In response to the questions posed in this scenario, the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) offers the following guidance:

This column poses several questions: Should the IACUC consider the cost of using a particular species in its discussion of a protocol? Should the rationale for the development of a new model be based on fiscal factors? Is having a second model for a particular disease or condition a sufficient rationale?

Although financial considerations are a necessary step in the pursuit of a scientific inquiry, decisions involving costs of research are made by bodies other than the IACUC. The peer review of grant applications evaluates the proposed model; if it is found meritorious, an award is made. Department heads at research institutions often make decisions on support for research models funded locally. A separation between the fiscal decision-makers and the body that oversees animal welfare relieves the IACUC from this responsibility and focuses the committee's efforts on considering US Government Principle III and the appropriateness of the species to obtain valid results1. OLAW has provided similar guidance on the choice of species in stating, “It is the IACUC's responsibility to review and confirm that a sound, objective and logical reason has been provided... prior to approving the use of animals for the research proposal”2,3.

Although cost must not be the primary reason for proposing a new model, it certainly may influence the investigator's practical considerations, as does the availability or complexity of a given model. Likewise, alternative model development is fundamental to innovation and the creative scientific pursuit. Although the investigator neglected to include important scientific considerations in his proposal to justify his new model, a request for a modification addressing the committee's concerns should easily rectify the situation, as highlighted by the scenario reviewers.

Return to Protocol Review