Response to protocol review scenario: every iacuc can improve

Access through your institution Buy or subscribe The use of animals in research is one of the most contentious areas in biomedical science today. The illustrated challenge from SOCRATES—an

animal rights group—to the Great Eastern IACUC is not an isolated incident but part of a larger phenomenon, in which animal rights groups question the very structure of animal research

practices. As described, the IACUC's composition meets PHS _Policy_ guidelines, which require a minimum of five persons serving on the committee. Great Eastern's IACUC is composed

of one veterinarian, a scientist-Chair, a non-affiliated member representing the community, three additional scientists, and a person “whose primary concerns are in a non-scientific area”.

The issue at hand is whether members' collective and individual expertise and training can provide adequate supervision, enforcement of animal welfare regulations, and assurance of

responsible animal experimentation. Is the size—and by extension the composition—of the IACUC adequate to oversee research activities at Great Eastern? Although five members have been part

of the Committee for more than a year, only the attending veterinarian has had “many years of appropriate experience”. PHS _Policy_ stipulates that board certification or work experience and

career accomplishments can attest to a person's expertise in laboratory animal medicine and care. It is not clear from the narrative, however, whether this is the only veterinarian at

the institution, whether his hands-on experience was gained while working at Great Eastern or elsewhere, or what kind of supervision was available for that work. While it is mandatory to

include at least “one practicing scientist experienced in the research involving animals” on the IACUC, it should be kept in mind that most scientists use only one animal species in their

work, often rely on their technicians or graduate students to carry out experiments, and are ignorant of the normal physiology of their research subjects, with the exception of those

specific parameters that affect experimental outcomes. Similarly, while the nonaffiliated and/or non-scientist members can be significant assets to the Committee, their contribution is

contingent upon their knowledge of regulations and scientific protocols. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution

ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Lida Anestidou is a

research instructor in the Center for Clinical and Research Ethics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN., Lida Anestidou DVM, PhD Authors * Lida Anestidou DVM, PhD View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Anestidou, L. Response to

Protocol Review Scenario: Every IACUC Can Improve. _Lab Anim_ 34, 19–20 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0305-19b Download citation * Issue Date: March 2005 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0305-19b SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative