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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Ten practical realities for institutional animal care and use committees when evaluating protocols dealing with fish in the field

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee’s (IACUCs) serve an important role in ensuring that ethical practices are used by researchers working with vertebrate taxa including fish. With a growing number of researchers working on fish in the field and expanding mandates of IACUCs to regulate field work, there is potential for interactions between aquatic biologists and IACUCs to result in unexpected challenges and misunderstandings. Here we raise a number of issues often encountered by researchers and suggest that they should be taken into consideration by IACUCs when dealing with projects that entail the examination of fish in their natural environment or other field settings. We present these perspectives as ten practical realities along with their implications for establishing IACUC protocols. The ten realities are: (1) fish are diverse; (2) scientific collection permit regulations may conflict with IACUC policies; (3) stakeholder credibility and engagement may constrain what is possible; (4) more (sample size) is sometimes better; (5) anesthesia is not always needed or possible; (6) drugs such as analgesics and antibiotics should be prescribed with care; (7) field work is inherently dynamic; (8) wild fish are wild; (9) individuals are different, and (10) fish capture, handling, and retention are often constrained by logistics. These realities do not imply ignorance on the part of IACUCs, but simply different training and experiences that make it difficult for one to understand what happens outside of the lab where fish are captured and not ordered/purchased/reared, where there are engaged stakeholders, and where there is immense diversity (in size, morphology, behaviour, life-history, physiological tolerances) such that development of rigid protocols or extrapolation from one species (or life-stage, sex, size class, etc.) to another is difficult. We recognize that underlying these issues is a need for greater collaboration between IACUC members (including veterinary professionals) and field researchers which would provide more reasoned, rational and useful guidance to improve or maintain the welfare status of fishes used in field research while enabling researchers to pursue fundamental and applied questions related to the biology of fish in the field. As such, we hope that these considerations will be widely shared with the IACUCs of concerned researchers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Survey of environmental enhancement programs for laboratory primates

Animal welfare regulations in the United States require that nonhuman primate environmental enhancement plans be made in accordance with currently accepted professional standards; however, little information is available for quantifying common practice. Here we report the results of a 2003 survey that was sent to individuals overseeing enrichment programs at a variety of primate research institutions. The surveys requested information on program administration and management, implementation standards, procedures, and constraints pertaining to major categories of environmental enrichment, as well as intervention plans for animals exhibiting behavioral pathologies. Data were obtained on the management of 35,863 primates in 22 facilities. Behavioral scientists performed program oversight at the majority of facilities. Most programs reported recent changes, most commonly due to external site visits, and least commonly resulting from internal review. Most facilities' institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) included of individuals with behavioral expertise, and about two-thirds reported that enrichment issues could influence research protocol design. While most primates were reported to be housed socially (73%), social housing for indoor-housed primates appears to have changed little over the past 10 years. Research protocol issues and social incompatibility were commonly cited constraints. Implementation of feeding, manipulanda, and structural enrichment was relatively unconstrained, and contributions to these aspects of behavioral management generally included individuals in a wide variety of positions within a facility. In contrast, enrichment devices were used on a less widespread basis within facilities, and positive reinforcement programs that involved dedicated trainers were rare. We suggest that altering the role of the IACUC would be a productive avenue for increasing the implementation of social housing, and that an emphasis on prevention rather than intervention against behavioral pathology is warranted. The data from this survey may be useful for anticipating future program evaluations, establishing more effective internal evaluations, and assessing program progress and resource allocation.     

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.     

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

Farm animal welfare has been gradually recognized as an important issue in most parts of the world. In China, domestic animals were traditionally raised in backyard and treated as an important component of family wealth. Industrialization of animal production brings forth the farm animal welfare concerns recently in China, yet the modern concept of animal welfare has not been publicized and a comprehensive recognition on how consumers and farmers perceive animal welfare is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a survey on public opinions toward farm animal welfare in China, based on pigs (including sows, piglets, and fattening pigs), domestic fowls (including layers and broilers) and their products. From 6,006 effective questionnaires approximately two thirds of the respondents had never heard of ‘animal welfare’; 72.9% of the respondents claimed that, for the sake of animal derived food safety, human beings should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls; 65.8% of the respondents totally or partly agreed on establishing laws to improve animal welfare; more than half of the respondents were willing, or to some extent willing, to pay more for high-welfare animal products, whereas 45.5% of the respondents were not willing or reluctant to pay more. In summary, farm animal welfare is still in its early stage of development and more efforts are needed to improve the public conception to animal welfare in the process of establishing farm animal welfare standards and legislations in China.     

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.     

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.     

Willingness to Pay: Australian Consumers and “On the Farm” Welfare

The success of welfare legislation for nonhuman animals rests upon primary producer compliance that, in turn, is affected by public willingness to pay (WTP) for such initiatives. Although the topic of the welfare of animals on farms (and relevant legislation) is becoming increasingly important to the Australian public, there remain relatively few recent assessments of the variables that may affect WTP and, therefore, support initiatives aimed at improving the welfare of animals living on farms. This study surveyed 1,224 community members in Queensland, Australia. The study assessed respondents' self-rated knowledge of, and concern regarding, farm animal welfare. In addition, the survey asked respondents how much more they would be prepared to pay for animal-based products to ensure that they came from a source where the Five Freedoms were met. Although self-rated knowledge and level of concern were found to affect WTP, the study found only concern for farm animal welfare actually predicted consumer behavior. Further analyses showed a potential confound between knowledge levels and locality. This article discusses the implications of this for future initiatives to increase WTP.