Browsing by keyword "*Animal Care Committees"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functionsSupport 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.
-
Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee ReviewsIACUC protocols can be reviewed by either the full committee or designated members. Both review methods use the principles of the 3 Rs (reduce, refine, replace) as the overarching paradigm, with federal regulations and policies providing more detailed guidance. The primary goal of this study was to determine the frequency of topics discussed by IACUC during full-committee reviews and whether the topics included those required for consideration by IACUC (for example, pain and distress, number of animals used, availability of alternatives, skill and experience of researchers). We recorded and transcribed 87 protocol discussions undergoing full-committee review at 10 academic institutions. Each transcript was coded to capture the key concepts of the discussion and analyzed for the frequency of the codes mentioned. Pain and distress was the code mentioned most often, followed by the specific procedures performed, the study design, and the completeness of the protocol form. Infrequently mentioned topics were alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures, the importance of the research, and preliminary data. Not all of the topics required to be considered by the IACUC were openly discussed for all protocols, and many of the discussions were limited in their depth.