IACUC issues associated with amphibian research

Numerous species of amphibians are frequently utilized as animal models in biomedical research. Despite their relatively common occurrence as laboratory animals, the regulatory guidelines that institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) must employ provide little in the way of written standards for ectothermic animals. Yet, as vertebrates, laboratory amphibians are covered by the National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy for federally funded research. This article focuses on three issues that are relevant to IACUC oversight of the use of amphibians in research: (1) recommended educational requirements of investigators and animal care staff engaged in research with amphibians, (2) zoonoses and other issues of occupational health importance, and (3) indicators of stress and disease. Addressing these issues should enable investigators, IACUCs, and animal care staff to meet the regulatory expectations of the PHS and accrediting bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International.     

Does the Animal Welfare Act apply to free-ranging animals?

Despite the long-standing role that institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) have played in reviewing and approving studies at academic institutions, compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is not always complete for government natural resource agencies that use free-ranging animals in research and management studies. Even at universities, IACUCs face uncertainties about what activities are covered and about how to judge proposed research on free-ranging animals. One reason for much of the confusion is the AWA vaguely worded exemption for "field studies." In particular, fish are problematic because of the AWA exclusion of poikilothermic animals. However, most university IACUCs review studies on all animals, and the Interagency Research Animal Committee (IRAC) has published the "IRAC Principles," which extend coverage to all vertebrates used by federal researchers. Despite this extended coverage, many scientists working on wild animals continue to view compliance with the AWA with little enthusiasm. IACUCs, IACUC veterinarians, wildlife veterinarians, and fish and wildlife biologists must learn to work together to comply with the law and to protect the privilege of using free-ranging animals in research.     

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

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

Surgical implantation of transmitters into fish

Although the Animal Welfare Act does not cover poikilotherms, individual institutions and policies and legal requirements other than the Animal Welfare Act (e.g., the US Public Health Service and the Interagency Research Animal Committee's Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training) require the review of projects involving fish by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs). IACUCs may, however, lack the knowledge and experience to evaluate fish projects judiciously, especially when the projects are in field settings. Surgeries involving implantation of transmitters and other instruments into the coelom, which now comprise a very common research tool in the study of free-ranging fishes, are examples of surgeries that use a broad spectrum of surgical and anesthetic techniques, some of which would not be considered acceptable for similar work on mammals. IACUCs should apply the standards they would expect to be used for surgeries on homeotherms to surgeries on fish. Surgeons should be carefully trained and experienced. Surgical instruments and transmitters should be sterile. Regulations and laws on the use of drugs in animals should be followed, particularly those concerned with anesthetics and antibiotics used on free-ranging fish. Exceptions to surgical procedures should be made only when circumstances are extreme enough to warrant the use of less than optimal procedures.     

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.     

Preparation of animals for use in the laboratory: issues and challenges for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

Preparation of animals is important for optimization of animal welfare as well as to minimize interanimal variation, thereby strengthening the quality of data for in vivo studies. These issues are important in the work of institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs), but they pose many challenges as well. This article provides IACUC members with a resource for use in determining whether and how preparation of animals for research affects the IACUC's responsibilities. The topics addressed are intended to serve as a starting point for consideration and discussion. Questions related to subject selection and acclimation of subjects to experimental housing and procedures are emphasized and should provide IACUC members with a framework for discussion of relevant questions. Guidelines are provided for promoting the acclimation of a number of species to experimental settings. Additional, potentially controversial points are also raised, including the effects on longitudinal data sets of changing subject preparation procedures. The roles of the IACUC in the research endeavor are multifaceted and continuously evolving. As empirical data are produced that affect additional aspects of animal care and use, it is important for these committees to be able to evaluate and, when appropriate, stimulate the implementation of improved procedures and strategies.     

Opportunistic research and sampling combined with fisheries and wildlife management actions or crisis response

Currently most of the activities of state, federal, first nation, and private conservation agencies, including management of and field research on free-ranging wildlife, are not regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and thus not subject to National Institutes of Health guidelines or routine institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) review. However, every day thousands of fish and wildlife management activities occur across North America that provide an opportunity to take observations, measurements, biological specimens, or samples that may have research value. Most of these opportunities are secondary to ongoing and often mandated wildlife management or conservation actions. Strange as it may seem to the academic and research community, the full research potentials of these opportunities are rarely utilized. IACUCs and research institutions should strive to facilitate such research, which by its very nature is often more opportunistic than designed. They can do this by ensuring that their policies do not unnecessarily impede the rapid research responses needed, or over burden researchers with inappropriate reporting requirements designed for laboratory research. The most prominent reasons for failures to utilize wildlife research opportunities include lack of the following: personnel and expertise to collect and use the information; preparation for inevitable (or predictable) events (e.g., oil spills); resources to preserve and curate specimens; a mandate to conduct research; and recognition of the value in data or sample collection. IACUC support of open protocols and generic sampling plans can go a long way toward improving the development of useful knowledge from animals that will otherwise be lost. Opportunities to sample wildlife are categorized generally as dead sampling (road kill surveys, harvest sampling, lethal collection, and "die-offs"); live sampling (handling for marking, relocation or restocking; and captures for field or biological studies); and crisis response (e.g., population salvage operations or oil spills). Examples of the many unique situations in each category serve to illustrate how valuable research and sampling can be accomplished opportunistically. Several unique limitations of sample collection situation are described. It is recommended that IACUCs have mechanisms in place to facilitate good research in all of these circumstances.     

A renewed look at laboratory rodent housing and management

Since its publication in 1996, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, Washington DC, National Academy Press) has become a primary source of information for institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) and research facility managers. In the ensuing years, recommendations relating to laboratory animal care have evolved in response to new scientific information and use of new technology such as ventilated caging. In this article, recent publications are examined to determine the potential impact of new scientific evidence on current practices for the housing and care of laboratory rodents. The discussion points out recent advances in technology and new knowledge of the conditions for the housing of various laboratory rodents, including cage space, single versus group housing, ventilated caging systems, thermoregulation, bedding materials, and enrichment. This new information is provided to aid IACUCs and facility managers in making decisions regarding the housing and care of laboratory rodents.     

An introduction to the practical and ethical perspectives on the need to advance and standardize the intracoelomic surgical implantation of electronic tags in fish

The intracoelomic surgical implantation of electronic tags (including radio and acoustic telemetry transmitters, passive integrated transponders and archival biologgers) is frequently used for conducting studies on fish. Electronic tagging studies provide information on the spatial ecology, behavior and survival of fish in marine and freshwater systems. However, any surgical procedure, particularly one where a laparotomy is performed and the coelomic cavity is opened, has the potential to alter the survival, behavior or condition of the animal which can impair welfare and introduce bias. Given that management, regulatory and conservation decisions are based on the assumption that fish implanted with electronic tags have similar fates and behavior relative to untagged conspecifics, it is critical to ensure that best surgical practices are being used. Also, the current lack of standardized surgical procedures and reporting of specific methodological details precludes cross-study and cross-year analyses which would further progress the field of fisheries science. This compilation of papers seeks to identify the best practices for the entire intracoelomic tagging procedure including pre- and post-operative care, anesthesia, wound closure, and use of antibiotics. Although there is a particular focus on salmonid smolts given the large body of literature available on that group, other life-stages and species of fish are discussed where there is sufficient knowledge. Additional papers explore the role of the veterinarian in fish surgeries, the need for minimal standards in the training of fish surgeons, providing a call for more complete and transparent procedures, and identifying trends in procedures and research needs. Collectively, this body of knowledge should help to improve data quality (including comparability and repeatability), enhance management and conservation strategies, and maintain the welfare status of tagged fish.     

Guidelines for the veterinary care of laboratory animals: report of the FELASA/ECLAM/ESLAV Joint Working Group on Veterinary Care

Veterinary professionals working in partnership with other competent persons are essential for a successful animal care and use programme. A veterinarian's primary responsibilities are defined by their own professional regulatory bodies, but in this area of work there are further opportunities for contribution, which will assist in safeguarding the health and welfare of animals used in research. These guidelines are aimed not only at veterinarians to explain their duties, and outline the opportunities to improve the health and welfare of animals under their care, but also at employers and regulators to help them meet their responsibilities. They describe the desirability for postgraduate education towards specialization in laboratory animal medicine and detail the many competencies necessary to fulfil the role of the laboratory animal veterinarian. They detail the need for veterinary expertise to promote good health and good welfare of animals used in biomedical research during husbandry as well as when under experimental procedures. Regulatory and ethical aspects are covered as are the involvement of the veterinarian in education and training of others working in the animal care and use programme. Managerial aspects, including occupational health and safety, are also areas where the veterinarian's input can assist in the successful implementation of the programme.     

IACUC Challenges in Invertebrate Research

With billions of individuals and possibly hundreds of thousands of genera, invertebrates represent the largest number and greatest diversity of all animals used in research. Although the capacity for nociception is recognized in many invertebrate taxa, researchers and IACUC members are challenged by a lack of clear understanding of invertebrate welfare and by differing standards of moral concern for these taxa. In practice this has led IACUCs to consider invertebrates in two major groups: species worthy of increased moral concern approximating that shown to vertebrate species (this group includes cephalopods and to some extent decapod crustaceans) and all others. This dichotomy has led to differences in how invertebrate research is regulated and documented. This article presents two case studies illustrating specific concerns in invertebrate research protocols and then provides relevant information to address practical IACUC matters related to regulatory and ethical issues, sourcing and record keeping, risk management, assessment of pain and nociception in invertebrates, housing and husbandry, invasive procedures, veterinary care, and humane endpoints.     

Dose-dependent effects of chemical immobilization on the heart rate of embryonic zebrafish

The small size and optical transparency of zebrafish embryos and larvae greatly facilitate modern intravital microscopic phenotyping of these experimentally tractable laboratory animals. Neither the experimentally derived dose-response relationships for chemicals commonly used in the mounting of live fish larvae, nor their effect on the stress of the animal, are currently available in the research literature. This is particularly problematic for IACUCs attempting to maintain the highest ethical standards of animal care in the face of a recent spate in investigator-initiated requests to use embryonic zebrafish as experimental models. The authors address this issue by describing the dose-dependent efficacy of several commonly used chemical mounting treatments and their effect on one stress parameter, embryo heart rate. The results of this study empirically define, for the first time, effective, minimally stressful treatments for immobilization and in vivo visualization during early zebrafish development.     

Review: Assessing fish welfare in research and aquaculture,with a focus on European directives

The number of farmed fish in the world has increased considerably. Aquaculture is a growing industry that will in the future provide a large portion of fishery products. Moreover, in recent years, the number of teleost fish used as animal models for scientific research in both biomedical and ecological fields has increased. Therefore, it is increasingly important to implement measures designed to enhance the welfare of these animals. Currently, a number of European rules exist as requirements for the establishment, care and accommodation of fish maintained for human purposes. As far as (teleost) fish are concerned, the fact that the number of extant species is much greater than that of all other vertebrates must be considered. Of further importance is that each species has its own specific physical and chemical requirements. These factors make it difficult to provide generalized recommendations or requirements for all fish species. An adequate knowledge is required of the physiology and ecology of each species bred. This paper integrates and discusses, in a single synthesis, the current issues related to fish welfare, considering that teleosts are target species for both aquaculture and experimental models in biological and biomedical research. We first focus on the practical aspects, which must be considered when assessing fish welfare in both research and aquaculture contexts. Next, we address husbandry and the care of fish housed in research laboratories and aquaculture facilities in relation to their physiological and behavioural requirements, as well as in reference to the suggestions provided by European regulations. Finally, to evaluate precisely which parameters described by Directive 2010/63/EU are reported in scientific papers, we analysed 82 articles published by European researchers in 2014 and 2015. This review found that there is a general lack of information related to the optimal environmental conditions that should be provided for the range of species covered by this directive.     

Self-harm in laboratory-housed primates: where is the evidence that the Animal Welfare Act amendment has worked?

The 1985 amendment to the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well being of primates in the laboratory represents an acknowledgment of an important welfare problem concerning nonhuman animals. How effective has this amendment been? Perhaps the best-known contributor to psychological distress in primates in the laboratory is nonsocial housing; yet, available analyses suggest that little progress has been made in avoiding single-caging of these animals. Another way to assess psychological well being is to examine rates of self-abusive behavior in laboratory primates. If the AWA has been effective, then post-AWA self-harm rates might be lower than pre-AWA rates. However, when we attempted to determine those rates from published studies, data were too sparse to allow a rigorous statistical analysis; of 139 studies reporting primate self-harming behavior, only 9 contained data allowing estimation of self-harming behavior rates. We conclude that the current system of laboratory animal care and record keeping is inadequate to properly assess AWA impacts on primate psychological well being and that more is required to ensure the psychological well being of primates.     

Avoiding an overzealous approach: a perspective on regulatory burden

The authors discuss the impact of regulatory burden on the research enterprise, with emphasis on animal care and use programs. They identify three sources of regulatory burden: specific requirements in law and regulation, interpretive requirements or "guidance" by regulatory agencies, and self-imposed regulatory burden resulting from institutional interpretations. Attempting to minimize the risks of noncompliance through the overzealous application of "requirements" does not necessarily benefit the animals. Balancing risks associated with animal research and burden in a successful program requires clear and consistent communication among all stakeholders--the institutional leadership, institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC), attending veterinarian and staff, and scientists. An evaluation tool is provided for institutions to assess their approach to required and voluntary activities in their animal care program. Drawing on the knowledge and experience gained in a combined 40 years of serving on, managing, training, and evaluating animal care programs, the authors conclude that institutions must thoughtfully balance their research and compliance needs to successfully maintain their institutional goals. They stress that a culture of compliance based on knowledge of the regulations, dedication to quality animal care, reasoned use of science-based performance standards, and the judicious application of professional judgment is the foundation for facilitation of research in the context of animal welfare and regulatory compliance.     

A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives

Two ethical issues facing Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees [IACUCs] today are assessing scientific merit and the use of alternatives in research proposals. This study evaluated 3 IACUCs using a 19-question survey, with a 77.8% response rate. Although 76% of members answered that scientific merit should be more dili-gently assessed if more than slight pain is caused, 14% believed that assessing scien-tific merit is not the role of the IACUC. Nearly 86% agreed that the search for alterna-tives should be more diligent for protocols that incur more than slight pain to the animals involved. Some members believed that alternatives were not actively enough sought after, while others believed no viable alternatives existed. Additional guide-lines are needed to clarify these issues.     

Training strategies for research investigators and technicians

Training programs for research personnel are discussed as a key resource that must be part of an effective animal care and use program. Because of the legal responsibility to ensure that research staff are qualified to use animals, many institutions have justified the necessity for a training coordinator and/or trainers for their animal care and use programs. Effective training programs for research personnel must meet the needs of the client base (research scientists and staff) so that they are relevant, practical, and timely. To meet these objectives, it is useful to involve the scientific staff in the analysis of their learning needs. To meet a performance standard necessary for quality research, a large percentage of the institutional staff must participate in the training program. Often it is the principal investigators who set the tone for their staff members regarding the importance of receiving training. Garnering support from this client base will create a culture that encourages training and engenders a positive attitude about humane animal care and use. One effective approach is to incorporate nonanimal models as alternatives to live animals to teach humane handling techniques and methods, thereby contributing to refinement, reduction, and replacement (the 3Rs). Also discussed are the necessity of timely feedback from clients, documentation of personnel training for regulatory purposes, and the collection of training metrics, which assists in providing justification for the granting of additional fiscal support for the program. Finally, the compliance procedures and opportunities for essential refresher training are discussed and related to high performance standards, humane animal use, and quality research, all of which contribute to the 3Rs.     

Genetic engineering and other factors that might affect human-animal interactions in the research setting

Evidence exists, particularly in the welfare literature of nonhuman animals on the farm, that the interaction between nonhuman animals and the personnel who care for them can have a strong effect on the animals' behavior, productivity, and welfare. Among species commonly used for biomedical research, mice appear to be the least-preferred species in animal care facilities. A review of the literature and observations of animal care staff interacting with mice indicated that the following factors may influence this: their small size, their particular behavioral characteristics, and husbandry constraints (such as housing in ventilated racks). In addition, this study questioned whether animal care personnel have a different perception of genetically engineered animals and whether this, in turn, has an effect on their interactions with these animals. The ability to carefully observe an animal's behavior is key in carrying out an animal-wellness assessment and in minimizing pain and distress. Attention to human-animal interactions in the research setting represents an opportunity for refinement for large numbers of animals and potentially for reduction of animal use.     

Genetic Engineering and Other Factors That Might Affect Human-Animal Interactions in the Research Setting

Evidence exists, particularly in the welfare literature of nonhuman animals on the farm, that the interaction between nonhuman animals and the personnel who care for them can have a strong effect on the animals' behavior, productivity, and welfare. Among species commonly used for biomedical research, mice appear to be the least-preferred species in animal care facilities. A review of the literature and observations of animal care staff interacting with mice indicated that the following factors may influence this: their small size, their particular behavioral characteristics, and husbandry constraints (such as housing in ventilated racks). In addition, this study questioned whether animal care personnel have a different perception of genetically engineered animals and whether this, in turn, has an effect on their interactions with these animals. The ability to carefully observe an animal's behavior is key in carrying out an animal-wellness assessment and in minimizing pain and distress. Attention to human-animal interactions in the research setting represents an opportunity for refinement for large numbers of animals and potentially for reduction of animal use.     

Does Accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) Ensure Greater Compliance With Animal Welfare Laws?

Accreditation of nonhuman animal research facilities by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is widely considered the “gold standard” of commitment to the well being of nonhuman animals used in research. AAALAC-accredited facilities receive preferential treatment from funding agencies and are viewed favorably by the general public. Thus, it bears investigating how well these facilities comply with U.S. animal research regulations. In this study, the incidences of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) at AAALAC-accredited facilities were evaluated and compared to those at nonaccredited institutions during a period of 2 years. The analysis revealed that AAALAC-accredited facilities were frequently cited for AWA noncompliance items (NCIs). Controlling for the number of animals at each facility, AAALAC-accredited sites had significantly more AWA NCIs on average compared with nonaccredited sites. AAALAC-accredited sites also had more NCIs related to improper veterinary care, personnel qualifications, and animal husbandry. These results demonstrate that AAALAC accreditation does not improve compliance with regulations governing the treatment of animals in laboratories.