In the past, the scientists submitted alternatives literature searches and the IACUC invariably did not question them; this is the crux of Great Eastern's problem.

Enter Paula Stone. As the Chair of the IACUC noted, Great Eastern's scientists will not perform more than a simple, uncomplicated review of the literature. Given the tremendous amount of information available and the price of that information, Stone offered her expertise to assist the busy scientists in retrieving information that may have been previously unavailable to them. Although a thorough review of the literature may be relatively expensive (more than $50), compared with the cost of animals (hamsters can cost up to $25 each), plus per diem (23¢-$1.50), plus veterinary support ($100 per hour), plus miscellaneous costs, it is a minor cost and the potential benefits are great.

Stone rightfully noted that Morales' search strategy was unlikely to retrieve information on alternatives. In fact, Morales' search terms are too broad and general (immune system, immunity), irrelevant (alternative), or lacking (maturation, animal model – what component is actually being measured?). Additionally, because Morales searched only Medline, Stone was correct to question the adequacy of the search. A quick search of Medline, EmBase, and Biosis using the terms 'immune system' and 'hamster' found 51 citations from Medline, 79 from EmBase, and 8513 from Biosis. By any measure, it is apparent that the investigator has not made a reasonable and good faith effort to uncover alternative methods. It is also apparent, from the IACUC Chair's treatment of Stone and the squelching of her discussion of the alternatives requirement, that the IACUC is not performing correctly under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). In the Final Rules published in 1989, USDA APHIS stated, “We also believe that consideration of alternatives will be discussed during Committee meetings where proposed activities are presented for approval, and made part of the meeting minutes ... and the written narrative of information sources consulted will be made part of the Committee's record1.”

Although the IACUC may not agree with Policy 12 (ref. 2), it is the obligation of the IACUC to protect the research facility from violating the AWA. Stone has tried to use her unique background to assist the IACUC with complying with this part of the AWA, but the IACUC has dismissed her concerns as irrelevant and has intimidated her. This may speak to a larger IACUC problem in which members are pressured to 'go along'.

IACUCs and investigators also need to understand that identifying alternatives requires more than looking for nonanimal models. One can argue that Morales has already incorporated a refinement by using an osmotic pump, negating the need for daily restraint and injections. He should cite this in his narrative. Because most scientists perform a review of the literature for grant applications or new projects, that is the time to address the 3 Rs. The alternatives search does not have to be a separate review. This saves time and effort later, and ensures that the experiment is not unnecessarily duplicating previous work (another compliance issue). However, scientists should recognize that information may come from outside their core journals and may appear in the veterinary or laboratory animal literature, both covered by Medline (Stone was wrong about Medline), EmBase, Biosis, Agricola, CAB Abstracts (http://www.cabi.com), and other providers.

As part of their infrastructure, research facilities should make information resources available to enhance both compliance and research. For their part, scientists should include the cost of information in grant applications. Needless to say, in using the skills of an experienced searcher such as Stone, Morales would have had more time and useful information available for his research.

Return to Protocol Review