Animal Research Pathology: Regulatory and Safety Considerations

Abstract Animal research pathology encompasses a wide array of procedures and may involve work with a variety of animal species and hazards. To protect laboratory personnel and ensure data integrity, pathologists must be familiar with the activities performed in their laboratories and the applicable regulatory and safety requirements. Failure to address issues proactively may result in exposure of personnel to hazardous materials and/or collection of data in a manner that does not conform to animal welfare or quality control standards. This manuscript provides a brief introduction to important animal research pathology regulatory and safety considerations. The importance of close communication between the principal investigator, pathologist, laboratory personnel, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and institutional safety office/experts is emphasized and a mechanism for improving communication is discussed.

Download Full-text

344 The Ag Guide serves as a primary standard for animal scientists and AAALAC accreditation of Ag research programs

Journal of Animal Science ◽

10.1093/jas/skaa278.130 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽

pp. 71-72

Author(s):

Janeen Salak-Johnson

Keyword(s):

Animal Welfare ◽

Primary Standard ◽

Animal Research ◽

Third Party ◽

Best Interests ◽

Professional Judgment ◽

High Quality ◽

Accreditation Program ◽

Agricultural Animal ◽

Animal Care

Abstract Institutions that engage in animal research and production must ensure that high standards of animal care and use meet expectations of society while being ethical stewards of the animals they use in research. In order to achieve engagement in best practices, the Ag Guide is the most appropriate standard for assessing agricultural animals used in research and teaching. The Ag Guide minimizes the potential to overuse performance standards while enhancing the ability to appropriately address specific performance-derived exceptions to situations for which they have been validated. The primary objectives of the standards established in the Ag Guide are well-aligned with the goals of the AAALAC International accreditation program. The Ag Guide provides scientifically-sound, performance-based approaches to animal care and housing, which meet the expectations of AAALAC’s accreditation program. AAALAC provides a third-party peer review of all facets of the animal care and use program that serves as an effective mechanism to ensure institutions meet the standards of the Ag Guide. The process is designed to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program to ensure high-quality scientific outcomes and a high level of animal welfare. AAALAC accreditation program for agricultural animal research program is built on the cornerstone of the Ag Guide standards and connects science and responsible animal care. AAALAC accreditation promotes a comprehensive, institutionally supported program with a commitment to continuous improvement, humane and ethical animal care resulting in high-quality animal welfare, and scientific validity. AAALAC takes the position that, in accredited programs, the housing and care for agricultural animals should meet the standards that prevail on a high-quality, well-managed farm and the Ag Guide serves as this foundation. Therefore, the use of the Ag Guide for agricultural animal programs ensures a review that is based on science, professional judgment, and the best interests of the animal.

Download Full-text

Foreword and Introduction to This Issue on Contemporary Safety Topics in Animal Research

ILAR Journal ◽

10.1093/ilar/ilz004 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 59 (2) ◽

pp. 125-126

Author(s):

John Bradfield ◽

Esmeralda Meyer ◽

John N Norton

Keyword(s):

Occupational Health ◽

Health And Safety ◽

Occupational Health And Safety ◽

Well Being ◽

Animal Research ◽

Future Directions ◽

The Status ◽

Safety Considerations ◽

Animal Care ◽

Health And Well Being

Abstract Institutions with animal care and use programs are obligated to provide for the health and well-being of the animals, but are equally obligated to provide for safety of individuals associated with the program. The topics in this issue of the ILAR Journal, in association with those within the complimentary issue of the Journal of Applied Biosafety, provide a variety of contemporary occupational health and safety considerations in today’s animal research programs. Each article addresses key or emerging occupational health and safety topics in institutional animal care and use programs, where the status of the topic, contemporary challenges, and future directions are provided.

Download Full-text

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

ILAR Journal ◽

10.1093/ilar/ilz020 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 60 (1) ◽

pp. 1-4

Author(s):

Patricia V Turner ◽

R Wayne Barbee

Keyword(s):

Animal Welfare ◽

Animal Research ◽

Animal Science ◽

Scientific Excellence ◽

Experimental Planning ◽

Animal Use ◽

Animal Care ◽

Science And Research ◽

Ethical Oversight ◽

Animal Handlers

Abstract This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

Download Full-text

Estimating mouse and rat use in American laboratories by extrapolation from Animal Welfare Act-regulated species

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-020-79961-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Larry Carbone

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Animal Welfare ◽

The United States ◽

Animal Research ◽

Government Agencies ◽

Laboratory Rats ◽

Tier System ◽

Western Nations ◽

Rats And Mice ◽

Usage Data

AbstractAlone among Western nations, the United States has a two-tier system for welfare protections for vertebrate animals in research. Because its Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes laboratory rats and mice (RM), government veterinarians do not inspect RM laboratories and RM numbers are only partially reported to government agencies1. Without transparent statistics, it is impossible to track efforts to reduce or replace these sentient animals’ use or to project government resources needed if AWA coverage were expanded to include them. I obtained annual RM usage data from 16 large American institutions and compared RM numbers to institutions’ legally-required reports of their AWA-covered mammals. RM comprised approximately 99.3% of mammals at these representative institutions. Extrapolating from 780,070 AWA-covered mammals in 2017–18, I estimate that 111.5 million rats and mice were used per year in this period. If the same proportion of RM undergo painful procedures as are publicly reported for AWA-covered animals, then some 44.5 million mice and rats underwent potentially painful experiments. These data inform the questions of whether the AWA needs an update to cover RM, or whether the NIH should increase transparency of funded animal research. These figures can benchmark progress in reducing animal numbers in general and more specifically, in painful experiments. This estimate is higher than any others available, reflecting the challenges of obtaining statistics without consistent and transparent institutional reports.

Download Full-text

Why IACUCs Need Ethicists

ILAR Journal ◽

10.1093/ilar/ilaa021 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nathan Nobis

Keyword(s):

Animal Research ◽

Animal Care

Abstract Some animal research is arguably morally wrong, and some animal research is morally bad but could be improved. Who is most likely to be able to identify wrong or bad animal research and advocate for improvements? I argue that philosophical ethicists have the expertise that makes them the likely best candidates for these tasks. I review the skills, knowledge, and perspectives that philosophical ethicists tend to have that makes them ethical experts. I argue that, insofar as Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are expected to ensure that research is ethical, they must have philosophical ethicists as members.

Download Full-text

Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials

The FASEB Journal ◽

10.1096/fj.201601250r ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (10) ◽

pp. 4216-4225 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Barbara C. Hansen ◽

Sylvia Gografe ◽

Stacy Pritt ◽

Kai‐lin Catherine Jen ◽

Camille A. McWhirter ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Animal Welfare ◽

Due Process ◽

Policies And Procedures ◽

Animal Care

Download Full-text

Food Safety considerations of animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed fish - Scientific opinion of the Panel on Biological Hazards

EFSA Journal ◽

10.2903/j.efsa.2008.867 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 6 (12) ◽

pp. 867

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Food Safety ◽

Animal Welfare ◽

Farmed Fish ◽

Scientific Opinion ◽

Safety Considerations

Download Full-text

Comparison of Mortality Rates in Different Categories of Pigs and Cattle during Transport for Slaughter

Acta Veterinaria Brno ◽

10.2754/avb200776s8s109 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 76 (8) ◽

pp. S109-S116 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

M. Malena ◽

E. Voslářová ◽

A. Kozák ◽

P. Bělobrádek ◽

I. Bedáňová ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Dairy Cows ◽

Animal Welfare ◽

Animal Species ◽

Mortality Rates ◽

Research Data ◽

Individual Animal ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Related Stress ◽

Travel Distances ◽

Related Mortality

The death of animals during transport for slaughter is a major factor indicating the level of welfare in transported animals. However, research data that report the level of animal welfare as reflected in transport-related mortality rates of individual animal species and categories are missing. The present study focused on losses of pigs and cattle in the period from 1997 to 2006. Transport-related mortality rates were recorded by species and categories of animals and also for the following travel distances: up to 50 km, 51-100 km, 101-200 km, 201-300 km, and over 300 km. Rates differed according to species and category. The highest mortality rates were found in young sows, sows, and boars (0.2562%) followed by fattened pigs (0.1075%), excluded dairy cows (0.0396%), calves (0.0269%), and fattened cattle (0.0069%). Significant differences were found among mortality rates (p < 0.05). The lowest mortality rates occurred with shorter travel distances (< 50 km and 51-100 km) when compared to long travel distances (101-200 km, 201-300 km and > 300 km), with a significant difference (p < 0.05) between short and long travel distances being found in fattened pigs, fattened cattle and dairy cows. Mortality rates in animals during transport for slaughter show young sows, sows, and boars to be the most susceptible to transport-related stress, followed by fattened pigs, dairy cows, and calves, whereas the highest resistance was observed in fattened cattle.

Download Full-text