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 Scenario: IACUC needs more information

Lab Animal volume 35, pages 15–16 (2006)Cite this article

The IACUC at Great Eastern should be concerned with the pain and distress of Lee's laboratory animals, as well as with the study's endpoints. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Public Health Service (PHS) requirements dictate that all procedures be performed with appropriate sedatives, analgesics, or anesthetics, unless withholding such agents is justified for scientific reasons1,2. In addition, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires that investigators search for alternatives to procedures if those procedures are going to be done on a USDA-regulated species and have the potential to cause more than momentary pain or distress to the animals3.

If we assume that the above was the only information presented in the written protocol, there are many questions that need to be answered. The USDA's 'search for alternatives' requirement, for instance, is not addressed for the laparotomy, which would certainly qualify as a painful procedure. Because the rabbit is a USDA-regulated species, this protocol would need to include a Principal Investigator (PI) narrative of the search procedures employed to justify the painful procedure. Has the PI thought of any alternatives (e.g., Could the portal vein injection be performed under the guidance of ultrasound rather than though a laparotomy? If not, why a laparotomy rather than laparoscopy?). Another question is whether or not the PI has consulted a veterinarian during the course of planning the experiment, as required by the AWA. The veterinarian would be the best authority to determine if aspirin therapy is enough of an analgesic for the planned surgical procedures.

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. Animal Welfare Act (7 USC, 2143(a)(3)(C)).

  2. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.C.1.b (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; reprinted 2002).

  3. Animal Welfare Act (7 USC, 2143(a)(3)(B)).

  4. 9 CFR, 2.31(d)(1)(ix).

  5. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 60–64 (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

  6. Beaver, B.V. et al. 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 218(5), 669–696 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pohl is IACUC Coordinator, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT.,

    Alison D. Pohl

Authors
  1. Alison D. Pohl
    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

Pohl, A. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: IACUC needs more information. Lab Anim 35, 15–16 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1006-15b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1006-15b

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