Skip to main content

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

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Tough decisions about protocol review

Lab Animal volume 46, pages 290–294 (2017)Cite this article

To the editor:

How Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) balance protocol review ideology with reality was the topic of a panel discussion held at the 66th National Meeting of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. The discussion began by characterizing the essence of the IACUC. The term “essence” refers to the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract that determines its character. The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Policy) and the Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (AWAR) require an IACUC to be composed of representatives from various constituencies that collectively set a tone for the committee's character1,2. These representatives include members who understand the science, those who contribute the voice of nonscientists, and individuals unaffiliated with the IACUC's institution. At a full committee meeting, decisions regarding animal use requests can only be conducted when a quorum of voting members is present. This requirement meets the intent of having the “essence” of the committee participating in the deliberations.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

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

References

  1. US Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Regulations 9 CFR §2.31 (b) (US Department of Agriculture, 2013).

  2. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.A.3 (US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 2015).

  3. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.C.1. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 2015).

  4. US Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Regulations 9 CFR §2.31 (d) (1) (US Department of Agriculture, 2013).

  5. Silverman, J. et al. J. Am. Assoc. of Lab. Anim. Sci. 54, 389–398 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Silverman, J., Lidz, C.W., Clayfield, J., Murray, A., Simon, L., and Maranda, L.S. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics. In press.

  7. US Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Regulations 9 CFR (US Department of Agriculture, 2013).

  8. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 2015).

  9. US Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Inspection Guide Sections 7–9 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal-Care-Inspection-Guide.pdf (accessed 14 March 2016).

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

  11. Directive 2010/63/EU. On the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes Article 38 (European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, 2010).

  12. Federal Register Document 85-12059. The U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training. Fed. Regist. 50, 97 (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC, USA, 1985).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Internal Medicine/Nephrology and Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA

    Patricia A Preisig

  2. Departments of Animal Medicine and Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

    Jerald Silverman

  3. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Patricia Brown

  4. Division of the USDA APHIS, Animal Care, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

    Nicolette Petervary

Authors
  1. Patricia A Preisig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerald Silverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolette Petervary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A Preisig.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Preisig, P., Silverman, J., Brown, P. et al. Tough decisions about protocol review. Lab Anim 46, 290–294 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1300

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1300

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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