Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Abstract

Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.

Keywords

IACUCs research ethics qualitative methods federal regulations research review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Animal Welfare Act as Amended. (2008). 7 USC §2131-2159. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_FINAL_2017_508comp.pdf

Animal Welfare Act Regulations. (2012). 9CFR §2131, §2.31, and §2.60. Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_FINAL_2017_508comp.pdf

Candilis

P. J.

Lidz

C. W.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Arnold

R. M.

Gardner

Garverich

. . . Simon

L. J.

(2012). The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 34, 15-20.

Dyer

(2004). Rationalising public participation in the health service: The case of research ethics committees. Health Place, 10, 339-348.

Graham

(2002). A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5, 75-81.

Greitemeyer

Schulz-Hardt

Brodbeck

F. C.

Frey

(2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 31-42.

Hagelin

Hau

Carlsson

(2003). The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Laboratory Animals, 37, 10-18.

Hansen

L. A.

(2013). Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 188-190.

Hansen

L. A.

Goodman

J. R.

Chandra

(2012). Analysis of animal research ethics committee membership at American institutions. Animals, 2, 68-75.

10.

Hawkins

(2002). Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: A survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Laboratory Animals, 36, 378-395.

11.

Hayry

(1998). Should the decisions of ethics committees be based on community values? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 1, 57-60.

12.

Health Research Extension Act. PL 99-158 (1985). Animals in research. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#HealthResearchExtensionActof1985

13.

Hedgecoe

A. M.

(2012). Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review. Social Studies of Science, 42, 662-683.

14.

Houde

Dumas

Leroux

(2003). Animal ethical evaluation: An observational study of Canadian IACUCs. Ethics & Behavior, 13, 333-350.

15.

Ideland

(2009). Different views on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 258-261.

16.

Orlans

B. F.

(1997). Ethical decision making about animal experiments. Ethics & Behavior, 7, 163-171.

17.

Public Health Service. (2002). Public health service policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#HealthResearchExtensionActof1985

18.

Schuppli

C. A.

(2011). Decisions about the use of animals in research: Ethical reflection by animal ethics committee members. Anthrozoös, 24, 409-425.

19.

Schuppli

C. A.

Fraser

(2005). The interpretation and application of the 3 Rs by animal ethics committee members. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 33, 487-500.

20.

Schuppli

C. A.

Fraser

(2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 294-301.

21.

Silverman

Baker

S. P.

Lidz

C. W.

(2012). A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 2: Structure and organizational functions. Lab Animal, 41, 289-294.

22.

Silverman

Lidz

C. W.

Clayfield

J. C.

Murray

Simon

Rondeau

R. G.

(2015). Decision making and the IACUC, Part 1: Protocol information discussed at full committee reviews. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54, 289-398.

23.

Tjärnström

(2013). Decision making and the role of empathy in Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) (Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). Retrieved from http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/6325/1/Tjarnstrom_E_131216.pdf

24.

Verweij

Brom

F. W. A.

Huibers

(2000). Do’s and don’ts for ethics committees: Practical lessons learned in The Netherlands. HealthCare Ethics Committee Forum, 12, 344-357.