Animal Care Courses: Helping Fulfill the Mandate of Animal Care Committees in Canada

Animal Care Committees (ACCs) at Canadian universities and research centers operate under the aegis of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and its guidelines for the humane care and treatment of animals in teaching, research, and testing. All Canadian universities have at least one active committee. The committees are expected to assume an educative role beyond the provision of information concerning housing, maintenance, and appropriate conditions for the treatment of animals in research. This includes critical examination of the serious ethical issues involved in animal research within the context of the principles and practices endorsed by the CCAC. One-day animal care courses provided by ACCs at three Canadian universities are described. Comparisons are made between the content and structure of curricula and the ways these relate to the teaching and research mandate in each institution, focusing particularly on the teaching of ethics in each course. The implications for heightening awareness of ethical issues in animal research and improving the effectiveness of these courses are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Fundamental training for individuals involved in the care and use of laboratory animals: a review and update of the 1991 NRC Core Training Module

Public trust demands that individuals who do research, testing, or teaching with animals use humane, ethical, and scientifically sound methods. Furthermore, the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy require research institutions to provide basic training and to ensure that anyone who cares for and/or works with laboratory animals has the appropriate training or experience relevant to their job responsibilities. Institutions accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International must also provide training programs and ensure the qualifications of personnel. The primary goal of this training is to provide individuals with basic knowledge and to reinforce attitudes and behaviors that help to ensure humane animal care and use. This article provides an overview of the core training module outline and content from the 1991 report of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Education and Training in the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: A Guide for Developing Institutional Programs, as well as pertinent updates for introducing personnel to information regarding the care and use of laboratory animals. Both mandatory and suggested training topics are reviewed, including relevant regulations and standards, ethical considerations, humane methods of animal experimentation and maintenance, and other pertinent topics. Although the fundamental training course content and delivery will vary depending on the nature and complexity of an institution's animal care and use program, this basic training provides the foundation for more in-depth training programs and supports humane and ethical animal care and use.     

Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement

The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.     

Fish research and the institutional animal care and use committee

Fish represent the most diverse group of animals in the vertebrate phylum. The more than 25,000 species are characterized by an array of anatomical, biochemical, physiological, and behavioral repertoires. For this reason, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive guideline on the care and use of fishes. Institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) meet the challenge of ensuring adequate fish welfare using guidelines (Animal Welfare Act [AWA] and Public Health Service [PHS] Policy and their guides) derived mainly from the care and use of mammalian species, which may not be optimal for regulating fish research, teaching, or extension activities. Discussion focuses on various issues that often confront IACUCs in meeting regulatory requirements while assuring proper fish welfare. Issues include questions concerning animal tracking and inventory, utilization of fisheries bycatch, facility inspections in remote locations, and euthanasia. Common sense solutions appropriate for field and laboratory fish activities are suggested, which should help investigators, IACUCs, and regulatory agencies meet PHS and AWA objectives.     

Animal models of ischemic stroke: balancing experimental aims and animal care

Animal models of ischemic stroke are examples of an induced model that can present challenges from the perspectives of protocol review and animal management. The review presented here will include a brief summary of the current state of knowledge about clinical stroke; a general synopsis of important unanswered research questions that justify use of animal stroke models; an overview of various animal models of ischemic stroke, including strengths and limitations; and a discussion of animal care issues relative to ischemic stroke models. Good communication and interactive education among primary investigators, laboratory animal veterinarians and caretakers, and institutional animal care and use committee members are critical in achieving a balance between research objectives and animal care issues when using animal stroke models.     

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.     

Regulatory issues surrounding the use of companion animals in clinical investigations,trials, and studies

Laboratory animal veterinarians sometimes encounter animals with rare conditions and may subsequently become involved in the performance of related animal research outside the laboratory, in homes, in veterinary clinics, or in universities to which owners have donated their animals for study. Similarly, veterinarians may monitor animal companion vaccination studies, performed to optimize preventive health care or minimize physiological variability and research confounders associated with a preventive medicine program for dogs and cats utilized for research procedures. These nontraditional uses of dogs, cats, and other companion animals in research have spurred the establishment of regulations to ensure that the animals benefit from clinical veterinary products and techniques. Included and described are the 2002 Public Health Service Policy, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the regulations of the US Department of Agriculture in response to the AWA. The complexities of clinical research with companion animals outside standard biomedical research facilities are discussed.     

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.     

Mouse embryo yield and viability after euthanasia by CO2 inhalation or cervical dislocation

Efficient production of transgenic mice requires high yields of viable, healthy embryos. Cervical dislocation (without prior anesthesia) rather than CO2 inhalation as a means of euthanasia has been justified on the basis of the increased yield of viable ova, but controlled studies have not directly supported this contention. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) Guides, and respective Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) have supported the use of CO2 as a preferred, humane method. The study reported here was undertaken to determine the relative yields of viable embryos from mice euthanized either by inhalation of 100% CO2 or by cervical dislocation. Inbred and hybrid mouse strains, representative of common strains used in genetic engineering experimentation included C57BL/6, FVB/N, and B6SJLF1. There was no difference in the embryo yields in comparisons using the two methods of euthanasia (P = 0.534). Decisions regarding the method of euthanasia can be made on the basis of criteria other than those associated with embryo yield and viability.     

A guide to risk assessment in animal care and use programs: the metaphor of the 3-legged stool

A high-quality contemporary animal care and use program (ACUP) is a multifaceted dynamic system with three distinct organizational entities--the institutional official (IO), attending veterinarian (AV), and institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC)--each of whose authorities and responsibilities are mandated by a complex set of laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines. The 3-legged stool is presented here as a metaphor for the properly constituted and functioning ACUP, with the legs of the stool representing the IO, AV, and IACUC: when one component is weakened, the stool remains standing but tilts--the ACUP remains in compliance with animal welfare standards but is at risk of failure. Mechanisms for assessing an ACUP's strengths and weaknesses include both external evaluators, such as the US Department of Agriculture, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, and Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, and internal evaluators, such as the IACUC, AV, and IO. However, each of these evaluators primarily assesses whether aspects of the ACUP are in compliance with current standards; they do not necessarily cite weaknesses in a compliant program. This article stresses the need for ACUPs to undertake a self-assessment of risk and outlines a number of ways programs can recognize their risks, with examples for each of the three components, which are characterized as either "weak" or "overzealous" in meeting their mandates. I caution against the use of a legacy of compliance as the sole means for evaluating an ACUP's strength, and instead promote the value of rigorous risk assessment/mitigation to ensure that a program is both strong and resilient.     

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.     

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.     

Present status of experimental animals in Japan (author's transl)]

The movement for modernization of experimental animals in Japan started around 1950. Since that time, a quarter of a century has passed. This article outlines the present status of experimental animals in Japan and makes comparisons with various other countries. Number of animals used: According to three surveys performed in the past (1956, 1960 and 1970), the numbers used of many species are increasing (Table 1). However, it can not be said simply that the numbers are increasing every year. Taking the United States where surveys are performed every year as an example (Table 3), it is evident that the peaks for use of some species are past (the same tendencies were seen in India and Sweden which have conducted more than four surveys in the past (Table 4). The same tendencies would probably also be seen in Japan if surveys were conducted annually. Quality of animals: It is easy to procure genetically and microbiologically controlled rats and mice. However, investigations into the establishment, production and supply of other species of such high quality are insufficient. This situation is almost the same as that in European countries. Miscellaneous: The present status of other items related to experimental animals is as follows: Facilities and equipment: Higher level facilities were first provided in companies, followed by testing and research institutes. At present, medical universities are providing such facilities. Feed: Pellet type diets are widely used for the various species. Care and management: In April, 1974, "The Law for the Protection and Control of Animals" came into force. This law includes regulations concerning animal experimentation but investigations concerning these standards have just begun. Training of technicians and specialists: The Japan Experimental Animal Research Association provides a correspondence course, tests and recognition for technicians. About 10 veterinary colleges have undergraduate or postgraduate courses for the training of specialists but these are elective except in two or three cases.     

A system for monitoring and improving animal visibility and its implications for zoological parks

With the growing trend in zoos to build complex, naturalistic exhibits comes the potential for exhibits to be so densely vegetated or complex that animals are not easily seen by zoo visitors. This can negatively impact the visitor's visiting experience and the zoo's ability to communicate conservation and education messages. Over the past 9 years, Disney's Animal Kingdom^® has developed a process for monitoring and improving the visibility of animals on display to the public. This animal visibility process utilizes a data collection system whereby systematic observations are collected each week. The percentage of observations where at least one animal was visible is recorded for each species and compared to an 80% visibility criterion. Species that do not reach this criterion for 4 consecutive weeks are discussed at animal management meetings. If the problems associated with animal visibility cannot be easily solved, the animal‐care teams partner with the research team to conduct a second process, called the Visibility Issues Process. This process provides additional information for the animal‐care team to utilize in developing a plan to improve visibility. Although the processes described here are specific to the infrastructure at Disney's Animal Kingdom^®, the basic concepts of (1) a formalized visibility data collection process, (2) a visibility criterion to which managers of species are held accountable, and (3) a process for planning to improve animal visibility without negatively impacting animal welfare are fundamental concepts that can be developed at individual institutions and incorporated into that zoo's existing infrastructure. Zoo Biol 29:68–79, 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Physicians in health care management: 1. Physicians as managers: roles and future challenges.

Physicians are increasingly expected to assume responsibility for the management of human and financial resources in health care, particularly in hospitals. Juggling their new management responsibilities with clinical care, teaching and research can lead to conflicting roles. However, their presence in management is crucial to shaping the future health care system. They bring to management positions important skills and values such as observation, problem-solving, analysis and ethical judgement. To improve their management skills physicians can benefit from management education programs such as those offered by the Physician-Manager Institute and several Canadian universities. To manage in the future environment they must increase their knowledge and skills in policy and political processes, financial strategies and management, human resources management, systems and program quality improvement and organizational design.