Developing guidelines on the care and use of animals

Oversight of laboratory animal care and use in the research environment is multilayered. Federal and state regulations apply to many laboratory animal species; funding agencies frequently require adherence to additional guidelines; institutions may develop in-house policies; and an institution may choose to voluntarily participate in an accreditation program, indicating a commitment by the institution to apply the most rigorous standards to the animal care and use program. In general, regulations follow a prescriptive "engineering" approach, while guidelines applied to the care and use of research animals follow a "performance" approach, which defines the desired outcome in detail, but acknowledges that multiple methods may achieve that outcome. The performance approach relies on sound professional judgment, thereby allowing flexibility based on an institution's unique circumstances. Further, this approach should facilitate the international harmonization of animal care and use standards. The performance, or outcome, approach to developing guidelines is described, using the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC, 1996) as the model.

Are smelly animals happy animals?: competing definitions of laboratory animal cruelty and public policy

Abstract

Regulations surrounding laboratory animal care have tried to address aspects of an image of laboratory animal cruelty publicized by animal rights activists. This image of cruelty, however, is not consistent with the experiences of those charged with the day-to-day care of laboratory animals. This article examines the incongruities between the public image of cruelty to animals in laboratories as promoted by animal rights activists, and the experiences of laboratory animal care staff who apply and enforce laboratory animal care regulations. In doing so, the article illuminates why regulations surrounding laboratory animal care are difficult to comply with on the part of the policy enforcers, and are continuously contested by both animal rights activists and animal research personnel.

Improved standards for laboratory animals?

In February 1993, Judge Charles R. Richey of the United States District Court issued a summary judgment in the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. The Secretary of Agriculture, et al. The decision, which was in favor of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withdraw its current regulations governing exercise for dogs and the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates used for biomedical research and to issue new regulations containing only minimum, measurable standards. Both plaintiffs and defendants contended that they were seeking the best interests of the laboratory animals. The issue at stake is whether animals are better protected if the government establishes limited minimal standards or is allowed to require institutions to provide additional standards, which will be judged on the basis of their effectiveness in maintaining healthy animals. The Court avoided this dispute, however, by placing primary emphasis on applying the Administrative Procedures Act and stating that it was merely interpreting the "plain meaning" of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended. In this article, arguments are presented for interpreting the law in a far more flexible way than Judge Richey did. The conclusion is also reached that there were no winners in the Animal Legal Defense Fund case and that the real losers are the laboratory animals.

Savages, drunks, and lab animals: the researcher's perception of pain

Abstract

Historically, treatment for pain relief has varied according to the social status of the sufferer. A similar tendency to make arbitrary distinctions affecting pain relief was found in an ethnographic study of animal research laboratories. The administration of pain-relieving drugs for animals in laboratories differed from standard practice for humans and, perhaps, for companion animals. Although anesthesia was used routinely for surgical procedures, its administration was sometimes haphazard. Analgesics, however, were rarely used. Most researchers had never thought about using analgesics and did not consider the subject worthy of serious attention. Scientists interviewed for this study agreed readily that animals are capable offeeling pain, but such assertions were muted by an overriding view of lab animals as creatures existing solely for the purposes of research. As a result, it was the exceptional scientist who was able to focus on anything about the animal's subjective experience that might lie outside the boundaries of the research protocol.

Animals, science, and ethics -- Section V. Policy issues in the use of animals in research, testing, and education

Section V examines the inadequacy of federal guidelines, regulations, and public policy in distinguishing between the uses of animals in experimental research, testing, and education, and recommends policy reforms for each realm.

Developing standards in animal research review

Thirty-two institutional animal care and use committees reviewed 4 hypothetic protocols involving experimental procedures frequently conducted on animals. Committees were in general agreement on the need to refine hypothetic protocols to minimize pain, distress, and other harm to laboratory animals. All but 2 committees sought modifications in each protocol, and in numerous instances, committees would not approve a protocol without major modifications. The committee responses delineated emerging standards governing specific areas of animal use, such as antibody production, induced disease, surgery, physical restraint, and behavioral conditioning. Committees had less consensus in their approach to assessing the justification for laboratory animal use. Apparently, this component of committee responsibilities presented the major conceptual and practical difficulties for committees engaged in animal research review.