IACUC Veterinarians

As a veterinarian with more than 20 years of institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) experience, I wish to comment on your article (R. Finn, The Scientist, May 26, 1997, page 1). I am perplexed by the statement by Harry Rozmiarek that "the research investigator is paying the bill." From a literal viewpoint, rarely if ever does the investigator pay for animal care and use. It is the public-through taxation for government-supported research, contributions to charitable foundations that fund research, and the purchase of drugs and other consumer products-that actually pays the bills. Rozmiarek's statement does, however, underline the conflicts that veterinarians must face in serving on an IACUC or as a laboratory animal veterinarian. It should be noted that this is not a new situation, nor is it unique to the laboratory and classroom. Veterinarians have long been faced with the sometimes conflicting interests of a food animal and its owner, the obligation to be candid in "vetting" a horse, the request of an owner to euthanatize a pet substantially for financial reasons, and our inability to take home every homeless kitten. These issues are, however, more palpable to us as we begin to appreciate nonhuman animals as the subjects of their own lives. In the specific case of research, instruction, and product testing, conflicts with investigators are infrequent and, more important, they are explicit. The IACUC or the veterinarian is quite aware of the problem. There is, however, a more subtle and insidious implicit conflict that is generally not appreciated. The source of pride and sustenance for investigator, administrator, and veterinarian alike is measured in journal papers, grants, and dollars. We are great or small according to how many postdocs, technicians, and square feet of space we oversee. So very often, these are closely correlated with the number of nonhuman animals used in the laboratory or housing facility. The important ethical issue for the institutional veterinarian is not the one that arises from our occasional conflict with investigators, but rather the ethical dilemma that arises from our common interest with them in maintaining the status quo and in meeting the overhead costs of the facility. This common interest is clearly reflected in the training goals of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. The five categories of the examination are Laboratory Animal Biology, Laboratory Animal Resources Management, Clinical Laboratory Animal Medicine and Surgery, Laboratory Animal Pathology, and Animal Experimentation. Conspicuously absent in the major categories (or the listed subcategories) is the search for alternatives to animal use or methods for this purpose. The closest I could find is "Research funding, ethics, and animal welfare issues (including organizations opposing and supporting animal research)" as a subtopic of Animal Experimentation. Fortunately, training in this area is offered to veterinarians and investigators alike by the Animal Welfare Information Center at the National Agriculture Library. After more than 30 years in research veterinary medicine, I can say without reservation that no one need feel sorry for us. The conflicts that we face in balancing our duties to our patients with the pressures of the "real world" are no more vexing than those faced by veterinarians who work with companion animals, economic animals, animal shelters, and so forth. Alas, I hear from my own physicians that they are experiencing a similar stress owing to "managed care." Stephen Dubin Clinical Professor and University Veterinarian Drexel University Calhoun Comparative Medicine Laboratory School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 E-mail: dubinse@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu

IACUC Veterinarians

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of