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.     

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.     

Animal reuse: balancing scientific integrity and animal welfare

Research scientists and IACUC members are faced with the difficult task of balancing the necessity of using animals for experimental research and their mandate to protect the welfare of those animals used in that research. One way to reduce the number of research animals would be to reuse them, but the regulations do not specifically address this topic. To learn more about the reuse of research animals, the authors conducted an online survey of animal facilities involved in preclinical studies. Their results suggest that animal reuse is a common practice in the field.     

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.     

A sample postapproval monitoring program in academia

The primary goal of an animal care and use program (ACUP) should be to ensure animal well-being while fostering progressive science. Both the Animal Welfare Act (and associated regulations) and the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy require the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) to provide oversight of the animal program through continuing reviews to ensure that procedures are performed as approved by the committee. But for many committees the semiannual assessment does not provide an opportunity to observe research procedures being performed. Furthermore, IACUC members are typically volunteers with other full-time commitments and may not be able to dedicate sufficient time to observe protocol performance. Postapproval monitoring (PAM) is a tool that the IACUC can use to ensure that the institution fulfills its regulatory obligation for animal program oversight. When performed by attentive and observant individuals, PAM can extend the IACUC's oversight, management, training, and communication resources, regardless of program size or complexity. No defined PAM process fits all institutions or all situations; rather, the monitoring must match the program under review. Nonetheless, certain concepts, concerns, and conditions affect all PAM processes; they are described in this article. Regardless of the style or depth of PAM chosen for a given program, one thing is sure: failure of the IACUC to engage all available and effective oversight methods to ensure humane, compassionate, efficient, and progressive animal care and use is a disservice to the institution, to the research community and to the animals used for biomedical research, testing, or teaching.     

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.     

Training strategies for IACUC members and the institutional official

Institutions are required by federal laws and regulations to oversee and evaluate their programs, facilities, and procedures for using animals in research, teaching, and/or testing activities. These responsibilities are specifically charged to an institutional official (IO) and an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). Initially, the individuals tasked with these responsibilities seldom have the requisite knowledge or experience to fulfill their charges effectively. Furthermore, simply reading the regulatory requirements does not prepare the novice IO and IACUC members to effectively monitor and guide the program. As a result, many new IOs and IACUC members are managing their responsibilities with insufficient understanding of the laws, regulations, standards, and policies. Specific training strategies for inexperienced IACUC members are needed to help them understand their responsibilities for ensuring animal welfare through an effective, high-quality, and compliant animal care and use program that supports the critical research needed to improve human and animal health. Likewise, most IOs would benefit from training to help them better understand their responsibility for enhancing or maintaining the quality of the institution's animal care and use program. Education and training should begin with an orientation to the laws, regulations, standards, and policies. Continuing training and education are also important to keep abreast of the changes in the interpretation of these laws and regulations as well as the changes in veterinary science. For both the IO and the IACUC, understanding and acceptance of their authority and responsibilities are significant factors in establishing and maintaining a quality animal care and use program.     

Postapproval monitoring and the IACUC

Monitoring of the use of live vertebrate animals in research, teaching, and testing after approval of their use by an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) are receiving increased attention in the laboratory animal community. In this article the author provides his opinions on the value of postapproval monitoring (PAM) to the overall self-regulation that is the responsibility of an IACUC. PAM must never supersede or replace federally mandated IACUC responsibilities, but an efficient PAM process can provide significant additional information that enables an institution to be confident that it is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the federal regulations developed to ensure humane animal care. PAM personnel should be excellent communicators and able to maintain a professional demeanor in challenging circumstances. Their knowledge of laboratory animal care, invasive procedures, and regulations will enable them to align the pursuit of scientific research with adherence to these regulations. An effective PAM program involves knowledgeable individuals who can, on behalf of the IACUC, monitor new procedures and personnel and provide IACUC-mandated training or retraining.     

The status and issues of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Seoul National University: from its establishment to the present day

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Seoul National University (SNU) plays a key role in monitoring and managing the humane use of animals in scientific research. Here, as one of the pioneers of the IACUC in Korea, we reported SNU-IACUC operations and activities including committee establishment and legal formulation, protocol review, and post-approval monitoring of protocols, which the IACUC has undertaken in the last decade. In addition, legal regulations and improvements were also discussed, and encompassed the limited number of committee members and the single IACUC policy in Korea. As of December, 2020, amendments are on the table at the National Assembly. We also emphasized the independent nature of the IACUC in protecting activities, including approval and monitoring animal experiments, and its public role in narrowing the knowledge gap between society and scientists. Thus, the aim of this report is to help society and scientists understand the operations of the SNU-IACUC and its role in animal welfare.     

Iacuc review of genetic engineering

IACUC approval of research using genetically engineered animals must balance research needs with humane treatment of the animals, safety of animals and personnel, and compliance with regulations.     

Enrichment and primate centers: closing the gap between research and practice

A wealth of published research is available to guide environmental enrichment programs for nonhuman primates, but common practice may not consistently correspond to research findings. A 2003 survey to quantify common practice queried individuals overseeing enrichment programs about (a) social, feeding, structural, and manipulable enrichment; (b) human interaction and training; (c) general program administration; (d) the role of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) in the enrichment program; and (e) the impetus for recent programmatic changes. Returned surveys provided information on the management of 35,863 primates and found social housing significantly more constrained than inanimate enrichment. Survey results suggest that social housing of macaques has not increased significantly over the past decade. The most commonly mentioned constraints related to research protocols. Facilities with thorough IACUC reviews of enrichment issues provided social housing for a significantly larger proportion of primates in biomedical research studies than did those with rare IACUC reviews. IACUC reviews prompted program enhancements much less often than did regulatory or accreditation inspections. These results suggest IACUC review is an underutilized mechanism for improving enrichment programs.     

Enrichment and Primate Centers: Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice

A wealth of published research is available to guide environmental enrichment programs for nonhuman primates, but common practice may not consistently correspond to research findings. A 2003 survey to quantify common practice queried individuals overseeing enrichment programs about (a) social, feeding, structural, and manipulable enrichment; (b) human interaction and training; (c) general program administration; (d) the role of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) in the enrichment program; and (e) the impetus for recent programmatic changes. Returned surveys provided information on the management of 35,863 primates and found social housing significantly more constrained than inanimate enrichment. Survey results suggest that social housing of macaques has not increased significantly over the past decade. The most commonly mentioned constraints related to research protocols. Facilities with thorough IACUC reviews of enrichment issues provided social housing for a significantly larger proportion of primates in biomedical research studies than did those with rare IACUC reviews. IACUC reviews prompted program enhancements much less often than did regulatory or accreditation inspections. These results suggest IACUC review is an underutilized mechanism for improving enrichment programs.     

Ethical issues concerning animal research outside the laboratory

Unique ethical issues can be associated with research outside the customary laboratory setting. Protocols involving wild animals must consider that any infringement on the wild nature of the species can be disruptive and may involve pain, fear, anxiety, and frustration, all of which constitute ethical harm that must be balanced with anticipated benefit. Agricultural and companion animal research, however, take place in a human-engineered environment and involves domesticated species adapted to human contact. Special animal welfare issues can be related to agricultural production goals that fail to deal adequately with moral concerns. Human/companion animal relationships, on the other hand, present unique moral obligations to animal owners. Other factors may present additional ethical issues when research is performed outside the laboratory. These factors include a required sensitivity to the environment of wild animals and an awareness that this outside research may to quite public and, therefore, vulnerable to community perception. The institutional animal care and use committee(IACUC) has the responsibility to ensure that research in outside settings is ethical and properly implemented. This responsibility requires that IACUC members have knowledge of the needs of a wide range of species and that a process is in place to allow effective monitoring of research in remote locations. Finally, and most important, there must be a sensitivity to the unique ethical considerations outlined here. Armed with these strengths, the IACUC will be effective in what may be unfamiliar surroundings and will have a significant opportunity to cause improvements in animal welfare.     

Postapproval monitoring and the role of the compliance office

Postapproval monitoring (PAM) of research animal use is becoming increasingly common, and the compliance office plays a leading supportive role for the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) in implementing PAM at many institutions. Several other groups--higher administration, veterinary and husbandry staff, scientific staff, and occupational health and safety--are important participants in the process, and the compliance office should strive to work collegially with them as a team that facilitates research while meeting compliance requirements. Maintaining a cooperative and open attitude and developing an interest in the science will enhance the research staff's trust in both the compliance office and the PAM program. Resources required by the compliance office to oversee PAM include adequate physical facilities, funding, personnel, and time. Of these, appropriately trained quality assurance coordinators who have the requisite interpersonal and communication skills to interact constructively with researchers are vitally important. Education is key to minimizing the possibility of postapproval noncompliance, and the director of the compliance office, together with the quality assurance coordinators, should assume responsibility for teaching the IACUC, research staff, and higher administration about compliance requirements as well as correct practices and improved techniques. Postapproval noncompliance will occur despite even the best-run PAM program, and adequate documentation and communication will be necessary to address it. The compliance office, on behalf of the IACUC, should assume a primary role in facilitating the institutional response to noncompliance.     

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.     

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.     

Global harmonization in the care and use of laboratory animals for the space life science research]

Space researches are supported with the international space agencies, NASA and NASDA. Animal experiments on the space life science must conform to the NIH policies and the NASA guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. The goal of the NIH policies is to promote the humane care of animals used biomedical and behavioral research, teaching, and testing. In each institute, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) plays an important role in conformity with NIH policies. The IACUC is charged with developing, recommending and monitoring NIH/NASA (ARC and KSC) policies, guides and rules relating to animal acquisition, care and use. In ARC and KSC, investigators will be responsible only for activities directly related to the conduct of their animal experiments. Even if researchers have protocols of the space science in Japan, the animal experiment should be carried out under the global harmonized conditions in accordance with NIH policies and NASA guides.     

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.     

Engaging the IACUC through comprehensive training

The IACUC is one of the most important committees at a research institution and plays a critical role in the success of an animal care and use program. It is the responsibility of the institution to provide IACUC members with adequate and appropriate training. The authors explore various IACUC training options.