Several studies have indicated that different stressors can affect research outcomes when using laboratory animals. David Fuller was of the opinion that euthanasia by carbon dioxide asphyxiation would be stressful to his mice because of the sound of the gas entering the euthanasia chamber, the potential for pain as the gas traversed the mucous membranes of the animal's nose and the possibly distressful sensation of hypoxia as the gas gradually displaced the air in the chamber. Carbon dioxide inhalation was the most common means of euthanasia used in the Great Eastern University animal facility; therefore, Fuller requested permission from the IACUC in his protocol to bring mice to his lab where they would be immediately euthanized by cervical dislocation, a technique with which he had many years of experience. Because the IACUC also required scientific justification for any request to remove animals from the vivarium, even for a 'one way' trip, Fuller explained that his lab was in a far wing of the building, that it would take 10 minutes to bring tissues from the vivarium to the lab and that this delay between euthanasia and the enzyme extraction process that he planned to use was simply too long.
“Why don't you euthanize the mice in the animal facility by cervical dislocation, remove the tissues, put them in a Petri dish over ice, and then bring them to your lab?” asked Remy Snyder, the school's attending veterinarian, during her pre-review of Fuller's protocol.
Fuller responded, “These are very delicate neural tissues, and they have to be used when they are as fresh as possible. The 10-minute delay, even with ice, is not acceptable.”
“But,” queried Snyder in return, “even if you take the mouse to your lab, isn't the 10-minute transport just as much of a stressor on the animal as the carbon dioxide? And won't cervical dislocation affect the brain tissue?”
“Not in my experience,” said Fuller. Snyder shook her head and returned the protocol to the IACUC office where, at her request, it was scheduled for full committee review.
Fuller did what the IACUC asked of him: he provided scientific justifications for bringing animals to his lab and for euthanizing them there by cervical dislocation. But are the justifications he provided sufficient for the IACUC to approve the request? Must the IACUC accept plausible scientific justifications even if the committee does not think they are fully adequate?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silverman, J. Scientific justification for exemptions. Lab Anim 42, 199 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.247
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.247
