Agricultural (nonbiomedical) animal research outside the laboratory: a review of guidelines for institutional animal care and use committees

Challenges and published guidelines associated with appropriate care and use of farm animals in agricultural research conducted outside the laboratory are briefly reviewed. The Animal Welfare Act (Title 9 of the 2000 Code of Federal Regulations), which regulates the care and use of agricultural animals in biomedical research, does not include livestock and poultry used in agricultural research. Farm animal research funded (and thereby regulated) by the US Public Health Service is further discussed in the National Research Council's 1996 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. However, neither of these guidelines adequately addresses the unique attributes of research and teaching designed to improve production agriculture. That information is contained in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (the Ag Guide), published by the Federation of Animal Science Societies in 1999. The Ag Guide provides excellent general recommendations for agricultural animal research. It serves as an invaluable resource for institutional animal care and use committees, which attempt to balance the welfare of farm animals and the needs of those working to improve animal agriculture.     

A tool for semiannual review of the institutional animal care and use program

To ensure compliance with animal welfare laws and regulations, many research institutions review their animal care and use programs on a semiannual basis. In many cases, however, review committees fail to make the most of this process, basing their evaluations on general and sometimes outdated guidelines that do not address their specific needs. The authors present a worksheet that they developed and successfully implemented at their institution, aimed at inspiring an efficient and fruitful discussion of animal care and use.     

Chemical safety in animal care,use, and research

Chemical safety is an essential element of an effective occupational health and safety program. Controlling exposures to chemical agents requires a careful process of hazard recognition, risk assessment, development of control measures, communication of the risks and control measures, and training to ensure that the indicated controls will be utilized. Managing chemical safety in animal care and use presents a unique challenge, in part because research is frequently conducted in two very different environments--the research laboratory and the animal care facility. The chemical agents specific to each of these environments are typically well understood by the employees working there; however, the extent of understanding may not be adequate when these individuals, or chemicals, cross over into the other environment. In addition, many chemicals utilized in animal research are not typically used in the research laboratory, and therefore the level of employee knowledge and proficiency may be less compared with more routinely used materials. Finally, the research protocol may involve the exposure of laboratory animals to either toxic chemicals or chemicals with unknown hazards. Such animal protocols require careful review to minimize the potential for unanticipated exposures of the research staff or animal care personnel. Numerous guidelines and regulations are cited, which define the standard of practice for the safe use of chemicals. Key chemical safety issues relevant to personnel involved in the care and use of research animals are discussed.     

Ten practical realities for institutional animal care and use committees when evaluating protocols dealing with fish in the field

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee’s (IACUCs) serve an important role in ensuring that ethical practices are used by researchers working with vertebrate taxa including fish. With a growing number of researchers working on fish in the field and expanding mandates of IACUCs to regulate field work, there is potential for interactions between aquatic biologists and IACUCs to result in unexpected challenges and misunderstandings. Here we raise a number of issues often encountered by researchers and suggest that they should be taken into consideration by IACUCs when dealing with projects that entail the examination of fish in their natural environment or other field settings. We present these perspectives as ten practical realities along with their implications for establishing IACUC protocols. The ten realities are: (1) fish are diverse; (2) scientific collection permit regulations may conflict with IACUC policies; (3) stakeholder credibility and engagement may constrain what is possible; (4) more (sample size) is sometimes better; (5) anesthesia is not always needed or possible; (6) drugs such as analgesics and antibiotics should be prescribed with care; (7) field work is inherently dynamic; (8) wild fish are wild; (9) individuals are different, and (10) fish capture, handling, and retention are often constrained by logistics. These realities do not imply ignorance on the part of IACUCs, but simply different training and experiences that make it difficult for one to understand what happens outside of the lab where fish are captured and not ordered/purchased/reared, where there are engaged stakeholders, and where there is immense diversity (in size, morphology, behaviour, life-history, physiological tolerances) such that development of rigid protocols or extrapolation from one species (or life-stage, sex, size class, etc.) to another is difficult. We recognize that underlying these issues is a need for greater collaboration between IACUC members (including veterinary professionals) and field researchers which would provide more reasoned, rational and useful guidance to improve or maintain the welfare status of fishes used in field research while enabling researchers to pursue fundamental and applied questions related to the biology of fish in the field. As such, we hope that these considerations will be widely shared with the IACUCs of concerned researchers.     

Assessing animal care and use programs internationally

As international collaborations become commonplace, new issues arise concerning the potentially variable quality of laboratory animals. The Associate Director and the Director of AAALAC International discuss efforts to harmonize facility procedures and practices of animal care and use globally.     

An ergonomics process for the care and use of research animals

Personnel who work with laboratory animals incur potential occupational health risks that can lead to the development of musculoskeletal disorders. Demanding manual tasks may also result in increased errors, worker fatigue, poor human performance, and decreased productivity. Studies have shown that a comprehensive ergonomics program that utilizes a systematic risk management approach can reduce the likelihood of exposure to musculoskeletal disorder risk factors and remove barriers to human performance. Research has characterized the risk factors of musculoskeletal disorder exposure in terms of force, frequency, posture, and muscle exertion. Ergonomic risk factors for typical animal handling tasks and work areas are identified, and a method is suggested for prioritizing interventions using interrelated data indicators. An initial review of potential control measures is offered to improve the health, safety, and effectiveness of people involved in the care and use of research animals.     

Animal care and use issues in movement disorder research

Animal models of movement disorders can present special challenges for the research institutions that use them. Such models often affect the animals' ability to ambulate and perform normal body functions, and these potential effects on health and well-being mandate additional steps to ensure humane animal care and use. Indeed, the appropriate level of care for these models may call for actions that go beyond what is required or considered standard for other protocols. A proactive team approach to animal use protocol development and animal management is important. Through the commitment and involvement of the entire team-researchers, facility personnel, and institutional animal care and use committee members--institutions that use these valuable models can ensure both the fulfillment of research objectives and the implementation of the best practices for animal care. Among the most commonly used animal models of movement disorder are models of stroke, brain and spinal cord injury, dystonia, Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's disease. Despite their relatively wide use, there is very little in the literature that describes the specific needs of individual models and the challenges those needs may present in today's regulatory environment. In this article, we discuss animal use considerations and provide the available animal care information on specific models. Interested readers are also referred to the additional information in the accompanying articles in this issue of ILAR Journal.     

Institutional and IACUC responsibilities for animal care and use education and training programs

Training and instruction of personnel are important components of animal care and use programs because they help to ensure the health and welfare of the animals and the integrity of the research or testing results. Training also helps to promote the consideration of alternatives, recognition of animal pain and distress, appropriate use of pain-relieving agents, aseptic technique, pre- and post-procedural care, and personnel health and safety. While individuals who provide the care for or conduct research or testing in laboratory animals should take personal responsibility for ensuring that they have the skills to perform their duties, the institution is ultimately responsible for ensuring their competency. The institution is also responsible for providing the training or instruction that is required by federal legislation, regulations, and policies. The institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is responsible for ensuring, as part of their review of research activities, that the personnel are capable of performing the procedures described. The IACUC must also assess the institution's training program as part of their semiannual animal care and use program review and make recommendations regarding training to the institutional official. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the US regulatory mandates for training and personnel qualification.     

The use of animal models for stroke research: a review

Stroke has been identified as the second leading cause of death worldwide. Stroke is a focal neurologic deficit caused by a change in cerebral circulation. The use of animal models in recent years has improved our understanding of the physiopathology of this disease. Rats and mice are the most commonly used stroke models, but the demand for larger models, such as rabbits and even nonhuman primates, is increasing so as to better understand the disease and its treatment. Although the basic mechanisms of stroke are nearly identical among mammals, we here discuss the differences between the human encephalon and various animals. In addition, we compare common surgical techniques used to induce animal models of stroke. A more complete anatomic knowledge of the cerebral vessels of various model species is needed to develop more reliable models for objective results that improve knowledge of the pathology of stroke in both human and veterinary medicine.     

The implications of microarray technology for animal use in scientific research

Microarray technology has the potential to affect the number of laboratory animals used, the severity of animal experiments, and the development of non-animal alternatives in several areas scientific research. Microarrays can contain hundreds or thousands of microscopic spots of DNA, immobilised on a solid support, and their use enables global patterns of gene expression to be determined in a single experiment. This technology is being used to improve our understanding of the operation of biological systems during health and disease, and their responses to chemical insults. Although it is impossible to predict with certainty any future trends regarding animal use, microarray technology might not initially reduce animal use, as is often claimed to be the case. The accelerated pace of research as a result of the use of microarrays could increase overall animal use in basic and applied biological research, by increasing the numbers of interesting genes identified for further analysis, and the number of potential targets for drug development. Each new lead will require further evaluation i n studies that could involve animals. In toxicity testing, microarray studies could lead to increases in animal studies, if further confirmatory and other studies are performed. However, before such technology can be used more extensively, several technical problems need to be overcome, and the relevance of the data to biological processes needs to be assessed. Were microarray technology to be used in the manner envisaged by its protagonists, there need to be efforts to increase the likelihood that its application will create new opportunities for reducing, refining and replacing animal use. This comment is a critical assessment of the possible implications of the application of microarray technology on animal experimentation in various research areas, and makes some recommendations for maximising the application of the Three Rs.     

The use of mice and rats as animal models for cardiopulmonary resuscitation research

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after the induction of cardiac arrest (CA) has been studied in mice and rats. The anatomical and physiological parameters of the cardiopulmonary system of these two species have been defined during experimental studies and are comparable with those of humans. Moreover, these animal models are more ethical to establish and are easier to manipulate, when compared with larger experimental animals. Accordingly, the effects of successful CPR on the function of vital organs, such as the brain, have been investigated because damage to these vital organs is of concern in CA survivors. Furthermore, the efficacy of several drugs, such as adrenaline (epinephrine), vasopressin and nitroglycerin, has been evaluated for use in CA in these small animal models. The purpose of these studies is not only to increase the rate of survival of CA victims, but also to improve their quality of life by reducing damage to their vital organs after CA and during CPR.     

The interpretation and application of the three Rs by animal ethics committee members

The Three Rs form the basis of review of animal-use protocols by Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), but little research has examined how AECs actually interpret and implement the Three Rs. This topic was explored through in-depth, open-ended interviews with 28 members of AECs at four Canadian universities. In describing protocol review, AEC members rarely mentioned the Three Rs, but most reported applying some aspects of the basic concepts. Comments identified several factors that could impede full application of the Three Rs: incomplete understanding of the Three Rs (especially Refinement), trust that researchers implement Replacement and Reduction themselves, belief by some members that granting agency review covers the Three Rs, focus on sample size rather than experimental design to achieve Reduction, focus on harm caused by procedures to the exclusion of housing and husbandry, and lack of consensus on key issues, notably on the nature and moral significance of animal pain and suffering, and on whether AECs should minimise overall harm to animals. The study suggests ways to achieve more consistent application of the Three Rs, by providing AECs with up-to-date information on the Three Rs and with access to statistical expertise, by consensus-building on divisive issues, and by training on the scope and implementation of the Three Rs.