Researchers Vigilant As NAS Revises Lab Animal Guide

Bench scientists, along with antivivisectionists, wonder what an updated `bible' of animal care will bring Earlier this month, a National Research Council (NRC) committee held the last of three public forums to gather input for a revision of its widely influential Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Although publication of the new guide is not expected until next year, scientists and animal protectionists already are debating the impact of changes that might result. Among these are new guidelines addressing the psychological well- being of lab animals, specifications for animal housing, and categories of animals not previously discussed in detail. Some changes possible --new cage sizes or facility ventilation standards, for example, if these are suggested--could translate into the need for expensive lab alterations, scientists say, but others should bring a welcome harmony between the guide and new laws and regulations put into effect since the last edition, the sixth, was published in 1985. Among these are amendments to the Animal Welfare Act in 1985 and changes in Public Health Service policy that became part of the Health Research Extension Act, also in 1985. The new laws partly explain the 10-year gap between editions, says Thomas L. Wolfle, program director of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR), the arm of NRC charged with overseeing the guide's revision. Previous editions of the guide have been spaced about five years apart, he says. "Those two federal laws came into being at the same time as this last edition," Wolfle says. "We wanted to wait and see what the impacts of those were, where the weaknesses in them were, and how the guide could supplement and extend them." This edition will also have a new publisher--the National Academy Press, which publishes the works of NRC and its parent organizations, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Previous editions were published by the Government Printing Office. The influence of the guide on research laboratories using animals is extensive. It is viewed as the standard animal-care reference for laboratories in industry, academia, and government, in the United States as well as other countries. Compliance with its dictums is required, for example, of all National Institutes of Health grantees using animals in their experiments. Another expression of the guide's influence is its use by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), an independent, nonprofit organization in Bethesda, Md. Many animal laboratories seek accreditation from AAALAC as proof of their adherence to laws, regulations, and current scientifically approved animal care and use procedures. Using the guide as their manual, AAALAC representatives conduct site visits and program reviews of laboratories using animals in research. "Accreditation is deemed as evidence of a high-quality operation," Wolfle says. "Most organizations, and particularly the commercial organizations, the pharmaceutical companies, want to be absolutely above reproach. They'll do whatever it takes in order to publicly demonstrate their commitment to quality animal care. And, in this country, that's how you do it." Martin Stephens, vice president for laboratory animals of the Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C., calls the guide the "bible" of lab animal care and use. Stephens and other animal protectionists say they have had a long wait since 1985 for another chance to contribute to the guide. "The animal research controversy and the animal rights movement really didn't come to a head until just before that time," says Stephens. "So, there wasn't much of an opportunity for that revision of the guide to be influenced by contrary views. We're hoping that this time around that will change." One important aspect of the guide praised by researchers and expected to survive the revision largely intact is its current emphasis on so-called performance standards. This term refers to guidelines that describe the goals for care and use while leaving the details in execution up to researchers and other on-site professionals. Engineering standards, on the other hand, define such considerations as the appropriate cage size for an animal. "Performance standards are really the only way to go," says Gale Taylor, director of laboratory animal care at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Taylor, who testified February 2 in St. Louis before the NRC committee, is also a former chairman of AAALAC's council on accreditation and a veteran of more than 100 site visits. "If you tried to write a standard that covers the waterfront," Taylor says, "it would be extremely difficult and complex. There has to be some latitude for professional judgment." One suggestion, for example, that Taylor put before the committee concerned the recommended number of air changes in an animal care facility. "Currently, the guide says there should be 10 air changes an hour whether there's one mouse in the room or 1,000 mice in the room," Taylor says. "I'm suggesting that there may be reasons for granting exceptions to that hard standard." Another area in which Taylor is asking for professional leeway concerns animals that survive experimental surgery. Currently, an animal that survives such a procedure cannot be used in another. "There are some rare species where that becomes a real problem," Taylor says. "So, I'm asking for a provision for an informed, rational, on-site waiver of the prohibition, when based on and justified by conservation of an animal species or a particularly valuable animal model, such as some of the transgenic animals. There may only be a very few of those particular critters around." He adds: "Obviously, it can't be something horribly invasive that shouldn't be repeated. But if it is a minor surgical procedure, there should be some provision for reuse. Right now, it's a clear, distinct prohibition." Taylor also hopes for expanded advice on caring for cold-blooded vertebrates and farm animals. ILAR's Wolfle says that, generally, the performance-standards tone of the guide will be preserved. "The guide has always said that we don't know enough about all of the various species that we're dealing with," Wolfle says. "We can give guidance as to what you should achieve, but there are many ways to achieve that goal." One area in which the Humane Society's Stephens and other animal advocates hope for significant improvement is in the psychological well-being of laboratory animals, especially nonhuman primates and dogs. "The [current] guide is largely an attempt to spell out guidance on keeping animals physically healthy," Stephens says. "The environments are sterile, literally and metaphorically. It would be a sign of progress if the new edition of the guide talked about social needs and naturalistic environments and put more emphasis on psychological health and the natural behavior of animals." The area of developing, implementing, and evaluating environmental enrichment programs for nonhuman primates and canines is another in which Illinois' Taylor hopes the guide will provide guidance rather than strictures. "These are controversial issues," Taylor says. "What I'm asking for is not specific standards, but for guidelines so that the local veterinarians and animal care and use committees can develop reasonable, rational programs. How do you evaluate an environmental enrichment program for a monkey?" Stephens suggests a change in perspective might be helpful. "There's no reason why the laboratories should resemble prisons for animals," Stephens says. "They can resemble the best in a zoo environment, for example."

Researchers Vigilant As NAS Revises Lab Animal Guide

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of