Veterinarians In Research Labs Address Conflicting Agendas

The job is a juggling act, with administrative duties that sometimes lead to opposition from scientists. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? John Vandenbergh contends the IACUC veterinarians should "be an integral part of the committee, but not as in a chair role. Research with laboratory animals involves a great deal more bureaucracy than it used to, and veterinarians frequently find themselves in the position of administrators of that bureaucracy. Under the 1985 revision to the Animal Welfare Act, every research institution that uses laboratory animals must establish an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) to approve all proposed animal experiments. Each IACUC must include at least one veterinarian with special experience in laboratory animal medicine. These IACUC veterinarians have the power to approve, disapprove, or demand significant changes in experimental design and conduct if the methods violate any of the dozens of regulations designed to protect animal welfare. The job, by its very nature, can bring IACUC veterinarians head to head with researchers. WORKING TOGETHER: Dartmouth's Bill Roebuck notes it’s important for IACUC veterinarians and researchers to work on building "a relationship of trust and respect." Often the IACUC sends a protocol back for revision because it's unclear. But sometimes the veterinarian is forced to demand significant changes, such as the use of a different anesthetic, closer postoperative monitoring, or even a different experimental end point. According to Bill D. Roebuck, a professor of toxicology at Dartmouth Medical School, sometimes "investigators get very angry when an IACUC suggests a modification of a protocol. Their feathers get all ruffled, the hair on their back gets all up, and they get upset." In an article in Johns Hopkins University's Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing Newsletter (13[2]:9-10, 1996) Roebuck wrote, "It is important to recognize that veterinarians have an awkward role. They work for the institution and are obligated to protect both the institution and its investigators from bad situations. A relationship of trust and respect between veterinarians and investigators is important. As with all relationships, this takes work." But establishing that relationship can be difficult if researchers have a problem with submitting their protocols to their IACUC or if they regard IACUC veterinarians as obstacles to be overcome. Researchers "don't see why [the IACUC] is obstructing them and making them fill out all these silly forms," remarks Philip C. Tillman, the campus veterinarian at the University of California, Davis. "They're scientists, and they have an inspiration. It came to them in their sleep last night. They want to start on it today. And they just can't do that anymore. . . . It takes at least a month between the time that you get the idea and when you can get a committee to approve it." And that approval time can increase if there's a problem with a protocol that requires an IACUC veterinarian to send it back for significant changes, such as the use of a different anesthetic or closer postoperative monitoring. Another example of potential conflict comes when a researcher proposes using the death of an animal as an experimental end point-counting how many animals die in the treatment group as opposed to the control group. Tillman calls this "counting bodies," and says that it is rarely permissible ethically. When such a protocol crosses his desk, Tillman demands substantive changes, such as the use of a surrogate end point. Some faculty members think the IACUCs' authority to change protocols is "ludicrous," Tillman adds. "They think it's all bureaucracy, and it's a waste of time, and we're bean counters, and we're interfering with the performance of science. They think you're an animal rightist." Researchers find it particularly annoying when veterinarians insist on what seem like minor, inconsequential changes to a protocol to match every jot and tittle of the regulations. Researchers and IACUC veterinarians alike may do well to remember some advice from one of Tillman's mentors. Tillman once expressed frustration over the fact that his job involved obstructing researchers, but his mentor told him to look at the big picture. "What you're actually doing is preserving their ability to do their work at all," Tillman recalls his mentor saying. "If the system of IACUCs wasn't there, public confidence would not be there to preserve [research] funding. They may not realize it, but you're preserving the security of their funding by doing all that stuff for them." A REMINDER: Without the system of IACUCs, "public confidence would not be there to preserve [research] funding," UC-Davis' Philip Tillman points out. While some researchers view IACUC veterinarians as obstructionist, the veterinarians frequently hear criticism from the other end of the spectrum as well. "The ALF [the Animal Liberation Front, a radical animal-rights group] thinks you're a pimp for the research community," since IACUC veterinarians enable animal research to continue, Tillman comments ruefully. "I've often said that if you get approximately equal stacks of hate mail from investigators and from animal-rights groups, you're probably doing a pretty good job." And IACUC veterinarians often find themselves on the front lines of the public-relations battle when an animal-rights group alleges that an experimenter has treated his or her animals inhumanely. This is one aspect of the job that even years of specialized veterinary training does not teach. Tillman notes that one of the difficulties in responding to the news media during such a battle is that underneath distortions and half-truths, the allegations usually are based on real experiments, which often are difficult to put into context, especially when the veterinarian is facing a microphone, a camera, and the need to be extremely brief. "When you try to explain all the technicalities in a 10-second sound bite, it's kind of like answering the question, 'When did you stop beating your wife?'" Tillman complains. On top of that, he observes, no matter how good the veterinarian's explanation of an experiment, there will always be negative reaction. "Every time you go before the cameras you get hate mail. Some of it is spooky. There are some sick birds out there. The last time I was on camera I got a dead fish on the front door of my house the next day. . . . I hope they were humane when they killed the fish." But not all animal-protectionist organizations regard lab animal veterinarians as pimps. Members of the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States, for example, think IACUC veterinarians are doing a fine job in promoting animal welfare. Martin L. Stephens, the Humane Society's vice president for animal research issues, regards lab animal veterinarians sympathetically. "I see veterinarians as the first line of defense against unnecessary pain and distress in experimental protocols. And also, veterinarians are becoming more of a second line of defense as well, in the form of being knowledgeable of environmental-enrichment techniques to enhance the lives of animals in labs. These kinds of enhancements reduce chronic boredom and other forms of distress." One measure of institutional concern for animals is the high level of training required of most laboratory animal veterinarians. While the Animal Welfare Act requires only that the IACUC veterinarian have some experience in laboratory animal medicine, most have received extensive formal training for years beyond veterinary school. In addition, many have received board certification from the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM), based in Cary, N.C. Photo: Harry Kalish BROAD TRAINING: ACLAM's Harry Rozmiarek notes that board certification--which only 500 veterinarians have achieved--requires veterinarians to overcome a number of high hurdles. According to Harry Rozmiarek, president-elect of ACLAM and chief of the section of laboratory animal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, board certification requires passing a number of high hurdles, a feat that only 500 veterinarians have achieved. After completing veterinary school, prospective lab animal veterinarians must undergo a combined total of four years of formal training and experience in lab animal medicine, or six years of full-time experience if they've received no formal training. They must have done something to "advance veterinary science" as evidenced by scientific publications, and then they must pass a grueling examination. But what specialized knowledge does all this training give them that the local veterinarian in private practice lacks? "A lab animal vet has a broad knowledge of lab animal species," answers Tillman. "The average vets on the street, if you ask them to name as many diseases of mice or rats as they could, would probably come up with two instead of coming up with 50. The other thing is that [lab animal veterinarians] should be familiar with anesthesia a little more than most veterinarians. . . . There are reasons in research to use some fairly exotic anesthetics." Additionally, lab animal veterinarians are experts in interpreting and implementing the federal regulations, such as the rules concerning adequate cage sizes and required environmental enrichment. "At least 50 percent of the job is knowing the regulations," notes Tillman. But most veterinarians don't enter the field because they enjoy filling out forms. "One of the reasons that people come into laboratory animal medicine is that they do have a greater opportunity to treat animals in a way that they would like to treat them," explains Linda C. Cork, a veterinary pathologist who is chairwoman and professor in the department of comparative medicine at Stanford University Medical Center. "For example, I work with an inherited disease in dogs, and trust me, the kind of care these dogs get would not be possible for most people in private practice, for economic reasons and for scientific reasons. They simply don't have the resources to bear, and even if they did, they wouldn't be economically viable. I think that the quality of veterinary care for laboratory animals is much higher than the general public recognizes." Stephens of the Humane Society would like it to be higher still. "We're disappointed that non-veterinarians can conduct veterinary surgery on experimental animals. We'd like to see veterinarians have more authority than they have within research institutions." In addition, asserts Stephens, "We would certainly like to see all veterinarians serving on IACUCs and working in research facilities be board certified in laboratory animal medicine. At least the head veterinarian of a facility should be." And Stephens is concerned that IACUC veterinarians may be wearing too many hats in some cases. "There are certainly potentials for conflict if they are researchers themselves and submitting protocols to IACUCs. Of course we would expect them to excuse themselves when their own protocols are up for review. But beyond that, they are a part of the research process, and therefore there's a temptation to play the old game of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You wink at my protocol, I'll wink at yours. It's just human nature to give in to that temptation." But Cork thinks that there's a very powerful counterbalance to this temptation: According to federal law, "institutions have enormous risks and liabilities if they don't abide by the Animal Welfare Act. We're supposed to be providing humane treatment and care. I am unaware of a situation in which that has produced serious conflict." Additional conflicts can arise if the IACUC veterinarian (who occasionally serves as chairperson of the committee) is also director of the animal facility. "There is a problem with the veterinarian in charge also being the chairman of the IACUC, and I would not recommend that arrangement," advises John G. Vandenbergh, a professor of zoology at North Carolina State University. "The problem is that the veterinarian in charge would have more authority than that person should have. Being in charge of the IACUC has some gatekeeper role in terms of the kind of research that's actually conducted. I think that should be the responsibility of someone who comes out of the research community. I think it's important that [the veterinarian] be an integral part of the committee, but not be in a chair role." Rozmiarek, on the other hand, thinks that the IACUC veterinarian's roles rarely come in conflict. "I think, if anything, they support each other. I think by being a research investigator you better understand the charge to assure animal welfare to research animals. I think that by being responsible for directing and overseeing animal care and use from a service-and-support standpoint-husbandry and clinical care-you're in a better position to understand what that level of support should be." Most IACUC veterinarians, however, are not themselves researchers, and conflict between scientists and veterinarians does occasionally occur. Tillman says that at UC-Davis most of these conflicts are fairly minor and arise out of poorly written protocols. "Researchers need to understand that they need to express themselves clearly to the committee and to the general public, and a great many cannot. It's really pretty amazing that there are some very brilliant scientists who can't write a couple of pages describing what they do in the way that a normal person can understand it." "They're usually very clear on their rationale," notes Cork. "They're very clear on how the animal is going to be cared for. They're usually pretty clear on who is going to be doing the training. But it's usually little details that they know themselves but simply forgot to put down. They leave out simple things like dosages, like who is going to do what." But Vandenbergh thinks that IACUC veterinarians need to understand the commitment that researchers have to a specific research program. "Many of them have spent a major portion of their careers studying a particular disease, animal, or physiological process," he points out. "There's a great deal of ego involvement in that. The veterinarians are more broadly trained, and therefore have a bigger overall picture but may not see the very interesting but somewhat arcane things the scientists get involved with." Vandenbergh advises researchers that it's possible to write protocols in such a way as to minimize conflict and maximize future flexibility. "Many minor changes in a research program can often be covered in a broadly written protocol. I don't mean to subvert the intent of the protocol, but I mean that one can be extremely specific and limit your activities, or be a bit more broad, and if the IACUC on that campus accepts that, then it should not cause undue delays." Moreover, he notes that "an amendment to an existing protocol can be done with the signature of the chair of the committee. It does not require the whole committee." The full text of the Animal Welfare Act, first passed by Congress in 1966 and amended most recently in 1985, can be found at http://netvet.wustl.edu/awa.htm on the Internet. In addition to the full text of the law, the site includes the full text of associated regulations and other related documents. The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) maintains a Web site at: http://chopin.osp.uh.edu/~rocky/aclam/hdg1055.htm One of the biggest sources of conflict between researchers and the IACUC happens when the researcher perceives that the committee has overstepped its bounds. "Judgments concerning the quality of the research or whether the research should be done or not in my opinion should not be made by the IACUC nor the veterinary staff," explains Vandenbergh. "The quality of the research is the responsibility of the investigators and the reviewers of their [grant] proposals and their publications." Tillman points out that "what vets need to know about researchers is that vets don't know it all. . . . Researchers are trained to question and they're trained not to believe things na^Õvely. And veterinarians have learned a lot by rote. . . . They need to know the limitations of their own knowledge, and they need to be experimental." Vandenbergh suggests that informal meetings between researchers and the veterinary staff can help in avoiding conflict. "Once or twice a year we'll sit down with them and describe the outcome of the research we're doing. That has a couple of good features. One is that it does help to build this rapport between the two groups, and also it alerts them to what you're doing, so when unusual or serendipitous things do raise their heads, they can sense what's going on." And Tillman has another technique for bridging the gap between the IACUC and the researchers. "Every year I try to put someone on the committee who is an investigator who has had difficulty with the committee. . . . These people, I think, can profit from the experience. They will be good for the committee because they will keep the committee from getting too obstructionist. At the same time, they'll understand from the committee's point of view how difficult it is." In the end, Rozmiarek thinks that IACUC veterinarians need to remember one important fact: "The research investigator is paying the bill. I think that's something we all must keep in mind, and we have to have the needs of that research investigator uppermost in our mind as we're making decisions on how to manage and how to direct an animal care and use facility." Robert Finn, a freelance science writer based in Long Beach, Calif., is online at finn@nasw.org.

Veterinarians In Research Labs Address Conflicting Agendas

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of