Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Decreasing institutionally imposed regulatory burden for animal research

Lab Animal volume 45, pages 297–300 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

With the ever-increasing call to reduce self-imposed regulatory and administrative burden in the animal research oversight process, knowledge of the regulations and a desire to streamline policies and procedures are needed to affect a change in culture. In this opinion piece, we provide details on why institutionally imposed regulatory burden can arise.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bayne, K.A. & Garnett, N.L. Mitigating risk, facilitating research. ILAR J. 49, 369–371 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Haywood, J.R. & Greene, M. Avoiding an overzealous approached: A perspective on regulatory burden. ILAR J. 49, 426–434 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thulin, J.D. et al. The cost of self-imposed regulatory burden in animal research. FASEB J. 28, 3297–3300 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Committee on Federal Research Regulations and Reporting Requirements. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century Part 1 (The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2015).

  5. DeHaven, R.W. Best practices for animal care committees and animal use. ILAR Journal 43, S59–S62 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pritt, S. Risk characterization. Animal Lab News. 13, 30 (2105).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pritt, S. Risk control and the IACUC. Animal Lab News. 13, 22–23 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal Care Policy Manual. Policy #17: Regulation of Agricultural Animals (USDA, Beltsville, MD, 2016). (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal%20Care%20Policy%20Manual.pdf).

  9. Animal Welfare Act Regulations 9 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 2.

  10. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended 2002).

  11. Silverman, J. et al. Decision making and the IACUC: Part 1—protocol information discussed at full-committee reviews. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 54, 389–398 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Frequently Asked Questions D3 PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/OLAW/faqs.htm (2016).

  13. National Institutes of Health. NIH Grants Policy Statement. US Department of Health and Human Services. http://grants.nih.gov/policy/nihgps/index.htm (2015).

  14. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

  15. Bennett, B.T., Cardon, A.C. & Bailey, M.R. Use of FOIA by animal rights activists. Lab Anim. (NY) 45, 55 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Office of Compliance. General Considerations for Animal Studies for Medical Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm466358.pdf (2015).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX

    Stacy Pritt

  2. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

    Justin A. McNulty

  3. Michigan State University, Lansing, MI

    Molly Greene & Sally Light

  4. Comparative Medicine, Worldwide Research and Development, Pfizer, La Jolla, CA

    Marcy Brown

Authors
  1. Stacy Pritt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin A. McNulty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Molly Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sally Light
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcy Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy Pritt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pritt, S., McNulty, J., Greene, M. et al. Decreasing institutionally imposed regulatory burden for animal research. Lab Anim 45, 297–300 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1067

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1067

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing