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.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review: Study section's opinion matters

Lab Animal volume 39, pages 259–260 (2010)Cite this article

IACUCs must consider the US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training1 when reviewing and approving protocols. Principle III states that “the animals selected for a procedure should be of an appropriate species and quality and the minimum number required to obtain valid results.” In this case, the principal investigator provided the IACUC an opinion from an impartial expert body (an NIH Scientific Review Group (SRG)) indicating that it violated the principles that it was attempting to uphold, by demanding the use of a number of animals and an experimental design that may not produce valid results.

Section 2.31 of the Animal Welfare Act and Regulations2 stipulates that an IACUC has limited authority to dictate the experimental design of studies: “Except as specifically authorized by law or these regulations, nothing in this part shall be deemed to permit the Committee or IACUC to prescribe methods or set standards for the design, performance, or conduct of actual research or experimentation by a research facility.” Moreover, the Public Health Service (PHS) recognizes that SRGs should have a key role in determining how NIH-funded research, including that using animals, is carried out. The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare's Frequently Asked Question D-12 about the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals3 (PHS Policy) specifies that “the primary focus of the SRG is scientific merit and the primary focus of the IACUC is animal welfare.” This view was recently reiterated in NIH Notice NOT-OD-10-027 (ref. 4).

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

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. Public Health Service. US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2002).

  2. Animal Welfare Regulations. Section 2.31, a.

  3. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals—Frequently Asked Questions. Protocol Review, Question D-12. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2006; revised 2010). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/faqs.htm

  4. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Instructions for Completion and Peer Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section (VAS) in NIH Grant Applications and Cooperative Agreements. Notice NOT-OD-10-027. (National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC; 17 March 2010).

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

  6. Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A. & Murthy, S. The IACUC Handbook 2nd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Director of the Division of Laboratory Animal Resources and Attending Veterinarian at University of Pittsburgh, Yates is Professor of Otolaryngology and Neuroscience and Co-Director of the Research Conduct and Compliance Office and Newsome is Associate Professor of Pathology, Pittsburgh, PA.,

    Bill J. Yates &  Joseph Newsome

Authors
  1. Bill J. Yates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Newsome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yates, B., Newsome, J. Response to Protocol Review: Study section's opinion matters. Lab Anim 39, 259–260 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0910-259b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0910-259b

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