Fostering Collaborative Roles and Responsibilities for Members of an IACUC or Oversight Body

One of the key components of an animal care and use program (hereafter referred to as the “Program”) is the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). In the United States, the establishment of an IACUC is mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare 2015) and the Animal Welfare Regulations, which apply to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–regulated species (APHIS 2013). The overall purpose of an IACUC is to provide assessment and oversight of the Program. The eighth edition of the (hereafter referred to as the ) also uses the term . The , which is an internationally recognized reference, describes the IACUC as being “responsible for assessment and oversight of the institution’s Program, components and facilities” (NRC 2011). In the international setting, there are other equivalent oversight bodies (OBs) that serve the same function as an IACUC but have a different label. However, in order to ensure both consistency and clarity in this chapter, the term is used to designate any committee or OB responsible for the Program as described above. The term refers to a university, medical center, corporation, or other organization that has a Program, and means a person who uses animals for research, testing, or teaching. The primary purpose of this chapter is to address how best to foster collaborative roles and responsibilities for members of the IACUC, with particular emphasis on the IACUC chair, IACUC administrator, and attending veterinarian (AV). In addition, the position of the institutional official (IO) will be addressed, although the IO is usually not a member of the committee. There is, however, no intent to address in any detail the roles and responsibilities of any of the above. Indeed, much has been written about IACUC functions, such as review of protocols that propose to use animals for research, testing, and teaching (hereafter referred to as “activities” when textually appropriate); semiannual program evaluations; and postapproval monitoring. Much has also been written about the AV’s responsibility for providing adequate veterinary care for animals. Therefore, the focus will instead be on a “fostering process” and desirable management skills related to enhancing the functionality of the committee within the Program. We believe our ideas about fostering collaborative roles and responsibilities for members of IACUCs that are presented in this chapter will help an institution develop and sustain a successful Program that necessarily requires an effective committee. This is a committee that is structured and resourced and operates in a way that best serves the institution, its researchers, and the animals. Furthermore, it is our hope that both institutions and their IACUCs will recognize that while animal well-being and compliance go hand in hand, undue regulatory burden is widely viewed as a major problem (this topic is covered in Chapter 10 of this text). Clearly, a bureaucratically driven overemphasis on compliance does not help the animals, the institution, or its researchers, and is, in effect, tantamount to compliance micromanagement. The IACUC should not lose sight of its charge and obligation to ensure humane animal care and use while facilitating valuable research. This charge is reinforced by the congressional findings for the 1985 amendment of the Animal Welfare Act, where Congress stated “the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals” (Agriculture 2011). Indeed, the core of the Program is the committee’s review and approval of worthwhile research and other activities involving animals for societal benefit.