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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Verification of IACUC approval and the just-in-time PHS grant process

Public Health Service Policy requires institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) to review and approve the animal care and use aspects of grant proposals submitted for funding. Initially, submission of verification of approval was required with submission of the proposal; however, in 2002, a 'just-in-time' (JIT) process was begun to allow submission when it appeared that the proposal would be in the fundable range. After 3 yr, no evaluation of JIT and its impact on the IACUC has been published. An online survey designed by the authors to determine this impact is described. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 1002 IACUC chairs and administrators, and responses were received from 168. Surprisingly, 30% of respondents indicated that they did not review grant proposals at all. The majority of those respondents reported that they rely on principal investigator assurance that approved IACUC protocols match grant proposals. In the authors' experience, this procedure is not safe 23% of the time, and several respondents described the same experience. Most respondents indicated that they use JIT whenever possible for all investigators. Of those who reviewed grant proposals, most indicated that each review consumes 20 to 29 min, and most respondents indicated that the granting agency does not allow enough time for a JIT verification to complete a de novo submission and review of a protocol. Instead, the protocol must have been submitted and reviewed prior to the JIT request. Respondents indicated that there is considerable uncertainty about what the granting agency would do when an IACUC requires changes in a protocol during the JIT process.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Discussion for animal experiments in space: ethical standard and responsibility of researchers for space experiments using laboratory animals.

International efforts to standardize regulations and study designs and to promote the principles of Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement (the 3 Rs) have reduced and refined animal use. In NASA ARC and KSC, researchers are responsible only for activities related directly to the conduct of their animal experiments. The IACUC plays an important role in conformity with NIH policies. Even if researchers design protocols of the space life science in Japan, the animal experiments should be carried out under the global harmonized conditions in accordance with NIH/NASA policies, guides and rules. It is important that researchers himself must look forward the ethical animal experiment.     

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.     

The search for refinement alternatives: when you've just got to use animals

Refinements to animal-use protocols can help reduce animal pain and distress, thus producing cleaner data. Yet, most researchers neglect a refinement search, despite legal mandates, because the information is not readily available. What's more, IACUCs may have difficulty assessing researchers' refinement searches. The author offers some solutions.     

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.     

Salinity tolerance of freshwater acclimated, small-sized Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus from northern Labrador

Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus , less than 150 mm in size were frequently captured at sea in northern Labrador in areas where salinities of 30‰ or higher had been recorded. These captures were inconsistent with many earlier reports for other areas that indicated Arctic charr less than 150 mm in size were not found at sea. A series of salinity challenge tests was carried out in the field, using wild Ikarut River charr, and in the laboratory, using cultured Fraser River charr, to understand more about the potential fate of these small fish. The results of challenge tests with small Arctic charr (< 120 mm) indicated that at intermediate salinities (10–20‰), these fish can readily survive. In laboratory tests with salinities at 30‰, survival was size dependent and would suggest that in natural situations, small charr would require periodic access to fresh or brackish water to stay alive. The influence of water temperature on salinity tolerance may be important when fish are exposed to temperatures that are below 0° C.     

Field studies and the IACUC: protocol review, oversight, and occupational health and safety considerations

Field studies involving animals, like other institutional research endeavors, are regulated and evaluated by an IACUC to insure that the protocols employed in those studies are consistent with the most humane care and use of animals. Unlike many other on-site research projects, however, field studies present unique logistical and other challenges to IACUC evaluation. The authors explore many of these challenges, including the special protocol considerations and idiosyncratic occupational health and safety concerns characteristic of field-study reviews.     

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.     

Rapid Fishery Assessment by Market Survey (RFAMS) – An Improved Rapid-Assessment Approach to Characterising Fish Landings in Developing Countries

The complex multi-gear, multi-species tropical fisheries in developing countries are poorly understood and characterising the landings from these fisheries is often impossible using conventional approaches. A rapid assessment method for characterising landings at fish markets, using an index of abundance and estimated weight within taxonomic groups, is described. This approach was developed for contexts where there are no detailed data collection protocols, and where consistent data collection across a wide range of fisheries types and geographic areas is required, regardless of the size of the site and scale of the landings. This methodology, which was demonstrated at seven fish landing sites/fish markets in southern Indonesia between July 2008 and January 2011, provides a rapid assessment of the abundance and diversity in the wild catch over a wide variety of taxonomic groups. The approach has wider application for species-rich fisheries in developing countries where there is an urgent need for better data collection protocols, monitoring future changes in market demographics, and evaluating health of fisheries.     

Protocol audits for post-approval monitoring of animal use protocols

Monitoring of animal use protocols following IACUC approval is a way to ensure regulatory compliance and to improve communication between the IACUC and investigators. The authors describe the protocol audit system used by the University of California, San Diego's Animal Welfare Program to ensure that IACUC-approved protocols are followed. This program, as well as the protocol audit form they provide, can be used by institutions to initiate, enhance, or evaluate post-approval monitoring programs.     

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.