| You
are here: SSOM
> Office of Research Services
>IACUC Charge
Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
Faculty Planning to Submit for Animal Approval - IACUC Committee
Charges
LOYOLA
UNIVERSITY STRITCH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE
DEAN FOR RESEARCH
Bldg. 120 Suite 400 -- 6-5288
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARGE
1. The
IACUC is charged with oversight of all animal use to ensure
compliance with national policies protecting the welfare
of laboratory animals. A major function is to review experimental
protocols and, where appropriate, recommend protocol modifications
to improve the welfare of the animals. Other functions are
to review animal husbandry conditions; review, approve,
and disseminate institutional policies on animal welfare
and psychological well-being; act as an educational resource
to the institution on animal welfare issues; and promote
educational programs.
2. The
Committee should report to the highest research official
in the institution. A strong commitment of the institutional
administration to the goals of the Committee is deemed essential.
3. The
chairperson of the IACUC should be someone other than the
Animal Facility Director of the attending Veterinarian.
The chief of a major research division or some other senior
administration or faculty person could serve as chairperson.
4. A
broad range of expertise should be sought in the Committee
membership. Needed balance can be provided by having as
members veterinarians with training or experience in laboratory
animal medicine; practicing scientists from several scientific
disciplines (including an expert on pain, where possible);
and persons representing community concerns. In addition,
representatives could be included from other scholarly disciplines
such as the humanities, ethics, and law; the senior institutional
administration; the animal care staff, and the student body.
5. All
members of the Committee should accept the goals of the
institution and have strong commitment to ensuring the highest
standards of animal welfare.
6. Clear
institutional policies should be established on specific
responsibilities of the IACUC, departmental chairs, attending
veterinarian, investigators and their technicians.
7. Ways
to provide the Committee with authority should be developed
and implemented. Protocols require review by the IACUC prior
to an investigator acquiring any research animal. All purchase
orders would have to include an approved protocol number
before they may be acted on. Investigators should not move
animals into or out of the institution without the authority
of a designated official responsible to the Committee.
8. Procedures
should be developed to ensure timely protocol review so
that investigators are not held up by unnecessary delayed
decisions. This should include a mechanism to certify to
granting agencies that a protocol has been submitted and
review is pending (approval to be forwarded before award).
9. A
veterinarian specializing in laboratory animal medicine
or other appropriately trained person should review the
protocols and present them to the IACUC. Such an individual
can clear up many queries by contacting the investigator
prior to IACUC meetings, flag potential problems, and follow
projects as they develop. This can facilitate IACUC review,
but does not substitute for or reduce full Committee responsibility.
10.
The extent of review of an experimental protocol depends
on the nature of the animal procedures. Copies of all requests
must be sent to all Committee members, and all actions taken
administratively must be affirmed by the Committee at the
following meeting: 1) (category A) projects involving the
use of animal tissues only could be given expedited review;
2) (category B) procedures on whole animals that are minimally
invasive could be approved by one or two members along with
the veterinarian and the Community Liaison; 3) (category
C-D & E) full Committee review should be reserved for
all other procedures. Any Committee member should be able
to request full Committee review for any protocol.
11.
A classification system, such as Table I attached, should
be incorporated into institutional policy. The classification
depicting increasing invasiveness of the animal procedure
can form a part of the protocol review form. The Committee
can modify the Table to add examples of procedures that
occur in their institution. In protocol submissions, investigators
should note which category describes their proposed procedures.
The Committee should check this evaluation for their concurrence.
Use of the classification system serves to alert the Committee
to the intensity of review needed and to alert investigators
to potential concerns.
12.
IACUCs should review all work involving the use of animals,
irrespective of source of funding (departmental, private,
or public) or purpose (pilot projects; biomedical, agricultural,
or wildlife research; testing; or education).
13.
A tracking system should be established to record Committee
decisions. Committee records should be sufficient to establish
compliance with federal policy or accreditation standards.
A system for follow-up and monitoring of approved studies
must be instituted to ensure compliance with committee recommendations
and re-review every 3 years.
14.
The Committee should consider and apply, where feasible,
the concepts of Russell and Burch's three Rs when reviewing
protocols. These are: 1) refinement of experimental procedures
to reduce animal harm or distress; 2) reduction, in number
of animals used, and 3) replacement with procedures involving
use of organisms lower on the phylogenetic scale or with
non-animal models. Of the three, refinement can be widely
applied immediately. Committees should look for opportunities
where modification of the experimental procedures would
benefit the animal's welfare. For example, the Committee
could help establish a defined earlier end-point (i.e. euthanasia
when certain criteria are met) to reduce the severity or
duration of a pathological condition. Appropriate protocol
modifications are negotiated with the investigator. The
overall purpose is to reduce ethical costs wherever possible
without interfering with scientific objectives. Often these
modifications enhance the scientific validity of results
by removing or reducing animal distress.
15.
If euthanasia is planned, the Committee should review the
procedures to ensure compliance with standards set forth
by the American Veterinary Medical Association or the Canadian
Council on Animal Care, or higher standards, if any, devised
by their own institution.
16.
IACUCs should develop their own institutional policies on
certain procedures involving extreme pain or distress to
an animal. For example, IACUCs may wish to develop specific
institutional policies on long-term primate restraint, infliction
of severe trauma on conscious animals, use of the LD/50
test, and so forth (i.e. consider prohibiting Category E
procedures in Table 1).
17.
In small institutions with insufficient staff to constitute
an IACUC, some consortium approach should be established
together with other facilities in order to fulfill IACUC
functions. For example, there could be a central IACUC for
a multi-campus unit, or a cooperative IACUC for several
nearby facilities. each institution must retain final responsibility
for compliance with national standards, however.
18.
The IACUC should provide advice on training needs for investigators
and other personnel. The Committee can act as a resource
on national and local courses, workshops, and seminars available
on the welfare of laboratory animals.
Adapted
from AALAS Laboratory Animal Science (1987)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE
I -- CATEGORIES OF BIOMEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
CATEGORY
A: Experiments involving either no living materials or use
of plants, bacteria, protozoa, or invertebrate animal species.
Biochemical, botanical, bacteriological, microbiological,
or invertebrate animal studies, tissue cultures, studies
on tissues obtained from autopsy or from slaughterhouse,
studies on embroyanted eggs. Invertebrate animals have nervous
systems and respond to noxious stimuli, and therefore must
also be treated humanely.
CATEGORY
B: Experiments on vertebrate animal species that are expected
to produce little or no discomfort. Mere holding of animals
captive for experimental purposes; simple procedures such
as injections of relatively harmless substances and blood
sampling; physical examinations; experiments on completely
anesthetized animals which do not regain consciousness;
food/water deprivation for short periods (a few hours);
standard methods of euthanasia that induce rapid unconsciousness,
such as anesthetic overdose or decapitation preceded by
sedation or light anesthesia.
CATEGORY
C: Experiments that involve some minor stress or pain (short-duration
pain) to vertebrate animal species. Exposure of blood vessels
or implantation of chronic catheters with anesthesia; behavioral
experiments on awake animals that involve short-term stressful
restraint; immunization employing Freund's adjuvant; noxious
stimuli from which escape is possible; surgical procedures
under anesthesia that may result in some minor post-surgical
discomfort. Category C procedures incur additional concern
in proportion to the degree and duration of unavoidable
stress or discomfort.
CATEGORY
D: Experiments that involve significant but unavoidable
stress or pain to vertebrate animal species. Deliberate
induction of behavioral stress in order to test its effect;
major surgical procedures under anesthesia that result in
significant post-operative discomfort; induction of an anatomical
or physiological deficit that will result in pain or distress;
application of noxious stimuli from which escape is impossible;
prolonged periods (up to several hours or more) of physical
restraint; maternal deprivation with substitution of punitive
surrogates; induction of aggressive behavior leading to
self-mutilation or intra-species aggressive; procedures
that produce pain in which anesthetics are not used, such
as toxicity testing with death as an end point; production
of radiation sickness, certain injections, and stress and
shock research that would result in pain approaching the
pain tolerance threshold, i.e. the point at which intense
emotional reactions occur. Category D experiments present
an explicit responsibility on the investigator to explore
alternative designs to ensure that animal distress is minimized
or eliminated.
CATEGORY
E: Procedures that involve inflicting severe pain near,
at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized,
conscious animals. Use of muscle relaxants or paralytic
drugs such as succinyl choline or other curariform drugs
used alone for surgical restraint without the use of anesthetics;
severe burn or trauma infliction on unanesthetized animals;
attempts to induce psychotic-like behavior; killing by use
of microwave ovens designed for domestic kitchens or by
strychnine; inescapably severe stress or terminal stress.
Category E experiments are considered highly questionable
or unacceptable irrespective of the significance of anticipated
results. Many of these procedures are specifically prohibited
in national policies and therefore may result in withdrawal
of federal funds and/or institutional USDA registration.
|
