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.     

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.     

Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination

Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The institutional official and postapproval monitoring: the view from 10,000 feet

The role of the institutional official (IO) in ensuring a high-quality program of laboratory animal care and use has received relatively little attention in the literature compared to that of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) or attending veterinarian. Yet the IO is critical to institutional effectiveness. Often not a scientist, especially at colleges and universities, the IO is an executive who bears ultimate responsibility for the care and use of laboratory animals. An IO operates largely through delegation to the IACUC and the institutional veterinarian, yet must maintain a clear view of the program from the executive level--the "view from 10,000 feet." To do so, the IO must bring four critical leadership qualities to the position: (1) vision, (2) a commitment to quality and integrity, (3) strong planning and resource development, and (4) accountability to the laboratory animal program. The IO's ability to act on these qualities and to evaluate the effectiveness of the resulting program requires reliance on a strong program of postapproval monitoring (PAM). Summary data from PAM, based on metrics carefully defined by the IO in consultation with the IACUC and the institutional veterinarian, provide the feedback necessary to guide executive decisions and allow the IO to place the needs of the program of laboratory animal care and use successfully into the larger context of the mission of the institution.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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

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

The effect of solicitations on grooming exchanges among female Japanese macaques at Katsuyama

In group-living primates, individuals often exchange grooming with not only kin but also non-kin. We investigated the effect of soliciting behaviors on grooming exchanges in a free-ranging Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) group at Katsuyama. In this study, we used a focal animal sampling method, targeting 14 females. Data were collected for 15.75 ± 2.67 (mean ± SD) hours per focal female. We classified female–female pairs into three pair types: kin pairs, affiliated non-kin pairs, and unaffiliated non-kin pairs. Females received grooming more frequently when they solicited after grooming their partners than when they did not solicit in all pair types. In addition, females received grooming less frequently when they did not groom their unaffiliated non-kin partners before soliciting; prior grooming was not needed to receive grooming from kin or affiliated non-kin partners. The degree of grooming reciprocity did not differ according to the frequency with which females in kin or affiliated non-kin pairs solicited after grooming. On the other hand, grooming reciprocity between unaffiliated non-kin females was more balanced when they solicited frequently after grooming, as compared with when they did not. In conclusion, our study suggests that soliciting behaviors promote grooming exchanges in female Japanese macaques.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

IACUC training: from new-member orientation to continuing education

IACUC training is essential to ensure that the self-regulatory process is effective. Unfortunately, there are few official guidelines on methods to accomplish this goal. The author suggests multiple approaches for training new committee members and for the continuing education of the Committee as a whole.     

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.