Cage
> com-plexities, vertical height of the cage, and the cage design can
> influence how an animal uses the cage space provided. The cage must
> provide sufficient space so that, at a minimum, the animal can turn
> around and express normal postural adjustments. The animal must have
> sufficient clean and unobstructed space to move and rest in. Use of
> wire bottom cages is discouraged for rodents, especially on long-term
> studies or in larger and older animals, as it may cause foot injury.
> Use of wire bottom cages should be scientifically justified and
> approved by the IACUC.

# *Temperature, Ventilation, Illumination and Noise*

> Environmental factors can have a profound effect on the health and
> well‑being of animals as well as on the outcome of experimental
> manipula-tion. Temperature, humidity, air pressure differential and
> air exchange rate, illumination level, and noise levels all may affect
> animal well‑being and research results.
>
> The range of daily temperature fluctuations should be kept to a
> minimum (e.g., ± 2º F) to avoid large demands on the animals'
> metabolic and behav-ioral processes. Relative humidity should also be
> controlled (e.g., 30% to 70%). In general, an air exchange rate of
> 10-15 changes per hour is con-sidered an acceptable standard.
>
> Light intensity, duration of exposure, wavelength of light, light
> history of the animal, pigmentation of the animal and other factors
> should be considered when establishing an illumination level in the
> animal room.
>
> Because sound exposure can have variable effects on animals, noise
> gen-erators (e.g., human activities, noisy animals, equipment) should
> be mini-mized in animal areas. Environments should be designed to
> accommodate animals that make noise, rather than resorting to methods
> of reducing the noise made by animals.
>
> A review of an animal care and use program should include
> consideration of environmental standards adopted for the facilities
> with adequate justification for deviations, which are reviewed and
> approved by the IACUC. While en-vironmental control in outdoor
> facilities is much less stringent, acceptable ranges in temperature
> for several species are specified in the AWRs. Reliable methods for
> monitoring environmental control systems should be in place, including
> an after-hours monitoring and response program. Back-up heating,
> ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting systems are highly
> desirable.

## B.2.c. Husbandry

### *Animal Identification*

> It is imperative that research animals be adequately and appropriately
> identified and that records pertaining to individuals or groups of
> animals be maintained. A wide range of acceptable identification
> methods can be employed, including:

-   cage cards,

-   subcutaneous transponders,

-   ear notches and tags,

-   collars,

-   colored stains, and

-   individual animal tattoos.

> The use of toe-clipping to identify individual rodents is discouraged;
> when necessary, it should be rigorously justified for scientific
> necessity and done only on very young rodents.
>
> Animal records may consist of a cage card or may involve detailed
> individ-ual animal information, depending principally on the species
> and research requirements. Cage cards should include:

-   source of the animal,

-   strain or stock,

-   names and locations of responsible investigators,

-   pertinent dates, and

-   protocol number.

### *Feeding*

> All animals should receive food that is:

-   palatable,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   free from contamination, and

-   of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain their good
    health.

> Specific diets should be selected based on the needs of each species,
> with special consideration of the requirements for Vitamin C by guinea
> pigs and some species of nonhuman primates. Animals should be fed at
> least once a day except under conditions of hibernation, veterinary
> treatment, pre-procedural fasts, or other justified circumstances. In
> some species and in some circumstances, varying the diet by providing
> "treats" can improve animal health and well-being. However, caution
> should be exercised that animals do not forsake eating their
> nutritionally balanced diet for treats.
>
> It is known that standard commercial dry bulk foods, when stored
> properly, retain their nutritional value for six months (generally
> three months for those containing Vitamin C, unless a stabilized form
> is used).
>
> To help ensure that fresh, uncontaminated food is provided:

-   bags should be stored off the floor,

-   the milling date should be known (the date or a code is usually
    stamped on each bag), and

-   the oldest stock should be used first.

> Small quantities of food may be kept in animal rooms if stored in
> tightly covered, leak‑ and vermin‑proof containers; these should not
> be moved from room to room.
>
> Food should be provided in receptacles that are accessible to all
> animals in a cage or pen and placed so as to minimize contamination.
> More than one receptacle may be necessary for some socially housed
> animals. Food receptacles should be easily cleaned and sanitized, and
> those functions should be performed on a schedule that meets *Guide*
> and AWR requirements. With limited exceptions, (e.g., neonatal animals
> or animals with limited mobility) food should not be placed on the
> bottom of the cage. Although some species may prefer this
> presentation, it results in waste and contamination of the food.

# *Watering*

> Potable drinking water should be available continuously or provided as
> often as necessary for the health and well‑being of the animal,
> considering the animal\'s species, age, condition, and any research
> requirements. Water may be provided in receptacles, (e.g., bowls,
> bottles or via auto-matic watering systems). Whatever method is used,
> care should be taken to ensure that water does not become contaminated
> and is actually available. Water may be treated or purified to
> eliminate contaminants; however, some water treatments may cause
> physiologic changes, alter microflora, or affect experimental results.
> Sipper tubes and automatic watering devices should be checked daily
> for patency and cleanliness. Animals occasionally need to be trained
> to use automatic watering devices. Water bottles generally should be
> replaced and sanitized rather than refilled.

# *Bedding*

> Bedding may be used in the housing of a variety of commonly used
> lab-oratory animals. Bedding material should be absorbent and free of
> any substances that might harm the animals or alter research data.
> Cedar and untreated softwood products can affect an animal's
> metabolism (e.g., liver enzymes), which may in turn affect immunologic
> or other physiologic parameters, and can increase the incidence of
> cancer. Bedding should be stored off the floor.
>
> Animals may be placed directly on bedding material, a common practice
> with many rodent species, or bedding may be placed under a slat‑bottom
> cage. Bedding should be used in sufficient amounts and changed as
> often as necessary to keep the animals clean and dry and the animal
>
> room relatively odor free. Care should be taken to keep bedding from
> contacting water tubes as this may lead to leakage of water into the
> cage. The frequency of bedding change depends on several factors,
> including the number of animals, species, type of caging, and type of
> bedding.

### B.2.d. Facility Maintenance

# *Cleaning and Sanitation* 

> Cleanliness and sanitation are essential to the operation of an animal
> facility. The *Guide* and AWRs set forth recommended frequencies and
> methods for cleaning and sanitation of facilities, equipment and
> acces-sories. In general, the frequency and methods should ensure that
> animals are maintained in a clean, dry environment, free from exposure
> to harmful contamination and excessive animal odors. Cleaning agents
> that mask animal odors should not be used as a substitute for good
> sanitation practices. Cleaning equipment such as mops and buckets
> should not be moved from room to room due to the potential for
> cross-contamination.
>
> The most efficient and effective method of cleaning and sanitizing
> cages and accessories (e.g., feeders, water bottles, sipper tubes) is
> the use of a mechanical washing machine that provides rinse water
> temperature of at least 82.2 C (180 F) for a time adequate to achieve
> sanitization. Alter-natively, portable high pressure spray washing and
> disinfection may be used. Least efficient and effective is hand
> washing and disinfection of such equipment. In general, enclosures and
> accessories (e.g., cage tops) should be sanitized at least every two
> weeks. Solid bottom cages, water bottles and sipper tubes should
> usually be sanitized weekly. The supply lines of automatic watering
> systems should be flushed and disinfected on a regular basis.

# *Waste Disposal*

> A research animal facility generates a significant amount of waste
> that must be removed and disposed of on a regular, frequent basis.
> Waste containers should be readily accessible throughout the facility
> and should be leakproof and equipped with tight-fitting lids. Disposal
> methods, including incineration and removal to land‑fill, must conform
> to federal, state and local requirements. Some jurisdictions consider
> all soiled animal bedding from a research facility to be \"medical
> waste,\" with consequently more stringent disposal requirements.
>
> If waste must be stored while awaiting disposal, the storage area
> should be outside the animal holding and clean equipment areas. Animal
> carcasses and tissues require a separate cold storage area and
> regularly scheduled removal. Hazardous waste, including carcasses of
> animals exposed to radioactive or biohazardous agents, must be
> adequately sterilized and/or contained prior to removal and disposal.

### *Pest Control*

> The research animal facility is an active place, with frequent
> movement of personnel, animals, equipment, containers, and food and
> bedding, creating ideal conditions for the introduction of pests,
> including arthropods, birds and wild rodents. Pest control programs
> are complicated by the potential for harm to animals and personnel, as
> well as interference with research data by many commonly used
> pesticides. A regularly scheduled, documented pest control and
> monitoring program should be implemented, which effectively combines
> elimination of all entry and harborage sites with good waste disposal
> and personnel training. If traps are used, methods should be humane.

# B.2.e. Emergency, Weekend and Holiday Care

> []{#B_2_e .anchor}Laboratory animals must be observed by qualified
> personnel every day, including weekends and holidays to ensure their
> health and well-being, as well as to promote sound research practices.
> Skilled assistance, including veterinary care, must be readily
> available at all times. Names and tele-phone or pager numbers of those
> assigned these responsibilities should be prominently displayed in the
> facility. A disaster plan should be part of the overall facility
> safety plan which takes into account both personnel and animals (see
> Section B.6.).

#### B.2.f. Behavioral Management for Laboratory Animals

> []{#B_2_f .anchor}
>
> There are varying requirements for attention to the behavioral
> management of laboratory animals, depending on the species of animal
> and the refer-ence document.

The *Guide* provides recommendations for:

-   increasing the complexity of the structural environment;

-   addressing the social environment of animals; and

-   promoting the expression of species-typical activity in a cohesive
    behavioral management program for all vertebrate species.

The AWRs require that research facilities develop, document and follow a
plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological
well-being of nonhuman primates.

The plan must address:

> the social needs of nonhuman primates;
>
> environmental enrichment of the primary enclosure through provision of
> cage complexities, manipulanda, varied food items, foraging or
> task-oriented feeding methods, and safe personnel interaction; and

-   special needs of certain classes of primates (e.g., young animals,
    animals in psychological distress, some individually housed
    primates, and some great apes).

Exemptions from some or all of the environment enhancement plan for
scientific reasons must be documented in the protocol, approved by the
IACUC, and re-reviewed not less than annually. The veterinarian may
exempt individual primates from the plan. All exemptions must comply
with the AWRs, Part 3, Subpart D, §3.81(e).

The AWRs further require that research facilities develop, document and
follow a plan for providing dogs with the opportunity for exercise.

This plan must:

-   stipulate specific exercise opportunities for dogs housed
    individually as well as dogs housed in groups based on cage/pen/run
    floor space, and

-   identify the methods, frequency and duration of the opportunity for
    exercise.

Provisions for exemptions from exercise may be made by the veterinarian
in certain instances and the IACUC in others, and must be in accordance
with the AWRs, Part 3, Subpart A, §3.8 (d).

# 

# *Oversight*

> The IACUC should provide oversight of the behavioral management
> pro-gram in a manner similar to its oversight of other husbandry
> components of the animal care and use program, and evaluate program
> outcomes during semiannual reviews.
>
> To adequately discharge this responsibility, the IACUC should have
> access to training or other orientation materials that will assist the
> IACUC members in evaluating the adequacy of the program (Bayne 2000).
> Formal, written plans for nonhuman primate environmental enrichment
> and canine exercise, established to provide a framework to the
> behavioral management program, should be approved by the IACUC and
> reviewed periodically. The com-mittee should identify who is
> responsible for keeping the plan current and implementing the plan
> (e.g., an enrichment committee, the AV, etc.). The NRC publication,
> *The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates* (1998), adopted by
> the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal
> Care International as a Reference Resource for accredi-ted
> institutions, advises a team approach to development and oversight of
> the behavioral management program to include investigators,
> veterinarians and the IACUC.
>
> ***References***
>
> NRC. 1998*. The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates*.
> National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
>
> Bayne, K. 2000. Laboratory animal enrichment. In: *The IACUC Handbook*
> (J. Silverman, M.A. Suckow and S. Murthy, eds.). CRC Press. New York.

*This page intentionally left blank.*

# B.3. Role of the Veterinarian

> Adequate veterinary medical care is an essential component of an
> animal care and use program and is required by the *PHS* *Policy* and
> Animal Wel-fare Regulations (AWRs). Institutions with smaller programs
> may opt for a part-time consulting veterinarian; the veterinarian's
> overall responsibilities remain the same in all cases.
>
> It is the institution's responsibility to support ongoing improvements
> in the animal care and use program through the development and
> implementa-tion of procedures and policies (e.g., IACUC guidelines)
> that enhance the health of the animals (ACLAM 1996). Clear provisions
> should be made to give the veterinarian appropriate authority to
> execute a program of ade-quate veterinary care, including access to
> all animals.
>
> **Qualifications**
>
> The veterinarian participating in a laboratory animal care and use
> program must have training or experience in laboratory animal science
> and medi-cine, or in care of the species of animals maintained by the
> institution. Veterinarians can demonstrate the breadth and relevance
> of their exper-tise by achieving certification as a Diplomate of the
> American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) or through
> other work experience and career accomplishments. Specialty training
> programs are available at a number of government, academic and
> commercial institutions to prepare graduate veterinarians to pursue
> ACLAM certification. Alternatively, veteri-narians may qualify for
> ACLAM certification by working in a laboratory animal resource program
> and meeting other specified criteria.
>
> The veterinarian providing support to a laboratory animal care and use
> program must meet applicable state veterinary practice acts, inclusive
> of licensure requirements, particularly in the discharging of certain
> official duties, such as signing interstate health certificates or
> verifying rabies vaccination or tuberculosis status of animals.
>
> **Responsibilities**
>
> The chief responsibility of the veterinarian is to provide for the
> health and welfare of animals. The Report of the American College of
> Laboratory Animal Medicine on Adequate Veterinary Care in Research,
> Testing and Teaching provides a detailed description of adequate
> veterinary care. The details of a veterinary care program will depend
> on the species of animals employed and the particulars of the
> laboratory animal use, but in all cases the program and care provided
> must comply with standard veterinary practice.
>
> The introduction of new animals is an important aspect of the
> veterinary care program with such considerations as stabilization
> periods, isolation and quarantine. Animals should be obtained only
> from licensed dealers or other legitimate sources. One of the prime
> mechanisms for ensuring high quality laboratory animals is to purchase
> them from commercial vendors who produce specific pathogen-free stock
> and maintain rigorous animal health monitoring programs to ensure
> quality. Generally, most animals are purpose-bred for laboratory use.
> Certain states have passed legislation requiring that cats and dogs
> used in research be bred specifically for that purpose.
>
> Random source or wild caught animals are not bred by the supplier
> (known as Class B dealers), but are obtained from a variety of sources
> including pounds, shelters or farms that may not conform to the same
> standards of animal husbandry and health as the research facility.
> Before their use, clinical evaluation and conditioning of these
> animals are required to ensure that they are not carrying diseases
> that can be transmitted to other animals, including humans, or do not
> introduce uncontrolled variables into research. Research facilities
> that obtain dogs and cats from sources other than dealers, exhibitors,
> and exempt persons must hold the animals for five full days, not
> including the day of acquisition, after acquiring the animal,
> excluding time in transit, before they may be used by the facility (9
> CFR §2.38(j)). Research facilities must comply with the identification
> of animals requirements set forth in §2.38(g) during this period.
>
> Although selection of high-quality laboratory animals has reduced the
> prev-alence of infectious diseases in research animal colonies,
> preventive medicine programs, conducted under the guidance of the
> veterinarian, con-tinue to be important for maintenance of healthy
> animals.
>
> These programs include:

-   immunization against infectious pathogens;

-   surveillance of colonies for specific infectious microbial agents;

-   disease prophylaxis utilizing pharmaceutical agents;

-   isolation and quarantine of incoming animals; and

-   separate housing of animals according to species, source or
    different background microbial floras.

> While preventive medicine programs are successful in reducing the
> inci-dence of disease, illness and injury may still occur in
> laboratory animal colonies. The veterinarian is responsible for
> monitoring animal health, providing adequate diagnostic support
> through clinical assessments, labor-atory diagnosis and necropsy when
> required, and treating animals when illness or injury necessitates
> veterinary medical care. Using a documented process, the veterinarian
> may delegate responsibility for care to trained technical staff but
> must always be available to provide rapid diagnosis and treatment.
>
> The AWRs stipulate that the veterinarian attend to not only the
> physical health of animals, but also the psychological well-being of
> nonhuman primates, and exercise for dogs. The plan for canine exercise
> must be approved by the Attending Veterinarian (AV) before it can be
> implemented. Additionally, animals that are exempted from either the
> canine exercise plan or the nonhuman primate psychological well-being
> enhancement plan for health, condition or behavioral reasons must be
> documented by the AV and, unless a permanent condition exists,
> reviewed by the AV every 30 days.
>
> Specific areas requiring the veterinarian's attention and guidance
> are:

-   the selection and utilization of suitable anesthetic and analgesic
    agents and methods of euthanasia;

-   appropriate selection of species for research projects; and

-   proper performance of surgical procedures and adequate
    pre-operative, surgical, and postoperative care.

> The veterinarian should discuss with investigators the design and
> imple-mentation of study proposals and may provide written guidelines
> dealing with these and other issues. Collegial exchanges between the
> investigator and the veterinarian before the submission of a proposal
> to the IACUC may address many of the Committee's concerns and expedite
> the review process.
>
> At some institutions, the veterinarian or his/her staff may
> participate directly as a co-investigator in activities involving
> animals by providing clinical, surgical or other scientific or
> technical expertise to the study. Veterinarians sometimes also serve
> as principal investigators with responsibility for their own research
> and training programs. In such situations, the IACUC has the same
> obligation to review and approve the proposed activities as it would
> for any other investigator. When the veterinarian is personally
> involved in a research project, he/she must excuse himself/herself
> from the IACUC review and vote on the project. IACUCs may consider
> utilizing a consulting veterinarian to assist in review of such
> projects.
>
> The AWRs require institutions utilizing animals in research and
> teaching to provide training and instruction to personnel on humane
> methods of animal maintenance and experimentation. The veterinarian
> and the animal resource program staff, in conjunction with the IACUC,
> are usually responsible for providing such training.
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* requires institutional occupational health and
> safety pro-grams to ensure that personnel who have laboratory animal
> contact are included in a risk assessment process and action plan that
> addresses workplace safety through appropriate educational, industrial
> hygiene and medical interventions. The veterinarian, in cooperation
> with appropriate health and safety officials at the institution, is
> often responsible for the implementation and execution of aspects of
> the program concerned with animal health and safety issues.

## The Veterinarian and the IACUC

> The veterinarian occupies an essential position on the IACUC with
> specific defined functions according to the *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs.
> Institutions em-ploying several veterinarians may appoint more than
> one to the IACUC, but all institutions regardless of size must have at
> least one veterinarian with direct or delegated program authority and
> responsibility as a member of the IACUC. A strong veterinary presence
> on the IACUC has proven
>
> beneficial in many institutions. However, institutions should also be
> aware that the domination of IACUC activities by the veterinarian(s)
> may foster or be symptomatic of the disengagement of other members,
> thereby resulting in a less cohesive and effective IACUC.
>
> The veterinarian should keep abreast of current literature on
> comparative medicine and laboratory animal science. The knowledge
> gained often leads to suggestions for alternative techniques, models
> or species that may enhance animal well-being, augment the study
> design and help ensure the completion of the proposed study.
>
> **References**
>
> American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. 1996. Report of the
> American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine on Adequate Veterinary
> Care in Research, Testing and Teaching.
>
> *This page intentionally left blank.*

# B.4. Occupational Health and Safety

> The health and safety of individuals working in animal care and use
> pro-grams is an area of institutional concern requiring commitment
> from the senior officials of the institution. The goal of the
> occupational health and safety program (OHSP) is to prevent
> occupational injury and illness by avoiding, controlling or
> eliminating hazards in the workplace. The em-phasis of such a program
> is the prevention of illness and injury, but it also includes
> provisions for early diagnosis and treatment when necessary.
>
> **The IACUC's Responsibility for Occupational Health and Safety**
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* places responsibility for ensuring a safe working
> environ-ment for personnel involved in the animal care and use program
> with the institution. An effective OHSP interdigitates with many
> separate institu-tional components including animal care and use,
> research, environmental health and safety, occupational health, and
> administration and manage-ment. A natural point of convergence for
> these functionally distinct institu-tional elements at many
> institutions is the IACUC. Assurance of a safe working environment is
> one of the topics the IACUC should consider in each animal use
> proposal and as part of the semiannual program evaluation. It is
> generally necessary to involve health and safety special-ists in the
> design and implementation of the IACUC review guidelines.
>
> **Role of the IACUC in the Occupational Health and Safety Program**
>
> Procedures should be developed for conducting a health and safety
> re-view of research activities that present hazards. These procedures
> should be incorporated into the IACUC protocol review process.
> Procedures to identify and address non-experimental hazards (e.g.,
> during semiannual facility inspections and program reviews) should
> also be implemented. Communication and other procedural links between
> the IACUC and the environmental health and safety professional or
> office should be established, maintained and documented. In some
> institutions, IACUCs defer review of OHSP to an office of health and
> safety review.
>
> The IACUC has a role in ensuring that personnel comply with health and
> safety requirements (e.g., ensuring personnel have received
> appropriate training, evaluating compliance with standard operating
> procedures or institutional policy during semiannual facility
> inspections, etc.).
>
> **Elements of an Occupational Health and Safety Program**
>
> An effective program design requires input from health and safety
> special-ists and will include the following elements:

-   administrative procedures,

-   facility design and operation,

-   risk assessment,

-   exposure control,

-   education and training,

-   occupational health-care services,

-   personal protective equipment,

-   equipment performance,

-   information management,

-   emergency procedures, and

-   program evaluation.

> The details of each element will be dictated by the extent and nature
> of employees' exposure and the type of animal use program.
>
> **Personnel Participation in the Occupational Health**
>
> **and Safety Program**
>
> A wide range of personnel (e.g., animal care staff, investigators,
> technical staff, students, volunteers, engineers, housekeepers,
> security officers, and maintenance personnel who care for or use
> animals, their tissues or fluids, or who may be exposed to them as a
> consequence of their job) should be provided the opportunity to
> participate in the OHSP.
>
> The extent and level of participation of personnel in the OHSP should
> be based on risk assessment, including:

-   hazards posed by the animals and materials used;

-   exposure intensity, duration, and frequency;

-   susceptibility of personnel; and

-   history of occupational illness and injury in the workplace.

> Health and safety specialists should be involved in the assessment of
> risks associated with hazardous activities.

# Education and Training

> There are ethical and legal requirements to inform individuals of
> health risks that affect them and appropriate precautions. The
> objectives of an institution's OHSP can be achieved only if employees
> are appropriately trained to understand the hazards associated with
> their work area and job duties, and how those risks are mitigated
> through institutional policies, engineering controls, work practices,
> and personal protective equipment.
>
> Training should include information about:

-   zoonoses,

-   chemical safety,

-   microbiologic and physical hazards (e.g., allergens and radiation),

-   hazards associated with experimental procedures,

-   handling of waste materials, and

-   personal hygiene.

> Proficiency in work assignments through education and training will
> also contribute to a safer work environment. Training should be a
> continuous process, and records of OHSP training of personnel should
> be maintained.
>
> **Preventive Medicine and Provision of Medical Care**
>
> The principal means of preventing occupationally acquired illness or
> injury is by controlling or eliminating hazards. The efficacy of the
> prevention program will depend on the institution's resource
> allocation to hazard control and the cooperation or compliance of
> personnel who are potentially at risk. The quality of the preventive
> medicine program can also be increased if its development and
> implementation involves input from trained health professionals.
>
> In addition to established mechanisms for reporting and treating
> accidents and injuries, the institution should have access to medical
> expertise in zoonotic diseases and other health risks associated with
> laboratory animal care. Good communication with medical staff will
> also facilitate better man-gement of the health of animal care
> personnel and minimize repeat injuries and infections.
>
> **Specific Medical Concerns for Individuals Working in the**
>
> **Animal Research Evironment**
>
> The complexity of the animal research environment creates numerous
> classes of hazards.
>
> Physical hazards include:

-   animal bites, scratches, and kicks;

-   sharps;

-   flammable materials;

-   high pressure containers and equipment;

-   low or single color lighting in animal rooms resulting in poor
    visibility;

-   electric hazards, particularly in areas of water usage;

-   ultraviolet and ionizing radiation;

-   lasers used in surgical areas;

-   inadequate housekeeping practices;

-   ergonomic demands;

-   machinery; and

-   noise.

> Chemical hazards result from their flammable, corrosive, reactive,
> ex-plosive or toxic properties. Burns and irritation of the skin are
> the most common chemical injuries related to animal care and use.
>
> Allergic reactions to animals, occasionally resulting in the
> development of occupation-related asthma, are among the most common
> conditions that adversely affect the health of personnel in the animal
> research environment. Estimates of the prevalence of allergies in
> animal care workers range from 10% to 44%. Preplacement screening
> evaluations, attention to facility design, work practices, and the use
> of personal protective equipment can reduce the potential development
> of laboratory animal allergy and possibly alter its severity.
>
> Infectious diseases also pose a significant risk depending on the
> species and health status of animals involved and the level of
> exposure to them by animal care personnel.
>
> Infectious diseases to which animal care personnel may be exposed
> include:

-   viral infections, such as contagious ecthyma, the hepatitides, and
    *Cercopithecine herpes virus* 1 (Herpes B);

-   rickettisal diseases, such as Q fever and cat scratch fever;

-   bacterial diseases, such as tuberculosis, salmonellosis, and
    shigellosis;

-   protozoal diseases, such as toxoplasmosis, giardiasis, and
    crypto-sporidiosis; and

-   fungal diseases, such as dermatomycosis.

> In addition to infections acquired from live animals, animal tissues
> and excreta can serve as sources of zoonoses. Careful monitoring and
> quaran-tine of any animals with potential viral or bacterial
> infections or parasitic infestations are crucial components of any
> animal care and use program. It is important to immunize animal care
> personnel against tetanus. Routine tuberculosis testing is essential
> and measles vaccination may also be appropriate for workers exposed to
> nonhuman primates.

# Common Occupational Health and Safety Program-wide Pitfalls\*

-   Instead of being based on hazard identification and risk assessment,
    the program identifies personnel risk based on animal contact time
    or frequency.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is inadequate training on occupational health and safety
    topics (e.g., zoonoses, allergies).

-   Not all personnel at risk (e.g., students, visiting scientists) are
    offered inclusion in the program.

-   Hazard identification covers experimental hazards, but does not
    address hazards intrinsic to animal care and use.

-   There is inadequate linkage between the IACUC and the institutional
    safety committee(s).

*\*From data collected by AAALAC International.*

> ***References***
>
> CDC/NIH. 1999. *Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical
> Laboratories*, 4^th^ Edition. U.S. Government Printing Office,
> Washington, DC.
>
> Holmes, G.P. et al. 1995. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment
> of B-virus infections in exposed persons. *Clin. Infect. Dis*.
> 20:421-439.
>
> National Research Council. 1997. *Occupational Health and Safety in
> the Care and Use of Research Animals*. National Academy Press,
> Washington, DC.
>
> *Preventing Asthma in Animal Handlers*. 1998. NIOSH/DHHS, Cincinnati,
> OH.
>
> *Criteria for a recommended standard occupational exposure to waste
> anesthetic gases and vapors*. March 1977. DHEW Pub. No. (NIOSH)
> 77-140.
>
> Occupational Health and Safety Administration Standards 29 CFR
> 1910.1030. Bloodborne pathogens.
>
> Occupational Health and Safety Administration Standards 29 CFR
> 1910.1450. Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in
> laboratories.
>
> Hollander, A., G. Doekes, and D. Heederik.  1996. Cat and dog allergy
> and total IgE as risk factors for laboratory animal allergy.  *J.
> Allergy Clin. Immunol.* 98:545-554.
>
> Knysak, D.  1989. Animal aeroallergens. *Immunol.* *Allergy Clin. No.
> Amer.* 9:357-364.

# B.5. Personnel Training and Education

> []{#B_5 .anchor}All staff working with laboratory animals must be
> qualified to do so in order to ensure the humane treatment of animals.
> Training is a classic performance standard where the emphasis is on
> the outcome (i.e., all personnel qualified to do their jobs). Although
> the *PHS* *Policy* and Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) do not
> specify a particular program or the frequency with which a program
> should be offered, the requirement for competence is mandatory.
>
> The AWRs, in Sec. 2.32 (a) and (b), specify:
>
> It shall be the responsibility of the research facility to ensure that
> all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other
> personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to
> perform their duties. This responsibility shall be fulfilled in part
> through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel.
> Training and instruction shall be made available, and the
> qualifications of personnel reviewed, with sufficient frequency to
> fulfill the research facility\'s responsibilities....
>
> The
> [*PHS*](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#review)
> *Policy*, Section IV.C.1.f. places responsibility specifically with
> the IACUC to ensure that personnel conducting procedures on research
> animals are appropriately qualified and trained in those procedures.
>
> Personnel training in the care and use of research animals is an
> important aspect of the alternatives concept (replacement, reduction
> and refinement) described in Section C.2.b. Training in the
> recognition and alleviation of animal pain, distress, and
> abnormalities addresses refinement. Similarly, training in the conduct
> of animal procedures prepares staff to work without causing
> unnecessary harm to the animal. Technical proficiency also invokes
> reduction by avoiding wasted animal lives through failed procedures.
>
> Personnel training should be seen as one of the pillars supporting the
> animal research program. Training of staff is essential for
> safeguarding the quality of the animals as a tool of research or
> testing. A lack of training may
>
> result in inadequate husbandry and poor peri-procedural care, which
> can undermine the physiological status of the animal thereby
> potentially impair-ing the integrity of research results.

### Who Should Receive Training? 

::: Definition-Term
> All staff should receive training if they interact directly with or
> work in the vicinity of animals. Training made available for each type
> of staff should be specific to the animal species involved and to the
> kind of procedures to be performed or animal-related interactions.
:::

::: Definition-Term
> For training purposes, staff can be grouped as:
:::

-   ::: Definition-Term
    researchers,
    :::

-   ::: Definition-Term
    animal care technicians, and
    :::

-   ::: Definition-Term
    other (e.g., maintenance or support staff).
    :::

::: Definition-Term
> In some institutions, staff may not be clearly divisible into these
> groups if job responsibilities are more diversified than this
> classification suggests. For example, facility staff such as animal
> health technicians may have job functions that include both animal
> care and research procedures.
:::

::: Definition-Term
> Training should also be made available to temporary staff, such as
> students and visiting scientists. These groups may be difficult to
> intercept for training unless there is a way to identify them.
:::

### 

### Development of a Training Program

> A training program should meet the needs of each type of staff, as
> described above, who work with or around laboratory animals. There are
> many training resources and methodologies that can be used in the
> development of a training program: courses, seminars, one-on-one
> training, conferences, computer-based media and videotapes. When
> appropriate for the job responsibilities, technicians should be
> encouraged to pursue certification by professional associations, such
> as technician certification by the American Association for Laboratory
> Animal Science and the Academy of Surgical Research.
>
> All staff should have exposure through training to regulatory
> requirements for animal welfare and occupational health and safety
> considerations. Staff who work directly with animals should have
> training that supports the humane care and use of animals in the
> course of day-to-day procedures.

### 

### The AWRs, in Sec. 2.32 (c), require that training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in at least the following areas:

5.  Humane methods of animal maintenance and experimentation, including:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  The basic needs of each species of animal;

> \(ii\) Proper handling and care for the various species of animals
> used by the facility;
>
> \(iii\) Proper pre-procedural and post-procedural care of animals; and
>
> \(iv\) Aseptic surgical methods and procedures;
>
> \(2\) The concept, availability, and use of research or testing
> methods that limit the use of animals or minimize animal distress;
>
> \(3\) Proper use of anesthetics, analgesics, and tranquilizers for any
> spe-cies of animals used by the facility;
>
> \(4\) Methods whereby deficiencies in animal care and treatment are
> re-ported, including deficiencies in animal care and treatment
> reported by any employee of the facility.
>
> \(5\) Utilization of services (e.g., National Agricultural Library,
> National Library of Medicine) available to provide information:

(i) On appropriate methods of animal care and use;

(ii) On alternatives to the use of live animals in research;

(iii) That could prevent unintended and unnecessary duplication of
      research involving animals; and

(iv) Regarding the intent and requirements of the \[Animal Welfare\]
     Act.

> Training programs should also include information on occupational
> health and safety. Specific recommendations for general training
> objectives may be obtained from the *Education and Training in the
> Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: A Guide for Developing
> Institutional Programs*. Recommendations for general training
> objectives are outlined in Table A for each type of staff.

### 

### 

### 

### B.5. Table A. General Training Objectives

  --------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------
  **TOPICS**            **Animal Care    **Research        **Other
                        Personnel**      Personnel**       Personnel**

  Animal welfare laws,  recommended      recommended       recommended
  regulations,                                             
  policies, and                                            
  guidelines                                               

  All animals are to be recommended      recommended       recommended
  on a protocol                                            

  Cage card information recommended      recommended       recommended

  How to report         recommended      recommended       recommended
  perceived                                                
  deficiencies in                                          
  animal care and use                                      

  Recognizing pain and  recommended      recommended       recommended
  distress                                                 

  Alleviating pain and                   recommended       
  distress                                                 

  PI's responsibilities                  recommended       

  Protocol requirements                  recommended       

  Role of the IACUC     recommended      recommended       recommended

  Animal related        recommended      recommended       recommended
  hazards                                                  

  Facility hazards      recommended      recommended       recommended

  Occupational health   recommended      recommended       recommended
  and safety concerns                                      

  Behavior and          recommended      recommended       recommended
  appearance of healthy                                    
  animals                                                  

  Proper use of cage    recommended                        
  wash equipment                                           

  Assure qualifications                  recommended       
  of research staff                                        

  Humane techniques for                  recommended       
  animal procedures                                        
  --------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------

### Personnel Training Records and Documentation

> Although there is no specific requirement to document individual
> training activities, training records demonstrate that staff have met
> the training requirements related to their responsibilities in the
> research animal program, and regulatory or other oversight authorities
> often request to inspect personnel training records as evidence of an
> effective program.
>
> Training records have value in tracking the range of topics offered,
> the frequency of training sessions, and the participation of
> institutional staff. Such records may include training received in
> informal settings, e.g., one-on-one instruction, common for teaching
> animal use methodologies.
>
> Training records may be archived with the IACUC, a training
> coordinator, research departments or individual laboratories. Whatever
> the location, training records should be accessible to inspection by
> any oversight authority, including the IACUC. If training records of
> research staff are stored in laboratories, a good practice would be to
> include a brief review of training records among the objectives for
> the IACUC's semiannual inspec-tions of facilities.

### 

### Training personnel

> Many institutions with a large research program have a training
> coordinator to oversee the training program for all personnel with
> animal care and use training needs. The training coordinator should be
> involved in IACUC meet-ings when institutional training issues are
> discussed.
>
> Training coordinators should not be the only ones with training
> responsi-bilities. The facility staff, (e.g. veterinarians, veterinary
> technicians, facility managers and animal care technicians), also
> should be involved in training activities to the greatest extent
> possible. Their training activities, either with individuals or
> groups, should be acknowledged as a valuable contribution to the
> animal research program. In this way, individual expertise is fully
> utilized and every contact with facility staff offers a training
> opportunity.
>
> In addition, other staff or outside consultants with specialized
> expertise can be incorporated into the training program. For example,
> occupational health professionals may be invited to take part in
> training on safety related issues. Training in specialized animal
> methodologies may be best performed by researchers who are
> accomplished in these techniques. Training program staff, if
> available, should participate in or oversee the training by outside
> experts to ensure that the training content is appropriate.

### Institutional Support of Training

> A high level of staff participation in a training program is essential
> for achieving the performance standard of staff qualifications
> necessary for quality research and expected by regulatory authorities.
> Institutions with mandatory training programs often have the most
> uniform results.
>
> When training is not mandatory, there is much that an institution can
> do to encourage participation in the training program. When senior
> management and IACUC members take part in formal training programs,
> (e.g. on compliance issues), staff recognize an imperative to attend
> these sessions. The involvement of outside speakers with recognized
> expertise is often successful to draw larger groups to a training
> session. Letters urging staff participation in training programs are
> effective when sent by senior administrators and the IACUC to
> department chairpersons and principal investigators.
>
> Methods that increase awareness and availability of information within
> the institution are valuable to support a training program. A
> combination of a training manual, newsletters, mailings, posted
> flyers, brochures and a Web site inform staff about the requirements
> for training, the institution's animal welfare standards, and the
> services available in the training program.

### 

### *References*

> Russell, W. M. S. and R. L. Burch. 1959. *The Principles of Humane
> Experimental Techniques.* Methuen & Co., London. (Reprinted as a
> Special Edition in 1992 by the Universities Federation for Animal
> Welfare.)
>
> NRC (National Research Council). 1991. *Education and Training in the
> Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: A Guide for Developing
> Institutional Programs*. A report of the Institute of Laboratory
> Animal Resources Committee on Educational Programs in Laboratory
> Animal Science. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

## B.6. Emergency Preparedness

# B.6.a. Security and Crisis Management

> Anti-animal research activities during the past several years against
> insti-tutions using animals in research, testing and teaching programs
> have included demonstrations, break-ins, vandalism, life threats and
> harassment by mail or telephone, arson, and bomb threats. Since the
> IACUC has responsibility for the welfare of animals at its facility,
> it shares responsibility for the security of the animals and personnel
> who care for and use these animals with other units within the
> institution, such as the units responsible for security, public
> information, and governmental relations. Institutions receiving
> federal funds have an obligation to protect the federal investment in
> research by exercising due diligence in this area. The IACUC can serve
> a key role in advising the IO and the institution of potential risks
> and vulner-abilities, and in developing a plan for responding to
> potential or real threats.
>
> In all cases the IACUC must consider allegations of noncompliance or
> animal welfare issues as concerns that must be addressed in accordance
> with relevant *PHS* *Policy* provisions and Animal Welfare Regulations
> (AWRs) (see Section D).
>
> There are four key elements to an institution's preparedness:

-   an animal care and use program of impeccable integrity;

-   a security program based on risk assessment;

-   an integrated communication plan with descriptions of research
    projects in lay terminology, spokespersons, and a telephone tree;
    and

-   an internal and external community outreach program that includes
    legislators and funding agencies.

# *Crisis Management Team*

> The establishment of a crisis management team before a crisis occurs
> is important in order to respond in a timely manner. This team may be
> comprised of individuals representing the following areas: security,
> public information, laboratory animal resources, the IACUC,
> management/research administration (including the IO), legal affairs,
> and governmental relations.
>
> It is helpful for this team to meet periodically to keep abreast of
> current issues at the national and local level, and to be apprised of
> current research activities.

# *Risk Assessment -- Security*

> The first step in developing a security program is to conduct a risk
> assess-ment of the institution\'s facilities and evaluation of the
> existing security system. Organization of a security and communication
> plan then follow. Some key points include:

1.  Determine facility vulnerability.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Look at the research facilities with a "public eye."

b.  Be aware that use of certain animal species can increase
    vulner-ability (e.g., nonhuman primates, cats and dogs).

c.  Be aware that some kinds of research may be perceived to be
    controversial (e.g., surgical and neuroscience protocols, including
    drug-addiction studies).

d.  Carefully review protocols that are more likely to generate requests
    for information under state or federal open records laws, such as
    items (b) and (c) above.

    2.  Evaluate the security system.

        a.  Review policies regarding access and electronic surveillance
            systems.

        b.  Check location of keys and access to animal rooms; entrances
            and exit sites such as stairwells and roof access.

        c.  Determine who has access to buildings during nights and
            weekends.

        d.  Ensure computer security, network access, etc. with computer
            administrators.

    3.  Check storage of research data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Ensure security of IACUC records and research data, including copies
    maintained offsite.

b.  Review research protocols for confidential information.

c.  Review protocols for graphic and/or sensitive terminology.

    2.  Organize a security plan.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Consult with local police to establish procedures.

b.  Establish clear lines of authority and roles in a crisis situation.

c.  Maintain a list of research projects and scientists.

d.  Identify ongoing investigations by regulatory agencies.

e.  Limit access of delivery persons within animal care facilities.

f.  Keep duplicate physical layout plans available off site.

g.  Share information with security personnel about activism at other
    research organizations.

h.  Develop a document that will provide pertinent information to the
    police in the event of an incident such as type of incident,
    loca-tion, animals or property destroyed or stolen, people involved,
    time, method of entry, and need to check for hazardous materials.

    2.  Organize a communication plan in the event of an incident during
        the day, after hours, weekends, and holidays.

# *Communications and Risk Reduction*

> Institutions using animals need to communicate effectively and on an
> on-going basis with the internal and external community and the media.
> It is important to build these relationships over time and to keep
> individuals in all of these areas informed about the significance of
> the work in which animals are used, and the institution\'s commitment
> to scientific standards through quality animal care and use. Being
> proactive by conveying signi-ficant advances in research using animals
> ethically and humanely can reduce the potential for negative public
> reactions in a crisis situation.
>
> The IACUC Chair and members can interact with institutional public
> infor-mation officers, researchers, veterinarians, technicians and the
> research administration to identify spokespersons to address animal
> research issues. These spokespersons should be provided adequate
> training. Fact sheets should be readily available about the
> institution\'s policies and commitment to humane and appropriate
> animal care and use, the quality of its animal care and use program
> (including accreditation), and brief summaries of the value and
> importance of any specific animal use under scrutiny. Written
> materials need to be written in language understandable to
> nonscientists. Institutions must be prepared to respond to allegations
> honestly (i.e., if real noncompliance with relevant policies or
> regulations is substantiated then the institution must take
> appropriate action and should be forthcoming about the situation).
>
> In the event of a crisis the facility that is prepared can respond
> quickly through its spokespersons with accurate and factual
> information. It is also important for the institution to notify OLAW
> in such an event so they can
>
> confirm the status of the institution\'s PHS Assurance and any PHS
> sup-port, as well as AAALAC, which maintains a crisis communication
> plan to assist accredited institutions.
>
> Maintaining a high quality animal care and use program, good
> relationships within the institution and the community, and an
> effective education program can help to prevent and alleviate many
> crisis situations and significantly reduce the need for long term
> damage control.
>
> ***References***
>
> *CBRA Crisis and Communications Manual*, California Biomedical
> Research Association. April 2000
>
> *Institutional Administrator\'s Manual for Laboratory Animal Care and
> Use*. PHS. NIH Publication #88-2959.

### 

> []{#B_6_b .anchor}**B.6.b. Disaster Planning**
>
> As a fundamental component of the operational plans for most animal
> facilities, the Disaster Plan is a detailed, site-specific compilation
> of critical resources that are helpful in a variety of crisis events.
> The *Guide* recom-mends that all animal facilities have a Disaster
> Plan as part of their overall program and that the veterinarian or
> animal facility manager be part of the official institutional response
> team. While the *Guide* does not outline the elements of a Disaster
> Plan, it does suggest that facilities maintain sufficient emergency
> power necessary to maintain critical services (e.g., heating,
> ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system) and support functions
> (e.g., freezers, ventilated racks and isolators). Unique components of
> the facility may require special considerations. The proper
> institutional authority should approve the final plan so that
> appropriate resources can be committed during an emergency event.
> Typically, the IACUC does not have primary responsibility for
> emergency preparedness, but because emergency events could have
> significant impact on animals and the animal facility, the committee
> may choose to assess their site\'s preparedness during regular
> semiannual program reviews.
>
> ***Emergency Management***
>
> In addition to the development of a Disaster Plan, an animal facility
> should consider approaching disaster preparedness from the more
> encompassing perspective of emergency management. One invaluable
> resource for emergency management information is the Federal Emergency
>
> Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA is an independent federal agency
> founded in 1979 that reports directly to the President. FEMA's mission
> is *to reduce loss of life and property and protect our nation\'s
> critical infra-structure from all types of hazards through a
> comprehensive, risk-based, emergency management program.* FEMA
> considers an effective emer-gency management program to consist of
> four parts:

-   *Mitigation* (activities related to preventing future emergencies or
    minimizing the effects of emergencies that occur);

-   *Preparedness* (incorporation of the planning and preparations
    required to handle an emergency, including the Disaster Plan);

-   *Response* (the Disaster Plan put into action when an emergency
    occurs); and

-   *Recovery* (the actions needed to return to normal after an
    emergency occurs.)

## *Segments of a Disaster Plan*

> This section focuses on the Disaster Plan because it is the component
> of an emergency management program that the IACUC should review as a
> part of its semiannual program review. The content and scope of the
> Disaster Plan will be shaped and determined by the individual program
> and facility. The following approach is one way to create a Disaster
> Plan and can be useful to the IACUC in evaluating the facility's plan.
>
> A suggested organization method includes:

-   developing a planning team,

-   defining emergencies,

-   identifying critical functions and systems,

-   defining resources and contacts,

-   developing policies and procedures, and

-   training staff and testing emergency equipment.

> ***Developing a Planning Team***
>
> The Disaster Plan is best completed by the group of individuals that
> would respond to an emergency. The emergency response planning team
> should be comprised of individuals of various backgrounds and
> expertise, includ-ing certain animal facility staff and investigators,
> as well as representatives
>
> from the facility engineering/maintenance group, security,
> occupational health services, safety, public relations and risk
> management. Due to site-specific variables such as the type of
> facility, hazards, risks and available resources, teams will be as
> unique as the plan. One of the early actions of the team should be to
> define its mission, goals and methods of operation. The team will also
> need to enlist project support from senior management so that
> resources are allocated for implementation of prescribed action plans.
> Ultimately, they will also need to integrate the facility Disaster
> Plan with any site-wide or local Disaster Plans.
>
> ***Defining Emergencies***
>
> FEMA and other emergency management organizations have described
> various scoring methodologies to help categorize and rank emergencies.
> They generally divide emergencies (hazards) into three different
> categories:

-   natural emergencies,

-   technical emergencies, and

-   civil emergencies.

> Natural emergencies are the most commonly occurring \"disasters\" and
> include weather, seismic or ocean related events. Examples include
> tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, flood tides, etc.
> Technical emergencies are mechanical or human failures and include
> HVAC failures, computer system failures, chemical spills and
> structural failures. Civil emergencies are deliberate human events
> such as terrorist attacks, sabo-tage and labor strikes.
>
> When developing a Disaster Plan, it may be helpful to list each type
> of emergency and include the primary and secondary effects. Secondary
> effects can greatly complicate a problem and can affect some critical
> func-tions even more than the primary. To help in planning, the list
> should include the probability of an event occurring (see Table A).
> The Disaster Plan should be sufficiently general to be responsive to
> unplanned types of crises.
>
> As a planning exercise in evaluating primary and secondary effects,
> con-sider the scenario of a typical, midwinter moderately severe
> snowstorm, which can present multiple problems. Snow can clog the air
> intake filters and interfere with the HVAC system, or affect the
> electrical supply. Snow can contribute to local flooding when it
> melts. Either snow or flooding may affect employees' ability to get to
> work or prevent essential deliveries from
>
> being made. If electrical power is lost, and the facility is relying
> on emer-gency back-up generators, there may be refueling problems when
> the fuel reserves are exhausted and delivery trucks can't reach the
> site. This example shows how the planning exercise can provide
> valuable modeling information useful in disaster preparation.
>
> ***Identifying Critical Functions and Systems***
>
> Fundamentally, the Disaster Plan should address ways to maintain or
> cope with the loss of critical functions and systems in the animal
> facility. To do this, it is important to rigorously identify all
> critical animal facility specific functions and systems. The critical
> functions and systems fall into two general categories: mechanical
> systems and personnel functions (see Table B). It is helpful to
> compare the list of primary and secondary effects of the different
> emergencies (Table A) and review their impact on the critical
> functions and systems. Different scenarios can become the basis for
> action plans and preparedness activities.
>
> ***Defining Resources and Contacts***
>
> The Disaster Plan can also include lists of available resources and
> contacts to be used during emergency events. The lists can include
> various emer-gency equipment, spare parts, equipment capacities,
> levels of redundancy built into the mechanical equipment systems and
> ways to put the equipment into use. Additionally, this section might
> include critical vendors that can supply services during an emergency,
> such as a supplier to perform periodic refueling of emergency
> generator fuel tanks, as well as up to date emergency personnel
> notification lists, including criteria for contacting specific
> individuals. More advanced plans stage the level of an emergency and
> clearly prescribe the type of response for each level. Other pertinent
> items such as floor layouts, mechanical equipment plans, the names and
> numbers of national, regional and local emergency response
> organizations (FEMA, Red Cross, Police, etc.) and local weather
> information resources, can be included.
>
> ***Developing Policies and Procedures***
>
> The core elements of a Disaster Plan are the policies, guidelines and
> pro-cedures that are put into action during an emergency. The plan
> should address very specific emergencies and/or give general outlines
> for action steps in response to an emergency. Many plans will also
> focus on coping
>
> with the loss of a critical function or system. This approach is best
> when it includes evaluation of the reliability of the back-up systems
> affected during a complex emergency situation. Available resources
> should be clearly identified and include information on how to access
> the resources. Clear lines of authority and responsibility should be
> established and documented.
>
> **Training Staff and Testing Emergency Equipment**
>
> Personnel are usually familiar with \"fire drills\" through
> participation in regular emergency evacuation testing of buildings.
> Effective disaster planning borrows that concept and conducts the same
> types of rehearsals for other high-risk emergency situations.
> Exercising realistic scenarios not only provides practical training
> but also '"tests" the emergency plans for deficiencies or
> vulnerabilities. Similarly, emergency equipment should be tested and
> maintained in working order. Finally, the Disaster Plan should be made
> readily available to all staff members. Some facilities have the plan
> available on internal Web sites.

# *Conclusion*

> Animal facility management should recognize that emergencies and
> unexpected problems are inevitable. Adopting the mindset that
> emergen-cies are a fact of life and will occur is the first step
> towards their prevention. Preparedness is critical for emergency
> avoidance and will reduce, if not eliminate, negative affects. A good
> Disaster Plan will ensure a quick and effective response and faster
> recovery. However, the process of emer-gency management planning is
> not totally intuitive and a specific effort needs to be made to
> examine the issues and devise plans. Furthermore, because there are no
> "formulas" and very few formal requirements for back-up or emergency
> systems, one facility's plan will not be 100% effective at another
> facility. The overall process should be dynamic and should be reviewed
> on a regular basis by the facility. The IACUC may also choose to
> include it periodically as a part of their semi-annual program
> reviews. The modification or upgrading of functional systems is an
> ideal time to upgrade the emergency handling potential of the system.
> Unfortunately, emergency/ hazard identification is clearest in
> retrospect, but the special efforts of prospective disaster planning
> pay the greatest dividends.

# B.6. Table A. Examples of Categories of Emergencies 

## Natural Emergencies

  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------
  Primary Emergency       Secondary Effects Risk of           Impact
                                            Occurrence        

  Earthquake                                                  

  Flood                                                       

  Coastal flood                                               

  Hurricanes                                                  

  Landslides                                                  

  Severe storms                                               
  (thunderstorms)                                             

  Tornadoes                                                   

  Tsunamis                                                    

  Wildland fires                                              

  Winter storms (snow &                                       
  ice)                                                        

  Drought                                                     

  Lightning                                                   
  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------

## Technical Emergencies

+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Primary Emergency    | Secondary      | Risk of        | Impact    |
|                      | Effects        | Occurrence     |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Hazardous chemicals  |                |                |           |
| spill                |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Radioisotope spill   |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Biohazard spill      |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Computer system      |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| HVAC                 |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Steam heat           |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Water supply         |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Reverse osmosis or   |                |                |           |
| treated              |                |                |           |
|                      |                |                |           |
| drinking water       |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Waste water removal  |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Solid waste removal  |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Security system      |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Transportation       |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Communication        |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Fire safety          |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Electricity          |                |                |           |
+----------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+

## Civil Emergencies

  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------
  Primary Emergency       Secondary Effects Risk of           Impact
                                            Occurrence        

  Terrorist threat/action                                     

  Strike of personnel                                         

  Demonstrations                                              

  Intrusion                                                   

  Computer/network attack                                     
  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------

## B.6. Table B. Core Functions of an Animal Facility

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| ## Mechanical                  | ## Personnel                        |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| -   Ventilation                | -   Safety                          |
|                                |                                     |
| > Cooling                      | -   Communications                  |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Heating                    | > \- Staff                          |
|                                | >                                   |
| -   Cleaning water             | > \- Authorities                    |
|                                | >                                   |
| -   Drinking water for animals | > \- Public                         |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Power                      | -   Medical care                    |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Sewage                     | -   Veterinary care                 |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Solid waste removal        | -   Husbandry                       |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Carcass disposal           | > \- Feeding                        |
|                                | >                                   |
| -   Freezing                   | > \- Watering                       |
|                                | >                                   |
| -   Cage sanitation            | > \- Cleaning                       |
|                                | >                                   |
| -   Communication system       | > \- Capturing loose animals        |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Transportation             | -   Medical waste handling          |
|                                |                                     |
| -   Shelter                    | -   Carcass disposal                |
|                                |                                     |
| ##                             | -   Security                        |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | -   Supplies                        |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | > \- Food                           |
|                                | >                                   |
|                                | > \- Bedding                        |
|                                | >                                   |
|                                | > \- Uniforms                       |
|                                | >                                   |
|                                | > \- Personal safety equipment      |
|                                | >                                   |
|                                | > \- Cleaning                       |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | ##                                  |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

##  

### 

### *Suggested Reading* 

> Anderson, S. 1998. Hazard Analysis: Preparing for Natural Disasters,
> *Lab Animal*; 27(1):24-29.
>
> Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Web site:
> <http://www.fema.gov/>.
>
> \"Animal in Disaster\" a two module training program by FEMA.
>
> Vogelweid, C. M. Developing emergency management plans for university
> laboratory animal programs and facilities. *Contemporary Topics on
> Laboratory Animal Science* 37(5):52-56.
>
> *Resources for Crisis Management in Zoos and other Animal Care
> Facilities*. 1999. Published by the American Association of Zoo
> Keepers. Editors: Chan S. D., W. K. Baker, and D.L. Guerrero. Topeka,
> Kansas.
>
> Heath, S. E. 1999. *Animal Management in Disaster*. Mosby Year Book.
> St Louis, MO.

#  

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# *This page intentionally left blank.*

# 

#  

# 

> []{#Review .anchor}**C. Review of Proposals**
>
> *This page intentionally left blank.*

## C.1. Fundamental Issues

> The IACUC is responsible for overseeing and evaluating all aspects of
> animal care and use, and is charged with reviewing proposals\* that
> involve animals to ensure that the criteria established in the *PHS*
> *Policy* and the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) are implemented. In
> its review of pro-posals, the Committee\'s primary goal should be to
> facilitate compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policies
> consistent with the performance of appropriate and productive
> scientific endeavors.

## Protocol Review Criteria

> Table A lists each review criterion of the *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs
> along with the applicable US Government Principles. Since the *PHS*
> *Policy* further requires that the provisions of the *Guide* apply,
> there are many other aspects of research that an IACUC should review,
> such as food and water deprivation, use of noxious stimuli, and
> physical restraint. The *Guide* provides useful guidance on these and
> other practices. Section C.2. Pro-tocol Review Criteria addresses many
> of the subjects described below in greater detail.
>
> If the IACUC does not have the scientific and technical expertise to
> evaluate all aspects of a proposal it may bring in outside expert
> consultants to pro-vide information. Such consultants may not vote. In
> all cases, the onus should be on the investigator to justify and
> explain his or her proposed experiments to the satisfaction of the
> IACUC.

## 

## *\*This Guidebook generally uses the term "proposal" to describe the proposed use of animals. In some cases the term "protocol" is used for ease of readability. For the purposes of this Guidebook "proposal" is interchangeable with the commonly accepted use of the term "protocol".*

## 

## 

## 

## 

## C.1. Table A. Regulatory Criteria Applicable to Protocol Review as Defined 

##  in PHS Policy and USDA Regulations

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **US Government       | **PHS Policy on**     | **USDA AWR 9 CFR     |
| Principles**          |                       | Part 2,**            |
|                       | **Humane Care and     |                      |
| *Note: Citations at   | Use**                 | **Subpart C**        |
| the end of*           |                       |                      |
|                       | **of Laboratory       |                      |
| *each Principle refer | Animals**             |                      |
| to other Sections of  |                       |                      |
| this Guidebook.*      |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle I: The      | C.1.: \...the IACUC   | §2.31(d): \...The    |
| transportation, care  | shall\...determine    | IACUC shall          |
| and use of animals    | that the proposed     | determine that the   |
| should be in          | research projects are | proposed activities  |
| accordance with the   | in accordance with    | are in accordance    |
| AWA (7 U.S.C.2131 et. | this Policy\...the    | with this subchapter |
| seq.) and other       | IACUC shall con-firm  | unless acceptable    |
| applicable federal    | that the research     | justification for a  |
| laws, guidelines, and | project will be       | departure is         |
| policies\*.           | conducted in          | presented in         |
|                       | accord-ance with the  | writing\...          |
| \*For guidance        | AWA insofar as it     |                      |
| throughout these      | applies to the        |                      |
| Principles, the       | research project, and |                      |
| reader is referred to | that the research     |                      |
| the *Guide*.          | project is consistent |                      |
|                       | with the *Guide*      |                      |
|                       | unless acceptable     |                      |
|                       | justification for a   |                      |
|                       | departure is          |                      |
|                       | presented.            |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle II:         |                       | §2.31(d)(1)(iii):    |
| Procedures involving  |                       | The PI has provided  |
| animals should be     |                       | written Assurance    |
| designed and          |                       | that the activities  |
| performed with due    |                       | do not unnecessarily |
| consideration of      |                       | duplicate previous   |
| their scientific      |                       | experiments.         |
| relevance to human or |                       |                      |
| animal health, the    |                       |                      |
| advancement of        |                       |                      |
| knowledge, or the     |                       |                      |
| good of society.      |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle III: The    | D.1.: Applications    | §2.31(e): A          |
| animals selected for  | and proposals...that  | proposal...must      |
| a procedure should be | involve the care and  | contain the          |
| of an appropriate     | use of animals shall  | following: (1)       |
| species and quality   | contain the           | Identification of    |
| and the minimum       | following: a.)        | the species and      |
| number required to    | Identification of the | approximate number   |
| obtain valid results. | species and the       | of animals to be     |
| Methods such as       | approximate number of | used; (2) A          |
| mathematical models,  | animals to be used;   | rationale for        |
| computer simulation,  |                       | involving animals,   |
| and *in vitro*        | b.) rationale for     | and for the          |
| biological systems    | involving animals,    | appropriateness of   |
| should be considered. | and for the           | the species and      |
|                       | appro-priateness of   | numbers of animals   |
| (See C.2.a.           | the species and       | to be used...        |
| Alternatives)         | numbers of animals to |                      |
|                       | be used...            |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

## C.1. Table A. Regulatory Criteria Applicable to Protocol Review as Defined 

##  in PHS Policy and USDA Regulations (continued)

+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| **US Government**     | **PHS Policy on**     | **USDA AWR 9 CFR     |
|                       |                       | Part 2,**            |
| **Principles**        | **Humane Care and     |                      |
|                       | Use**                 | **Subpart C**        |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       | **of Laboratory       |                      |
|                       | Animals**             |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle IV: Proper  | IV.C.1.a.: Procedures | §2.31(d)(1)(i):      |
| use of animals,       | with animals will     | Procedures involving |
| including the         | avoid or minimize     | animals will avoid   |
| avoid-ance or         | discomfort, distress, | or minimize          |
| minimization of       | and pain to the       | discomfort,          |
| discomfort, distress, | animals, consistent   | distress, and pain   |
| and pain when         | with sound research   | to the animals; (ii) |
| consistent with sound | design.               | the principal        |
| scientific practices, |                       | investigator has     |
| is imperative. Unless |                       | considered           |
| the contrary is       |                       | alternatives to      |
| established,          |                       | procedures that may  |
| investigators should  |                       | cause more than      |
| consider that         |                       | momentary or slight  |
| procedures that cause |                       | pain or distress to  |
| pain or distress in   |                       | the animals, and has |
| human beings may      |                       | provided a written   |
| cause pain or         |                       | narrative            |
| distress in other     |                       | description of the   |
| animals.              |                       | methods and sources, |
|                       |                       | e.g., the Animal     |
| (See C.2.a.           |                       | Welfare Information  |
| Alternatives,         |                       | Center, used to      |
|                       |                       | determine that       |
| and C.2.d.            |                       | alternatives were    |
| Minimization of       |                       | not available. (See  |
|                       |                       | also §2.31(e)(4)).   |
| Pain and Distress)    |                       |                      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle V:          | IV.C.1.b.: Procedures | §2.31(d)(1)(iv):     |
| Procedures with       | that                  | Procedures that may  |
| animals that may      |                       | cause more than      |
| cause more than       | may cause more than   | momentary or slight  |
| momentary or slight   | momentary or slight   | pain                 |
|                       | pain or distress to   |                      |
| pain or distress      | the animals will be   | or distress to the   |
| should be performed   | performed with        | animals              |
| with appropriate      | appropriate sedation, |                      |
| sedation, analgesia,  | analgesia, or         | will: (A) Be         |
| or anesthesia.        | anesthesia, unless    | performed with       |
| Surgical or           | the procedure is      | appropriate          |
|                       | justified for         | sedatives,           |
| other painful         | scientific reasons in | analgesics or        |
| procedures            | writing               | anesthetics, unless  |
|                       |                       | withholding such     |
| should not be         | by the investigator   | agents is justified  |
| performed on          | (and approved by the  | for                  |
| unanesthetized        | IACUC).               |                      |
| animals paralyzed by  |                       | scientific reasons,  |
| chemical agents.      |                       | in                   |
|                       |                       |                      |
| (See C.2.c. Humane    |                       | writing, by the      |
|                       |                       | principal            |
| Endpoints, and C.2.d. |                       | investigator and     |
| Minimization of Pain  |                       | will con-            |
| and Distress, and     |                       |                      |
| C.2.f. Veterinary     |                       | tinue for only the   |
| Review and            |                       | necessary period of  |
| Consultation)         |                       | time; (B) Involve,   |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | in their planning,   |
|                       |                       | consulta-            |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | tion with the        |
|                       |                       | attending            |
|                       |                       | veterinarian or his  |
|                       |                       | or her designee; (C) |
|                       |                       | Not include          |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | the use of           |
|                       |                       | paralytics           |
|                       |                       |                      |
|                       |                       | without anesthesia.  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

> **C.1. Table A. Regulatory Criteria Applicable to Protocol Review as**
>
> **Defined in PHS Policy and USDA Regulations** (continued)

+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| > **US Government**  | **PHS Policy on       | **USDA AWR 9 CFR     |
| >                    | Humane Care and Use   | Part 2,**            |
| > **Principles**     | of Laboratory         |                      |
|                      | Animals**             | **Subpart C**        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| > Principle VI:      | IV.C.1.c.: Animals    | §2.31(d)(1)(v):      |
| > Animals that would | that would otherwise  | Animals that would   |
| > otherwise suffer   | experience severe     | otherwise experience |
| > severe or chronic  |                       | severe or chronic    |
| > pain or distress   | or chronic pain or    | pain or distress     |
| > that cannot be     | distress that cannot  | that cannot be       |
| > relieved should be | be relieved will be   | relieved will be     |
| > painlessly killed  | painlessly killed at  | painlessly           |
| > at the end of      | the end of            | euthanized at the    |
| >                    |                       | end of the procedure |
| > the procedure or,  | the procedure or, if  | or, if appropriate,  |
| > if appropriate,    | appropriate, during   | during the           |
| > during the         | the procedure.        | procedure.           |
| > procedure.         |                       |                      |
| >                    | IV.C.1.g.: Methods of | §2.31(d)(1)(xi):     |
| > (See C.2.b.        | euthanasia will be    | Methods of           |
| > Euthanasia)        | consistent with the   | euthanasia used must |
|                      | recommendations of    | be in accordance     |
|                      |                       | with the definition  |
|                      | the AVMA Panel on     | of the term set      |
|                      | Euthanasia, unless a  | forth in 9 CFR part  |
|                      | deviation is          | 1, §1.1 of this      |
|                      | justified             | subchapter, unless a |
|                      |                       | deviation is         |
|                      | for scientific        | justified for        |
|                      | reasons in writing by | scientific reasons,  |
|                      | the investigator      | in writing, by the   |
|                      | \[and approved by the | investigator.        |
|                      | IACUC\].              |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| > Principle VII: The | IV.C.1.d.: The living | §2.31(d)(1)(vi): The |
| > living con-ditions | conditions of animals | animals\' living     |
| > of animals should  | will be appropriate   | conditions will be   |
| > be appropriate for | for their species and | appropriate for      |
| > their species and  | contribute to their   | their species in     |
| > contribute to      | health and comfort.   | accordance with part |
| > their health and   | The housing, feeding, | 3 of this            |
| > comfort. Normally, | and non-medical care  | subchapter, and      |
| > the housing,       | of the animals will   | contribute to their  |
| > feeding, and care  | be directed by a      | health and comfort.  |
| > of all animals     | veterinarian or other | The housing,         |
| > used for           | scientist trained and | feeding, and         |
| > biomedi-cal        | experienced in the    | non-medical care of  |
| > purposes must be   | proper care,          | the animals will be  |
| > directed by a      | handling, and use of  | directed by the      |
| > veterinarian or    | the species being     | attending            |
| > other scientist    | maintained or         | veterinarian or      |
| > trained and        | studied.              | other scientist      |
| > experi-enced in    |                       | trained and          |
| > the proper care,   | IV.C.1.e.: Medical    | experienced in the   |
| > handling, and use  | care for animals will | proper care,         |
| > of the species     | be available and      | handling, and use of |
| > being maintained   | provided as necessary | the species being    |
| > or studied. In any | by a qualified        | maintained or        |
| > case, veteri-nary  | veterinarian.         | studied.             |
| > care shall be      |                       |                      |
| > provided as        |                       | §2.31(d)(1)(vii):    |
| > indicated.         |                       | Medical care for     |
| >                    |                       | animals will be      |
| > (See B.2.b. Animal |                       | available and        |
| > Environ-ment,      |                       | provided as          |
| > B.2.c. Husbandry,  |                       | necessary by a       |
| > and B.3. Role of   |                       | qualified            |
| > the Veterinarian)  |                       | veterinarian.        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Principle VIII:      | IV.C.f.: Personnel    | §2.31(d)(1)(viii):   |
| Investigators and    | conducting procedures | Personnel conducting |
| other personnel      | on the species being  | procedures on the    |
| shall be             | maintained or studied | species being        |
| appropriately        | will be appropriately | maintained or        |
| qualified and        | qualified and trained | studied will be      |
| experienced for      | in those procedures.  | appropriately        |
| conducting           |                       | qualified and        |
| procedures on living |                       | trained in those     |
| animals. Adequate    |                       | procedures.          |
| arrangements shall   |                       |                      |
| be made for their    |                       |                      |
| in-service training, |                       |                      |
| including the proper |                       |                      |
| and humane care and  |                       |                      |
| use of laboratory    |                       |                      |
| animals.             |                       |                      |
|                      |                       |                      |
| > (See C.2.e.        |                       |                      |
| > Personnel          |                       |                      |
| > Qualifications)    |                       |                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

> **C.1. Table A. Regulatory Criteria Applicable to Protocol Review as**
>
> **Defined in PHS Policy and USDA Regulations** (continued)

+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **US Government**    | **PHS Policy on**    | **USDA AWR 9 CFR Part |
|                      |                      | 2,**                  |
| **Principles**       | **Humane Care and**  |                       |
|                      |                      | **Subpart C**         |
|                      | **Use of Laboratory  |                       |
|                      | Animals**            |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Principle IX: Where  | See C.1. above.      | See §2.31(d) above.   |
| exceptions are       |                      |                       |
| required in relation |                      |                       |
| to the provi-sions   |                      |                       |
| of these Principles, |                      |                       |
| the decisions should |                      |                       |
| not rest with the    |                      |                       |
| investigators        |                      |                       |
| directly concerned   |                      |                       |
| but should be made,  |                      |                       |
| with due regard to   |                      |                       |
| Principle II, by an  |                      |                       |
| appropriate review   |                      |                       |
| group such as an     |                      |                       |
| institutional animal |                      |                       |
| care and use         |                      |                       |
| committee. Such      |                      |                       |
| exceptions should    |                      |                       |
| not be made solely   |                      |                       |
| for the purposes of  |                      |                       |
| teaching or          |                      |                       |
| demonstration.       |                      |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      | D.1.: Applications   | §2.31(e): A           |
|                      | and proposals...that | proposal...must       |
|                      | involve the care and | contain the           |
|                      | use of animals shall | following: ...(3) A   |
|                      | contain the          | complete description  |
|                      | following: ...c) a   | of the proposed use   |
|                      | complete description | of the animals...     |
|                      | of the proposed use  |                       |
|                      | of the animals...    |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      | D.1.: Applications   | §2.31(e): A           |
|                      | and proposals...that | proposal...must       |
|                      | involve the care and | contain the           |
|                      | use of animals shall | following: ...(4) A   |
|                      | contain the          | description of        |
|                      | following: ...d) a   | procedures designed   |
|                      | description of       | to assure that        |
|                      | procedures designed  | discomfort and pain   |
|                      | to assure that       | to animals will be    |
|                      | discomfort and       | limited to that which |
|                      | injury to animals    | is unavoidable for    |
|                      | will be limited to   | the conduct of        |
|                      | that which is        | scientifically        |
|                      | unavoidable in the   | valuable research,    |
|                      | conduct of           | including provision   |
|                      | scientifically       | for the use of        |
|                      | valuable research,   | analgesic,            |
|                      | and that analgesic,  | anesthetic, and       |
|                      | anesthetic, and      | tranquilizing drugs   |
|                      | tranquilizing drugs  | where indicated and   |
|                      | will be used where   | appropriate to        |
|                      | indicated and        | minimize discomfort   |
|                      | appropriate to       | and pain to animals.  |
|                      | minimize discomfort  |                       |
|                      | and pain to animals. |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

> **C.1. Table A. Regulatory Criteria Applicable to Protocol Review as**
>
> **Defined in PHS Policy and USDA Regulations** (continued)

+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **US Government**    | **PHS Policy on**    | **USDA AWR 9 CFR Part |
|                      |                      | 2,**                  |
| **Principles**       | **Humane Care and**  |                       |
|                      |                      | **Subpart C**         |
|                      | **Use of Laboratory  |                       |
|                      | Animals**            |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      |                      | §2.31(d)(1) (ix):     |
|                      |                      | Activities that       |
|                      |                      | involve surgery       |
|                      |                      | include appropriate   |
|                      |                      | provision for         |
|                      |                      | pre-operative and     |
|                      |                      | post-operative care   |
|                      |                      | of the animals in     |
|                      |                      | accordance with       |
|                      |                      | established           |
|                      |                      | veterinary medical    |
|                      |                      | and nursing           |
|                      |                      | practices. All        |
|                      |                      | survival surgery will |
|                      |                      | be performed using    |
|                      |                      | aseptic procedures,   |
|                      |                      | including surgical    |
|                      |                      | gloves, masks,        |
|                      |                      | sterile instruments,  |
|                      |                      | and aseptic           |
|                      |                      | techniques. Major     |
|                      |                      | operative procedures  |
|                      |                      | on non-rodents will   |
|                      |                      | be conducted only in  |
|                      |                      | facilities intended   |
|                      |                      | for that purpose      |
|                      |                      | which shall be        |
|                      |                      | operated and          |
|                      |                      | maintained under      |
|                      |                      | aseptic conditions.   |
|                      |                      | Non-major operative   |
|                      |                      | procedures and all    |
|                      |                      | surgery on rodents do |
|                      |                      | not require a         |
|                      |                      | dedicated facility,   |
|                      |                      | but must be performed |
|                      |                      | using aseptic         |
|                      |                      | procedures. Operative |
|                      |                      | procedures conducted  |
|                      |                      | at field sites need   |
|                      |                      | not be performed in   |
|                      |                      | dedicated facilities, |
|                      |                      | but must be performed |
|                      |                      | using aseptic         |
|                      |                      | procedures;           |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      |                      | §2.31(d) (1) (x): No  |
|                      |                      | animal will be used   |
|                      |                      | in more than one      |
|                      |                      | major operative       |
|                      |                      | procedure from which  |
|                      |                      | it is allowed to      |
|                      |                      | recover, unless: (A)  |
|                      |                      | justified for         |
|                      |                      | scientific reasons by |
|                      |                      | the principal         |
|                      |                      | investigator, in      |
|                      |                      | writing; (B) Required |
|                      |                      | as routine veterinary |
|                      |                      | procedure or to       |
|                      |                      | protect the health or |
|                      |                      | well-being of the     |
|                      |                      | animal as determined  |
|                      |                      | by the attending      |
|                      |                      | veterinarian, or (C)  |
|                      |                      | In other special      |
|                      |                      | circumstances as      |
|                      |                      | determined by the     |
|                      |                      | Administrator on an   |
|                      |                      | individual basis.     |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

##  

## 

## 

## Protocol Review Procedures

> The procedural review requirements of the *PHS* *Policy* or the AWRs
> take precedence even though they may differ from some commonly used
> par-liamentary procedures. Institutions may develop their own meeting
> pro-cedures as long as the procedures do not contradict or are not
> inconsistent with the requirements of the *PHS Policy* or the AWRs.
>
> If a proposed protocol may cause more than momentary or slight pain or
> distress to animals, the AWRs specifically require investigators to
> consult with the AV or his or her designee during protocol
> development. Some committees find it helpful to assign a member a
> given proposal for in-depth review and liaison with the investigator
> prior to committee review. Still other committees assign this task to
> professional IACUC staff. The investigator may choose to consult with
> these individuals and request a preliminary review before formally
> submitting a protocol.
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs recognize two methods of protocol review:
> full committee review and designated member review. The following
> pertains to review of initial protocols as well as to review of
> proposed significant changes in previously approved protocols.

-   **Full committee review**

> Full committee review of protocols requires a convened meeting of a
> quorum of the IACUC members. The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs are explicit
> that proposals reviewed by the full committee must receive the
> approval vote of a majority (\>50%) of the quorum present in order
> receive approval (see A.2. Quorum requirements.)
>
> Some committees designate a specific member or members to serve as
> primary or primary and secondary reviewers. These individuals, usually
> chosen for their expertise or familiarity with a given topic, are
> responsible for an in-depth review of a proposal and sometimes take
> responsibility for describing the proposal to the full committee and
> answering questions about the proposal during review by the Committee.
> Primary and secondary reviewers can also take the initiative to
> contact the investigator prior to the meeting for clarifications,
> additional information, or in anticipation of questions the IACUC may
> raise. The use of primary
>
> reviewers facilitates full committee review by distributing the
> workload among IACUC members so that each member has responsibility
> for in-depth review of only a portion of the proposals the IACUC will
> review. It differs from designated member review (see below), which
> invests authority to approve a proposal in one or more members.
>
> Review of proposals by the full committee method invokes a
> deliberative process, and the *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs require that
> minutes of IACUC meetings reflect committee deliber-ations. Minutes
> should include records of attendance, a sum-mary of the issues
> discussed and the resolution of issues, and the results of IACUC votes
> on protocols.
>
> Participation by investigators in meetings in which their pro-posal is
> being reviewed is not addressed by either the *PHS* *Policy* or the
> AWRs. The participation of the investigator can facilitate the review
> in a number of ways. Obviously, questions can be addressed as they are
> raised rather than after the meeting, allowing the review process to
> proceed rather than be interrupted for this exchange of information.
> Another benefit is the opportunity for the investigator to give a
> broad overview of how the proposal under review fits into the larger
> research picture, thus providing additional information regarding the
> justification and scientific merit. Invariably, both the investigator
> and the IACUC benefit from such an ex-change. The greatest deterrents
> to participation by investigators in the IACUC meeting are that it may
> make the meeting last longer, and problems arise if this is an
> adversarial rather than collegial exchange of information. In any
> event, the investigator should leave before the final committee
> deliberations and if he or she is a committee member may not
> contribute to a quorum or vote.

-   **Designated member review**

> To utilize designated member review, each IACUC member must be
> provided with at least a list of the proposed research protocols or
> proposed significant changes to previously approved protocols prior to
> the review. Most committees provide members with an abstract of
> proposals; in all cases, written descriptions of the research
> proposals must be made available to IACUC members upon request. All
> members
>
> must have the opportunity to request full committee review of any
> proposal. If no member requests full committee review, the Chair
> designates one or more qualified members to review the proposal (or
> proposed amendment). These designated members have authority to
> approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or request
> full committee review.
>
> IACUCs with a large volume of proposals to be reviewed find the
> designated member review option may allow for efficient management of
> the IACUC workload as well as timely turn-around of requests from
> investigators for protocol review. Some committees prefer to reserve
> the designated member review option for certain classes of protocols
> or amendments; conversely, some IACUCs have devised categories of
> research activities that must be reviewed by the full committee, e.g.,
> nonhuman primate studies, survival surgeries, etc. If the designated
> member review method is to be used by PHS-supported institutions then
> the IACUC\'s specific procedures for using the method should be
> described in its PHS Assurance.

## Categories of IACUC Actions 

> As a result of their review of protocols, an IACUC may take one of
> several different actions depending upon the findings of the
> committee: approval, modifications required to secure approval, and
> withhold approval. An IACUC may also defer or table review if
> necessary.
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs require the IACUC to notify investigators
> and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or withhold
> approval, or of modifications required to secure approval. If approval
> is withheld the IACUC must provide the reasons for its decision and
> give the investigator an opportunity to respond.

-   **Approval**

> When the IACUC has determined that all review criteria, based on the
> *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs, have been adequately addressed by the
> investigator, the IACUC may approve the project, thus providing the
> investigator permission to perform the experiments or procedures as
> described.
>
> An IACUC-approved proposal may be subject to further appropriate
> review and approval by institutional officials due
>
> to financial, policy, facility, or other institutional or
> adminis-trative considerations. However, those officials may not
> approve an activity if it has not been approved by the IACUC.

-   **Modifications required to secure approval**

> An IACUC may require modifications to the protocol before granting
> approval. If the IACUC determines that a protocol is approvable
> contingent upon receipt of a very specific modification (e.g., receipt
> of assurance that the procedure will be conducted in a fume hood), or
> clarification of a specific point, the IACUC may handle these
> modifications or clarifications as administrative details that an
> individual, such as the Chair, could verify.
>
> If a study is unusually complex or involves untried or contro-versial
> procedures the IACUC may wish to impose restrictions, (e.g., approval
> for the use of a limited number of animals as a pilot study with a
> written report of interim results, or close monitoring by veterinary
> or other qualified personnel.) If such modifications represent
> significant departures the IACUC can ask the investigator to revise
> the protocol to reflect the modifications imposed by the IACUC.
>
> If the protocol is missing substantive information necessary for the
> IACUC to make a judgment, or the IACUC requires extensive or multiple
> modifications, then the IACUC can require that the protocol be revised
> and resubmitted. If the IACUC wishes to shift to the designated
> reviewer mode for the approval of the modified protocol, that shift
> should be explicitly noted in the minutes and the requirements for
> designated review must be met.
>
> IACUCs sometimes use terms such as \"conditional appro-val,\"
> \"provisional approval\" or \"approved pending clarifica-tion.\"
> Anything less than full IACUC approval via one of the accepted methods
> described above is not adequate for initiation of animal activities or
> for submission of an IACUC approval date to PHS in conjunction with a
> grant application. Therefore, OLAW and USDA recommend that IACUCs
> either avoid using these terms, or describe them (e.g., in IACUC
> minutes, Assurance documents, etc.) in sufficient detail to be fully
> understood.
>
> **Withhold approval**
>
> When the IACUC determines that a proposal has not ade-quately
> addressed all of the requirements of the *PHS Policy* and AWRs as
> applicable, the committee may withhold approval. A designated reviewer
> may not withhold appro-val; this action may only be taken if the
> review is conducted using the full committee method of review.
>
> As indicated above, a higher institutional authority may not
> administratively overrule an IACUC decision to withhold approval of a
> proposal.

-   **Defer or table review**

> If the protocol requires clarification in order for the IACUC to make
> a judgment, committee members with certain expertise are not present,
> the IACUC wishes to seek external consul-tation, or any of a number of
> other reasons prevent the IACUC from conducting its review, then the
> IACUC may wish to defer or table review. Good communication between
> the IACUC and the investigator can ensure that this action is needed
> infrequently. However, should it be necessary, the investigator should
> be informed so that he or she can respond or plan accordingly.

## Review of Changes to Approved Protocols

> Significant changes to an IACUC-approved protocol must be reviewed and
> approved by the IACUC before they occur (*PHS* *Policy* IV.C.1., and
> AWR §2.31\[d\]\[1\]). It is prudent for an IACUC to develop a policy
> on the kinds of changes that are considered significant in order to
> avoid ambiguity. OLAW has identified the following kinds of
> significant changes that may serve as examples to guide the IACUC in
> its determinations:

-   change in objectives of a study;

-   proposals to switch from nonsurvival to survival surgery;

-   change in degree of invasiveness of a procedure or discomfort to an
    animal;

-   change in species or in the approximate number of animals used;

-   change in personnel involved in animal procedures;

-   change in anesthetic agent(s) or in the use or withholding of
    analgesics;

-   change in methods of euthanasia, or

-   change in duration, frequency, or number of procedures performed on
    an animal.

> Review of significant changes may be conducted using either the full
> com-ittee review or the designated member review method described
> above.
>
> **Frequency of Review of Approved Protocols**
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* requires that a complete IACUC review of PHS
> supported protocols be conducted at least once every three years. This
> triennial review is interpreted by OLAW as a requirement for *de novo*
> review, mean-ing that the criteria and procedures for review specified
> in IV.C. of the *PHS Policy* must be applied not less than once every
> three years. The three-year period begins on the actual date of IACUC
> approval; IACUCs may not administratively extend approval beyond the
> three years. The triennial review may be conducted using either the
> full committee review or the designated member review method described
> above.
>
> AWRs require an annual review, which may be a monitoring mechanism
> whereby the IACUC requires the investigator to annually report on the
> status of the protocol, verify that completed activities were
> conducted in accordance with the approved protocol, describe any
> proposed departures from the approved protocols, and solicit
> information about activities pro-jected for the upcoming year.
> (Proposed significant changes would require IACUC review prior to
> initiation.) This kind of a monitoring system will satisfy the AWR
> requirement for annual review, but would not be sufficient for the
> complete IACUC review required on a triennial basis.
>
> ***References***
>
> Garnett, N.L. and W.R. DeHaven. Commentary: Protocol Review - Playing
> By the Rules. *Lab Animal*, 27(8):18. 1998.
>
> Potkay, S., et al. Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Health
> Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. *Lab
> Animal*, 24(9):24-26. 1995.
>
> OPRR Staff. The Public Health Service Responds to Commonly Asked
> Questions. *ILAR News*, 33(4):68-70, Fall, 1991
>
> OPRR Staff. Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Health Service
> Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. *ILAR News*,
> 35(3-4):47-49, Summer/Fall, 1993.
>
> Oki, G.S.F., et al. Model for Performing Institutional Animal Care and
> Use Committee Continuing Review of Animal Research. *Contemporary
> Topics*, 35(5):53-56, September 1996.
>
> []{#C_2 .anchor}**C.2. Protocol Review Criteria**
>
> []{#c_2 .anchor}**C.2.a. Alternatives -- Replacement, Reduction and
> Refinement**
>
> There is significant interest in the application of alternatives to
> animals used in research, education and testing. The *PHS Policy* and
> the AWRs require research institutions to ensure that investigators
> have appropriately considered alternatives to procedures that can
> cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress in animals,
> consistent with sound research design. Through US Government Principle
> III (Appendix F), the *PHS* *Policy* further requires that the minimum
> number of animals be used and that non-animal methods be considered.
>
> ***The "3 Rs"***
>
> Alternatives are framed within the context of the "3 Rs" articulated
> originally by Russell and Burch in 1959; they include:

1.  **Replacement**, or utilizing non-animal models;

2.  **Reduction** of numbers of animals used; and

3.  **Refinement**, or elimination or reduction of unnecessary pain and
    distress in animals.

> **Replacement** alternatives utilize:

-   living systems,

-   non-living systems, or

-   computer simulations.

> *Living systems* include *in vitro* methods that utilize organ, tissue
> or cell culture techniques. Invertebrate animals, such as the fruit
> fly, have long been used in research and represent another type of
> living alternative to vertebrate animals. Finally, microorganisms and
> plants represent living alternatives for some types of research and
> testing. *If no invertebrate model is appropriate, use of species
> lower on the phylogenetic scale may be considered a replacement
> alternative.*
>
> *Nonliving systems* include physical or mechanical systems and
> chemical techniques. Mechanical models may be used in the training of
> specific techniques (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, for example) and
> have replaced living animals in some cases. Chemical techniques are
> the most widely used nonliving systems and include such useful systems
> as the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Techniques that
> identify the presence of chemical reactions and enzymes, or simply
> analyze chemical structure, can all be useful in the prediction of
> toxicity without the use of animals.
>
> *Computer simulations* may replace some animal use and can be
> particularly useful when a question is well defined and there is
> existing data.
>
> Although opportunities for replacement are numerous in product safety
> testing and education, they appear more limited in research. If it is
> demon-strated that there is no *in vitro* alternative to the use of
> animals, it is impor-tant for the IACUC members to focus on the other
> alternative approaches, reduction and refinement.
>
> **Reduction** of numbers of animals may be accomplished by a variety
> of methods described in Table A:
>
> []{#Table_C_2_a_A .anchor}**C.2.a. Table A. Methods for Reduction**
> **of Numbers of Animals Used**

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Method**               | **Examples**                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Rational selection of    | -   Pilot studies to estimate variability |
| group size               |     and evaluate procedures and effects   |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | -   Power analysis                        |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Careful experimental     | -   Appropriate choice of control groups  |
| design                   |                                           |
|                          | -   Standardizing procedures to minimize  |
|                          |     variability                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Maximizing use of        | -   Performing several terminal           |
| animals                  |     procedures per animal                 |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | -   Animals euthanized by one             |
|                          |     investigator used for tissue needed   |
|                          |     by another                            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Correct choice of model  | -   Use of healthy, genetically similar   |
|                          |     animals decreases variability         |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Minimizing loss of       | -   Good post-operative care              |
| animals                  |                                           |
|                          | -   Avoid unintended breeding             |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | -   Plan ahead so the appropriate number  |
|                          |     of animals needed for studies are     |
|                          |     ordered or bred                       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Statistical analysis     | -   Appropriate use of statistical        |
|                          |     software can generate maximum         |
|                          |     information from minimum number of    |
|                          |     animals                               |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

> **Refinement of technique** to reduce or eliminate unnecessary pain
> and distress in study animals is the most commonly practiced of the 3
> Rs, although it is not always recognized as one of the applications.
>
> Investigators are required to consider alternatives to painful
> procedures, and to avoid or minimize discomfort, distress and pain,
> consistent with sound scientific practice and the goals of the
> research. This requires an understanding of the potential of pain or
> distress in the animals (see Section C.2.d.)
>
> When there is no consensus among IACUC members as to whether a
> cer-tain procedure actually causes pain or distress in the affected
> animals, U.S. Government Principle IV should be applied. This
> Principle states, "Unless the contrary is established, investigators
> should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human
> beings may cause pain or distress in other animals."
>
> To assist in this deliberation, the IACUC may need to utilize one or
> more of the following:

-   pilot studies,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   evaluations of clinical signs,

-   clinical pathology,

-   gross and histological necropsy studies,

-   review of comparable literature, and

-   consultation with experts.

> If there remains any doubt about the presence of pain or distress, the
> IACUC should err on the side of protecting the animals against the
> potential of unnecessary pain or distress.
>
> Some refinement opportunities include:

-   pain-relieving drugs,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   

-   non-pharmacologic techniques,

-   new diagnostic and therapeutic techniques,

-   environmental enrichment programs, and

-   establishment of more humane endpoints.

> *Pain-relieving drugs:* While it is preferable to design a protocol
> that prevents pain and distress, when this is not possible the AWRs
> require that the AV (or designee) be consulted to develop an
> appropriate plan for the use of anesthetics, analgesics, or other
> measures, such as anti-inflammatory agents, antibiotics, or sedatives.
>
> *New diagnostic and therapeutic techniques:* In addition to the use of
> pain relieving drugs, new diagnostic and therapeutic techniques may
> have the capability to dramatically reduce the invasiveness of data
> collection and thereby refine animal research. These include:

-   use of sophisticated imaging equipment to replace invasive
    proce-dures, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   blood and tissue sampling techniques that allow for easier
    collection and the processing of smaller sample sizes.

> *Environment:* The IACUC should consider that environmental factors,
> such as noises, odors, infrequent or inexperienced handling, or
> boredom from lack of environmental stimulation can cause unnecessary
> distress, and that US Government Principle IV should be applied to
> this area as well. Aside from the AWR requirement to provide
> environment enhancement for non-human primates, many institutions have
> implemented environmental modi-fications for other species with a view
> to reducing unnecessary distress.
>
> *Humane endpoints:* The establishment of the earliest possible humane
> endpoint consistent with the research design may provide an additional
> opportunity to significantly reduce pain and distress, thereby
> refining the experiment. For any study that defines death of the
> experimental animal as the endpoint, the IACUC should ask if there is
> an earlier point in the study when the necessary data have been
> collected and the animal could be euthanized without proceeding
> through more severe illness and death. Or, alternatively, if death is
> a necessary endpoint, the IACUC could ask for careful ongoing
> assessment of the animal, so that, when it is determined that death is
> inevitable, the animal can be euthanized. The Canadian Council on
> Animal Care Guidelines on Choosing an Appropriate Endpoint in
> Experiments Using Animals for Research, Teaching and Testing (1998) is
> a good resource for IACUCs. (See also Section C.2.c. Humane
> Endpoints.)
>
> ***USDA Requirements for Consideration of Alternatives***
>
> USDA AWRs require that investigators consider alternatives to
> procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or
> distress and provide a written narrative of the methods used and
> sources consulted to determine availability of alternatives. Animal
> Care Policy 12 provides guidance on the requirements for the written
> narrative, which should include adequate information for the IACUC to
> assess that a reasonable and good faith effort was made to determine
> the availability of alternatives or alternative methods. Resources in
> the area of alternatives include the USDA Animal Welfare Information
> Center (AWIC); ALTWEB, a Web site maintained under the auspices of the
> Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing;
> and the University of California Center for Animal Alternatives (see
> Appendix A).
>
> **C.2.b. Euthanasia**
>
> []{#c_2_b .anchor}"Euthanasia means the humane destruction of an
> animal accomplished by a method that produces rapid unconsciousness
> and subsequent death without evidence of pain or distress, or a method
> that utilizes anesthesia produced by an agent that causes painless
> loss of consciousness and subsequent death" (AWR). The choice of a
> method depends on species, age, availability of restraint, skill of
> the individuals performing euthanasia and other considerations. In a
> research setting, the method of euthanasia must be consistent with the
> research goals.
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs require that an IACUC review and
> approve methods of euthanasia. The *PHS* *Policy* specifically states
> that methods of euthanasia must be consistent with the recommendations
> of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on
> Euthanasia, unless scien-tific justifications for alternative methods
> are presented in writing by the investigator and approved by the
> IACUC. The most recent Panel convened in 2000, and published its
> Report in March 2001.
>
> The criteria used as the basis for the Panel's recommendations
> include:

## minimum pain, distress, anxiety, or apprehension;

## minimum delay until unconsciousness;

## reliability and irreversibility;

## safety of personnel; emotional effect on personnel; 

## 

## compatibility with requirement and purpose, including subsequent use of tissue;

## compatibility with species, age, and health status; and

## drug availability and human abuse potential.

# *Recommended Methods*

> The 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia categorizes methods as
> acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or unacceptable under specific
> circumstances.
>
> **Acceptable**

a.  Barbiturates (most species)

b.  Carbon dioxide (CO~2~)- bottled gas only (most species)

c.  Inhalant anesthetics (most species)

d.  Microwave irradiation (mice and rats)

e.  Tricaine methane sulfate (TMS, MS222) (fish, amphibians)

f.  Benzocaine hydrochloride (fish, amphibians)

g.  Captive penetrating bolt (horse, ruminant, swine)

h.  Ether and carbon monoxide are acceptable for many species, but
    relatively dangerous to personnel.

> **Conditionally Acceptable (Requires IACUC Approval of Scientific
> Justification)**

a.  Cervical dislocation (birds, small rodents and rabbits)

b.  Decapitation (birds, rodents, some other species)

c.  Pithing (some ectotherms)

d.  Various pharmacological and physical methods

> **Unacceptable**

a.  Chloral hydrate, chloroform and cyanide

b.  Decompression

c.  Neuromuscular blockers

d.  Various pharmacological and physical methods

e.  Dry ice-generated Co~2~

> Methods described as conditionally acceptable are considered
> acceptable when used in deeply anesthetized animals. Some euthanasia
> methods (e.g., KCl or formalin by intracardiac injection, or
> exsanguination) are acceptable only under deep general anesthesia.
>
> For more information on methods of euthanasia, see Appendix D.
>
> []{#C_2_c .anchor}**C.2.c. Humane Endpoints**
>
> Animals used in research and testing may experience pain from induced
> diseases, procedures, and toxicity. The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs state
> that procedures that cause more than momentary or slight pain or
> distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or
> anesthesia. However, research and testing studies sometimes involve
> pain that cannot be relieved with such agents because they would
> interfere with the scientific objectives of the study. Accordingly,
> federal regulations require that IACUCs determine that discomfort to
> animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable for the conduct
> of scientifically valuable research, and that unrelieved pain and
> distress will only continue for the duration necessary to accomplish
> the scientific objectives.
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs further state that animals that would
> otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain and distress that cannot be
> relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure, or
> if appropriate, during the procedure.

## *Developing Humane Endpoints* 

> Criteria used to end experimental studies earlier in order to avoid or
> termi-nate unrelieved pain and/or distress are referred to as humane
> endpoints. An important feature of humane endpoints is that they
> should ensure that study objectives will still be met even though the
> study is ended at an earlier point. Ideally, humane endpoints are
> sought that can be used to end studies before the onset of pain and
> distress.
>
> It is important to understand that stress may lead to distress when
> major shifts in biologic function, to which the animal cannot adapt,
> threaten the animal\'s well-being. If pain and distress are
> anticipated, a detailed plan for when and how these will be alleviated
> should be provided in the protocol.
>
> The plan should include detailed written criteria for the humane
> endpoints that will be used to determine when animals can be removed
> from the study, treated, or euthanized. There should be clear
> directions concerning who can make the decision to euthanize or treat
> animals, including procedures to follow if a situation arises on
> weekends, holidays, or in the absence of the responsible study
> director.
>
> Even if pain or distress are not anticipated, every protocol should
> contain a contingency plan for dealing with unexpected situations that
> may arise.
>
> The development and use of humane endpoints can reduce the severity
> and duration of unrelieved pain and distress. Clinical score sheets
> can be developed and used to establish humane endpoints for
> experimental studies. Score sheets are used to record and identify
> clinical signs and conditions associated with a particular
> experimental model. Single or multiple clinical signs that are
> predictive of the current experimental endpoint can then be used to
> allow for earlier and more humane endpoints.
>
> Establishing and implementing humane endpoints is best achieved by a
> collaborative effort on the part of investigators, veterinarians, and
> animal care staff.

## *Moribund Condition as a Humane Endpoint* 

> Moribund has been defined as \"in the state of dying,\" or \"at the
> point of death.\" A moribund condition may be an appropriate humane
> experimental endpoint for some studies where there is the induction of
> severe disease states and high rates of mortality. Pre-emptive
> euthanasia of moribund ani-mals can prevent further pain and distress.
>
> Objective data-based criteria that are predictive of impending death
> can be used to implement timely euthanasia to avoid spontaneous
> deaths. FDA regulatory testing guidelines allow for humane killing of
> animals that are moribund. However, it is important to recognize that
> euthanasia of a mori-bund animal does not eliminate pain and distress
> that may be experienced during progression to a moribund condition. It
> should also be noted that while death is not a required endpoint for
> routine toxicity testing, animals are often found dead during studies.
> Establishing procedures to detect and humanely euthanize moribund or
> pre-moribund animals can reduce the number of animals that die
> spontaneously. In addition to reducing animal pain and distress,
> euthanasia of moribund animals allows for the collection of tissues
> and other biologic specimens that may otherwise be lost or rendered
> unusable when an animal is found dead.
>
> Various clinical signs are indicative of a moribund condition in
> laboratory animals. These typically include one or more of the
> following:
>
> impaired ambulation which prevents animals from reaching food or
> water,

-   excessive weight loss and emaciation,

-   lack of physical or mental alertness,

-   difficult labored breathing, and

-   inability to remain upright.

> Animals should be observed frequently enough to detect signs of
> impending death so they can be euthanized in a timely manner. When
> increased morbidity or mortality is expected, a minimum of twice daily
> observation is recommended. Animals not likely to survive until the
> next scheduled observation should normally be euthanized. In
> situations where animals are often found dead, closer and more
> frequent observation for moribund animals should be considered to
> reduce spontaneous deaths. Euthanasia of animals that are moribund or
> experiencing severe pain and distress should always be done in a
> manner that produces the least possible amount of additional pain and
> distress.

## *Other Humane Endpoints in Research* 

> Animals used to study tumor biology, to develop new cancer therapies,
> and to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of substances may
> experience pain and distress. Frequent and appropriate monitoring of
> animals during tumor development is necessary to allow for appropriate
> intervention before signi-ficant deterioration or death. Effective
> monitoring systems and endpoints should include limits on tumor size
> and severity of tumor-associated disease. Altered physiologic,
> biochemical, and other biomarkers may be potentially more objective
> and reproducible endpoints than clinical signs for such studies.
>
> Genetically engineered animal models are sometimes accompanied by
> unintended and unpredicted alterations that adversely affect animal
> well-being. Investigators need to establish a plan for addressing
> unanticipated adverse outcomes for genetically altered animals. There
> should be a plan for systematic characterization of phenotypes to
> facilitate assessment of their possible utility and timely decisions
> on disposition or retention. IACUCs should provide oversight of such
> studies to ensure that animal welfare problems are handled in an
> effective and prompt manner.
>
> Animals with induced infections may experience significant pain and/or
> distress during progression of the disease. Early physiologic and
> bio-chemical changes during infection have been found to be useful
> humane endpoints rather than death or moribund condition. Specific
> decreases in body temperature have been found to be effective early
> predictors of eventual death for some infections in rodents. Vaccine
> potency testing typically involves challenging immunized animals with
> infectious agents. While such testing has commonly used lethality as
> the endpoint indicative of insufficient protection, some regulatory
> authorities now allow euthanasia of moribund animals.

## *Toxicity Testing* 

> Animals used in toxicity testing can experience pain and distress when
> toxic effects are produced. Toxicity testing regulations allow
> treatment of pain and distress in test animals only if there is no
> interference with the study. As a result, animals are rarely treated
> in toxicology studies because of the potential confounding effects of
> analgesics. Consequently, management of pain and distress in toxicity
> studies is accomplished largely by euthanizing animals that are
> experiencing significant pain and distress.
>
> Current regulatory guidelines state that animals in toxicology studies
> ob-viously in pain or showing signs of severe and enduring distress
> should be euthanized, rather than allowing them to survive to the end
> of the scheduled study. Humane endpoints should be established and
> used for toxicology studies in order to further minimize pain and
> distress.

## *Death as an Endpoint* 

> Since it provides an objective and unequivocal data point, death has
> historically been used as an endpoint in cancer, infectious disease
> and other animal studies, especially for regulatory purposes (e.g.,
> drug safety/ efficacy studies). Increased public interest and
> regulation have led to a re-evaluation of this practice. Much of the
> concern arose from the use of traditional LD~50~ tests for chemicals
> and drugs to determine acute toxicity. However, regulatory testing
> requirements for acute toxicity now allow for animals that are
> moribund or exhibiting clinical signs of severe pain and distress to
> be euthanized rather than to die spontaneously. Euthanasia also
> provides tissues more appropriate for subsequent study and alleviates
> potential suffering by the animal. Hence, euthanasia is often
> preferable to death for both scientific and ethical reasons.
>
> The use of death as an endpoint is discouraged and must always be
> justi-fied. Endpoints other than death must always be considered and
> should be used whenever the research objective can be attained with
> non-lethal end-points. Use of death as an endpoint must be justified
> in writing in proposals and its use must be approved by the IACUC
> prior to beginning a study.

# C.2.c. Table A. Examples of Humane Endpoints for Studies with 

#  Potential Lethality

+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| #### Endpoint        | #### Characteristics    | #### Applications   |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Tumor growth or      | Tumor exceeds 10%       | Subcutaneous or     |
| effects              |                         | intraperitoneal     |
|                      | of normal body weight;  | tumors and          |
|                      | necrosis, infection,    | hybridomas          |
|                      | ulceration,             |                     |
|                      | interference with       |                     |
|                      | ambulation or           |                     |
|                      | eating/drinking         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Prolonged            | Rapid loss of weight    | Metastatic disease, |
| inappetence/         | (\>20%                  | chronic infectious  |
|                      |                         | disease             |
| Cachexia             | of normal body weight)  |                     |
|                      | and/ or condition       |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Inability to         | Prolonged recumbency    | Many                |
| ambulate             |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Signs of severe      | Respiratory: rapid or   | Toxicity testing;   |
| organ or system      | labored breathing,      |                     |
| involvement          | coughing, rales         | systemic disease    |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | Cardiovascular: shock,  |                     |
|                      | hemorrhage, anaphylaxis |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | Gastrointestinal:       |                     |
|                      | severe diarrhea or      |                     |
|                      | vomiting                |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | Peripheral Nervous      |                     |
|                      | System: flaccid or      |                     |
|                      | spastic paralysis       |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | CNS Signs: circling,    |                     |
|                      | blindness, dementia,    |                     |
|                      | convulsion              |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Progressive          | Decrease of 4-6ºC in    | Infectious disease  |
| hypothermia          | body temperature in     | studies; vaccine    |
|                      | rodents                 | potency studies     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Moribund or          | Define with specific    | Many                |
| pre-moribund state   | clinical signs and      |                     |
|                      | euthanize when reached  |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+

## 

##  

## *References* 

> CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care). 1998. *CCAC guidelines on
> choosing an appropriate endpoint in experiments using animals for
> research, teaching, and testing*. Canadian Council on Animal Care.
> Ottawa, Canada.
>
> Carstens E., and O.P.Moberg. 2000. Recognizing pain and distress in
> laboratory animals. *ILAR J* 41:62-71.
>
> Dennis M. 2000. Humane endpoints for genetically engineered animal
> models. *ILAR J* 41:94-98.
>
> Hendriksen C.F.M., and D.B. Morton, editors. 1999. Humane Endpoints in
> Animal Experiments for Research. In: Proceedings of the International
> Conference, November 22- 25, 1998, Zeist, The Netherlands. London:
> Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited.
>
> Hendriksen C.F.M., and B. Steen. Refinement of vaccine potency testing
> with the use of humane endpoints. *ILAR J* 41:105-113.
>
> Montgomery, C.A. Oncologic and toxicologic research: alleviation and
> control of pain and distress in laboratory animals. *Cancer Bulletin*.
> 1990; 42:230-237.
>
> Morton D.B. 2000. A systematic approach for establishing humane
> endpoints. *ILAR J* 41:80-86.
>
> NRC \[National Research Council\]. 1992. *Recognition and Alleviation
> of Pain and distress in Laboratory Animals*. National Academy Press,
> Washington D.C.
>
> Olfert E.D., and D.L. Godson. 2000. Humane endpoints for infectious
> disease animal models. *ILAR J* 41:99-104.
>
> OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2000.
> Guidance document on the recognition, assessment, and use of clinical
> signs as humane endpoints for experimental animals used in safety
> evaluation. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and
> Development.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1998.
Harmonized Integrated Hazard Classification System for Human Health and
Environmental Effects of Chemical Substances. Paris, France:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

> Sass N. 2000. Humane endpoints and acute toxicity testing. *ILAR J*
> 41:114-123.
>
> Stokes W.S. 2000. Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in
> Toxicity Testing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on
> Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Bologna, Italy,
> August 31 -September 2, 1999. New York: Elsevier Sciences
> (Forthcoming).
>
> Stokes W.S. 2000. Reducing Unrelieved Pain and distress in Laboratory
> Animals Using Humane Endpoints. *ILAR J* 41:59-61.
>
> Stokes W.S., and R.N. Hill. 2000. The Role of the Interagency
> Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods
> (ICCVAM) in the Evaluation of New Toxicological Testing Methods. In:
> Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use
> in the Life Sciences, Bologna, Italy, August 31 -September 2, 1999.
> New York: Elsevier Sciences (Forthcoming).
>
> Tannenbaum J. 1999. Ethics and pain research in animals. *ILAR J*
> 40:97-1 10.
>
> Toth L.A. 2000. Defining the moribund condition as an experimental
> endpoint for animal Research. *ILAR J* 41:72-79.

UKCCCR \[United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research\].
1997. Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia.
London: UKCCCR.

> Wallace J. 2000. Humane endpoints and cancer research. *ILAR J*
> 41:87-93.

# C.2.d. Minimization of Pain and Distress

> It is the responsibility of the IACUC to critically evaluate all
> research proto-cols for the potential to cause pain or distress and
> assess the steps that are to be taken to enhance animal well-being.
>
> As required by the *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs, and reiterated in the
> *Guide*, the IACUC is mandated to review protocols to ensure that pain
> and distress are minimized in laboratory animals. The AWRs stipulate
> that the IACUC determine that the principal investigator has
> considered alternatives to pro-cedures that may cause more than
> momentary or slight pain or distress to the animal and has provided a
> written narrative description of the methods and sources used to
> determine that alternatives were not available. Addi-tional guidance
> from the USDA on this subject is provided in their policies. The
> *Guide* states that the IACUC should ensure the protocol addresses:

-   appropriate sedation, analgesia, and anesthesia;

-   criteria for timely intervention, removal of animals from study, or
    euthanasia if painful or stressful outcomes are anticipated; and

-   details of postprocedural care.

> The protocol must provide adequate information for the IACUC to assess
> the potential animal pain and/or distress resulting from the study and
> the effectiveness of the pain- and distress-relieving agents proposed
> for use. Criteria for re-dosing the animal should also be established.
> The AV must be consulted for any procedure that has the potential to
> cause more than momentary pain or distress.
>
> Examples of procedures which the *Guide* suggests may have the
> potential to cause pain or distress, include:

-   physical restraint,

-   survival surgeries,

-   food or water restriction,

-   death as an endpoint,

-   noxious stimuli,

-   skin or corneal irritancy testing,

-   tumor burdens,

-   intracardiac or orbital sinus blood sampling, and

-   abnormal environmental conditions.

> ***Assessing Pain and Distress***
>
> Numerous references indicate that both laboratory animals and humans
> receive and process noxious stimuli using similar mechanisms and with
> similar thresholds of awareness. The pain tolerance, or maximum
> stimulus intensity voluntarily accepted, varies between species and
> between individ-uals of the same species, including humans. Pain
> typically results from stimuli that damage tissue or have the
> potential to damage tissue. An animal\'s response to pain is often
> adaptive to reduce movement to minimize reinjury and aid recuperation.
> However, this response may lead to physiological and behavioral
> changes which impact negatively on both the animal\'s well-being and
> the research results.
>
> Fundamental to the relief of pain is the ability to recognize its
> clinical signs in various species of animals. Due to the inability of
> animals to verbalize, it is essential that animal care staff and
> researchers receive adequate training on how to recognize clinical
> signs of pain and distress. Tables A, B, and C at the end of this
> section identify some of the indicators.
>
> According to the NRC report on pain and distress, while there are no
> generally accepted criteria for distress, there are a number of
> metabolic, physiologic and behavioral parameters that are altered in
> distressed animals. These include changes in reproductive performance,
> elevation in glucocorticoid levels and elevation in catecholamine
> levels. It is necessary to use objective assessments, which means
> choosing appropriate param-eters and quantifying observations.
> Numerous models for scoring pain and distress have been published and
> involve assigning a numeric score to
>
> observations with the aid of descriptors. It is often useful to start
> with a general set of observations for assessing pain and distress
> such as change in body weight, physical appearance/posture or changes
> in unprovoked and provoked behavior. The assessment system should then
> be modified on a case-by-case basis using specific changes that may be
> anticipated in a particular study.
>
> ***Alleviation of Pain and Distress***
>
> Accepted best practices for dealing with the possibility of unrelieved
> pain and distress should be considered and incorporated into protocols
> unless there is a sound scientific rationale for deviation from those
> practices. The investigator must also provide an assurance that
> unrelieved pain will con-tinue for only the minimum period of time
> necessary to attain the study objectives.
>
> Protocol methodology should be considered which decreases the
> potential for pain or distress. In addition to thorough searches of
> the literature, this can be done through the careful use of pilot
> studies to determine earlier endpoints or less invasive alternatives.
>
> Pharmacologic treatment of pain or distress should be given as
> consistent with the type of pain/distress and the needs of the
> research question. The veterinarian must be consulted for all such
> protocols and should provide guidance to investigators and the IACUC.
> The responses of different spe-cies to different anesthetics,
> analgesics or tranquilizers vary and are not fully defined. Often the
> effects of a given drug have only been examined in a single species
> and definitive information, for example, on cardiovascular and
> respiratory function or on the ability to relieve the perception of
> noxious stimuli, is missing. As a result, dosages have been developed
> on the basis of the amount required to produce cessation of movement
> when the animal is confronted by what is assumed to be a painful
> manipulation, in conjunc-tion with an adequate recovery. Because of
> the imprecise nature of the studies, dosage ranges are often quite
> wide, requiring a very conservative approach to their use. The use of
> drug mixtures further complicates the choice of an adequate dose.
> Numerous reference texts exist and IACUCs may request that the
> veterinarian prepare current charts of recommended doses as an
> institutional resource for investigators.
>
> Non-pharmacologic treatments should also be employed. This may include
> special housing considerations, dietary and other environmental
> enrich-
>
> ments, adjustments and careful supportive care.
>
> ***Summary***
>
> It is the responsibility of the investigator to show she or he has
> considered all the options for minimizing pain and distress that do
> not compromise the scientific validity of the experiment. The
> committee's deliberations regard-ing the management of potential pain
> and distress in a protocol should be documented. Personnel should be
> trained in pain and distress manage-ment. The IACUC should ensure that
> there is a mechanism in place for prompt reporting of sick animals to
> the veterinary staff.

# 

# C.2.d. Table A. Definitions of Terminology Related to Pain and 

#  Distress

  ----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
  Analgesia         A complete loss of sensitivity to pain.

  Anesthesia        A total loss of sensation in a part of or in the entire
                    body.

  Distress          An aversive state in which an animal is unable to adapt
                    completely to stressors and the resulting stress and
                    shows maladaptive behavior.

  Pain              An unpleasant sensory or emotional experience associated
                    with actual or potential tissue damage.

  Sedation          A state characterized by decreased awareness of
                    surroundings, relaxation, and sleepiness. Analgesia is
                    not present.

  Tranquilization   A state of mental calming, decreased response to
                    environmental stimuli, and muscle relaxation. No sleep,
                    analgesia or anesthesia is present, even at increased
                    dosage.
  ----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

> From: *American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. 1997*.
> Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals. *D.F. Kohn, S.K.
> Wixson, W.J. White and G.J. Benson, eds. Academic Press.*
>
> []{#Table_C_2_d_B .anchor}C.2.d. Table B. Signs of Acute Pain

  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  **Sign**             **Explanation**

  Guarding             Attempting to protect, move away, or bite

  Vocalization         Crying out when palpated or forced to use affected
                       area

  Mutilation           Licking, biting, scratching, shaking, or rubbing

  Restlessness         Pacing, lying down and getting up, or shifting
                       weight

  Sweating             In species that sweat (horses)

  Recumbency           Unusual length of time

  Depression           Reluctance to move or difficulty in rising

  Abnormal appearance  Head down, tucked abdomen, hunched, facial
                       distortion, or pallor
  -------------------- --------------------------------------------------

> *Reprinted with permission from SOMA*, *1987. Soma, L.R. 1987.
> Assessment of animal pain in experimental animals.* Lab. Anim. Sci*.*
> *37:71-74. Reprinted with permission from Recognition and Alleviation
> of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals. Committee on Pain and
> Distress in Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animal
> Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council.
> National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1992.*
>
> []{#Table_C_2_d_C .anchor}C.2.d. Table C. Signs, Degree, and Length of
> Surgically Produced Pain\*

  --------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------
  **Surgical      **Signs of Pain**      **Degree of       **Length of
  Site**                                 Pain**            Pain**

  Head, eye, ear, Attempts to rub or     Moderate to high  Intermittent to
  mouth           scratch,                                 continual
                  self-mutilation,                         
                  shaking, reluctance to                   
                  eat, drink, or                           
                  swallow, reluctance to                   
                  move                                     

  Rectal area     Rubbing, licking,      Moderate to high  Intermittent to
                  biting, abnormal bowel                   continual
                  movement or excretory                    
                  behavior                                 

  Bones           Reluctance to move,    Moderate to high: Intermittent
                  lameness, abnormal     upper part of     
                  posture, guarding,     axial skeleton    
                  licking,               (humerus, femur)  
                  self-mutilation        especially        
                                         painful           

  Abdomen         Abnormal posture       Not obvious to    Short
                  (hunched), anorexia,   moderate          
                  guarding                                 

  Thorax          Reluctance to move,    Sternal approach, Continual
                  respiratory changes    high; lateral     
                  (rapid, shallow),      approach, slight  
                  depression             to moderate       

  Spine, cervical Abnormal posture of    Moderate to       Continual
                  head and neck,         severe            
                  reluctance to move,                      
                  abnormal                                 
                  gait---"walking on                       
                  eggs"                                    

  Spine, thoracic Few signs, often       Slight            Short
  or lumbar       moving immediately                       
  --------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------

> \*Based on observations of dogs
>
> *Reprinted with permission from Recognition and Alleviation of Pain
> and Distress in Laboratory Animals. Committee on Pain and Distress in
> Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources,
> Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. National
> Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1992.*
>
> ***References***
>
> American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. 1997. *Anesthesia and
> Analgesia in Laboratory Animals*. D.F. Kohn, S.K. Wixson, W.J. White
> and G.J. Benson, eds. Academic Press.
>
> National Research Council. 2000. Definition of Pain and Distress and
> Reporting Requirements for Laboratory Animals.
>
> Wolfensohn, S. and M. Lloyd, 1998. *Handbook of Laboratory Animal
> Management and Welfare*, Second Edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
> 334 pp.
>
> Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory
> Animals. NRC. 1992.

#### C.2.e. Personnel Qualifications

> In evaluating proposed research projects, the *PHS* *Policy* and the
> AWRs require the IACUC to assess whether personnel conducting
> procedures are appropriately qualified and trained in those procedures
> (IV.C.1.f and 2.31\[d\]\[1\]\[viii\]). A similar requirement can be
> found on page 10 of the *Guide* and in U.S. Government Principle VIII
> (see Appendix F).
>
> ***Developing Guidelines***
>
> To facilitate evaluation of personnel qualifications and training
> during proto-col review, each IACUC should develop a list of items to
> be assessed as well as a list of classifications of personnel required
> to participate in such training. This could be a list of
> qualifications and training items specific to protocols according to
> procedures and or manipulations proposed or the list could be broad
> enough to cover all aspects of the institution's training requirements
> (see Section A.4).
>
> A procedure specific checklist might include:
>
> proficiency in handling specific specie(s),
>
> proficiency in pain-relieving methods,
>
> proficiency in surgical manipulations,
>
> proficiency in aseptic techniques,
>
> proficiency in pain management,
>
> proficiency in euthanasia,
>
> proficiency in pre- and post-operative care,
>
> Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license, and
>
> approval by safety office.
>
> A checklist of institutional requirements that need to be satisfied as
> a component of protocol review might include the following in addition
> to those above:
>
> completion of occupational health and safety risk assessment,
>
> demonstrated knowledge of relevant rules and regulations,
>
> enrollment in occupational health and safety program,
>
> attendance at compliance training session, and
>
> viewing of safety training video.
>
> Classifications of employees whose qualifications and training may
> require assessment include:

-   investigators,

-   research technicians,

-   animal husbandry personnel, and

-   veterinarian and veterinary technicians.

> An important decision to be made by the IACUC is the level of training
> required of an investigator not actually involved in the day-to-day
> manipu-lation and care of the animals. If the investigator is
> responsible for the research activity and the animals involved, should
> she or he demonstrate proficiency in the areas indicated above? Is the
> investigator responsible for training personnel in the lab? If yes,
> should she or he demonstrate pro-ficiency in those areas? An IACUC
> policy on this issue will prevent conflict later.
>
> ***Evaluating Qualifications and Training***
>
> To prevent problems related to assessment of qualifications and
> training during protocol review, it is helpful if the IACUC determines
> any training needs during the protocol development and veterinary
> consultation. Dis-cussion of new techniques, procedures, or
> manipulations at this time can provide the impetus for a training
> opportunity for both the veterinary staff and the research staff with
> demonstrated proficiency completed prior to protocol review. This
> training experience should be so noted in the protocol or otherwise
> documented.
>
> Maintaining a database of all participants in the facility's training
> program who use laboratory animals will facilitate assessment of
> qualifications and training. With such a database, preliminary
> evaluation of an individual's
>
> expertise can be an administrative task performed by the IACUC or
> staff assigned to assist with managing the animal care program. If a
> deficiency is noted, a follow-up memo can be sent to the investigator
> stating that protocol review is pending until training requirements
> have been completed.
>
> IACUCs should note that high morbidity or mortality rates or requests
> for more animals than originally planned may indicate a training
> opportunity and should be followed up in the context of the relevant
> protocol, either immediately or during the semiannual review.
>
> Evaluating the qualifications and training of new personnel or those
> propos-ing to use new techniques, procedures, or manipulations will
> necessitate another approach by the IACUC.

##### *New Personnel*

> One way to manage the training of new personnel is to initiate an
> IACUC policy that no protocol will be reviewed until training
> requirements have been satisfied. Such training would need to
> incorporate all institutional re-quirements as well as those specific
> to the work expectations of the indi-vidual, and might include those
> listed above.

## *New Techniques, Procedures, or Manipulations*

> When an investigator proposes new techniques, procedures, or
> manipu-lations, the IACUC must assure itself that the personnel are
> qualified to perform the work. If no training module on a particular
> technique, proce-dure, or manipulation exists, it is possible that the
> most closely aligned existing module can be used. If the personnel
> have not demonstrated proficiency through one of the training modules
> (see Section A.4), the IACUC can consider the following options:

-   The IACUC may mandate that the individual(s) complete pertinent
    training before the protocol can be reviewed. This assumes the IACUC
    has a policy that stipulates adequate qualifications and training as
    a condition of protocol review.

-   If no relevant training module exists, a possible course of action
    would be to stipulate that the veterinarian supervise the new
    technique, procedure, or manipulation pending certification of
    training or demonstration of proficiency. If there are no in-house
    personnel with the necessary expertise, the IACUC can seek a
    consultant for advice

> and training. This should not be viewed as a confrontational event,
> but rather one with educational value for both the veterinarian and
> the research staff. Documentation of this training experience should
> be made in the IACUC files or database.
>
> In summary, evaluation of personnel qualifications and training is an
> essen-tial component of the review of animal use protocols to ensure
> the humane care and use of laboratory animals. The challenge to IACUCs
> is to perform this evaluation in an efficient, consistent and uniform
> manner.

# C.2.f. Veterinary Review and Consultation

> Each IACUC is required by the AWRs and the *PHS* *Policy* to have as
> one of its members a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine with direct or
> delegated program authority and responsibility for animal activities
> at the institution.
>
> The AWRs and the *PHS* *Policy* require that the veterinarian be
> trained or experienced in laboratory animal science and medicine for
> the species used at the institution; the *Guide* recommends the IACUC
> veterinarian be American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM)
> certified or have equivalent experience.
>
> The Report of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine on
> Adequate Veterinary Care in Research, Testing and Teaching (1996)
> states:
>
> The veterinarian must be involved in the review and approval of all
> animal care and use in the institutional program. This includes
> advising on the design and performance of experiments using animals as
> related to model selection, collection and analysis of samples and
> data from animals, and methods and techniques proposed or in use. This
> responsibility is usually shared with investigators, the IACUC, and
> external peer reviewers.
>
> The veterinarian plays a key role in IACUC protocol review, as
> described below.

# *Reviewing Animal Use Protocols*

> The veterinarian can integrate his or her experience and training with
> that of the investigator and advise the investigator on selection of
> species, their sex, age and/or size. The veterinarian can assess the
> ability of the animal facility and its staff to support the proposed
> species and associated procedures.
>
> When the selection criteria have been established, the veterinarian
> can assist the IACUC in reviewing the proposed procedures and
> techniques appropriate to the goals of the study.

# *Reviewing Protocols for Potential Pain and Distress*

> The AWRs require that investigators proposing procedures that may
> cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals
> will consult with the AV or his or her designee. Similarly, the
> veterinarian has implicit responsibilities outlined in the AWRs to
> assess the potential for pain and distress that might be associated
> with the proposed animal activities, and to recommend the use of pain
> alleviating drugs, whenever possible, to counteract those conditions.

# 

# *Reviewing Protocols Involving Surgery*

> The veterinarian can ensure that appropriate provision is made for
> pre-operative and post-operative care of the animals in accordance
> with established veterinary medical and nursing practices. s noted in
> the AWRs and the *Guide*, all survival surgery should be performed
> using aseptic procedures, including the use of surgical gloves, masks,
> sterile instruments, and aseptic techniques.
>
> The veterinarian may provide the IACUC with assessment of the
> following:

-   preparation of the animal for the surgical intervention, to include
    the use of pre-anesthetic drugs where indicated, and appropriate
    anesthetic agents;

-   that the individual(s) performing the surgery has adequate
    experience or training for the specific procedures outlined in the
    study;

-   that aseptic techniques are appropriate for the procedure; and

-   that adequate post-operative care, to include post-operative
    analgesics where indicated, is provided.

> *Reviewing the Protocol to Ensure Humane Euthanasia of Animals*
>
> The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) provides guidance
> on the most humane methods to be used for euthanasia of animals, to
> include those used in research, testing and training. Their most
> recent recommendations are contained in the \"2000 Report of the AVMA
> Panel on Euthanasia\" (*JAVMA* Vol. 218, No. 5, pages 669-696). The
> veterinarian on the IACUC, using that publication or subsequent
> editions as the principal reference, can assess the investigator\'s
> proposed method of euthanasia.

# After Protocol Review and Approval

> Following IACUC approval of protocols, the veterinarian is in a
> position, through periodic visits to the animal facility and animal
> activity areas, to observe and evaluate animal well-being and decide
> whether the animal activities are being conducted in accordance with
> the conditions described or referenced in the protocol. The
> veterinarian, by virtue of training and experience, is able to serve
> in advocacy, oversight, and intervention roles that are distinct and
> unique among the IACUC members and research staff.

# *Checklist*

# 

# *Some Examples of the Veterinarian's Responsibilities* 

# *During Protocol Development and Review\**

-   Choice and use of appropriate analgesics/anesthetics

-   Verification of appropriate drug dosages, route of administration
    and choice of agent

-   Assistance in selection of appropriate animal model

-   Identification of refinement initiatives to ensure that
    manipulations have a minimal impact on animal welfare

-   Oversight of aseptic surgery and peri-operative care

-   Oversight of animal health and husbandry pertinent to the protocol
    and the entire colony

-   Identification of possible iatrogenic complications of model and
    procedures selected

-   Ensuring there are appropriate remediation efforts for iatrogenic
    complications

-   Serving as an occupational health and safety (including zoonoses)
    resource

-   Serving as a regulatory compliance resource

-   Assistance in identifying appropriate endpoints and in ensuring
    humane euthanasia

> *\*This checklist is not all-inclusive; rather it provides examples of
> the veterinarian's responsibilities, which may vary with each
> proposal.*

#### 

> []{#C_3 .anchor}**C.3. Other Protocol Review Considerations**

# C.3.a. Agricultural Research

# 

> []{#C_3_a .anchor}Farm animals are used in a variety of research
> contexts, including:

-   vaccine trials,

-   studies of basic biological processes,

-   studies of pharmacokinetics and organ transplantation, and

-   studies of nutritional, breeding and management methods to increase
    the supply and quality of food and fiber.

> Unlike typical laboratory animals, farm animals used for research and
> teaching may be housed in many different kinds of environments,
> ranging from traditional laboratory environments to enclosed or
> extensive farm settings. Because of these factors, as well as the
> regulatory complexity surrounding farm animal oversight, determining
> standards for the evaluation of research, teaching, and testing using
> farm animals is more complicated than for other laboratory animals.
>
> ***Applicability of PHS Policy and the AWRs***
>
> Farm animals used for improving animal nutrition, breeding,
> management, production efficiency, or the quality of food and fiber
> are specifically excluded from the definition of "animal" in the AWA.
> The *PHS* *Policy* applies to vertebrates used in research, research
> training and biological testing, funded by the PHS. Some Assurances
> extend coverage of the *PHS Policy* to all animal activities at an
> institution. Hence, farm animals used in research, teaching or testing
> may be covered by the *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs. Farm animals used
> in agricultural research may not be covered by either.
>
> OLAW advises institutions that uniform and consistent standards are an
> essential ingredient in a quality animal care and use program. Public
> perception of a potential double standard should also be considered.
>
> ***Standards for Evaluation of Agricultural Animal Research and
> Teaching***
>
> In 1988, a consortium of organizations and agencies developed
> guidelines for the care and use of farm animals, the *Guide for the
> Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and
> Teaching* (known as the *Ag Guide*). The *Ag Guide*, revised in 1999,
> was written to aid IACUCs in the evaluation of projects involving farm
> animal research or teaching "for which the scientific objectives are
> to improve understanding of the animal\'s use in production
> agriculture and that may require a simulated or actual production
> setting." The *Ag Guide* is comprised of overview chapters covering
> institutional policies, veterinary care, husbandry, and physical
> plant, as well as specific species chapters for horses, cattle,
> poultry, and sheep and goats. Adoption of the *Ag Guide* by an
> institution is voluntary, although the USDA endorses it as a basis for
> animal care review of USDA competitive grant submissions and projects
> receiving experiment station funding.
>
> This dual system of oversight for research and agricultural animals
> can pose challenges for IACUCs. In order to be relevant to commercial
> production, agricultural research must often be conducted under
> conditions similar to those found on commercial farms. However, there
> are practices that are common in commercial agriculture that would not
> ordinarily be permitted under the regulations governing research; for
> example, castrating young animals without anesthesia or closely
> confining animals in cages or stalls throughout the production cycle.
> But determining whether a particular protocol is agricultural or
> biomedical research, and which standards should be applied, is not
> always straightforward. For example, studies of basic biological
> processes in farm animals may benefit food and fiber production, but
> may also have human health implications. USDA Policy 26 provides some
> clarification, stating that farm animals used to manufacture and test
> biologicals for nonagricultural or nonproduction animals, or for
> humans, are considered research animals and thus are regulated under
> the AWA. But gray areas remain, and IACUCs need to consider animal
> welfare, protocol requirements, and research or teaching goals when
> setting standards.
>
> Recently, there has been recognition that some melding of these
> different guidelines and standards may be necessary and appropriate.
> For example, the *Guide*, while intended to apply only to farm animals
> used for research purposes, recognizes that such animals may sometimes
> be housed in farm settings, and recommends the *Ag Guide* as a useful
> resource in such situations. And although USDA-APHIS decided to
> regulate farm animals used in research in 1991, they did not develop
> specific standards; instead, they adopted the *Ag Guide* and the
> *Guide* as guidance documents (Policy 29).
>
> AAALAC also uses both the *Guide* and *Ag Guide* as reference
> documents for the accreditation of farm animal facilities and
> programs. Thus, the use of a performance-based approach is desirable.
>
> ***Review of Protocols and Facilities***
>
> Institutions employ a number of different approaches to reviewing
> activities involving animals used for agricultural research and
> teaching. Some have a single committee that reviews all protocols,
> while others have a subcommittee or even a separate committee that
> reviews agricultural animal research protocols. (As applicable,
> committees must comply with the membership and review procedures
> required by PHS *Policy* and the AWRs.) There are benefits and
> limitations associated with each of these approaches. However, what is
> most important is that the institution ensures uniform and
> high-quality oversight of all research, teaching, and testing
> activities involving animals, regardless of the species or the type of
> research being conducted.
>
> For thorough oversight of agricultural animal care and use, it is
> particularly important that there be agricultural expertise on the
> IACUC. The *Ag Guide* suggests that the IACUC include, among other
> members:

-   a scientist from the institution with experience in agricultural
    research or teaching involving agricultural animals;

-   an animal, dairy or poultry scientist who has training and
    experience in the management of agricultural animals; and

-   a veterinarian who has training and experience in agricultural
    animal medicine and who is licensed or eligible to be licensed to
    practice veterinary medicine.

> There are unusual aspects of agricultural research that deserve
> careful consideration by IACUCs. As mentioned previously, there are
> certain husbandry practices common on commercial farms that have the
> potential to cause pain or distress that would not ordinarily be
> permitted under the regulations governing research. The *Ag Guide*
> recommends that IACUCs review these procedures, as well as husbandry
> conditions that do not meet the standards outlined in the *Ag Guide*,
> even if they are considered normal practice. Another unusual aspect of
> agricultural research is that the animals may be killed and marketed
> for human food at the end of studies, which means that there are
> special considerations with respect to avoiding residues from
> therapeutics and other drugs.
>
> The extent of oversight is another issue that IACUCs need to address.
> At institutions with agricultural colleges, there may be multiple
> lines of authority for animal facilities and animal ownership. In
> addition, animals may be housed at off-site facilities at some
> distance from the main unit. The IACUC needs to ensure that there is
> adequate oversight of all animals under approved protocols.
> Agricultural and veterinary extension faculty may also conduct
> research or teach using privately owned animals on private farms, and
> the IACUC should consider whether or not these activities need to be
> covered by protocols.
>
> Finally, the facilities in which agricultural animals are housed are
> often older than typical laboratory animal facilities. Because many of
> these facilities are semi-enclosed or open, there may be problems with
> rodent control and some other aspects of maintenance. Recordkeeping in
> agricultural animal facilities may be less complete than that required
> in conventional lab animal facilities. The IACUC should be aware that
> there can and should be a high standard of animal care even in modest
> facilities. The development and implementation of standard operating
> procedures for these facilities can help to ensure a consistent
> standard of animal care.
>
> ***Conclusion***
>
> Although not always required by law, the monitoring of food and fiber
> animal research and teaching activities can significantly benefit an
> institution by improving the overall quality of the animal care
> program. Because agricultural research often has the improvement of
> food or fiber production as an endpoint, standards may differ from
> those for research animals. This does not mean, however, that
> different ethical standards should be used by an IACUC in considering
> the use and care of farm animals used for food and fiber research.
> Experimental goals and animal welfare should both be considered when
> evaluating the use and treatment of these animals.

### *References*

> Curtis, S.E. 1994. Commentary: Farm animal use in biomedical
> sciences---melding the guidelines. *ILAR News* 36:35-39.
>
> FASS (Federation of Animal Science Societies). 1999. Guide for the
> Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and
> Teaching. Savoy, IL: FASS.
>
> Joyner, G. 1990. Agricultural animal care review. *AWIC Newsletter*,
> Volume 1.
>
> Mench, J.A., S. J. Mayer, and L. Kruslisch. 1992. The Well-Being of
> Agricultural Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research.
> Bethesda, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
>
> Stricklin, W.R. and J.A. Mench. 1994. Oversight of the use of
> agricultural animals in university teaching and research. *ILAR News*
> 36:9-14.
>
> Swanson, J.C. 1998. Oversight of farm animals in research. *Lab
> Animal* 27, 28-31.
>
> Tillman, P. 1994. Integrating agricultural and biomedical research
> policies: conflicts and opportunities*. ILAR News* 36:29-35.
>
> AAALAC International Position Statement on "Farm Animals".

## C.3.b. Antibody Production

> []{#C_3_b .anchor}Antibodies are important tools for research.
> Depending on research needs, antibodies may be produced by polyclonal
> or monoclonal technique. Each technique requires that specific issues
> be addressed in animal protocols. IACUCs should ensure adequate
> training of personnel in the use of proper technique when any method
> of immunization is proposed. The advantages of a centralized service
> utilizing skilled technicians to meet multiple research groups' needs
> for polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies is another refinement which
> may enhance animal welfare in larger research programs. There are also
> many commercial sources of antibodies made to order.
>
> A good resource is "Information Resources for Adjuvants and Antibody
> Production: Comparisons and Alternative Technologies. AWIC Resource
> Series, No. 3. August 1997. Call Number: aHV4701.A94no.3. ISBN
> 090076791X. The document includes over 500 current bibliographic
> cita-tions regarding adjuvants and antibody production methods
> compiled from scientific journals, proceedings and newsletters. A
> company/institute listing of suppliers of antibodies and antibody
> production products is included. Emphasis is placed on citing
> comparative studies and research into alternative methods.

# *Polyclonal Antibody Production*

# Injection of an immunogen (e.g. protein, virus, bacterium) into an animal produces a humoral response, which induces the production of a population of heterogeneous antibodies, with varying specificities toward different molecular regions (epitopes) of the immunogen. Two types of lymphocytes (T cells, derived from the thymus, and B cells, derived from marrow) are responsible for the production of polyclonal antibodies. Polyclonal antibodies produced in response to infection can be effective in recognizing and eliminating foreign material, but the heterogenicity of the product limits its use in research and industry. 

# 

# *Adjuvants*

> To increase the immune response, the immunogen may be combined with an
> adjuvant. Adjuvants stimulate the rapid and sustained production of
> high titers of antibodies with high avidity. Adjuvants may facilitate
> the immune response through three basic mechanisms:

-   Adjuvants may serve as a depot for the antigen, which should
    increase the duration of antigen exposure and the antibody response.

-   Adjuvants may stimulate immune cells.

-   Adjuvants may enhance macrophage phagocytosis after binding the
    antigen as a particulate (a carrier/vehicle function).

# The use of adjuvants is required for many antigens which by themselves are weakly immunogenic. Adjuvant selection remains largely empirical. Antigens that are easily purified or available in large quantities may be good choices for starting with the least inflammatory adjuvants for immunization. Should antibody response not be suitable, a gradual increase in the inflammatory level of the adjuvant would then be warranted.

# 

> The choice of the appropriate adjuvant is important from both the
> aspect of the end result (high antibody response) and the welfare of
> the immunized animal. Many of the adjuvants have the capacity to cause
> inflammation, tissue necrosis and pain in animals. A major charge to
> investigators is to minimize animal use and discomfort.

# Freund's incomplete adjuvant (IFA) is a water/oil emulsion containing immunogen, paraffin oil and an emulsifying agent. Addition of killed myco-bacteria to the oil phase (Freund's complete adjuvant, CFA) enhances the immune response. Multiple exposures to CFA will cause severe hyper-sensitivity reactions. The use of CFA can be painful and alternative adju-vants should be considered. Abscesses, granulomas and tissue sloughs may occur at injection sites. However, a recent report (Halliday) suggests that when the NIH intramural guidelines are meticulously followed, assuring aseptic technique and adding the judicious use of chemical sedation, the use of CFA for immunization is a humane procedure. Undesirable and painful side effects must be minimized or eliminated by careful preparation of inoculum, the use of appropriate routes of administration, adequate separation of injection sites, and the use of a small amount of inoculum per site. 

# 

# Because of the severity of the secondary immune response to mycobacte-rium in CFA, IFA must be used with booster antigen administrations in cases where CFA has been used in the initial injection.

> For many years CFA was the only effective adjuvant, but this is no
> longer true. Other adjuvants are available as alternatives and may be
> suitable for use in an investigator\'s experiments.
>
> ***Route of Injection***
>
> The range of recommendations for routes and sites of administration of
> antigen-adjuvants preparations, volumes per site and number of sites
> per animal for different species vary in the literature and
> institutional guidelines. Particularly with the use of CFA, it is
> important to note that the severity of potentially painful
> inflammatory reactions may be minimized by injection of a small volume
> of inoculum per site and the use of multiple injection sites when
> appropriate. Injection sites must be sufficiently separated to
> prohibit coalescing of the inflammatory lesions.
>
> Using multiple sites for immunization also provides more foci for
> antigen presentation and the involvement of more lymph nodes.
> Intradermal and subcutaneous routes are commonly used to take
> advantage of antigen-processing dendritic cells present within the
> dermis. Hair should be clipped from intradermal and subcutaneous
> injection sites, and the site should be aseptically prepared with
> betadine or nolvasan scrub followed by alcohol or other appropriate
> antiseptics. The following recommendations apply primarily to antigen
> solutions in CFA or IFA. Volumes ranging from 0.05 ml to 0.10 ml per
> site have been recommended for intradermal injections in rabbits. A
> total of five intradermal sites has been recommended. Because
> intradermal sites ulcerate with FCA, sterile inocula must be used and
> the site must be properly disinfected to prevent secondary bacterial
> infection. Subcutaneous injection volumes in the rabbit vary from
> recommendations of 0.10 ml to 0.25 ml to 0.40 ml per site. Number of
> sites recommended varies from 4 to 10.
>
> Footpad injections in rabbits are prohibited. Where scientific
> justification is provided, footpad injections may be permitted in
> rodents, but only in one hind foot, and with the animals housed on
> soft bedding. Suggested maxi-mum injection volumes can range from 0.01
> to 0.05 for mice and 0.10 ml for rats. The need for footpad injections
> must be critically evaluated by the IACUC before approval.
>
> Sometimes direct inoculation into lymph nodes, such as the popliteal
> lymph node, is used. With practice these nodes often can be palpated
> and the injection performed percutaneously.
>
> Intramuscular injections, usually made in the biceps femoris or
> quadriceps muscle mass, generally are lower volumes of 0.25 ml to 0.20
> --0.40 ml. Care must be exercised to avoid adjacent nerves and blood
> vessels as well as fascial planes when injecting into a muscle bundle.
> Disagreement exists as to the appropriateness of intramuscular
> injection of CFA. The intramuscular route of injection is recommended
> in some institutional guidelines and specifically discouraged in other
> guidelines. Intramuscular injection is generally not recommended in
> rodents because of limited muscle mass.
>
> For TiterMax®, intradermal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular routes are
> recommended with volumes per injection site ranging from 0.01 to 0.25
> ml in small and large animals. For Ribi®, intradermal, subcutaneous
> and intramuscular routes are recommended with volumes per injection
> site ranging from 0.05 to 0.50 in small and large animals.

# *Monoclonal Antibody Production* 

> Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are homogeneous because they are
> pro-duced by hybrid cells derived from a single antigen-stimulated B
> cell. The production of mAbs involves two phases. In the first phase
> an animal (usually a mouse) is immunized with the antigen of interest.
> Immunization of the antigen is often performed with an adjuvant, as
> discussed above. Splenocytes are harvested from the responding animal,
> and are fused with a myeloma cell line for *in vitro* propagation.
>
> Before the immunization protocol begins, the methodology for detecting
> the specific antibody of interest in the mouse sera and tissue culture
> supernatants is developed. Otherwise, significant time and animal
> resources may be wasted later in the mAb- developing phase. Test
> bleeds should be performed in order to determine if the mice are
> responding to the immunizations. Most immunologically based assays for
> determining if the desired antibodies are being produced require less
> than 10 microliters of mouse serum. Once an appropriate response has
> been confirmed the mice should be boosted again and typically after
> three days from the boost the mice should be euthanized and spleens
> harvested.
>
> The second phase is production of adequate quantities of mAb for a
> project or analysis. There are two major methods: *in vitro* and the
> ascites method.
>
> The ascites method has been one of the most popular means for
> producing large quantities of highly concentrated monoclonal
> antibodies since its inception in 1972. However, improved techniques
> and culture media have demonstrated that mAbs can be produced by *in
> vitro* techniques at a quality and concentration that are similar to
> that of ascites. The National Research Council's report on Monoclonal
> Antibody Production specifically states "*in vitro* methods for the
> production of monoclonal antibodies should be adopted as a routine
> method unless there is a clear reason why they cannot be used...". In
> accordance with the *PHS* *Policy* and the *Guide*, alternatives to
> the use of animals (*in vitro* techniques) for the production of mAbs
> must be considered in place of the ascites method. (See the [Office of
> Extramural Research Guidance concerning the Production of Monoclonal
> Antibodies in Animals, *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts,* Notice
> OD-00-019,
> 2/3/2000](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-019.html),
> and the [11/17/97 OPRR Dear Colleague letter on Production of mABs
> Using Mouse Ascites
> Method](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/dc98-01.htm).)
>
> The ascites method should only be used after *in vitro* failure of
> each cell line has been demonstrated, or other adequate justification
> is provided. Analysis of individual cell lines is necessary because
> the production performance of each hybridoma cell line grown *in
> vitro* is highly variable. Despite this variability, work performed by
> Petrie indicates that at least 90% of all hybridomas that are placed
> on *in vitro* production protocols will yield adequate amounts of high
> quality mAbs.
>
> Several resources for the *in vitro* production of mAb are
> available*.* Some institutions have core facilities that may provide
> an *in vitro* mAb production service. The NIH also sponsors a national
> cell culture core facility (National Cell Culture Center, Minneapolis,
> MN; <http://www.nccc.com/>).

### *References*

> ***In Vitro* mAb Production References**
>
> Jackson, L.R., B.A. Trudel, and N.S. Lipman. 1999, Small Scale
> Monoclonal Antibody Production *in Vitro*; Methods and Resources. *Lab
> Animal* 28(3):38-50.
>
> Alternatives in Monoclonal Antibody Production, 1998, The Johns
> Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and National
> Center for Research Resources (NCRR) Workshop.
>
> Schulhof, J. (ed). 1999. Small-Scale Monoclonal Antibody Production,
> special edition *Lab Animal*; Autumn 1999.
>
> **Monoclonal Antibody References**
>
> Kohler G., and C. Milstein.1975. Continuous culture of fused cells
> secreting antibody of predefined specificity. *Nature* 256:495-497.
>
> Heidel J. 1997. Monoclonal Antibody Production in Gas-permeable Tissue
> Culture Bags Using Serum free Media. *Center for Alternative to Animal
> Testing: Alternatives in Monoclonal Antibody Production*, 8:18-20.
>
> Jackson L.R., L. J. Trudel, J.G. Fox, and N.S. Lipman. 1996.
> Evaluation of hollow fiber bioreactors as an alternative to murine
> ascites production for small scale monoclonal antibody production*. J
> Immunol Methods* 189: 217-231.
>
> OPRR Reports, 11/17/97, Number 98-01 Animal Welfare, Production of
> Monoclonal Antibodies Using Mouse Ascites Method.
>
> Peterson N., and J. Peavey. 1998. Practical applications of *in vitro*
> monoclonal antibody production. C*ontemporary Topics Lab Animal
> Science* 37:61-66.
>
> *Monoclonal Antibody Production*. 1999. National Academy Press,
> Washington D.C.
>
> Jackson L., L. Trudel, J. Fox, and N. Lipman. 1999. Monoclonal
> antibody production in murine ascites. I. Clinical and pathologic
> features. *Lab Animal Science* 49:70-80.
>
> *NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts*. Notice OD-00-019, 2/3/00.
>
> **Polyclonal Antibody References**
>
> NIH's ARAC Guidelines: Recommendations for Consideration in the
> Research Use of Inflammatory Agents^.^ Adopted by full Committee of
> the NIHARC on 8/13/86. Reapproved - 5/8/96.
>
> Halliday, L.C. et al. 2000. Physiologic and Behavioral Assessment of
> Rabbits Immunized with Freund's Complete Adjuvant. *Contemporary
> Topics* 39(5):8-13.
>
> Jackson, J.R. and J.G. Fox. 1995. Institutional Policies and
> Guidelines on Adjuvants and Antibody Production. *ILAR Journal*
> 37(3):141-152.
>
> Sigel, M.B., Y.N. Sinha and W.P. VanderLaan. 1983. Production of
> antibodies by inoculation into lymph nodes. *Methods Enzymol 9*3:3-12.
>
> []{#C_3_c .anchor}**C.3.c. Breeding Colonies**
>
> Investigators maintain breeding colonies for a variety of reasons. A
> breeding colony may be required for an established animal model
> because:

-   that animal model is not commercially available,

-   young animals have very specific age or weight requirements that
    cannot be fulfilled by a commercial breeding colony, or

-   physiological status of the mutant animal is too severely affected
    for it to survive shipment.

> Investigators developing a new spontaneous or induced mutant animal
> model need to maintain their own breeding colony because there is no
> alternative source for this mutant. While trying to establish a
> breeding colony for a new mutant model, the investigator is also
> simultaneously working to determine phenotype, to identify affected
> physiological system(s), and define inheritance pattern.
>
> To review standard operating procedures for breeding colonies, the
> IACUC will need information about colony management. Examples of
> necessary information include:

-   number of breeders and number of young per cage,

-   breeding system including number of females per male or continuous
    versus interrupted mating,

-   weaning age,

-   separation of animals at weaning, and

-   methods for identification of individual animals.

> Large numbers of animals may be required to maintain a breeding
> colony. The exact number of animals can only be approximated because
> it is im-possible to predict in advance the exact number and sex of
> offspring. The estimated number of animals should clearly distinguish
> between:

-   breeders,

-   young that cannot be used in experiments because they are of the
    wrong genotype or sex, and

-   animals that will be subject to experimental manipulations.

> Colony management practices should be briefly described in the
> investiga-tor\'s animal protocol, and justification provided for
> departure from standard institutional practices.
>
> Determining which animals to include in the estimated number of
> animals on an animal protocol can be challenging to the investigator
> and the IACUC in the absence of IACUC-developed guidelines. The
> estimated number of animals that are kept for breeding purposes and
> not subject to any experimental manipulations should be part of the
> animal protocol.
>
> Studies involving genetic analysis are animal intensive. Genetic
> analysis can involve determining if a single gene has dominant or
> recessive inheri-tance, identifying different genes involved in a
> quantitative (polygenic) trait,
>
> or fine mapping to determine chromosomal location of a mutant gene. It
> is possible for the investigator to estimate the number of animals
> required, but difficult for the IACUC to evaluate this estimate in the
> absence of experience.
>
> Up to 1200 mice are required to map a single gene with recessive
> inheri-tance and full penetrance, and have adequate numbers of progeny
> for developmental studies, phenotyping and linkage analysis. This
> number assumes a breeding colony of 10 to 12 pair matings with a 6- to
> 8-month reproductive lifespan, around 90% productive matings,
> replacement of breeders, and no unusual mutant infertility or
> mortality.
>
> Up to 1100 mice are required for quantitative trait loci analysis
> using analysis of F2 progeny. The number assumes small breeding
> colonies of two inbred parental strains (4 to 6 pairs) and two
> reciprocal F1 hybrids (2 to 4 pairs), no unusual infertility,
> replacement of breeders at 6- to 8-month intervals, and generation of
> between 500 and 1000 F2 mice for genotyping.
>
> Up to 750 mice are required to construct a congenic strain using
> "speed\'" congenic genotyping methods. This number assumes a breeding
> colony of 10 to 12 breeding pairs, replacement of breeders, and
> progeny for pheno-typing and genetic linkage. If the homozygous mutant
> does not breed and the congenic strain must be developed using
> intercross matings, the esti-mated number of mice increases to 1,200.
>
> After founder transgenic or \'knock-out\' mice have been identified,
> between 80 and 100 mice may be needed to maintain and characterize a
> line. The number assumes up to five breeder pairs per line, breeder
> replacement, no unusual infertility and adequate numbers of weanlings
> for genotyping and phenotyping characterization.
>
> If a study requires fertilized one-cell eggs, embryos or fetuses, the
> protocol should indicate the number of eggs, embryos or fetuses that
> are required for proposed studies. The estimated number of
> experimental animals may be limited to the number of female animals
> that are mated and euthanized or surgically manipulated to collect the
> required eggs, embryos or fetuses. In this situation, males might be
> listed as breeders if they are not subject to any experimental
> manipulation.
>
> If a suckling animal will be subject to any manipulation, such as
> thymec-tomy, toe clip or ear notch for identification, tail tip
> excision for genotyping, or behavioral tests, the estimated number of
> manipulated sucklings must be
>
> included in the number of animals used. If suckling animals will be
> euthanized at or prior to weaning because they are the wrong genotype
> or sex for the experiment, then they may be included as animals held
> or euthanized but not subject to experimental manipulations.
>
> One option is for the IACUC to request estimated animal numbers as
> follows:
>
> Estimated number of weaned and adult animals
>
> to be subject to experimental manipulations \_­\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\*
>
> Estimated number of suckling animals to be
>
> subject to experimental manipulations \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\*
>
> TOTAL \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> \*Estimated numbers should be further subdivided based on invasiveness
> of procedures using institutional criteria*.*
>
> Estimated number of breeders held but not
>
> subject to experimental manipulations \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\*
>
> Estimated number of suckling animals to be
>
> euthanized at or prior to weaning, and not
>
> subject to experimental manipulation \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\*
>
> In summary, the IACUC's role for oversight regarding breeding colonies
> includes ensuring that the need for a breeding colony has been
> established based on scientific or animal welfare concerns, that the
> procedures used in the breeding colony are evaluated and approved by
> the IACUC on a regular basis (e.g., as part of the semiannual program
> review), that there is a mechanism for tracking animals, and that the
> standards of care and animal well-being for the animals in the
> breeding colony are consistent with the *Guide*.
>
> ***References***
>
> Beamer, W.G., Senior Staff Scientist, The Jackson Laboratory. Bar
> Harbor, ME. Personal communication.
>
> Festing, M.F.W. 1987. Animal production and breeding methods. In *The
> UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals*. 6th
> ed., pp. 18-34. T B Poole (ed). Churchill Livingstone Inc., New York.
>
> Fox, R.R. and B.A. Witham (eds). 1997. *Handbook on Genetically
> Standardized JX mice*. 5th edition, pp. 43-44, 120-125. The Jackson
> Laboratory. Bar Harbor, ME.
>
> []{#C_3_d .anchor}**C.3.d. Field Studies**

# 

> Federal requirements and the *Guide* focus primarily on the care and
> use of laboratory animals in research facilities. The same guiding
> principles, however, apply to the use of vertebrate species in field
> studies.
>
> Application of the requirements and guidelines often pose unique
> chal-lenges to the investigator and the IACUC because of the nature of
> field research. For example, field sites are often at a distance and
> may be remote, making it impractical for IACUC inspections. One
> solution is to re-quire the investigator to provide photos, videotapes
> or other information that can help the committee evaluate the use of
> animals. For some projects the committee can find a consultant near
> the field site to perform an inspection and report to the IACUC. If
> the studies fall under the AWRs, at least two members of the IACUC
> must conduct the site inspections. Other difficulties relate to the
> nature of the research and the populations to be studied, which may be
> unfamiliar to the IACUC.
>
> Professional field biologists in organizations devoted to the study of
> fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals have prepared
> guidelines for field work with these populations; these guidelines
> form a useful reference and can assist the investigator in planning,
> and the IACUC in reviewing, field research using vertebrate animals.
> The references at the end of this section cite such guidelines.
> Appendix E includes a list of professional societies and contact
> information. These organizations can assist by referring the IACUC to
> appropriate individuals and authorities.
>
> There is a comprehensive set of laws intended to protect wild animal
> populations. Appendix E describes these laws and the manner in which
> they are implemented and enforced. Virtually all activities involving
> birds, for example, require permitting under the Migratory Bird Treaty
> Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
> Act, or other permitting requirements. The investigator must be able
> to assure the IACUC that all necessary federal and state permits have
> been or will be obtained before research begins.
>
> The proposed study can be assessed by the IACUC in a manner similar to
> laboratory studies if the protocol prepared by the PI addresses the
> following relevant items:

-   species selection,

-   site selection, and

-   methodologies employed.

# *Species Selection* 

> The investigator should provide information on the population to be
> studied and a rationale for choosing that particular population. The
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issues many of the necessary
> permits. In issuing permits the USFWS assesses the risk to the animal
> population and the IACUC may rely on that assessment rather than
> attempt to determine the potential impact on the population.
>
> With regard to small or declining populations, many state wildlife or
> natural resource agencies also issue research permits. In the event
> that a state research permit is required and has been issued, the
> IACUC may assume that the state agency has assessed the risk to the
> population and found it to be acceptable.
>
> An IACUC that has additional questions about the selection of species
> or the impact on the population to be studied may require the
> investigator to provide additional information or the Committee may
> consult with biologists with relevant expertise.

# *Site Selection*

> The selection of the study site for the research should maximize the
> opportunity for data collection and minimize the disruption caused by
> the investigator. The selection process should also take into
> consideration other activities in the area, such as agricultural
> practices, tourism, and hunting, which may interfere with the research
> protocol.
>
> Permission to utilize the site may be necessary and the investigator
> must be able to assure the IACUC that necessary permits or permission
> have or will be obtained. Appendix E describes various site-specific
> permits required for field investigations.

# *Methodologies Employed*

> The potential short- and long-term effects of procedures on individual
> ani-mals should be evaluated in all protocols. If animals are to be
> captured, the methods used and the numbers involved should be detailed
> in the protocol submitted to the IACUC. There should be a description
> of measures taken to prevent potential injuries and alleviate
> potential distress, and of the possible impact of capture on
> subsequent behavior and survival of the animals.
>
> If animals are to be monitored individually, the investigator must
> indicate whether they will be identified by natural markings or will
> be artificially
>
> marked. If the animals are to be artificially marked, there must be a
> des-cription of methods to be used and potential trauma (e.g., paint
> markings may increase visibility to predators). Capture and marking
> methods are often a matter of practicality and usually have been
> developed and evalu-ated over a period of time. There is a substantial
> body of literature regarding the effect of mark-and-recapture studies
> and other study tech-niques on wild animals. The IACUC or investigator
> may rely on consultation with experts in the relevant discipline for
> this information. In issuing permits the USFWS also assesses capture
> and marking activities, and the IACUC may rely on that assessment in
> considering the appropriateness of a particular technique.
>
> Field experimental procedures are commonly used to test hypotheses. In
> all instances, any potential pain or distress to an individual animal
> must be assessed and the investigator\'s justification evaluated in
> the context of the potential value of the data to be obtained.
>
> Techniques for remotely recording behavioral or physiological data in
> the field are valuable and often minimally invasive. When possible,
> the least invasive procedures should be chosen (e.g., use of hormone
> assays of urine or feces rather than blood samples). When removal of
> individuals is necessary to take measurements or tissue samples, the
> IACUC should take into account the degree of invasiveness of the
> procedure and potential problems associated with return of the animal
> to the field. For example, animals should be released in a condition
> that enables them to avoid predators, seek shelter, and survive
> inclement weather.
>
> Individual animals may also be treated experimentally to alter their
> behavior or physiology by surgery or drugs. Any invasive surgery, such
> as organ removal or implanting transmitters, should be done using
> aseptic technique. The use and choice of anesthesia will be affected
> by field conditions because some agents are difficult to transport or
> use in field conditions. Anesthetics that do not clear from the system
> quickly may require holding the animal longer as they may compromise
> the animal\'s ability to survive when released. The potential for
> human consumption of contaminated game species should also be
> considered.
>
> Procedures involving site manipulation should be adequately justified
> by the investigator. For example, investigators may remove or, in rare
> and well-justified cases, add a predator; however, state law may
> prohibit releases of non-native invasive species*.* If fences are
> erected to limit movement of individuals or populations, the impact on
> other species should be considered.
>
> Euthanasia of wildlife in the field can raise unique and challenging
> issues. The Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia includes
> considerations and techniques for euthanasia of wildlife and should be
> used by the IACUC as a resource.
>
> ***Conclusion***
>
> Many of these issues are difficult to address definitively, but their
> con-sideration will help the IACUC judge the potential impact and
> value of the study proposed, and can be expected to assist the
> investigator in obtaining maximum information from the study with
> minimum negative impact on the animals studied or their environment.
> The IACUC should ensure that the investigator complies with applicable
> regulations and policies and obtains any required permits; the IACUC
> may wish to obtain copies. Many of the issues arising from proposals
> to conduct field research on vertebrate animals will require the
> judgment of experienced professionals in the field and the IACUC
> should feel free to seek advice or consultation if necessary.
>
> ***References***
>
> Acceptable field methods in mammalogy: Preliminary guidelines approved
> by the American Society of Mammalogists. 1987. *J Mammalogy 68(4,
> Suppl.): 1-18.*
>
> Bowman, P. 1989. Institutional animal care and use committee review of
> wildlife field research. *Lab Animal 18 (3): 28-30.*
>
> Burghardt, Z.M. and H.A. Herzog, Jr. 1980. Beyond conspecifics: Is
> Brer Rabbit our brother? *Bioscience 30: 763-768.*
>
> Guidelines for the Capture, Handling, and Care of Mammals. Undated.
> American Society of Mammologists.
> ([http:www.mammalsociety.org/committees/commanimalcareuse/
> 98acucguidelines.PDF](http://www.mammalsociety.org/committees/commanimalcareuse/98acucguidelines.pdf))
>
> Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and
> teaching. 2000. *Animal Behavior 59:253-257.*
>
> Guidelines for the use of fish in field research. 1987. American
> Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (SIH), American Fisheries
> Society (AFS), and the American Institute of Fisheries Research
> Biologists (AIFRB). *Copeia (Suppl.) 1-12.* Also: *Fisheries
> 13(2):16-23.*
>
> Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field
> Research. 1987. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
> (ASIH), The Herpetologists\' League (HL), and the Society for the
> Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). *J Herpetology 4 (Suppl.):
> 1-14.*
>
> *Guidelines to the use of wild birds in research*. 2d Edition, 1999.
> The Ornithological Council.
>
> (Available at
> [www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET](http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET) or in hard
> copy for \$8.00 per copy; send orders to Max Thompson, Assistant
> Treasurer, American Ornithologists\' Union, Dept. of Biology, 100
> College Street, Winfield, KS 67158-8382). \[Replaces in entirety the
> Report of committee on the use of wild birds in research. 1988.
> American Ornithologists\' Union, Auk 105(1, Suppl.): 1A-41A.\]
>
> Orlans, F.B., Ed. 1988. Field research guidelines: Impact on animal
> care and use committee. Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
> Bethesda, MD.
>
> Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, *JAVMA*, Vol. 218, No. 5,
> March 1, 2001.

# C.3.e. Hazardous Materials

> The IACUC must pay particular attention to proposals employing
> potentially hazardous materials, including:

-   radioactive substances,

-   infectious microorganisms,

-   biological toxins,

-   hazardous chemicals, and

-   recombinant DNA.

> These all have the potential of causing harm to animals in the
> facility and the personnel caring for and using them.
>
> Some hazardous materials are strictly controlled by federal, state and
> local regulations. Radiation Safety Committees (RSCs) and
> Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) have been mandated by the
> federal government to ensure that certain radioactive materials and
> recombinant DNA materials are handled safely. The role of these
> committees may be extended to consider research involving human and
> animal pathogens. The IACUC should be generally familiar with the
> responsibilities of the various safety commit-tees and organizations
> at their institution and the institution should ensure that the
> functions of the committees are coordinated. Animal research proposals
> should be consistent with the procedures required by the IBC.
>
> In addition to the various safety committees, institutions should have
> professional staff or resources available to handle chemical,
> biological and radiological agents. The National Research Council
> publication, *Occu-pational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of
> Research Animals*, is a valuable resource for IACUC members. This
> publication covers a wide variety of occupational health and safety
> issues, including information on working with hazardous materials in
> research animals.

# *Radioactive Materials*

> The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) directly, or by its
> state designee, issues licenses permitting institutions to procure,
> use and dispose of specified radioactive materials. These licenses do
> not cover:

-   X-ray machines,

-   high voltage accelerators,

-   electron microscopes, and

-   radioactive materials from sources other than reactor by-products,
    al-though these are all sources of ionizing radiation.

> RSCs have oversight for the procurement, use and disposal of
> radioactive materials; therefore, their approval should be coordinated
> with IACUC review of any proposal that involves radioactivity. General
> information on potential health risks from exposure to ionizing
> radiation can be found in the USNRC Regulatory Guide.

# *Biohazardous Materials*

> Infectious diseases may be a factor in many animal studies due to
> natural infections as well as those specifically induced as part of
> research. Consensus biosafety guidelines have been established for the
> use of animals in research involving infectious agents (*Biosafety in
> Micro-biological/and Biomedical Laboratories*). These guidelines
> provide a concept for assessing risks and selecting appropriate
> safeguards. Four biosafety levels, which consist of combinations of
> practices, safety equipment and facilities, are described in this
> CDC/NIH document.
>
> Certain human pathogens as listed in the *Select Agent List* (Appendix
> A, 42 CFR 72.6) must be registered and approved by the Centers for
> Disease Control (CDC) prior to transfer from one registered facility
> to the other. Similar requirements are in place with the USDA for the
> transfer of foreign animal disease agents.
>
> The NIH publication, *Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant
> DNA Molecules*, promulgated by the NIH Office of Biotechnology
> Activities, also includes four biosafety levels and represents a key
> reference for work involving recombinant microorganisms. Recombinant
> DNA experiments involving animals also require approval from the IBC.

# *Hazardous Chemicals*

> In addition to animal care concerns, activities involving hazardous
> chemicals require procedures for:

-   chemical storage and disbursement,

-   dosage preparation and challenge procedures, and

-   waste management and disposal practices.

> It is also necessary to determine whether the chemicals will be
> present in feed, feces or urine. A rigorous review to ensure
> appropriate safety prac-tices, containment equipment and facility
> safeguards is essential for animal experiments involving chemical
> inhalation.
>
> Proposals submitted to the IACUC must include sufficient documentation
> to assess the adequacy of precautions to control exposure of personnel
> to the hazardous agents involved in animal experiments. The
> identification by the IACUC of protocols involving hazardous chemicals
> (e.g., the use of known carcinogens to induce tumors in animal models,
> determinations of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or teratogenicity, or
> acute toxicity studies) is essential for institutional compliance with
> health and safety standards. The Occupational Safety and Health
> Administration (OSHA) laboratory standard "Occupational Exposure to
> Hazardous Chemicals in the Laboratory" is of particular importance.
> The IACUC should be familiar with the requirement in this standard for
> a chemical hygiene plan for controlling exposures to hazardous
> chemicals. Written standard operating procedures may be required
> describing appropriate safety precautions and specific "designated
> areas" where hazardous chemicals will be used or stored.
>
> One health and safety issue common to most IACUCs concerns the use of
> the inhalation agent ether for anesthesia and euthanasia. Ether forms
> explosive peroxide when stored in metal containers and must be used
> with special precautions because of its volatility and flammability.
> Ether must be used with special ventilation and kept away from flames
> or electrical ignition sources. Carcasses of animals euthanized with
> ether should be stored in explosion proof well-ventilated areas and
> not incinerated until the ether is volatilized. Other inhalation
> anesthetics, such as halothane, methoxyflurane and nitrous oxide,
> although not without some degree of toxicity in an occupational
> setting, are less hazardous when used with proper precautions and a
> waste gas scavenging system. Methoxyflurane is the most toxic of these
> inhalation agents to humans, and safe practices should be closely
> scrutinized by the IACUC.
>
> Another class of hazardous chemical routinely encountered in the
> laboratory environment is aldehydes. Specific OSHA guidelines are
> available for handling aldehydes and other chemicals. *Material Safety
> Data Sheets*, which provide useful information on specific hazardous
> chemicals, must be accessible on site for each hazardous agent
> present.

# *Hazardous Waste*

> Animal wastes contaminated with radioactive materials, recombinant
> organisms, infectious agents or other hazardous chemical agents must
> be carefully managed to avoid human exposure or damage to the
> environment. Special efforts should be made in experimental design to
> minimize the generation of wastes containing hazardous chemicals.
> Those containing radioactivity in addition to hazardous chemicals are
> particularly difficult to deal with. Wastes containing infectious
> agents should be decontaminated, preferably in a steam autoclave,
> before disposal. Incineration is the recommended treatment for
> contaminated feed and bedding. The professional health and safety
> staff, who have responsibility for hazardous waste management at the
> institution, should review institutional policies when animal care
> proposals involving hazardous materials are received.

## *References*

> *Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories*, 4^th^
> Edition, May 1999. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
> Publication (CDC) 93-8395.
>
> NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. NIH
> Office of Biotechnology Activities.
>
> Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. January
> 31, 1990. *Federal Register*, Vol. 55:3327-3335 29CFR1910.1450.
>
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide. 1996. Regulatory
> Guide 8.29, Instruction concerning risks from occupational radiation
> exposure.
>
> *Occupational Health and Safety in the Care and Use of Animals*. 1997.
> National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
>
> []{#C_3_f .anchor}C.3.f. Instructional Use of Animals
>
> Any instructional use of live, vertebrate animals that is supported by
> the PHS is governed by the *PHS* *Policy*. The applicability of the
> AWRs de-pends upon the species used. Most institutions have chosen to
> require that all instructional use of animals, regardless of funding
> source or species, be reviewed by the IACUC.
>
> It may be appropriate for students, at both undergraduate and graduate
> levels, to participate in the conduct of experiments involving
> laboratory animals for the purpose of education. All instructional
> proposals should clearly identify the learning objectives and justify
> the particular value of animal use as part of the course, whether it
> is demonstration of a known phenomenon, acquisition of practical
> skills, or exposure to research. In all cases, consideration must be
> given to alternative approaches to attaining the desired educational
> objectives, in accordance with the U.S. Government Principles.
>
> Adequate supervision and training are especially important as the
> tech-niques learned by students may be carried into subsequent
> research careers. It is recommended that students receive instruction
> in the ethics of animal research and applicable rules and regulations,
> prior to undertaking any experimentation. When students work in an
> investigator's laboratory, the IACUC must ensure that the students
> receive appropriate supervision and training in animal care and use.
> The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs have specific training requirements that
> apply to all animal users, including students. Student projects
> involving protocols different from those approved for the instructor's
> laboratory must be reviewed and approved on their own merits by the
> IACUC.
>
> Experiments sometimes entail behavioral observation with no
> intervention, or minor painless interventions, such as choices of food
> or living accommodations. Such projects teach the rigors of conducting
> a research project and the variability inherent to biological or
> biobehavioral systems. These exercises generally involve little or no
> distress to the animals, but still require IACUC approval.
>
> Some procedures present additional concerns. Selected examples are
> listed below:

-   Behavioral studies that involve conditioning procedures in which
    animals are trained to perform tasks using mildly aversive stimuli,
    such as the noise of a buzzer, may be potentially stressful to the

> animals. For other behavioral studies using non-aversive stimuli, such
> as running mazes, it may be necessary to maintain animals at a reduced
> body weight to enable food treats to be used as an effective reward.
> Experiments involving food and water restriction for teaching purposes
> must be rigorously justified and carefully monitored.

-   Some behavioral studies produce potentially high levels of distress,
    including those using aversive stimuli, such as unavoidable noxious
    electric shock and surgical ablations or drug-induced lesions
    designed to affect the animal's behavior or performance. The
    educational benefits of such procedures should be carefully reviewed
    and clearly justified, bearing in mind that studies involving
    unrelieved pain or distress are generally inappropriate when
    employed solely for instructional purposes (U.S. Government
    Principle IX).

-   Laboratory studies in physiology, neurophysiology, biology and
    pharmacology often involve observations and experiments using
    ani-mals. For all procedures, including those in which animals are
    euthanized to obtain tissues (e.g., in the teaching of anatomy or
    tissue harvest for *in vitro* procedures), the procedures and method
    of eutha-nasia, if any, must be reviewed by the IACUC. The number of
    animals used should always be the minimum necessary to accomplish
    the objectives of the proposed educational activity.

# *Animal Use in Veterinary Teaching*

> Many North American veterinary schools use live animals to teach
> anes-thesia, animal handling, surgical procedures, recovery from
> anesthesia, post-operative management and postmortem examinations
> following terminal procedures. Animals designated for teaching may be
> kept long term and participate in many classes over the course of a
> year or more.
>
> All instructional use of animals in non-survival as well as survival
> instruc-tional procedures should be reviewed by the IACUC. Repeated
> procedures on designated teaching animals should be limited and
> reviewed by the IACUC. Federal limitations against multiple survival
> surgeries must be observed. Cost savings alone is not an adequate
> reason for performing multiple survival surgical procedures.
>
> Some schools now make alternatives available for those students who do
> not wish to participate in animal laboratories. Alternatives to the
> use of animals acquired specifically for instruction include the use
> of client-owned animals, or dogs and cats from animal control
> facilities that are made
>
> available for surgical neutering. Plastic models and other model
> systems are increasingly being used to teach manual skills.
>
> Animals that develop unique and/or terminal conditions may be donated
> to a veterinary school for research and/or teaching purposes. The use
> of these animals needs full IACUC review.

# *Animal Use in Agricultural Instruction*

> Flocks and herds of agricultural animals are often maintained by
> agricultural schools to teach husbandry, production, and showmanship.
> Animals used for these practices are not covered by the *PHS Policy*
> (unless supported by PHS) or the AWRs. However, research procedures
> (e.g., *in vitro* fertilization), should have committee review. IACUCs
> charged with reviewing the use of animals in activities with
> agricultural applications will find *A Guide for the Care and Use of
> Agricultural Animals in Agriculture Research and Teaching* useful in
> conducting their evaluation.
>
> ***References***
>
> Boschert, K. Oct. 1993. *An overview of animal use alternatives in
> veterinary education.* *Lab Animal* 22 (10) p. 36-42. Nature
> Publishing Company. New York, N.Y.
>
> Kahler, Susan C. March 15, 2000. Laboratories terminated, but lessons
> learned. *JAVMA*, Vol. 216, No. 6,
>
> Smith, A., R. Fosse, D. Dewhurst, and K. Smith. 1997. Educational
> simulation models in the biomedical sciences. *ILAR Journal* 38 (2) p.
> 82-88. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Research
> Council. Washington, D.C.
>
> Ungar, K. and D.C. Anderson. Summer 1994. An inventory of databases
> and other sources of information on alternatives to the use of animals
> in science education. Johns Hopkins Cent. Altern. Animal Test. *The
> Center* 11 (3) p. 12-18. Baltimore, MD.
>
> Use of animals in medical education. Aug. 14, 1991. *JAMA* 266
> (6):836-837. The Association. Chicago, Ill.
>
> White, K.K., L.G. Wheaton, and S.A. Greene. Winter 1992*. Curriculum
> change related to live animal use: A four-year surgical curriculum.*
> *J Vet Med Educ* Vol. 19 (1):6-10. The Association of American
> Veterinary Medical Colleges. Blacksburg, Va.

# C.3.g. Surgery

> []{#C_3_g .anchor}
>
> Surgical procedures are a common component of animal research
> activi-ties, and IACUCs are often called upon to assess the details of
> these procedures. Further, the IACUC is responsible for determining
> that personnel are qualified and trained in the procedures to be
> performed.
>
> ***Definitions***
>
> *Major surgery**:*** Penetrates and exposes a body cavity or produces
> sub-stantial impairment of physical or physiologic functions
>
> *Minor surgery**: ***Does not expose a body cavity and causes little
> or no physical impairment.
>
> *Survival surgery:* The animal awakes from surgical anesthesia
>
> *Non-survival surgery**: ***The animal is euthanized before recovery
> from anesthesia.

### *Reviewing Protocols for Surgical Procedures*

> Some of the aspects of a surgical procedure that the IACUC reviews
> are:

-   details of the procedure (e.g., the actual procedure itself, pre-
    and post-operative care, aseptic technique, sequence of multiple
    procedures);

-   appropriateness of the species for the procedure proposed;

-   qualifications of the personnel performing the surgical procedures;

-   species-specific and procedure-specific facility requirements;

-   patient monitoring practices in the surgical and post-surgical
    periods; and

-   personnel occupational health and safety issues.

> The veterinarian should always be one of the IACUC's primary sources
> of information on surgery and post-operative issues. Other sources
> include the AWRs (9 CFR 2.31(d)(1) (ix) and (x)), the *PHS* *Policy,*
> the *Guide*, and other publications referenced at the end of this
> section. While the numerous references available provide background
> and a basis for reviewing surgical protocols, the IACUC relies on
> professional judgment to review the unique situations surrounding
> surgery in an experimental setting. Surgical procedures performed in a
> research setting have review requirements that may be different from
> those in a routine veterinary clinical setting.
>
> Some of the surgical procedures proposed in research are experimental
> and may require ongoing review by the IACUC as the procedure is
> developed. Model development protocols, and close collaboration with
> the veterinarian and other experienced individuals, can be helpful in
> these circumstances.
>
> To perform a meaningful review, the IACUC must be provided with
> details of proposed surgical procedures. Such details give the IACUC
> the opportunity to assess the level of the investigator's knowledge
> and need for additional training.
>
> ***Multiple Major Survival Surgery (MMSS)***
>
> The *Guide* discourages multiple major survival surgery. The AWRs
> state that animals may not be used in these procedures unless:

-   there is a scientific justification (e.g., related components of the
    same study) provided by the principal investigator in writing;

-   the MMSS are required as a routine veterinary procedure or to
    protect the health and well-being of the animal, as determined by
    the attending veterinarian; or

-   under other special circumstances which have been approved by the
    Administrator of APHIS.

> The *Guide* suggests that reasons for MMSS may include procedures that
> are related components of a research project, procedures that will
> conserve scarce animal resources, or procedures conducted for clinical
> reasons. The *Guide* precludes cost savings as the sole justification
> for MMSS. Subsequent to approval of MMSS, the IACUC should ensure that
> there is sufficient ongoing oversight of the project.
>
> ***Special Considerations***
>
> Some procedures are difficult or impossible to perform in some species
> of animals due to the nature of the animal (e.g., anatomical variation
> such as lack of a gall bladder, size of the animal, or size of a
> particular organ; sensitivity to antibiotics; or tolerance to a
> particular procedure). This can be an issue when a protocol involves
> an established procedure in a new animal model. Such protocols require
> particular attention and guidance from the IACUC.
>
> If a procedure may cause more than momentary or slight pain or
> distress, the AWRs prohibit the use of paralytics without concurrent
> anesthesia.
>
> Some procedures may require specialized facilities to ensure their
> success. For example, major survival surgery in non-rodents requires
> dedicated surgical facilities. Details of such physical requirements
> can be found in the *Guide*. The IACUC should assess the availability
> of necessary facilities during the protocol review process.

# *Patient Monitoring*

> The sophistication of patient monitoring required varies with the
> species and the procedure, but during protocol review, the IACUC
> should expect evidence of the following:

### a pre-surgical assessment;

### adequate monitoring of depth of anesthesia and animal homeostasis during the surgical procedure;

### support such as fluid supplementation, external heat or ventilation;

### monitoring and support during anesthetic recovery ; and

### post-surgical monitoring details, (e.g., what will be done and how often, who will be responsible, and the name and phone number of the individual to contact in the case of post-surgical complications). 

> ***Recordkeeping***
>
> Recordkeeping is an essential component of peri-operative care. For
> major surgical procedures on non-rodent mammals, an intra-operative
> anesthetic monitoring record should be kept and included with the
> surgeon's report as part of the animal's records. This record should
> be available to the personnel providing post-operative care.
> Post-operative records, at a minimum, should reflect that the animal
> was observed until it was extubated and had recovered the ability to
> stand. These should be supplemented by records evaluating the animal's
> recovery, administration of analgesics and antibiotics, basic vital
> signs, monitoring for infection, wound care, and other medical
> observations.
>
> ***Occupational Health and Safety***
>
> Surgical situations can present certain occupational health and safety
> risks related to:

-   use of inhalation anesthetics,

-   use of certain species or a species under certain circumstances
    (e.g., pregnant sheep), or

-   use of certain devices (e.g., lasers).

> If the circumstances warrant it, the IACUC should consult with the
> appli-cable biosafety personnel.
>
> ***References***
>
> Brown, M.J., P.T. Pearson, and F.N. Tomson. 1993. Guidelines for
> animal surgery in research and teaching. *AJVR* (54), 9:1544-1559.
>
> National Agriculture Library, 1994*. Essentials for Animal Research:
> Principles of Aseptic Technique.* 41-50.
>
> National Agriculture Library, 1994. *Essentials for Animal Research:
> Perioperative Care*. 51-66.
>
> Mangram, A.J., T. C. Horan, M.L. Pearson, L.C. Silver, and W.R.
> Jarvis, 1999. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection,
> 1999. *Inf Cont & Hosp Epi* (20), 4:250-278.
>
> Academy of Surgical Research. 1989. Guidelines for training in
> surgical research in animals. *J Invest Surg* 2:263-268.

# 

> []{#C_3_h .anchor}**C.3.h. Transgenic Animals**
>
> A *spontaneous mutation* is a naturally occurring heritable alteration
> in the genetic code. Spontaneous mutations have been observed in
> virtually all species. An *induced mutation* is a man-made alteration
> in the genetic code. Induced mutant is a generic term including
> transgenic and targeted mutations that are created to study
> over-expression or under-expression of a specific gene. The altered
> gene must be predictably transmitted to offspring for a spontaneous or
> an induced mutation to be useful in research. To date, the majority of
> induced mutations have been made in laboratory mice of the genus *Mus*
> or laboratory rats of genus *Rattus*. Although mice are used as
> examples in the following discussion, the general considerations are
> applicable to induced mutants of any species.
>
> *Transgenic* refers to insertion of exogenous DNA (deoxyribonucleic
> acid) into cells. Typically, cDNA (complimentary deoxyribonucleic
> acid) made from specific mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) is inserted
> into cells using microinjection, electroporation or certain
> nonpathogenic viruses. (Electroporation is the brief application of an
> electric field to a cell to increase permeability of the cell membrane
> for purposes of introducing drugs or genes into the cell.) Each of
> these methods has been used to insert new DNA into the pronucleus of a
> fertilized mouse egg and to create transgenic mice. The manipulated
> fertilized eggs may or may not be cultured *in vitro* for one to three
> days before they are surgically implanted into the oviducts or uterus
> of pseudopregnant female mice. The inserted DNA incorporates in
> chromosomes of a percentage of embryos developing from the
> microinjected eggs. The DNA incorporates at different genetic
> locations and a different number of copies of the DNA may incorporate
> in different embryos. Thus, each embryo has the potential to become a
> unique transgenic mouse even though the same quantity and type of DNA
> was injected into genetically identical fertilized eggs. All
> manipulated, fertilized eggs do not become live born transgenic mice.
> Losses occur at every step from injection through gestation and
> delivery.
>
> Mice can carry transgenes, but unless the cDNA is incorporated into
> germ cells, the mouse is unable to transmit the transgene to its
> offspring. A mouse that passes the transgene to the descendants is
> called a 'founder. Thus, many fertilized eggs have to be injected to
> obtain a few transgenic mice, and only a few of these transgenic mice
> will be 'founders' of this transgenic line.
>
> *Targeted mutation* refers to a process whereby a specific gene is
> made nonfunctional ('knocked-out') or less frequently made functional
> ('knocked-in'). Creation of a targeted mutation requires several steps
> in the laboratory. The specific gene is identified, cloned and
> manipulated to make it nonfunctional ('knocked-out'). The manipulated
> gene is attached to another DNA sequence called a promoter and
> introduced into embryonic stem (ES) cells by electrical or chemical
> methods. These ES cells are cultured in special media that permits
> identification of ES cells incorporating the manipulated gene. ES
> cells incorporating the manipulated gene are injected into an early
> embryo (blastocyst). The ES cell injected blastocysts are surgically
> implanted into the uterus of pseudopregnant female mice. Some injected
> blastocysts develop into viable embryos and gene deficient 'knock-out'
> mice
>
> are born. Many blastocysts have to be injected to obtain a few new
> 'knock-out' mice, and only a few of the new 'knock-out' mice will
> incorporate the 'knocked-out' gene in their germ cells and become
> 'founders'.
>
> If a project uses a spontaneous or induced mutant model and the mutant
> animal can be purchased from a resource or commercial colony, review
> of this project is similar to review of any other project. If a
> project uses an induced mutant model and only breeders are available
> from the source, review of this project is similar to review of any
> other breeding colony**.** In either case, the IACUC should determine
> if the mutant gene will result in a severely debilitating phenotype,
> if anything can or will be done to ameliorate such phenotype, and what
> endpoints will be used to determine when a mutant animal will be
> euthanized. Simple husbandry measures can modify the severity of some
> mutant phenotypes. For example, ground feed or moist feed can extend
> life and improve growth of mutants with missing or malformed teeth.
> Food and water on the bottom of the cage may be easier for mutant
> rodents with neuromuscular abnormalities to access than food in a
> traditional feeder built into a cage lid. Extra bedding helps dwarf
> mice reach food and water. Extra bedding helps absorb urine produced
> by diabetic mice or other mice that excrete large quantities of urine.
> A normal cage mate, a solid bottom cage with extra bedding, or a
> slight increase in room temperature can benefit mutant rodents that
> have problems maintaining body temperature (Beamer, 1986).
>
> When an investigator prepares a proposal that includes development of
> a new mutant model, information about clinical abnormalities
> associated with the phenotype, special husbandry requirements, etc.
> will not be available. However, the investigator should include
> general criteria for euthanasia if a severe debilitating phenotype
> develops, and provide the IACUC with this information when the new
> mutant has been developed or at the next annual review.
>
> The standard of 'normal' for a mutant animal may or may not be the
> same as for a non-mutant animal. If the mutant phenotype does not
> impact clini-cal well-being of the animal, the same standard of
> 'normal' can be used for mutant and non-mutant animal. In the mouse,
> brown (gene symbol Tyr\<b\>) and short ear (Bmp5\<se\>) are examples
> of spontaneous mutations that
>
> produce no observable, clinical impact on the well-being of the mouse.
> If the mutant phenotype has minimal impact on the well-being of the
> animal, the standard of 'normal' can be similar for mutant and
> non-mutant animal. Hypogondal (Gnhr\<hpg\>) and 'little'
> (Ghrhr\<lit\>) are examples of spon-taneous mutations with minimal
> impact on well being of the mouse. Homozygous hypogondal mice are
> normal in all ways except for small, nonfunctional gonads. Homozygous
> 'little' mice are smaller than non-mutant littermates. Growth hormone
> transgenic mice tend to have larger body size than normal, but are
> otherwise clinically normal with the exception of reduced fertility.
>
> In the case of mutants where phenotype involves clinical
> abnormalities, the standard for 'normal' may have to be modified to
> encompass the expected phenotype. For example, 4 to 5 week old
> homozygous dystrophic mice (Lama\<dy-2J\>) have difficulty abducting
> hindlegs and have an abnormal gait. As these mice age, muscular
> weakness progresses in hindlegs and eventually extends to involve all
> skeletal muscles. The standard for 'normal' for homozygous dystrophic
> mice must include difficulty abducting hindlegs and an abnormal gait.
> Adenopolyposis coli 'knock-out' mutant mice (Apc\<Min\>) are
> clinically normal until the intestinal polyps develop, after which
> time the mice become anemic and lose weight. Experimental endpoints
> for these latter and similar mutant models should focus on (1) ability
> of the mutant to access feed and water, (2) response of the mutant to
> stimuli, and (3) general condition of the mutant, (i.e., is the mutant
> excessively thin, showing progressive weight loss or hunched
> posture?).
>
> Many institutions have a centralized induced mutant facility that
> receives the genetic material from investigators and performs the
> manipulations to develop 'founder' transgenic or 'knock-out' mice. The
> 'founder' mice are returned to the investigator who undertakes
> breeding to expand the line. Review of the centralized induced mutant
> facility should focus on personnel qualifications, animal related
> practices such as aseptic surgery, and average number of mice required
> to produce 'founders' for a single DNA construct, recognizing,
> however, that the number of mice required is a very rough estimate
> because of differences in responses of different strains or stocks of
> mice, variations in success rate for different DNA constructs, and
> subtle or less subtle uncontrollable environmental changes.
>
> In many non-mutant model experiments, an investigator can accurately
> estimate the exact number of animals required to test a hypothesis.
> However, when creating an induced mutant, there are major variables
> that make it difficult to accurately estimate the number of required
> animals, including:

-   differences in percent successful microinjections of pronuclei or
    suc-cessful incorporations of altered gene into ES cells;

-   differences in percent successful surgical transfers of fertilized
    eggs or blastocysts; and

-   differences in percent successful incorporation of exogenous DNA or
    altered gene into germ cells of induced mutant mice.

> Different strains of mice vary in their responses to each of these
> manipula-tions. Different genes ('constructs') vary in the ease with
> which they insert as a transgene or are 'knocked-out'. These variables
> remain even when the same skilled people perform each manipulation.
>
> ***References***
>
> Beamer, W. "Use of Mutant Mice in Biological Research." 12/8/89, SCAW
> Conference: Guidelines for the Well-being of Rodents in Research,
> Proceedings edited by H. Guttmann.
>
> Gordon, J.W. 1990. Transgenic animals. *Lab Animal* 19(3):27-30.
>
> Hogan, B., F. Constantini and L. Lacey. 1986. *Manipulating the Mouse
> Embryo: A Laboratory Manual.* Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press.
> Cold Springs Harbor, NY.
>
> Kovacs, M.S., L. Lowe and M.R. Kuehn. 1993. Use of superovulated mice
> as embryo donors for ES cell injected chimeras. *Lab Anim Sci*
> 43:91-93.
>
> Mobraaten, L.E. 1981. The Jackson Laboratory Genetics Stocks Resource
> Repository. *In Frozen Storage of Laboratory Animals.* Zeilmaker, GD
> (ed). Gustav, Fisher, Verlag. New York. pp. 165-1177.
>
> Wilson E.D., and M.X. Zarrow. 1962. Comparison of superovulation in
> the immature mouse and rat. *J Reprod Fert* 3:148-158.
>
> Zarrow, M.Z. and E.D. Wilson. 1961. The influence of age on
> superovulation in the immature rat and mouse. *Endocrinology*.
> 69:851-855.

# 

## C.4. Monitoring of Approved Protocols

> []{#C_4 .anchor}After the IACUC has approved a protocol, it has a
> responsibility to ensure that procedures are carried out in the
> laboratory or classroom as described in the protocol. This section
> will briefly review ways that the IACUC can monitor the conduct of
> approved protocols.
>
> **Acquisition and Tracking**
>
> Animals should be obtained only from licensed dealers or other legal
> sources, and it is incumbent upon an institution to establish
> mechanisms to monitor and document the number of animals acquired and
> used in ap-proved activities. This is best accomplished if animal
> purchases may be made only through the institution\'s animal resource
> facility or other appro-priately designated office. Once animals have
> been acquired, they should be included in a tracking system. Many
> institutions have automated sys-tems that will alert an appropriate
> individual when an investigator has reached a preset percentage (e.g.,
> 80 to 90%) of the number of animals approved for a specific project,
> and can prevent ordering animals in excess of the number approved.
> Institutions with small programs using limited numbers of animals may
> choose to maintain a manual log of IACUC approved activities and
> numbers of animals acquired.

### Tracking animal use becomes more complicated when investigators main-tain breeding colonies. Keeping track of animal usage may be accom-plished by requiring that investigators with breeding colonies maintain accurate records. Investigators can be required to report to the designated office, at regular intervals, the number of animals born, weaned, or used in studies. This report can be tallied against the numbers in the approved protocol. 

### 

> **Compliance Specialist**
>
> Some IACUCs have a full or part-time compliance specialist who
> monitors procedures in vivaria, laboratories, and classrooms, and
> reports his or her observations to the IACUC. This individual should
> have laboratory animal training and experience, and be authorized to
> conduct announced or unannounced laboratory inspections on behalf of
> the IACUC. In addition to this role, the compliance specialist may
> periodically survey individual
>
> laboratories to ensure that actual procedures used are consistent with
> protocols. The survey may include meeting with investigators and staff
> to review concerns, answer questions, and identify procedures that may
> deviate from those originally approved by the IACUC. In cases of
> deviation, the specialist should notify the IACUC.
>
> **Eyes and Ears**
>
> Research, veterinary, and husbandry staff should be aware of approved
> procedures for use on animals when they have responsibility for those
> animals. This may be accomplished by informing these individuals in
> staff meetings or by making standard operating procedures and animal
> use protocols readily accessible in the laboratory or vivarium. These
> practices help to ensure that procedures being used are, in fact,
> those that were approved by the IACUC. Maintaining an open environment
> in which staff can discuss apparent departures from approved
> procedures with the investigator often facilitates compliance and the
> rapid correction of deviations. Staff must also be free to report
> perceived deviations to the IACUC, which must then consider such
> concerns (see Section D).

### Semiannual Inspection

### 

### During the semiannual facility inspections, IACUC members should note the use of animals and may verify that the observed procedures are consistent with the protocol on file. 

> **Retrospective Reporting of Adverse Events**
>
> The USDA requires that the number of covered animals used in each
> pain/distress category be reported annually, but there are currently
> no explicit federal requirements for reporting of unexpected or
> unintentional changes in pain category, morbidity, or mortality after
> the event. The USDA does expect any significant deviations from the
> expected pain/distress category to be reported correctly. Institutions
> may choose to require an accounting of unexpected, unintentional, or
> adverse events as a means of identifying deficiencies in procedures,
> faults in study design, or need for additional personnel training.
>
> **Review of Publications**
>
> In academic institutions and many companies, much research is
> eventually published. Some IACUCs choose to review some published
> descriptions of animal use to verify that work was done according to
> the approved protocol.

## Conclusion

> Although no IACUC has the staff or time to observe all animal use in
> an institution, the IACUC can help establish a climate of compliance.
> To ensure that animal use conforms to local policy and federal
> regulations, it is prudent for the IACUC to confirm that animals are
> used according to protocol.

*This page intentionally left blank.*

> []{#Evaluation .anchor}D. Evaluation of Animal
>
> Care and Use Concerns
>
> *This page intentionally left blank.*
>
> **Evaluation of Animal Care and Use Concerns**
>
> To help ensure that laboratory animals receive humane care and use or
> treatment in accordance with the highest ethical standards, laws,
> regula-tions and policies governing animal research, the IACUC must
> review and, if warranted, address any animal-related concerns raised
> by the public or institutional employees. Procedures must be
> established to ensure that concerns are communicated to the IACUC. The
> Committee must review each concern in a timely and systematic manner
> and, when necessary, take prompt, appropriate corrective actions.
>
> **PHS *Policy*, Animal Welfare Act, and USDA AWR requirements**
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* requires the IACUC to "review concerns involving
> the care and use of animals at the institution", and the *Guide*
> states that the IACUC is responsible for "establishment of a mechanism
> for receipt and review of concerns involving the care and use of
> animals." The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2142; Section 13)
> requires training of personnel who are involved in animal care or
> treatment, including "methods whereby defi-ciencies in animal care and
> treatment should be reported." The AWRs (9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C, 2.32
> (c)(4)) require each research facility to provide the methods whereby
> any employee of the facility can report deficiencies in animal care
> and treatment. In addition, the AWRs, Section 2.31(c)(4)) require the
> IACUC to "review and, if warranted, investigate concerns involving the
> care and use of animals at the facility resulting from public
> complaints received and from reports of noncompliance received from
> laboratory or research facility personnel or employees."
>
> In addition, the AWRs (9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C, Section
> 2.32\[c\]\[4\]) state that "no facility employee, Committee member, or
> laboratory personnel shall be discriminated against or be subject to
> any reprisal for reporting violations of any regulation or standards
> under the \[Animal Welfare\] Act."
>
> **Compliance**
>
> To ensure compliance with federal law, regulations, and policies, it
> is strongly recommended that each IACUC develop and implement policies
> and procedures to ensure that all animal care and use concerns are
> brought to its attention for consideration. Some of the elements that
>
> should be included in these procedures are described below (see IACUC
> Responses to Complaints)*.* Institutional policy should contain
> provisions to protect the confidentiality of those who report concerns
> as well as anyone against whom allegations are directed, while
> allegations are under investigation. The policy should also address
> mechanisms for protecting complainants from reprisals.
>
> **Origins of Concerns or Complaints**
>
> Some common sources include:

-   *animal care and use personnel* - these individuals should receive
    instruction in institutional training programs to report perceived
    defi-ciencies in animal care or use to the IACUC.

-   *other personnel* - these persons (e.g., secretarial, maintenance,
    security staff) are likely to direct concerns to a member of the
    research, animal care or veterinary staff, but they should be
    instructed to report concerns to the IACUC.

-   *employee "hotlines" or ombudsmen* - personnel responsible for these
    functions should be sensitive to animal-related concerns and notify
    the IACUC Chair of any that may arise.

-   *the public* - they are most likely to direct complaints to senior
    institu-tional representatives who should promptly forward them to
    the IACUC Chair.

-   *anonymous* - these complainants may or may not be institutional
    employees.

-   *the media* - stories appearing in newspapers, and on television or
    radio, etc. may contain or evoke concerns about animal care and use;
    such reports should be evaluated by the IACUC, and, when
    appropriate, the institution should proactively address them.

**Methods for Reporting Concerns**

> To facilitate communication, the names and phone numbers of contact
> persons, including IACUC members, the Attending Veterinarian, security
> office, and ombudsman/hotline, if one exists, should be posted in or
> near the entrance to animal facilities or listed on a Web site that is
> readily available to institutional employees. This information should
> also be provided during training sessions as described above.
>
> Although written concerns are more convenient to deal with,
> complainants may not be willing to submit them in this manner. In such
> cases, the individuals who receive concerns should document them fully
> to ensure that the issues are clear and to prevent misunderstandings.
> Requests for anonymity should be honored to the extent possible.
>
> **IACUC Responses to Complaints**
>
> While specific methods for evaluating concerns about animal care and
> use may vary from institution to institution, all methods should
> contain these elements:

-   There should be a procedure for verifying stated concerns.

-   Verified concerns should be related to the AWRs, the *PHS* *Policy*
    or institutional policies.

-   There should be guidelines for effecting appropriate corrective
    meas-ures, when necessary.

> One of the roles of the IACUC is to review all concerns about the
> animal care and use program, regardless of origin, and investigate
> them if warranted. The IACUC Chair is normally responsible for
> ensuring that concerns are addressed, but may delegate investigation
> to a subcommittee. If the Chair has, or is perceived to have, a
> conflict of interest, the Institutional Official (IO) should delegate
> the responsibility for assuring that the concern is addressed to
> another non-conflicted member of the IACUC.
>
> Concerns may include situations or activities ranging from those in
> which animals are reported to be in immediate, actual or perceived
> jeopardy to those in which violations of the AWRs or institutional
> Animal Welfare Assurances are alleged to be occurring but animals are
> not in apparent danger. They may focus on allegations of past policy
> and procedure violations.
>
> The course of action taken by the IACUC should be driven by the
> potential significance of the alleged situation. For example,
> conditions that report-edly jeopardize the health or well-being of
> animals should be evaluated immediately. To cope promptly with such
> situations, some institutions have policies whereby a veterinarian or
> other designated person is authorized to halt procedures which they
> believe do not comply with institutional policies until the IACUC can
> be convened and consider the matter formally. Similarly, situations
> that may involve potential criminal activity or human safety should be
> reported promptly to the institution\'s law
>
> enforcement or occupational health and safety officials. Allegations
> of other ongoing policy or procedural matters may not require such
> same-day attention, but should not be deferred merely as a matter of
> convenience. Emergency meetings may be necessary in these cases to
> ensure prompt consideration of concerns.
>
> IACUC procedures for handling complaints may involve reviewing them
> with the veterinarian. Depending on the nature of the concern, the IO,
> legal counsel, and the person who submitted or fielded the complaint
> may also be invited to participate. Based on the results of its
> initial evaluation, a course of action---which may include further
> investigation---will then be determined and implemented. The IACUC
> should acknowledge receipt of concerns when the complainant is known.
> Details concerning the complaint, complainant, persons against whom
> allegations may have been directed, and the investigations in progress
> are usually considered confidential. However, when the Committee
> releases the report of its findings (including corrective actions, if
> applicable), those reports may become accessible to the public under
> state "sunshine" laws, and if provided to Federal regulatory agencies,
> under the Freedom of Information Act.
>
> The AWRs and the *PHS* *Policy* authorize the IACUC to suspend an
> activity after review of the matter at a convened meeting of a quorum
> of the IACUC and with the suspension vote of a majority of the quorum
> present. Suspensions must also be reviewed by the IO in consultation
> with the Committee; appropriate corrective action taken by the IO is
> reported to OLAW.
>
> Most institutions have developed self-regulatory policies and
> procedures, which supplement formal suspensions by the IACUC and are
> intended to ensure adherence to institutional and regulatory
> requirements. Depending on the severity of noncompliance or deviation
> from accepted practices, these range from counseling and mandatory
> remedial training to specific monitoring of animal use, temporary
> revocation of animal use privileges, or termination of employment.
>
> **Model**

### One model for considering concerns about animal care and use is outlined on the following pages. This example may not apply to all institutions, and may be adapted, as needed, in designing guidelines that are appropriate for individual institutions. 

### Suggested IACUC Procedures for the Investigation

> **of Animal Care and Use Concerns\***
>
> ***Initial Evaluation And Actions***
>
> Upon receipt of a concern the IACUC Chair should convene a meeting of
> the IACUC. After initial review of the complaint the IACUC should
> deter-mine whether it requires further investigation and immediate
> action, further investigation but no immediate action, or no action.
> Once this decision has been made, the IACUC should determine which
> individuals or other institutional or noninstitutional offices may
> require notification at this time.
>
> If immediate action appears warranted because animal or human welfare
> may be compromised, the IACUC should notify the IO and proceed
> accordingly. Veterinary medical intervention, suspension of a research
> activity, and/or notification of appropriate safety, occupational
> health, or other officials, are examples of actions that may be taken
> immediately to protect animal or human welfare. In accordance with the
> AWRs (9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C, Section 2.31\[d\]\[7\]), if an activity
> is suspended, the IO shall report that action to APHIS and any federal
> agency funding that activity. If the activity is supported in any way
> by the PHS, the IACUC, through the IO, must promptly notify OLAW (PHS
> Policy, IV.F.3.) (OPRR Reports 94-02, 1/12/94).
>
> ***Investigation***
>
> Should the IACUC determine that further investigation is required, the
> Chair, or another individual or subcommittee appointed by the Chair,
> should conduct the investigation and report back to the IACUC. It is
> important to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest in this
> process.
>
> The IACUC should charge the designated person or group with its
> require-ments for information gathering and impose a completion date.
> The assigned completion date will depend on the IACUC's determination
> of whether immediate remedial action may be required.
>
> ***\*DISCLAIMER***
>
> *Neither the AWRs nor the PHS Policy provide specific guidance
> regarding the consideration of concerns or the institutional conduct
> of investigations. Owing to the considerable diversity of concerns
> that may arise and the contexts in which they may be voiced, no one
> set of procedures will be suitable for investigating all potential
> situations that involve violations of or deviations from animal care
> and use practices required by the PHS Policy, AWRs, the Guide and
> other federal statutes and regulations regarding animals.
> Consequently, the following suggestions are broad, intended for
> general use, and not intended for application in all situations.*
>
> The nature of the information required will vary depending on the
> circum-stances, but often involves:

-   interviewing complainants (if known), any persons against whom
    alle-gations were directed, and pertinent program officials;

-   observing the animals and their environment; and

> reviewing any pertinent records, (e.g., animal health records,
> protocol, and other documents).
>
> The designated investigator(s) should provide a report to the IACUC,
> which summarizes:

-   the concern(s),

-   the results of interviews,

-   the condition of animals and their environment, and

-   the results of records and other document reviews.

> The report should also contain:

-   any supporting documentation such as correspondence, reports, and
    animal records,

-   conclusions regarding the substance of the concerns *vis-à-vis*
    re-quirements of the AWRs, the *PHS Policy*, the *Guide*, and
    institutional policies and procedures, and

> recommended actions, if appropriate
>
> ***Outcomes And Final Actions***
>
> Upon receipt and evaluation of the report, the IACUC may request
> further information or find that:

-   there was no evidence to support the concern or complaint,

-   the concern or complaint was not sustained, but a) related aspects
    of the animal care and use program require further review or b)
    other institutional programs may require review, or

-   the concern or complaint was valid.

> Subsequent actions of the IACUC may include:

-   implementing measures to prevent recurrence (such measures often
    include changes in administrative, management or IACUC policies and
    procedures, and may include sanctions\*);

-   notifying the IO and the AV of its actions;

-   notifying funding or regulatory agencies, as required; and

> notifying the complainant, any persons against whom allegations were
> directed, and pertinent program officials (appropriate supervisory and
> management staff, the public affairs office, institutional attorneys,
> etc.).
>
> **\****Note on Sanctions*: Aside from empowering the IACUC to suspend
> a previously approved activity, the AWRs and the *PHS* *Policy* are
> silent regarding IACUC or institutionally imposed sanctions
>
> Some institutions, as part of their programs, have developed policies
> and procedures that authorize the IACUC to impose sanctions on behalf
> of the institution. In other institutions, IACUCs recommend actions to
> the IO for implementation, and in still others, there exists a
> combination of these approaches. Some of the institutional sanctions
> that have been devised include:

-   counseling;

-   issuing letters of reprimand;

-   mandating specific training aimed at preventing future incidents;

-   monitoring by the IACUC or IACUC-appointed individuals of research,
    testing, or training that involving animals;

-   temporary revocation of privileges to provide animal care or to
    conduct research, testing, or training that involves animals,
    pending compliance with specific, IACUC-mandated conditions;

-   permanent revocation of privileges to provide animal care or to
    conduct research, testing, or training that involves animals; and

-   recommending to the IO that institutional (e.g., reassignment,
    termi-nation of employment) sanctions be imposed.

***CONCERNS UNRELATED TO ANIMAL CARE AND USE***

The IACUC may determine, either in its initial evaluation of a concern
or as a result of investigation, that violations of non-animal-related
institutional policies and procedures, local, state or federal statutes,
regulations, or laws may have occurred (e.g., scientific misconduct,
misuse of monies, fraud, theft, etc). In such cases, those findings
should be reported to appropriate institutional officials or committees
for their consideration.

> E. Recordkeeping and
>
> []{#recordkeeping .anchor}Communications
>
> *This page intentionally left blank*.
>
> []{#E_1 .anchor}**E.1. Recordkeeping and Reporting**

# Introduction

# 

# The *PHS* *Policy* and AWRs include recordkeeping and reporting require-ments. The responsibility for these functions should be clearly delegated. Usually the IACUC office is assigned this task. The individuals responsible should understand federal animal use requirements and the institution\'s program, and should also be aware of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and any state open records laws. Many of the reports written may be accessible under such laws, and care should be taken to use language that is clear and precise to ensure accurate interpretation. 

> **Recordkeeping**
>
> ***Minutes***
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs require that the institution maintain
> \"minutes of IACUC meetings, including records of attendance,
> activities of the Committee, and Committee deliberations\" (PHS Policy
> IV. E; 9 CFR Part 2 Subpart C 2.35 (a)(1)). The IACUC has some
> latitude in the degree of detail in these minutes.
>
> *Records of attendance:* Although members may arrive late or leave
> during a meeting, generally a member is marked as either present or
> absent. An exception would be when the IACUC member leaves the meeting
> room during discussion of a protocol on which that member is a
> participant. If the temporary absence of a member drops the number of
> members present below the quorum, this should be noted in the minutes.
> Certain official IACUC actions require a quorum (See Section A.2.
> Quorum Requirements).
>
> *Activities* of the Committee include corrections or approval of
> previous minutes; presentation of program, policy, facility and
> compliance reports; and decisions on policies, protocols, and
> amendments.
>
> *Deliberations* refers to the discussion and reasons leading to
> particular IACUC decisions. Although some IACUCs maintain a verbatim
> record (e.g., audio or videotapes), minutes should include as a
> minimum a summary of the key points discussed prior to a committee
> decision.
>
> **Protocols:**
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs require that animal applications and
> pro-posed significant changes be retained for the duration of the
> animal activity and for an additional three years after the end of the
> activity. Proposals submitted to the IACUC must be kept for three
> years even if approval was not granted or animals were not used. The
> records must show whether or not IACUC approval was given.
>
> **Other records**
>
> Both the *PHS Policy* and the AWRs require that semiannual IACUC
> reports and recommendations be retained by the institution. PHS also
> requires that the OLAW Assurance and reports of accrediting agencies
> (e.g., AAALAC) be kept on file. USDA requires additional records on
> dogs and cats acquired, transported, sold, or euthanized by the
> research facility. Animal health records are not usually maintained by
> the IACUC but are kept in the animal facility. All these records must
> be kept for at least three years; and must be accessible to PHS,
> APHIS, and funding agencies for inspection or copying (see Table A).
>
> **Reporting Requirements**
>
> ***PHS Assurance***
>
> In order to qualify for support from the PHS for activities involving
> animals, institutions must provide an Assurance of Compliance with the
> *PHS* *Policy*. The Assurance is a written agreement that fully
> describes the institution's program and commits the organization to
> comply with the PHS Policy, and in which the institution outlines in
> detail its policies and procedures. A sample Assurance is available at
> the OLAW Web site. Institutions that are not accredited by AAALAC must
> submit, with their Assurance, the most recent IACUC semiannual program
> evaluation. The completed Assurance, signed by the IO with appropriate
> authority, is submitted to and evaluated by OLAW. Upon final approval
> by OLAW an Assurance number (in the format A####-01 where \# is a
> digit) is assigned to the institution. Assurances are approved for a
> period of up to five years, after which time the institution must
> submit a new Assurance. A list of institutions with approved
> Assurances is available on the OLAW Web site.
>
> It is important that the approved Assurance document is distributed
> appro-priately within the institution and that members of the IACUC
> are familiar with this document, as compliance with the Assurance is
> required to be eligible for PHS funding.
>
> ***USDA Registration***
>
> Institutions that use species of animals covered by the AWRs for
> research, testing, experiments, or teaching on its premises as
> specified in the AWA are required to be registered with the Animal
> Care division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
> APHIS), using APHS form 7011. The form is submitted to APHIS via the
> Regional Director of Animal Care (AC) for the state in which the
> facility has its principal place of business. At academic
> institutions, the submission is usually made by the institution, not
> the individual departments or schools, and signed by the IO. An
> approved USDA registration is given a number in the format ##-X-####,
> where X is a letter (R for research institution) and \# is usually a
> digit. The registration may be renewed every three years. The
> institution is required to notify the AC Regional Director within ten
> (10) days of any change in the name, address, ownership or operations
> affecting its status as a research facility. The Regional Director may
> place a facility that has not housed animals for two years in inactive
> status. The registration can be cancelled by written request if a
> facility no longer uses, or intends to use, animals (see Table B).
>
> ***Semiannual Facility Inspections and Program Evaluations***
>
> The *PHS* *Policy* and the AWRs require that the IACUC evaluate the
> insti-tution's animal program at least once every six months,
> including an inspection of facilities, and submit a report to the IO.
> The *PHS* *Policy* allows the IACUC discretion in how it evaluates its
> facilities and program. The report format is not mandated, but OLAW
> offers models for both facility inspections and program reviews on its
> Web site.
>
> The report must contain a description of the nature and extent of the
> insti-tution\'s compliance with the *PHS* *Policy* and *Guide*; any
> departures must be identified and modifications proposed, with a plan
> and timetable for correction. Any minority views of IACUC members must
> be included.
>
> Minor and significant deficiencies must be distinguished. A
> significant de-ficiency is defined as one that \"is or may be a threat
> to the health or safety of animals." Program or facility deficiencies,
> including accidents or natural disasters, which cause injury, death,
> or severe distress in animals, are, by definition, \'significant.\'
> Examples of minor deficiencies include chipped paint and burnt-out
> light bulbs. The report must also identify any facilities that are
> AAALAC accredited.
>
> The IACUC may utilize AAALAC program status evaluations,
> accreditation, or pre-assessment preparation activities as a
> semiannual evaluation. To be used as the semiannual report, the report
> must include all the information required in Section IV.B.3 of the
> *PHS* *Policy* (see Table C), and be approved by vote of the IACUC.
>
> Semiannual reports are only submitted to OLAW under two circumstances:

1)  If an institution is not accredited by AAALAC, a copy of the most
    recent semiannual report must be submitted to OLAW with a new or
    renewal Assurance.

2)  Upon request by OLAW or other PHS representatives.

> USDA requirements are essentially the same as those for PHS with three
> exceptions:

1)  The AWRs include additional reporting requirements if the schedule
    and plan for correcting a deficiency is not followed. Failure to
    correct a significant deficiency in accordance with the specified
    schedule and plan must be reported in writing within fifteen
    business days by the IACUC, through the IO, to APHIS and any federal
    agency funding the activity.

2)  USDA requires that reports be reviewed and signed by a majority of
    IACUC members.

3)  USDA does not require the identification of facilities accredited by
    AAALAC.

> As with the PHS semiannual review, AAALAC processes may also fulfill
> the requirements for the USDA semiannual report provided Section 2.31
> (c) requirements are met, as listed in Table C.
>
> ***Annual Report***
>
> The IACUC at an institution with an approved PHS Assurance must submit
> an annual report to OLAW through the IO. This report details changes
> in the animal care and use program, IACUC membership, and AAALAC
> accreditation status. Minority reports from IACUC members must be
> included. It also includes the dates of semiannual review and reports
> submitted to the IO. The PHS and AAALAC annual reporting dates may be
> synchronized with the USDA reports.
>
> A sample annual report format is provided on OLAW's Web site and may
> be utilized, but is not required.
>
> On or before December 1, each facility registered with the USDA must
> submit an annual report to the APHIS, AC Regional Director, for the
> state in which the facility is registered. Form 7023 is usually
> prepared by the IACUC and signed by the CEO or IO. It lists the number
> of each covered species used, by pain categories. The report includes
> assurances that animal care and use are at professionally accepted
> standards, that alternatives to painful procedures have been
> considered (see Section C.2.a. Alternatives) and that AWRs are
> followed.
>
> When an IACUC-approved deviation from USDA standards and regulations
> is required for scientific or other reasons, the report must address
> the reasons for the deviation, and the number and species of animals
> affected.
>
> ***Suspension and Noncompliance***
>
> At an institution with an approved PHS Assurance, the IACUC must
> report promptly, through the IO, the circumstances and actions taken
> in the fol-lowing instances:

-   any serious or continuing non-compliance with the *PHS* *Policy*;

-   any serious deviation from the provisions of the *Guide,* and

-   any suspension of any activity by the IACUC.

> It is recommended that the institution contact OLAW immediately
> following the event, and send a formal report describing the
> circumstances and any actions taken, to OLAW after IACUC and IO
> review. Similarly, accredited institutions must report promptly to
> AAALAC serious issues relating to the animal care and use program,
> such as investigations by the USDA or OLAW, or other serious incidents
> or concerns that negatively affect animal well-being.
>
> If the IACUC suspends any activities involving USDA-covered animals,
> the IO files a report with the AC Regional Director, in consultation
> with the IACUC. After reviewing the reasons for the suspension and
> taking appro-priate corrective actions, the IO is responsible for
> submitting a full explanation to APHIS and any federal agency funding
> the activity (see Tables E and A.2.B.)

# E.1. Table A. Federal Requirements: Recordkeeping

+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| # Records  | **PHS Policy**            | **AWRs**                    |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IACUC      | -   Records of            | -   Records of attendance,  |
| Minutes    |     attendance,           |     activities and          |
|            |     activities and        |     deliberations           |
|            |     deliberations         |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Protocols  | -   Records of proposed   | -   Records of proposed     |
|            |     activities using      |     activities using        |
|            |     animals               |     animals                 |
|            |                           |                             |
|            | -   Record of proposed    | -   Record of proposed      |
|            |     significant changes   |     significant changes     |
|            |                           |                             |
|            | -   Outcome of IACUC      | -   Outcome of IACUC review |
|            |     review                |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Basic      | -   Semiannual IACUC      | -   Semiannual IACUC        |
| Documents  |     reports and           |     reports and             |
|            |     recommendations       |     recommendations         |
|            |                           |                             |
|            | -   Assurance Document    |                             |
|            |                           |                             |
|            | -   Records of            |                             |
|            |     accrediting body      |                             |
|            |     determinations        |                             |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Animal     | -   Refer to Guide        | -   Records on acquired     |
|            |     regarding clinical    |     live dogs/cats or       |
|            |     records, pedigree     |     offspring including     |
|            |     information,          |     seven types of          |
|            |     standardized          |     information             |
|            |     nomenclature, etc.    |                             |
|            |                           | -   Records on dogs/cats    |
|            |                           |                             |
|            |                           | transported/sold/euthanized |
|            |                           |     including three types   |
|            |                           |     of information          |
|            |                           |                             |
|            |                           | -   "Random Source"         |
|            |                           |     Certificates (See       |
|            |                           |     2.133 (f) and (g))      |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Other      | -   All records must be   | -   All records must be     |
| Re         |     kept for three years; |     kept for three years;   |
| quirements |     records that relate   |     records that relate to  |
|            |     to applications,      |     applications,           |
|            |     proposals, and        |     proposals, and proposed |
|            |     proposed significant  |     significant changes     |
|            |     changes must be       |     must be maintained for  |
|            |     maintained for the    |     the duration of the     |
|            |     duration of the       |     activity plus three     |
|            |     activity plus three   |     years.                  |
|            |     years.                |                             |
|            |                           | -   Accessible to APHIS and |
|            | -   Accessible for        |     Federal agency          |
|            |     inspection or copying |     officials               |
|            |     by OLAW or other PHS  |                             |
|            |     officials             | -   USDA may extend the     |
|            |                           |     records retention       |
|            |                           |     requirements pending    |
|            |                           |     completion of an        |
|            |                           |     investigation.          |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Reference  | Policy IV.E.              | 9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C     |
|            |                           | 2.35                        |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+

# E.1. Table B. Federal Requirements: Assurance and Registration

+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
|             | **PHS Institutional       | **USDA Research Facility  |
|             | Assurance**               | Registration**            |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| When        | -   To receive PHS        | -   Animals covered by    |
| required    |     support for animal    |     USDA Regulations held |
|             |     activities            |     or used for regulated |
|             |                           |     purposes              |
|             | -   Approved for up to    |                           |
|             |     five years            | -   Updated every three   |
|             |                           |     years                 |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submit to   | -   Office of Laboratory  | -   APHIS, AC Regional    |
|             |     Animal Welfare (OLAW) |     Director              |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submitted   | -   IO                    | -   Signed by person with |
| by          |                           |     legal authority to    |
|             |                           |     bind organization     |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Forms       | -   Institutional         | -   APHIS Form 7011       |
|             |     letterhead            |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Contents    | -   List all components   | -   Location of research  |
|             |     of institution to be  |     facilities            |
|             |     included, including   |                           |
|             |     sq. ft. of each       | -   Number of covered     |
|             |     facility, species     |     species used annually |
|             |     housed and average    |                           |
|             |     daily inventory by    | -   Sources of Federal    |
|             |     species               |     funds                 |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   Describe lines of     |                           |
|             |     authority and         |                           |
|             |     responsibility        |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   List qualifications,  |                           |
|             |     responsibility,       |                           |
|             |     authority and percent |                           |
|             |     of time contribution  |                           |
|             |     of each veterinarian  |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   IACUC membership list |                           |
|             |     and description of    |                           |
|             |     IACUC procedures      |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   Describe occupational |                           |
|             |     health program        |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   Synopsis of           |                           |
|             |     training/instruction  |                           |
|             |     offered to personnel  |                           |
|             |     involved with         |                           |
|             |     animals.              |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| After       | -   Indicate AAALAC       | -   Notify APHIS via AC   |
| submission  |     accreditation and     |     Regional Director     |
|             |     include semiannual    |     within ten (10) days  |
|             |     IACUC report if not   |     of change of          |
|             |     accredited.           |     operation             |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   OLAW may negotiate    |                           |
|             |     changes before        |                           |
|             |     approval              |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Reference   | PHS Policy IV.A.          | 9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C   |
|             |                           | 2.30                      |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+

# E.1. Table C. Federal Requirements: Report of 

#  Semiannual Evaluations

+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
|             | **PHS Semiannual Report** | **USDA Semiannual         |
|             |                           | Report**                  |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Timetable   | -   Every six months;     | -   Every six months;     |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | an AAALAC report may      | an AAALAC report may      |
|             | fulfill                   |                           |
|             |                           | fulfill these             |
|             | these requirements        | requirements              |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submit to   | -   IO                    | -   IO                    |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submitted   | -   IACUC, as Committee   | -   IACUC; signed by a    |
| by          |     action                |     majority              |
|             |                           |                           |
|             |                           | of members                |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Form used   | -   Not specified         | -   Not specified         |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Contents    | -   Describe adherence to | -   Describe adherence to |
|             |     *Guide* and *PHS      |     AWRs and departures   |
|             |     Policy* and           |     from AWRs;            |
|             |     departures from       |                           |
|             |     *Guide* and *PHS      | -   State reasons for     |
|             |     Policy*               |     departures; identify  |
|             |                           |     significant and minor |
|             | -   State reasons for     |     deficiencies; include |
|             |     departures; identify  |     plan/ schedule to     |
|             |     significant and minor |     correct deficiencies; |
|             |     deficiencies; include |     include minority      |
|             |     plan/ schedule to     |     views                 |
|             |     correct deficiencies; |                           |
|             |     include minority      | -   Reviewed and signed   |
|             |     views                 |     by majority of IACUC  |
|             |                           |     members               |
|             | -   Approved by IACUC     |                           |
|             |                           | -   Maintained by         |
|             | -   Maintained by         |     Research Facility     |
|             |     institution           |                           |
|             |                           | > Available to APHIS and  |
|             | -   Available to OLAW     | > funding agency upon     |
|             |     upon request          | > request                 |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | -   Other: Identify       | -   Other: Report failure |
|             |     facilities accredited |     to adhere to          |
|             |     by AAALAC             |     plan/schedule through |
|             |                           |     IO                    |
|             |                           |                           |
|             |                           | to APHIS and funding      |
|             |                           | agency                    |
|             |                           |                           |
|             |                           | within 15 working days    |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Reference   | PHS Policy IV.B.3.        | 9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C   |
|             | IV.E.1.d & IV.F.4.        | 2.31 (c) (3)              |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+

.

# E.1. Table D. Federal Requirements: Annual Report

+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
|           | **PHS Annual Report**      | **USDA Annual Report**     |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Timetable | -   At least once every 12 | -   On or before December  |
|           |     months; may be         |     1, describing activity |
|           |     synchronized with USDA |     during fiscal year     |
|           |     or AAALAC reporting    |     (October 1 --          |
|           |     period                 |     September 30)          |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Submit to | -   OLAW                   | -   APHIS, AC Regional     |
|           |                            |     Director               |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Submitted | -   IACUC, through the IO  | -   Signed or certified by |
| by        |                            |     CEO or IO              |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Form used | -   Not specified; may use | -   APHIS Form 7023        |
|           |     OLAW sample format     |                            |
|           |     provided               |                            |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Contents  | Report changes in:         | -   Location of all        |
|           |                            |     facilities             |
|           | -   AAALAC accreditation   |                            |
|           |     status                 | -   Endorse assurance      |
|           |                            |     statements             |
|           | -   Animal care/use        |                            |
|           |     program                | -   Common name and number |
|           |                            |     of animals being bred, |
|           | (as described in           |     conditioned or in      |
|           | Assurance)                 |     holding not being used |
|           |                            |                            |
|           | -   IACUC membership       | (col. B)                   |
|           |                            |                            |
|           | -   IO                     | -   Common name and number |
|           |                            |     of animals used where: |
|           | -   Report date(s) IACUC   |                            |
|           |     conducted semiannual   | > \- Animals experience no |
|           |     evaluations and        | > pain                     |
|           |     submitted reports to   | >                          |
|           |     IO. Include any        | > or distress (col. C)     |
|           |     minority views of      | >                          |
|           |     IACUC members.         | > \- Drugs were used to    |
|           |                            | > alleviate                |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > pain or distress (col.   |
|           |                            | > D)                       |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > \- Drugs were not used   |
|           |                            | > to                       |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > alleviate pain or        |
|           |                            | > distress                 |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > because drugs would have |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > interfered with the      |
|           |                            | > results or               |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > interpretation of the    |
|           |                            | > procedure                |
|           |                            | >                          |
|           |                            | > (col. E)                 |
|           |                            |                            |
|           |                            | -   An explanation of      |
|           |                            |     column E procedures,   |
|           |                            |     as justified by the    |
|           |                            |     investigator and       |
|           |                            |     approved by the IACUC, |
|           |                            |     must be summarized in  |
|           |                            |     an attachment. It must |
|           |                            |     include species and    |
|           |                            |     number of animals      |
|           |                            |     affected.              |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| Reference | PHS Policy IV.F.1, 2 & 4.  | 9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C    |
|           |                            | 2.36                       |
+-----------+----------------------------+----------------------------+

# E.1. Table E. Federal Requirements: Suspensions 

#  and Noncompliance

+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
|             | **PHS                      | **USDA Suspension         |
|             | Suspension/Noncompliance   | Report**                  |
|             | Report**                   |                           |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submitted   | -   IACUC through IO       | -   IO with IACUC         |
| by          |                            |     consultation          |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Submit to   | -   OLAW                   | -   APHIS and federal     |
|             |                            |     agency funding the    |
|             |                            |     activity              |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| When        | -   Suspension of an       | -   Suspension of an      |
| required    |     activity by the IACUC  |     activity by the IACUC |
|             |                            |                           |
|             | -   Serious deviation from |                           |
|             |     the *Guide* (not       |                           |
|             |     previously approved by |                           |
|             |     the IACUC)             |                           |
|             |                            |                           |
|             | -   Serious or continuing  |                           |
|             |     noncompli-ance with    |                           |
|             |     the *PHS Policy*       |                           |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Contents    | -   Full explanation of    | -   Full explanation of   |
|             |     circumstances          |     circumstances         |
|             |                            |                           |
|             | -   Description of         | -   Description of        |
|             |     corrective action      |     corrective action     |
|             |     taken                  |     taken                 |
|             |                            |                           |
|             | -   Minority views filed   |                           |
|             |     by IACUC               |                           |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Reference   | PHS Policy IV.C.6. & 7.    | 9 CFR Part 2, Subpart C   |
|             | and IV.F.3. & 4            | 2.31(d)(7)                |
+-------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+

## *References*

> AAALAC International. *Connection Newsletter*, Summer 2000, pages 1-4.
>
> Potkay, S., et al. Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Health
> Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
> *Contemporary Topics* 36(2)47-50, March, 1997.
>
> NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. Notice OD-00-007, 12/21/99.

# 

# E.2. Communications

> It has never been easier to communicate with others, and at the
> beginning of the 21st century the use of nontraditional means of
> communication such as electronic mail (email), Web sites, and Internet
> chat rooms provide new opportunities for rapid communication.
>
> Electronic communication offers advantages and disadvantages. Modes of
> communication available to the IACUC vary in speed and ease of use,
> clarity, and security. Some permit easy communication with an entire
> committee or an entire institution; and some include a permanent
> record that can be retained for later reference.
>
> **Regulations and policies**
>
> Most of the regulations governing the IACUC were written before the
> Inter-net became pervasive, but OLAW has presented some guidelines for
> the IACUC regarding the use of email and similar modes of
> communication (Garnett and Potkay, *ILAR Journal* 37:190-192, 1995).
>
> The guidelines state that email is an appropriate medium for
> transmitting animal protocols, IACUC meeting agenda and minutes,
> institutional policies, and other matters related to the animal care
> and use program. However, OLAW states that the conduct of IACUC
> meetings should allow greater opportunity for members to interact than
> that permitted by email. Sequential, one-on-one communication
> (polling) by email, telephone, or fax should not take the place of a
> convened IACUC meeting or voting, although it is an appropriate
> mechanism for providing all IACUC members with the opportunity to call
> for full committee review of a protocol prior to initiating the
> designated reviewer method of protocol review. OLAW recommends that
> traditional meetings, in which a quorum of IACUC members is in the
> same room, should be the standard method for conducting IACUC business
> such as protocol review, review of annual and semiannual reports, and
> suspensions.
>
> Under \"exceptional circumstances\" an IACUC may be permitted to
> conduct a meeting using electronic conferencing such as telephone or
> audio-visual conferences. To be considered a valid convened meeting,
> the
>
> alternate approach must include a high degree of interactivity and
> allow for careful consideration of issues. Each member must be in
> direct communication with every other member in attendance, and a
> quorum of actively participating members must be maintained. Minutes
> of an electronic conference would be written and retained as for any
> other convened IACUC meeting.
>
> If the IACUC wishes to use electronic methods for IACUC meetings or
> other activities, the proposed procedures should be described in the
> institutional Assurance and approved by OLAW.

## Efficiency and Security

> Email and the Internet have dramatically increased the speed and
> volume of information conveyed. Many institutions publish animal use
> policies and forms on a public Web site, and some include information
> such as IACUC membership and meeting times. Some have also developed
> mechanisms for submitting animal use protocols or modifications
> electronically, which can potentially eliminate tedious data entry and
> facilitate review and approval, and recordkeeping.
>
> The increasing use of email for communication with investigators and
> the IACUC also has the potential for speeding up the review process,
> provided that messages do not get lost in a barrage of email from
> other sources. Undoubtedly, more institutions will automate protocol
> submission and move toward more efficient review processes during the
> next decade.
>
> The continued development of electronic or digital signatures and
> pass-word-only access to certain information is important. There is a
> widespread concern that electronic systems are not secure. IACUC
> databases should be maintained on institutional intranets, as opposed
> to the Internet, to minimize the vulnerability of systems. As Internet
> security improves, these issues should become less of an obstacle to
> the use of electronic communication for carrying out work of the
> IACUC.
>
> ***Reference***
>
> Garnett, N. and S. Potkay. Use of Electronic Communications for IACUC
> Functions. *ILAR Journal* 37(4)190-192, 1995
>
> []{#Appendices .anchor}Appendices
>
> *This page intentionally left blank*
>
> []{#Appendix_A .anchor}Appendix A: Resources
>
> **ALTWEB**
>
> Web: <http://altweb.jhsph.edu/>
>
> ALTWEB is a Website created under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins
> Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing that is dedicated to
> providing information about and fostering the development of
> scientifically acceptable alternatives to the use of animals in
> testing and research. Alternatives are defined as methods that reduce
> animal use, replace whole animal tests, or refine existing tests by
> minimizing animal distress.
>
> **American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS)**
>
> 9190 Crestwyn Hills Drive
>
> Memphis, TN 38125
>
> Tel: 901-754‑8620
>
> Fax: 901-753‑0046
>
> Web: <http://www.aalas.org/>
>
> AALAS is an association of over 9,300 individuals dedicated to the
> humane care and treatment of laboratory animals and to quality
> research. It serves as a forum for the exchange of information and
> expertise in the care and use of laboratory animals.
>
> **American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM)**
>
> Web: <http://www.aclam.org/index.html>
>
> The ACLAM is an organization of board certified veterinary medical
> specialists who are experts in the humane, proper and safe care and
> use of laboratory animals. ACLAM establishes standards of education,
> training, experience and expertise necessary to become qualified as a
> specialist and recognizes that achievement through board
> certification. ACLAM promotes the advancement of knowledge in this
> field through professional continuing education activities, and the
> development of educational materials.
>
> **American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners (ASLAP)**
>
> 11300 Rockville Pike
>
> Suite 1211
>
> Rockville, MD 20852
>
> Tel: 301‑231‑6349
>
> Fax: 301‑231‑6071
>
> Email: aslap@aaalac.org
>
> Web: <http://www.aslap.org/>
>
> The ASLAP is an organization of veterinarians and veterinary students
> that promotes the acquisition and dissemination of education and
> training in the practice of laboratory animal medicine.
>
> **American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)**
>
> 1931 North Meacham Road
>
> Suite 100
>
> Schaumburg, IL 60173
>
> Tel: 847‑925‑8070
>
> Fax: 847‑925‑1329
>
> Email: mailto:avmainfo@avma.org
>
> Web: <http://www.avma.org/>
>
> The AVMA, a not-for-profit national association of veterinarians, was
> established in 1863 and has a current membership representing
> approximately 85% of the veterinary medical profession. The
> Association aims to advance the science and art of veterinary
> medicine, including its relationship to public health, biological
> science, and agriculture. It provides a forum for the discussion of
> issues of importance to the veterinary profession, and for the
> development of official positions. The Association is the authorized
> voice for the profession in presenting its views to government,
> academia, pet owners, the media, and other concerned publics.
>
> **Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC)**
>
> National Agricultural Library, USDA
>
> 10301 Baltimore Avenue, 5th Floor
>
> Beltsville, MD 20705‑2351
>
> Tel: 301-504‑6212
>
> Fax: 301-504‑7125
>
> Email: awic@nal.usda.gov
>
> Web: <http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/>
>
> AWIC, a component of the USDA National Agricultural Library, is
> dedicated to providing information for improved animal care and use in
> research, teaching, and testing. AWIC also offers educational
> activities that are geared towards meeting the information
> requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, and publishes bibliographies,
> information resource guides, and other publications.
>
> **Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA)**
>
> 132 Boylston Street
>
> Fourth Floor
>
> Boston, MA 02116
>
> Tel: 617-423‑4112
>
> Fax: 617-423‑1185
>
> Email: PRMR@aol.com
>
> Web: <http://www.arena.org/>
>
> ARENA is a membership organization for those involved in the
> day‑to‑day application of ethical principles, governmental
> regulations, and other policies regarding research and clinical
> practice. ARENA services include sponsorship of national and regional
> meetings, the dissemination of current information on research ethics,
> and the provision of opportunities for networking among members
> through a quarterly newsletter.
>
> **Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal
> Care International (AAALAC International)**
>
> 11300 Rockville Pike
>
> Suite 1211
>
> Rockville, Maryland 20852‑3035
>
> Tel: 301-231-5353
>
> Fax: 301.231.8282
>
> Email: accredit@aaalac.org
>
> Web: <http://www.aaalac.org/>
>
> AAALAC International is a private, non-profit organization that
> promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through a
> voluntary accreditation program. The rigorous, peer review of the
> animal care and use program pro-motes scientific validity and
> demonstrates accountability. AAALAC also offers independent program
> status evaluations to assist institutions in deter-mining their
> preparedness for accreditation and to help institutions improve their
> animal care and use program.
>
> **Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC)**
>
> 315‑350 Albert Street
>
> Ottawa ON K1R 1B1
>
> Tel: 613‑238‑4031
>
> Fax: 613‑238‑2837
>
> Email: lroach@bart.ccac.ca
>
> Web: <http://www.ccac.ca/english/new/newframe.htm>
>
> CCAC is the national peer review agency responsible for setting and
> main-taining standards for the care and use of animals used in
> research, teaching and testing throughout Canada. CCAC guidelines and
> publications provide useful information for animal care and use
> committees concerning optimal physical and psychological care of
> animals according to acceptable scientific standards.

## Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing

> Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
>
> 111 Market Place, Suite 840
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202‑6709
>
> Tel: 410‑223‑1612
>
> Fax: 410‑223‑1603
>
> Email: caat@jhsph.edu
>
> Web: <http://caat.jhsph.edu/>
>
> **Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR)**
>
> 818 Connecticut Avenue, NW
>
> Suite 303
>
> Washington, DC 20006
>
> Tel: 202-457‑0654
>
> Fax: 202-457‑0659
>
> Email: info@fbresearch.org
>
> Web: <http://www.fbresearch.org/>
>
> The FBR was established in 1981 to improve the quality of human and
> animal health by promoting public understanding and support of the
> ethical use of animals in scientific and medical research. FBR
> produces a wide variety of educational resources to help the general
> public understand why animals are so important in the search for new
> and better ways to treat the diseases that afflict both people and
> animals.
>
> **IACUC.ORG**
>
> Web: <http://www.iacuc.org/>
>
> IACUC.ORG is an information resource developed by AALAS for members
> and staff of institutional animal care and use committees. It is a
> link archive where online resources are organized by menus and
> submenus, which serve as organizing tools enabling users to quickly
> point to a topic of interest, such as example protocol forms or
> disaster plans used by other institutions.
>
> **Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR)**
>
> 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20418
>
> Tel: 202‑334‑2590
>
> Fax: 202‑334‑1687
>
> Email: ILAR@nas.edu
>
> Web: <http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/>
>
> A component of the National Academy of Sciences, ILAR is responsible
> for authoritative reports on subjects of importance to the animal care
> and use community, and for serving as a clearinghouse for information
> about animal resources. Its mission is to develop and make available
> scientific and technical information on laboratory animals and other
> biological research resources to the scientific community, the federal
> government, and the public.
>
> **NETVET Veterinary Resources**
>
> Web: <http://netvet.wustl.edu/vet.htm>
>
> NETVET is a comprehensive website that categorizes and organizes
> veteri-nary medical and animal-related information on the Internet in
> a relevant, user friendly format. Much of the information is relevant
> to IACUCs.
>
> **Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW)**
>
> National Institutes of Health
>
> RKL1, MSC 7982
>
> 6705 Rockledge Drive
>
> Bethesda, MD 20892-7982
>
> Tel: 301-496-7163
>
> Fax: 301-402-2803
>
> Email: olaw@od.nih.gov
>
> Web: <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm>
>
> OLAW is responsible for the administration and implementation of the
> Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of
> Laboratory Animals. Located at the National Institutes of Health, OLAW
> administers an educational program for PHS‑supported institutions and
> investigators, negotiates Animal Welfare Assurances, and evaluates
> compliance with the *PHS* *Policy*.
>
> **Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R)**
>
> 132 Boylston Street
>
> Fourth Floor
>
> Boston, MA 02116
>
> Tel: 617-423-4112
>
> Fax: 617-423-1185
>
> Email: PRMR@aol.com
>
> Web: <http://www.primr.org/>
>
> PRIM&R is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the
> medical and legal professions, industry and the public about the
> ethical, legal, and policy dimensions of appropriate and ethical
> research. Through PRIM&R conferences a broad range of issues regarding
> research, clinical practice, ethics, and the law are addressed,
> including the operation of Institutional Animal Care and Use
> Committees.
>
> **Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW)**
>
> 7833 Walker Drive, Suite 410
>
> Greenbelt, MD 20770
>
> Tel: 301-345‑3500
>
> Fax: 301-345‑3503
>
> Email: info@scaw.com
>
> Web: <http://www.scaw.com/>
>
> The SCAW is a non‑profit educational association of individuals and
> institu-tions whose mission is to promote humane care, use, and
> management of animals involved in research, testing or education in
> laboratory, agricultural, wildlife or other settings. It offers an
> ongoing forum for the exchange and evaluation of scientific
> information about the care, treatment, well‑being and ethical use of
> animals.
>
> **United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Care (AC)**
>
> 4700 River Road, Unit 84
>
> Riverdale, Maryland 20737‑1234
>
> Tel: 301-734-7833
>
> Fax: 301-734-4978
>
> Email: ace@aphis.usda.gov
>
> Web: <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/>
>
> The Animal Care (AC) component of the USDA\'s Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for the enforcement of the
> Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA sets minimum standards of care and
> treat-ment for most warm-blooded animals used in research. Three
> regional offices employ field veterinary medical officers (VMOs) who
> regularly conduct unannounced inspections of research facilities for
> compliance with the USDA animal welfare regulations.
>
> **University of California Center for Animal Alternatives (UCCAA)**
>
> One Shields Avenue
>
> Davis, CA 95616‑8684
>
> Tel: 530-752‑1800
>
> Fax: 530-754-8606
>
> Email: animalalternatives@ucdavis.edu
>
> Web: <http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/main.htm>
>
> The UCCAA collects, disseminates, and facilitates access to
> information concerning animal alternatives, serving primarily the
> scientists and staff on the nine University of California campuses.
> The purpose is to improve the well-being and quality of life of
> research animals, but also to optimize their contribution to education
> and research.

# ResearchTraining.org

> Web:
> [*http://www.researchtraining.org*](http://www.researchtraining.org/)
>
> ResearchTraining.org is a Website developed by the Medical Research
> Service in the VA Office of Research and Development. Its purpose is
> to help VA and non-VA institutions meet research training mandates.
> The site includes free web-based courses and exams for research staff
> and IACUC members, and an IACUC Administrator's site where
> administrators can review the records of staff members who pass exams.

####### Appendix B

[]{#Appendix_B .anchor}

![](media/image2.wmf)

> *This page intentionally left blank*
>
> []{#Appendix_C .anchor}**Appendix C: Mandatory IACUC Issues Identified
> During**
>
> **AAALAC International Site Visits**

# *(See Section B.1. Program and Facility Review)* {#see-section-b.1.-program-and-facility-review .Table}

#  {#section-65 .Table}

#  Inadequate review and follow-up of the animal care and use program {#inadequate-review-and-follow-up-of-the-animal-care-and-use-program .Table}

#  Need for more rigorous protocol review {#need-for-more-rigorous-protocol-review .Table}

#  Inadequate records of IACUC activities {#inadequate-records-of-iacuc-activities .Table}

#  Assurance of participation in and adequacy of training programs {#assurance-of-participation-in-and-adequacy-of-training-programs .Table}

#  Inadequately addressing issues pertaining to pain and distress {#inadequately-addressing-issues-pertaining-to-pain-and-distress .Table}

#  Need for IACUC to review and approve deviations from the *Guide* {#need-for-iacuc-to-review-and-approve-deviations-from-the-guide .Table}

#  IACUC assurance of adequate veterinary care {#iacuc-assurance-of-adequate-veterinary-care .Table}

#  Inadequate IACUC oversight of animals in satellite/contract facilities {#inadequate-iacuc-oversight-of-animals-in-satellitecontract-facilities .Table}

#  Committee composition and participation {#committee-composition-and-participation .Table}

#  Changes in protocol without IACUC review and approval {#changes-in-protocol-without-iacuc-review-and-approval .Table}

#  No three year complete review of protocols/annual review of PHS- funded research {#no-three-year-complete-review-of-protocolsannual-review-of-phs--funded-research .Table}

#  Allowing ordering of animals without assignment to an animal use protocol {#allowing-ordering-of-animals-without-assignment-to-an-animal-use-protocol .Table}

#  Not all animals covered by a protocol (e.g., breeding animals) {#not-all-animals-covered-by-a-protocol-e.g.-breeding-animals .Table}

#  Absence of exercise and psychological well-being plans for dogs and nonhuman primates {#absence-of-exercise-and-psychological-well-being-plans-for-dogs-and-nonhuman-primates .Table}

#  Committee not appointed by the CEO {#committee-not-appointed-by-the-ceo .Table}

#  Inadequate facility inspections (e.g., laboratories) {#inadequate-facility-inspections-e.g.-laboratories .Table}

#  Inadequate training of IACUC {#inadequate-training-of-iacuc .Table}

#  Inadequate intensity of oversight of program {#inadequate-intensity-of-oversight-of-program .Table}

#  {#section-66 .Table}

#  {#section-67 .Table}

#  {#section-68 .Table}

> *Presented in order of most common citation to least frequent
> citation.*
>
> *This page intentionally left blank*
>
> []{#Appendix_D .anchor}**Appendix D: Recommendations of the 2000 AVMA
> Panel**
>
> **On Euthanasia**

> *(See C.2.b. Euthanasia)*
>
> The 2000 AVMA Panel on Euthanasia Report characterizes euthanasia
> methods by type:
>
> 1\) Inhalant agents,
>
> 2\) Noninhalant pharmaceutical agents, and
>
> 3\) Physical methods.
>
> The Panel further classifies the methods into those that are
> considered acceptable, conditionally acceptable and unacceptable when
> used as the sole means of euthanasia.
>
> **Euthanasia of Homeothermic (Warm-blooded) Animals**
>
> ***Inhalant Agents***
>
> *Inhalant Anesthetics:* The Panel recommends the use of halothane,
> enflurane, sevoflurane, methoxyflurane, isoflurane and desflurane (in
> order of preference) for animals under 7 kg. Although acceptable for
> use in larger animals these agents are not often used due to cost and
> difficulty in admin-istration. Induction with methoxyflurane
> (metofane) is unacceptably slow in some species. Ether was formerly
> used extensively, but is now only con-ditionally acceptable due to
> irritation of mucous membranes and risk of fire and explosion. Nitrous
> oxide (N~2~O) does not produce anesthesia, and may produce hypoxemia
> and cardiac or respiratory arrest. It may be used in combination with
> other anesthetics to speed anesthesia onset. It is impor-tant to
> minimize exposure to personnel to these potentially toxic agents;
> therefore fume hoods must be used.
>
> Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~): Carbon dioxide is an effective and widely used
> agent to euthanize rodents. This method causes hypoxia attributable to
> depresssion of vital centers. Use of carbon dioxide generated by other
> methods (e.g.. dry ice, fire extinguishers) is not acceptable.
> Compressed CO~2~ gas in cylinders is the only recommended source of
> carbon dioxide, since the inflow to the euthanasia chamber can be
> regulated. An optimal flow rate will displace at least 20% of the
> chamber volume per minute. In some species (e.g. rats) prefilling the
> chamber to 70% or more will produce rapid unconsciousness with minimal
> distress. Young animals, and some burrowing and diving animals, are
> relatively resistant to the hypoxemic effect of CO~2~. Since the
> effects of carbon dioxide are reversible, it is impor-tant to ensure
> that the animals are dead.
>
> *Other agents:* Nitrogen and argon are listed as conditionally
> acceptable methods for death by hypoxemia, and are relatively safe.
> Although effect-tive, they may cause distress and other methods are
> preferred. Carbon monoxide induces unconsciousness without significant
> discomfort, and is considered acceptable for euthanasia for dogs,
> cats, and other small mam-mals. However, it is dangerous to use, and
> the Panel recommends it only if proper precautions are observed.
>
> ***Non-inhalant Agents***
>
> *Barbiturates:* Injection of barbiturates, particularly sodium
> pentobarbital, is the most rapid and reliable method of euthanasia for
> most research animals. In non-rodent species, barbiturates are given
> intravenously to be most effective. A sedative or tranquilizer may be
> given prior to the barbiturate in animals that are difficult to
> restrain. Intraperitoneal injection is also accept-able when necessary
> if restraint or intravenous administration would be more stressful. In
> rodent, intravenous barbiturate for euthanasia is not common, since
> equally humane and less time-consuming methods are available.
> Intraperitoneal injection of barbiturate is acceptable for eutha-nasia
> in small mammals.
>
> Sodium pentobarbital is listed as a Schedule II drug by the U.S. Drug
> Enforcement Administration (DEA). Current federal drug regulations
> require strict accounting for barbiturates, and they must be used
> under the super-vision of personnel registered with the DEA. Some
> effective euthanasia solutions contain barbiturates in combination
> with other agents, and are listed Schedule III and are less restricted
> in use.
>
> *Potassium Chloride (KCl):* KCl induces immediate cardiac arrest
> without any significant depression of the central nervous system.
> Hence, it must only be used after the animal is deeply anesthetized.
>
> *Neuromuscular Blocking Agents* *(Succinycholine, Curare, etc):* These
> drugs induce muscular paralysis and death by suffocation. They are not
> accept-able for euthanasia.
>
> ***Physical Methods***
>
> Physical methods are sometimes necessary to obtain scientifically
> valid data and, while aesthetically displeasing to some individuals,
> are humane when properly performed by skilled and experienced
> personnel with appro-priate, well-maintained equipment. The Panel
> considers most physical methods to be conditionally acceptable.
>
> *Cervical Dislocation*: This is frequently used for mice, poultry and
> other small birds, immature rats weighing less than 200 grams and
> rabbits weigh-ing less than one kilogram. Cervical dislocation is
> described in the 2000 AVMA Report as a humane technique for euthanasia
> of rodents and small rabbits in research, which induces rapid loss of
> consciousness without chemically contaminating tissue. Its use must be
> scientifically justified and approved by the IACUC on a case-by-case
> basis. As part of the approval process the IACUC must be assured that
> the personnel are appropriately qualified in the use of this method
> for the specific species involved. It is critical that personnel
> performing these procedures are thoroughly trained, usually by
> practicing the procedure on anesthetized animals.
>
> *Decapitation:* Decapitation may be used to euthanize rodents and
> small rabbits. Except in neonatal animals, a guillotine is generally
> used. The sec-tion should be through the atlanto-occipital joint. The
> 2000 AVMA Report recommends that decapitation be done only when
> scientifically justified and approved by the IACUC on a case-by-case
> basis. As part of the approval process the IACUC must be assured that
> the personnel are appropriately skilled in the use of this method for
> the specific species involved.
>
> *Microwave Irradiation*: This method is used when a project requires
> fixation of mouse or rat brain metabolites *in vivo* without losing
> anatomic integrity of the brain. Commercial microwave chambers will
> render a rodent uncon-scious in less 100 msec. and dead in under one
> second. These instruments differ from household units in that they
> direct most of the microwave energy at the head of the animal. Only
> instruments designed for this purpose and having the appropriate power
> and microwave distribution may be used.
>
> *Penetrating Captive Bolt:* This method is conditionally acceptable
> for rumi-nants, horses, and swine when chemical agents are
> scientifically contra-indicated. Use of a non-penetrating captive bolt
> only stuns and should not be attempted as the sole means of
> euthanasia.
>
> **Euthanasia of Poikilothermic (Cold-blooded) Animals**
>
> The 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia addressed the
> euthana-sia of poikilothermic animals and in doing so pointed out that
> the available objective information on these species in the literature
> limits the guidelines that can be developed. The Panel also pointed
> out the differences in the metabolism, respiration and tolerance to
> cerebral hypoxia between these species and homeothermic animals must
> be considered when selecting a method of euthanasia.

# *Chemical Agents:* Intraperitoneal administration of pentobarbital is an effec-tive method of euthanasia in amphibians, turtles and snakes. Tricaine methane sulfonate (MS222) or benzocaine hydrochloride may be placed in the water of amphibians and fish to produce anesthesia and prolonged con-tact will produce death. Inhalant anesthetics may be used for amphibians and reptiles. Due to the low oxygen requirements for reptiles, the onset of unconsciousness and death will be significantly lengthened.

# *Physical Methods:* Poikilotherms may be euthanized by stunning followed by decapitation, pithing, or some other method to ensure death. In frogs and toads, pithing the brain and spinal cord (double pithing) is an effective and acceptable method.

> **Additional and Adjunctive Methods**
>
> The 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia included additional
> methods that, under appropriate circumstances, would produce a humane
> death. For specifics, consult the Panel report published in *JAVMA*
> Vol. 218, No. 5, March 1, 2001.
>
> []{#Appendix_E .anchor}Appendix E: Federal and State Permits Required
> for
>
> Field Studies
>
> *(See Section C.3.d. Field Studies)*
>
> One research protocol may be subject to multiple laws and therefore
> multiple permits might be required. It is most commonly the case that
> both state and federal permits are needed in addition to site-specific
> permits for research conducted on federal- or state-owned property.
>
> **U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service**
>
> The permits administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
> are found in 50 CFR, Sections 1 - 100. The general permit conditions
> found in 50 CFR 13 state that any person accepting and holding a
> permit acknow-ledges the necessity for close regulation and monitoring
> of the permitted activity by the Government. By accepting such permit,
> the permittee con-sents to and must allow entry by agents or employees
> of the USFWS upon premises where the permitted activity is conducted
> at any reasonable hour. Service agents or employees may enter such
> premises to inspect the loca-tion; any books, records, or permits
> required to be kept by this subchapter; and any wildlife or plants
> kept under authority of the permit. The regulations also provide for
> permit suspension and revocation if permit terms and conditions are
> violated.
>
> USFWS has developed a system to assess the impact of permitted
> activities on populations. Known as the Service-wide Permits Issuance
> and Tracking system, this tool allows permit biologists to determine
> the cumulative impact of permitted activities on wildlife populations
> with a high degree of precision.
>
> To take, possess, or transport any bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
> leucocephalus*) or any golden eagle (*Aquila chrysaetos)*, or the
> parts, nests, or eggs of such birds, a Bald and Golden Eagle
> Protection Act permit is required, although banding and marking may be
> authorized under a Migratory Bird Treaty Act permit. The USFWS will
> accept a single application for both permits provided that it includes
> all of the information required for an application under each
> applicable part.
>
> **CITES**
>
> The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, commonly
> referred to by the acronym CITES, is an international treaty codified
> in U.S. law as part of the Endangered Species Act. It regulates import
> and export of wildlife and plants listed on its three appendices.
> Appendix I species re-quire both an export permit from the country of
> origin and an import permit from the importing country. Commercial
> trade is prohibited but import and export for scientific research is
> allowed, subject to very strict permitting requirements. Permit
> issuance criteria require capture and import methods that minimize the
> risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. Per-mits are not
> issued if the proposed import or export would be detrimental to the
> survival of the species.
>
> **Endangered Species Act**
>
> The Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of any species listed
> as endangered or threatened. The endangered species list is found in
> 50 CFR 17.11. The term \"take\" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
> shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
> in any such conduct. Both civil and criminal penalties can be imposed
> on a violator. Exceptions are made for scientific research and for
> activities that will enhance the sur-vival of the species. Permits are
> required for such activities and are issued by the USFWS (except in
> the case of marine mammals and fishes, which are issued by the
> National Marine Fisheries Service). The regulations gov-erning
> scientific permits for endangered species are found at 50 CFR 17.22;
> regulations for permits for threatened species are found at 50 CFR
> 17.62.
>
> In considering whether to grant a permit, the permitting official will
> consider the purpose for which the permit is required, the probable
> direct and indirect effect on the population of issuing the permit,
> whether the permit would conflict with programs intended to enhance
> the survival probabilities of the population, whether the permit would
> reduce the threat of extinction, opinions or views of experts in
> matters germane to the application, and whether the expertise,
> facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear
> adequate to successfully accomplish the objectives stated in the
> application.
>
> An issued permit may contain conditions that the permitting authority
> chooses to impose, including requirements for humane conditions (50
> CFR 13.41). For instance, the permit may limit the time a researcher
> may spend in a colony of seabirds, limit capture methods, or otherwise
> dictate limits on research methodology. Applications for endangered
> species permits are published in the Federal Register and afford the
> public an opportunity to comment or object.
>
> **Lacey Act**
>
> The original Lacey Act dates back to 1900; what is currently referred
> to as the Lacey Act is actually the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. It
> is not spe-cific to research, but pertains to research involving the
> import and export of wildlife. Most commonly, the import and export of
> wildlife is conducted by museums acquiring or trading specimens but
> there is also importation and exportation of live animals for research
> purposes. The law covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or
> products. Under this law, it is unlawful to import, export, sell,
> acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, pos-sessed,
> transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in
> interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants
> taken, possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.
>
> Regulations pertaining to the import, export, and transportation of
> wildlife are found at 50 CFR 14. Generally, wildlife must be imported
> through designated ports in order to allow for inspection by Customs
> officers and/or USFWS law enforcement officers. Permits can be
> obtained to import wild-life for scientific purposes through
> nondesignated ports. Otherwise, for im-port of species not listed on
> CITES or the Endangered Species List, importers or their agents must
> file with the Service a completed Declaration for Importation or
> Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3-177), signed by the importer
> or the importer\'s agent, upon the importation of any wildlife at the
> place where Service clearance (permission for release from the port)
> is requested.
>
> **Marine Mammal Protection Act**
>
> The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a Federal
> responsibil-ity to conserve marine mammals with management vested in
> the Depart-ment of Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar bear, dugong,
> and manatee. The Department of Commerce is responsible for cetaceans
> and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. With certain specified
> exceptions, the Act establishes a
>
> moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals as well as
> products taken from them, and establishes procedures for waiving the
> mora-torium and transferring management responsibility to the States.
> The 1988 amendments include the listing of conditions under which
> permits may be issued to take marine mammals for the protection and
> welfare of the animals, including importation, public display,
> scientific research, and enhancing the survival or recovery of a
> species.
>
> Scientific permits are provided for by 50 CFR 18. If the application
> is for a scientific research permit, a detailed description of the
> scientific research project or program in which the marine mammal or
> marine mammal product is to be used including a copy of the research
> proposal relating to such pro-gram or project and the names and
> addresses of the sponsor or cooperating institution and the scientists
> involved. Where the species is listed as endangered or threatened or
> has been designated as depleted, the appli-cant must also provide a
> detailed justification of the need for such a marine mammal, including
> a discussion of possible alternatives, whether or not under the
> control of the applicant.
>
> **Migratory Bird Treaty Act**
>
> The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the
> U.S. and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory
> birds. Specific provisions in the statute include the establishment of
> a federal pro-hibition, unless permitted by regulations, to \"pursue,
> hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess,
> offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for
> shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation,
> transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by
> any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage,
> or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included
> in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory
> birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.\" (16 U.S.C.
> 703)
>
> The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine,
> periodically, when, consistent with the Conventions, \"hunting,
> taking, capture, killing, posses-sion, sale, purchase, shipment,
> transportation, carriage, or export of any . . .bird, or any part,
> nest or egg\" could be undertaken and to adopt regulations for this
> purpose.
>
> The title "Migratory Bird Treaty Act" (MBTA) is a misnomer because the
> Act does not apply only to birds that migrate long distances or across
> inter-national borders, but to nearly 830 species of birds. Permits
> for the taking of birds protected by the MBTA are found at 50 CFR 21.
>
> Banding and marking activities require a permit under 50 CFR 21.22.
> These permits are issued by the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological
> Resources Division\'s Bird Banding Laboratory. A banding permit
> authorizes the place-ment of USFWS-issued bands on birds. Additional
> authorization is required for the use of auxiliary markers (such as
> colored leg bands, paint marks, wing tagging, radio transmitters),
> mist nets, cannon or rocket nets, or chemi-cal means of capturing
> birds. Permits are specific to taxa or even species. Special
> authorization is required for endangered species, eagles, waterfowl,
> and hummingbirds. The Bird Banding Laboratory may also authorize the
> taking of blood and feather samples. Requests to band in more than one
> state must be justified.
>
> Other MBTA permits are obtained from the USFWS. These include permits
> for scientific collecting (50 CFR 21.23). The regulation does not
> limit the number of individuals that may be collected, but the USFWS
> by practice and policy does.
>
> **Wild Bird Conservation Act**
>
> The Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) prohibits the import of any bird
> into the United States other than those specifically listed in the
> regulations as permissible. For any other species, a permit is
> required. This law supple-ments CITES, as many species of birds are
> also listed on CITES Appendices I and II.
>
> Permits may be issued for scientific research, and are in addition to
> any other permits that might be required. So, for instance, if the
> species is also a CITES-listed species, both a CITES and a WBCA permit
> are required. The regulation for scientific research permits is found
> at 50 CFR 15.22. Applications must detail (among other things) why the
> applicant is justified in obtaining a permit, and a complete
> description of the scientific research to be conducted on the exotic
> bird requested.
>
> **Site-Specific Permit Requirements**
>
> Site-specific permits are in addition to the permits described above.
> A permit to conduct research on federal property confers no right to
> conduct research without other legally required permits.

# *Bureau of Land Management*

> The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no specific requirements or
> permits for scientific research activities. General use regulations
> under 43 CFR 2920 govern all non-federal use of the lands managed by
> the BLM. The local BLM office is to consider the duration of the
> anticipated use and its impact on the public lands and resources.
> Permission will be given only for those uses that conform with BLM
> plans, policy, objectives and resource management programs. For some
> research activities, a permit may not be required as the regulations
> provide that no land use authorization is required under the
> regulations in this part for casual use of the public lands. An
> application must include a description of the proposed land use in
> sufficient detail to enable the authorized officer to evaluate the
> feasibility of the pro-posed land use, the impacts if any, on the
> environment, the public or other benefits from the proposed land use,
> the approximate cost of the proposal, any threat to the public health
> and safety posed by the proposal and whether the proposal is, in the
> proponent\'s opinion, in conformance with BLM plans, programs and
> policies.

# *National Parks*

> National Park Service (NPS) regulations prohibit possessing,
> destroying, in-juring, defacing, removing, digging, or disturbing from
> its natural state living or dead wildlife or fish, or the parts or
> products thereof, such as antlers or nests (36 CFR 2.1.). Section 2.2
> prohibits the taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and
> trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
> section and the feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional
> disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities.
> Possession of a weapon, net, or trap without a permit is prohibited.
>
> There is no specific regulation pertaining to scientific research
> other than the collecting regulation discussed below. Currently, the
> NPS policy regard-ing research is found in its Administrative Guide,
> which pertains to all scien-tific research, Application Procedures and
> Requirements for Research and Collecting Permits, and the Guidelines
> for Study Proposals. In 1999, NPS began an effort to develop a
> research and collecting permit and reporting
>
> system. Researchers are required to submit research proposals, which
> are reviewed by the NPS for scientific validity and actual or
> potential impact to park resources, among other things. The NPS may
> impose any conditions it deems appropriate. In reviewing applications,
> the NPS considers, among other things, whether the proposed research
> contributes information useful to an increased understanding of park
> resources or addresses problems or questions of importance to science
> or society and shows promise of making an important contribution to
> humankind\'s knowledge of the subject matter. The qualifications of
> the applicant are also reviewed.
>
> Scientific collecting, including the taking of plants, fish, wildlife,
> rocks or minerals is regulated by 36 CFR 2.5. A specimen collection
> permit may be issued only to an official representative of a reputable
> scientific or educa-tional institution or a State or Federal agency
> for specific purposes des-cribed in the regulations. A permit to take
> an endangered or threatened species listed pursuant to the Endangered
> Species Act, or similarly identi-fied by the States, may not be issued
> unless the species cannot be obtained outside of the park area and the
> primary purpose of the collection is to enhance the protection or
> management of the species. In park areas where the enabling
> legislation authorizes the killing of wildlife, a permit that
> authorizes the killing of plants, fish or wildlife may be issued only
> when the superintendent approves a written research proposal and
> determines that the collection will benefit science or has the
> potential for improving the management and protection of park
> resources. In park areas where the en-abling legislation does not
> expressly prohibit the killing of wildlife, a permit authorizing the
> killing of plants, fish or wildlife may be issued only when the
> superintendent approves a written research proposal and determines
> that the collection will not result in the derogation of the values or
> purposes for which the park area was established and has the potential
> for conserving and perpetuating the species subject to collection. In
> park areas where the enabling legislation prohibits the killing of
> wildlife, issuance of a collecting permit for wildlife or fish or
> plants, is prohibited.

# *National Forests*

> Forest Service laws and regulations prohibit all activities that are
> not expressly allowed by regulation or permit under 36 CFR 251, and
> the regu-lations do not address scientific research specifically. The
> guidelines for special use permits are found in 36 CFR 251.54. The
> two-tier screening process entails, among other things, determinations
> that authorization of the proposed activity is consistent or can be
> made consistent with the standards and guidelines in the applicable
> forest land and resource management plan
>
> required under the National Forest Management Act and 36 CFR part 219,
> and that the proposed activity does not materially impact the
> characteristics or functions of the environmentally sensitive
> resources or lands identified in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,
> chapter 30.

# *National Wildlife Refuges*

> When a national wildlife refuge is created, it is considered closed to
> the pub-lic until it is expressly opened by its manager. The refuge
> managers are, under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
> Act of 1966, to allow "compatible" wildlife dependent recreation. In
> 1997, Congress enact-ed the National Wildlife Refuge System
> Improvement Act (NWRSIA), which retained the compatibility standards,
> but required FWS to define what it is and establish a process for
> compatibility determinations. On October 18, 2000, the USFWS issued
> its Final Compatibility Regulations (65 FR 62457-62483). The
> regulation defines compatibility as, "a proposed or existing
> wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national
> wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not
> materially inter-fere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
> National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the
> national wildlife refuge." This deter-mination is to be made by the
> refuge manager.
>
> The primary concern of refuge managers under the statutes and
> regulations is to, "administer a national network of lands and waters
> for the conser-vation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration
> of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within
> the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
> Americans." The NWRSIA specifically defines the terms \'conserving,\'
> \'conservation,\' \'manage,\' 'managing\' and 'management\' to mean,
> "to sustain, and where appropriate, restore and enhance, healthy
> populations of fish, wildlife, and plants, utilizing, in accordance
> with applicable Federal and State laws, methods, and procedures
> associated with modern scientific resource programs. Such methods and
> procedures include, consistent with the provisions of this Act,
> protection, research, live trapping and transplantation, and regulated
> taking."

# State Laws and Regulations

> Virtually all States regulate activities involving wildlife, including
> scientific research. The Center for Wildlife Law has published a
> handbook entitled *State Wildlife Laws Handbook*, which covers all
> State wildlife statutes, although it does not include permitting
> regulations. State regulations would be found in the States\'
> analogues to the Code of Federal Regulations. Most State regulations
> also require permits for research on State-owned lands.
>
> **Professional Societies**

# *Animal Behavior Society*

> Website:
> [*http://www.animalbehavior.org/*](http://www.animalbehavior.org/)
>
> Contact: Animal Behavior Society

##  Indiana University

##  2611 East 10th Street #170

Bloomington IN 47408-2603

##  (812) 856-5541

# 

# *American Fisheries Society*

> Website*: [http://www.fisheries.org](http://www.fisheries.org/)*
>
> Contact: American Fisheries Society
>
> 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
>
> Bethesda, MD 20814-2199
>
> \(301\) 897-8616

#  

# *American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists*

> Website: *http://199.245.200.110/*
>
> Contact: ASIH has no staffed office. Leadership and committee members,
>
> including the Animal Care and Use Committee, are listed on the
>
> ASM website, which also includes an on-line directory of members\'
>
> e-mail addresses.

# 

# *American Society of Mammalogists*

> Website:
> [*http://www.mammalsociety.org/*](http://www.mammalsociety.org/)
>
> Contact: ASM has no staffed office. Leadership and committee members
>
> are listed on the ASIH website.

# 

# *The Ornithological Council*

> Website:
> [*http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET*](http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET)
>
> Contact: The Ornithological Council
>
> 3713 Chevy Chase Lake Drive, Apt.3
>
> Chevy Chase, MD 20815
>
> \(301\) 986-8568

# *The Wildlife Society*

> Website: [*www.wildlife.org*](http://www.wildlife.org/)
>
> Contact: The Wildlife Society
>
> 5410 Grosvenor Lane

##  Bethesda, MD 20814

##  (301) 897-9770

##  (301) 530-2471 Fax

##  

> []{#Appendix_F .anchor}***Appendix F: U.S. Government Principles for
> the Utilization***
>
> ***and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in***
>
> ***Testing, Research and Training***
>
> The development of knowledge necessary for the improvement of the
> health and well-being of humans as well as other animals requires *in
> vivo* experi-mentation with a wide variety of animal species. Whenever
> U.S. Government agencies develop requirements for testing, research,
> or training procedures involving the use of vertebrate animals, the
> following principles shall be considered; and whenever these agencies
> actually perform or sponsor such procedures, the responsible
> Institutional Official shall ensure that these
>
> principles are adhered to:
>
> I. The transportation, care, and use of animals should be in
> accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et. seq.) and
> other applicable Federal laws, guidelines, and policies.\*
>
> II\. Procedures involving animals should be designed and performed
> with due consideration of their relevance to human or animal health,
> the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society.
>
> III\. The animals selected for a procedure should be of an appropriate
> species and quality and the minimum number required to obtain valid
> results. Methods such as mathematical models, computer simulation, and
> in vitro biological systems should be considered***.***
>
> IV\. Proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of
> discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific
> practices, is imperative. Unless the contrary is established,
> investi-gators should consider that procedures that cause pain or
> distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals.
>
> V. Procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or
> slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation,
> analgesia, or anesthesia. Surgical or other painful procedures should
> not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical
> agents***.***
>
> VI\. Animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or
> dis-tress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the
> end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure***.***
>
> VII\. The living conditions of animals should be appropriate for their
> species and contribute to their health and comfort. Normally, the
> housing, feeding, and care of all animals used for biomedical purposes
> must 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. In any case, veterinary care shall be provided
> as indicated.
>
> VIII\. Investigators and other personnel shall be appropriately
> qualified and experienced for conducting procedures on living animals.
> Ade-quate arrangements shall be made for their in-service training,
> in-cluding the proper and humane care and use of laboratory animals.

IX. Where exceptions are required in relation to the provisions of these
    Principles, the decisions should not rest with the investigators
    directly concerned but should be made, with due regard to Principle
    II, by an appropriate review group such as an institutional animal
    care and use committee. Such exceptions should not be made solely
    for the purposes of teaching or demonstration.

> *\*For guidance throughout these Principles, the reader is referred to
> the* Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals *prepared by the
> Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of
> Sciences.*