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: Show me the regulation

Lab Animal volume 38, pages 346–347 (2009)Cite this article

We can all sympathize with Hendricks. Often we follow a set of instructions to the 'T' but still feel that we end up with egg on our face. In my opinion, the system worked and could only be improved by providing more training on the recognition of pain and appropriate responses. Although I have no doubt that Hendricks is not being punished or picked on, without further clarification by the Great Eastern IACUC, he may have a valid classification question worth considering.

Let's assume the few animals in question experienced unrelieved pain longer than “momentary” or greater than “minor.” Do any laws, policies or instructions indicate that we should report such animals in category E? The answer is maybe. Unfortunately, the policies and instructions explaining how to classify animals into column E are not found in one single document. Additionally, policies and instructions are revised sporadically for clarification. The reporting requirement for USDA-covered species originates in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), section 2.36 (ref. 1). The wording in the AWA is very similar to that found on APHIS Form 7023, used by research facilities for their yearly report. Later, Policy 17 was written to further clarify annual reporting2. Policy 17, as originally written or later revised, did not tinker with what seems to be a clear identification of which animals should be included in column E of Form 7023. To my knowledge, there are no other specific instructions originating from the USDA regarding annual reports. Considering the tenor of the regulations above, I can understand Hendricks' position.

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. 9 CFR Ch.1, 2.36.

  2. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal Care Policy Manual (USDA, Beltsville, MD, 1997). <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.shtml>

  3. Office of Animal Care and Use. ARAC Guidelines. <http://oacu.od.nih.gov/ARAC/index.htm>

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stout is Associate Director, DLAM, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.,

    Rhett W. Stout

Authors
  1. Rhett W. Stout
    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

Stout, R. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Show me the regulation. Lab Anim 38, 346–347 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1109-346b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1109-346b

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