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.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Should IACUCs Review Scientific Merit of Animal Research Projects?

Lab Animal volume 33, pages 26–31 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Whether IACUCs should review animal research protocols for scientific merit is not addressed in the federal regulations, resulting in ongoing confusion on the subject. The authors examine this issue, discuss the pros and cons, suggest how IACUCs can go about reviewing protocols for scientific merit, and question what effect recent changes in regulations will have on this issue.

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. Prentice, E.D., Crouse, D.A. & Mann, M.D. Scientific merit review: the role of the IACUC. ILAR News 34(1-2), 15–19 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1127 (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979).

  3. Gordon, S.L. Ingredients of a successful grant application to the National Institutes of Health. J. Orthop. Res. 7(1), 138–141 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Donnelly, S. in Animals, Science and Ethics (eds. Donnelly, S. & Nolan, K.) 8–13 (Hastings Center Report, Briarcliff Manor, CT, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Graham, K. A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 5(1), 75–81 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borkowski, G., Hunter, A., Field, K. & Sischo, W.M. Institutional animal care and use committees: a survey covering 10 years of experience. Contemp. Top. Lab. Anim. Sci. 36(5), 42–45 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

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

  8. Animal Welfare Act. 7 USC 2131 et. seq.

  9. USDA APHIS. 9 CFR Parts 1 and 2.

  10. Interagency Research Animal Committee. U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC, 1985).

  11. Black, J. More on IACUCs and merit review. ILAR J. 35(1), 1 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prentice, E.D., Crouse, D.A. & Mann, M.D. To the editor. ILAR J. 35(1), 2–3 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Public Health Service. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.C.I.a (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986).

  14. Public Health Service. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.D.I.d (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986).

  15. Public Health Service. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals IV.C.I.b (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986).

  16. Office for Protection from Research Risks. The Public Health Service responds to commonly asked questions. ILAR News 33(4), 68–70 (1991).

  17. USDA APHIS. 9 CFR 2.31(e)(2).

  18. USDA APHIS. 9 CFR 2.31(e)(1)(2).

  19. USDA. Animal Care Policy Manual. Policy #12: Consideration of Alternatives to Painful/Distressful Procedures. (21 June 2000).

  20. USDA APHIS.9 CFR 2.31(e)(4).

  21. USDA APHIS. 9 CFR Part 1(Preamble).

  22. Steneck, N.H. Role of the institutional animal care and use committee in monitoring research. Ethics Behav. 7(2), 173–184 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Orlans, F.B. Research protocol review for animal welfare. Invest. Radiol. 22(3), 253–258 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Galvin, S.L. & Herzog, H.A. The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics Behav. 2(4), 263–286 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. NIH. DHHS. Amended policy statement. Laboratory animal welfare: change in PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Federal Register 67(152), 51289–51290 (7 August 2002).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mann is Professor and Executive Chair, IACUC, and Prentice is Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Regulatory Compliance, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 987830 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-7830.,

    Michael D. Mann PhD & Ernest D. Prentice PhD

Authors
  1. Michael D. Mann PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ernest D. Prentice PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Mann PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mann, M., Prentice, E. Should IACUCs Review Scientific Merit of Animal Research Projects?. Lab Anim 33, 26–31 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0104-26

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0104-26

This article is cited by

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