Standards for animal research: looking at the middle

Much of the public debate over laboratory animal use has focused on either the scientist's demand for absolute freedom of inquiry, or the abolitionist's demand for an end to animal use in science. Yet many recent proposals for reform seek instead to balance the interests of laboratory animals in avoiding harm against the interests of research beneficiaries in continued animal use. This essay is an analysis of the intermediate reform positions and their underlying ethical principles.

Institutional animal care and use committees: a new set of clothes for the emperor?

According to some proponents and critics of research using animals, the greatest hope for improved conditions for laboratory animals is to be found in the system of self-regulation called for by recent legislation and the NIH's revised policy. This article explores advantages and disadvantages of relying on "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees" to subject research proposals to ethical scrutiny. Among the advantages discussed are: institutional dialogue concerning the ethics of research; inclusion of perspectives of non-scientists in such dialogues; and the possibility of improved research proposals. Despite these advantages, I argue that serious problems with the committee system may limit the degree to which conditions for animals are actually improved. Disadvantages discussed include: limitations in the scope of the review process, and built-in bias in favor of certain philosophical stances in the composition of the committees.

Current and future policies regarding laboratory animal welfare

Laboratory animal welfare has made tremendous strides in recent years. The first laboratory animal welfare law was not enacted until 1966, and laboratory animal medicine as a specialty did not even exist until the 1960s. The AAALAC accreditation program has stimulated improvements in accredited institutions, and the FDA and EPA Good Laboratory Practices Acts had a major impact on industry in the 1970s, but the most visible impact upon academic institutions was made by NIH enforcing their Policy in the 1980s by suspending funding to several programs and institutions. The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities jointly published Recommendations for Governance and Management of Institutional Animal Resources in October 1985, following very closely the provisions of NIH and the Guide. Animal rights groups have even contributed toward the improvement of animal welfare policies by their recent flurry of demonstrations, thefts, and vandalism. The end result has been an impressively rapid upgrading and standardization of animal care and use policies and programs at all types of institutions that use animals in their work. Most major institutions now have qualified and credentialed laboratory animal medicine specialists directing their programs, conscientious and responsive animal care and use committees overseeing and evaluating animal welfare, and qualified, well-trained animal care staff and investigators. Institutions that do not meet these standards undergo great pressure from the USDA, NIH, their peers, and the public to bring their programs into compliance quickly and appropriately.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Animal welfare legislation

In the article "Rates of elementary reactions: Measurement and applications" by F. Kaufman (25 Oct., p. 393), the equation in column 2 on page 394 should have read: [See formula in Source Pdf.]

Regulation of animal experimentation

This article examines the nature of the controversy between animal activists and the scientific community over the need for and desirability of additional regulation of animal experimentation. We critically review the existing federal and state regulatory environment and discuss a number of proposals for new federal legislation for regulating the use of animals in scientific experimentation. We identify and discuss three factors that encompass the issues that are at the core of the controversy and use these to suggest a conceptual framework in which to analyze schemes for regulating animal experimentation. Finally, we discuss the implications that such regulation will have for animal experimentation and conclude that it is neither necessary nor desirable.