Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Resource
  • Published:

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 2: structure and organizational functions

Lab Animal volume 41, pages 289–294 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Support for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use–related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steneck, N.H. Role of the institutional animal care and use committee in monitoring research. Ethics Behav. 7, 173–184 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro, K. Institutional oversight of animal-based research: tossing a bad coin. PSYETA News 21, 7–8 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hsin, C. & Tillman, T. Federal regulations hound animal research. Yale Daily News (3 March 2010).

  4. Rozmiarek, H. in The IACUC Handbook 2nd edn. (eds. Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S. ) 1–9 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Plous, S. & Herzog, H. Animal research. Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science 293, 608–609 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dresser, R. Developing standards in animal research review. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 194, 1184–1191 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dresser, R. Review standards for animal research: A closer look. ILAR News 32, 2–7 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Greene, M.E., Pitts, M.E. & James, M.L. Training strategies for IACUC members and the institutional official. ILAR J. 48, 131–142 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, J.G. Postapproval monitoring and the IACUC. ILAR J. 49, 388–392 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Galvin, S.L. & Herzog, H.A. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics Behav. 2, 263–286 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Orlans, F.B. Animals, science, and ethics—Section V. Policy issues in the use of animals in research, testing, and education. Hastings Cent. Rep. 20, S25–30 (1990).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Orlans, F.B. Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics Behav. 7, 163–171 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Orlans, F.B., Beauchamp, T.M., Dresser, R., Morton, D.B. & Gluck, J.P. The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice (Oxford University Press, NY, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Houde, L., Dumas, C. & Leroux, T. Animal ethical evaluation: an observational study of Canadian IACUCs. Ethics Behav. 13, 333–350 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Silverman, J., Baker, S.P. & Lidz, C.W. A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance. Lab Anim. (NY) 41, 230–235 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Off. J. EU L276, 33–79 (2010).

  17. Rollin, B.E. & Loew, F.M. Assessing the reviewers of animal research. Science 294, 1831–1832 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gingery, D. Single IRB policy for multi-site trials may soon get White House OK; NCI hopeful. The Pink Sheet 73, 24–25 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Newcomer, C.E. in The IACUC Handbook 2nd edn. (eds. Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S. ) 37–60 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 2.

  21. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended, 2002).

  22. Keith-Spiegel, P. & Koocher, G.P. The IRB paradox: could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics Behav. 15, 339–349 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schuppli, C.A. & Fraser, D. Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. J. Med. Ethics 33, 294–301 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Theran, P. The SCAW IACUC survey part II: The unaffiliated member. Lab Anim. (NY) 26, 31–32 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Häyry, H. Should the decisions of ethics committees be based on community values? Med. Health Care Philos. 1, 57–60 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham, K. A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 5, 75–81 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

  28. Silverman, J. The attending veterinarian as an ally and leader of the IACUC? Lab Anim (NY) 29, 26–27 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Silverman, J. Do pressure and prejudice influence the IACUC? Lab Anim (NY) 26, 23–25 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Molly Greene and Christopher Lyons for their help in determining the number of listserv name duplications.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Jerald Silverman

  2. Departments of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cell Biology, and Information Services, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Stephen P. Baker

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA

    Charles W. Lidz

Authors
  1. Jerald Silverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen P. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles W. Lidz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerald Silverman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silverman, J., Baker, S. & Lidz, C. A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 2: structure and organizational functions. Lab Anim 41, 289–294 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1012-289

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1012-289

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing