At the 2013 Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research (PRIM&R) IACUC Conference, training as it relates to laboratory animals, animal care and use programs, and in vivo research was a prominent topic. The failure of the industry to place sufficient importance on training was a common theme and source of frustration discussed during different sessions. Although the value of training is rarely dismissed out of hand, resource allocation and institutional support for training programs are frequently anemic or nonexistent.

But a robust and rigorous training program is an essential component of a successful animal care and use program that places great emphasis on animal welfare. Training leads to competence, and competence leads to refinement, humaneness and scientific soundness. Unfortunately, too often in our industry, training is seen as a red mark in the general ledger, a budget item that affects the bottom line. This perspective may lead managers to limit resources and support for training programs.

A popular television advertisement campaign for a large, well-known insurance company asks, “Could 15 minutes really save you 15% or more?” The same campaign features a gecko that, thanks to an apparently phenomenal animal training program at the advertising company, is able to speak. Purchasing life insurance, which was introduced by the Romans in the 600s BCE, is common practice in our modern society. Indeed, one can purchase insurance for nearly anything: health, life, auto, property, builder, credit, liability, flood, earthquake, home, mortgage, landlord, marine, terrorism, etc.

Trainers across the industry readily agree that trained individuals are necessary to ensure the welfare of the animals utilized in research. As such, trained individuals may be likened to an insurance policy, 'purchased' by the institution, to mitigate some of the risk associated with in vivo research. But an important distinction between insurance salespeople and training coordinators needs to be made. An insurance policy never improves an individual's position; it can only protect the individual from disaster. Insurance equals risk mitigation. A strong training program also mitigates risk, but unlike an insurance policy, training can improve an institution's animal care and use program.

Trained individuals mitigate the inherent risk associated with in vivo research in a number of ways. First, they are aware of their responsibilities and, more importantly, are trained to perform their duties appropriately. Second, they know about the rules and regulations related to in vivo research and, more importantly, understand the impact of regulatory noncompliance on their institution and in vivo research as a whole. And third, they appreciate the potential effects of the improper performance of technical procedures on data quality and, more importantly, on the welfare of the research animal.

A strong training program and engaged, trained individuals also improve the institution and the research it does. By participating in a rigorous training program, trained individuals are, by definition, prepared to identify potential issues and have the knowledge and skills to troubleshoot said issues and identify innovative solutions. Given their background knowledge and level of proficiency garnered during their training, these individuals frequently demonstrate a propensity for refinement, typically resulting in animal welfare improvements. Clearly, a strong training program represents more than a mere insurance policy.

I have no doubt that the Institutional Officials and senior managers at various institutions have many kinds of insurance policies to protect them from disaster and to mitigate loss, both personally and corporately. Unfortunately, in too many cases, these same leaders may not view a strong training program in this manner or understand how the training program can affect their institutions. As a result, many of the training programs across the industry are struggling for resources and support from institutional management.

How do we, as laboratory animal professionals (trainers, compliance officers, vivarium managers, veterinarians, technicians, technologists and others), promote this message, helping leaders to understand the value of training programs and obtaining appropriate resource allocation and institutional support? How do we drive this needed change throughout the industry, improving the welfare of the animals in our care? This is certainly a difficult question to answer, with likely as many answers as there are institutions. Perhaps we simply need to hire a talking gecko.