A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functions

Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions

IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.

Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.

Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program

Although animal research requires adherence to various regulations and standards, the manner in which compliance is maintained and the degree of additional constraints varies between institutions. Regulatory burden, particularly if institutionally imposed, has become a concern for institutions as increased regulatory expectations result in decreased resources available for research efforts. Faculty, research staff, and support staff engaged in animal research were surveyed to determine what institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) processes were considered burdensome, the perceived value of some suggested modifications, and satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit. Although the results revealed overwhelming satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit, several IACUC processes were deemed burdensome, and therefore there would be value in modifying IACUC processes. When comparing the value of modifying IACUC processes, different groups within the animal care and use program (ACUP) tended to have different responses on many of the topics. This survey identified several perceived burdensome IACUC processes that would likely benefit individuals if modified. In today's environment of shrinking budgets for biomedical research, minimizing regulatory burden-particularly unnecessary, self-imposed burden-in the ACUP is particularly important to ensure that costs, time, and effort are appropriate to achieve animal welfare and quality of research endeavors.-Norton, J. N., Reynolds, R. P., Chan, C., Valdivia, R. H., Staats, H. F. Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program.

Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process

In many countries the approval of animal research projects depends on the decisions of Animal Ethics Committees (AEC's), which review the projects. An animal ethics review is performed as part of the authorization process and therefore performed routinely, but comprehensive information about how well the review system works is not available. This paper reviews studies that assess the performance of animal ethics committees by using Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model. The paper points out that it is well recognised that AECs differ in structure, in their decision-making methods, in the time they take to review proposals and that they also make inconsistent decisions. On the other hand, we know little about the quality of outcomes, and to what extent decisions have been incorporated into daily scientific activity, and we know almost nothing about how well AECs work from the animal protection point of view. In order to emphasise this viewpoint in the assessment of AECs, the paper provides an example of measures for outcome assessment. The animal suffering is considered as a potential measure for outcome assessment of the ethics review. Although this approach has limitations, outcome assessment would significantly increase our understanding of the performance of AECs.