Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight

BACKGROUND

The ethical use both of human and non-human animals in research is predicated on the assumption that it is of a high quality and its projected benefits are more significant than the risks and harms imposed on subjects. Yet questions remain about whether and how IRBs and IACUCs should consider the scientific value of proposed research studies.

METHODS

We draw upon 45 interviews with IRB and IACUC members and researchers with oversight experience about their perceptions of their own roles in reviewing the quality and value of scientific protocols. Interview transcripts were memoed to highlight specific findings, which were then used to identify key themes through an iterative process.

RESULTS

IRB and IACUC members expressed broad trust in the need for and value of research, and they often assumed that protocols had social value or that prior review, especially when associated with funding, affirmed both the rigor and merit of those protocols. Some oversight members also took an explicit stance against scientific review by stating that such review is not within the regulatory mandates governing their parts in the oversight system. Yet other interviewees expressed uneasiness about the current paradigm for evaluating the quality and overall value of science, suggesting that IRB and IACUC members perceive gaps in the oversight systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal many similarities in how IRB and IACUC members understand the roles and limitations of their respective oversight committees. We conclude with a discussion of how the lack of a clear mandate regarding scientific review within US federal regulations may undermine ethical engagement of whether human and animal research is scientifically justified, resulting in a "mission lapse" wherein no organizational body is clearly responsible for ensuring that the research being conducted has the potential to advance science and benefit society.

Influence of animal pain and distress on judgments of animal research justifiability among university undergraduate students and faculty

Acceptance of animal research by the public depends on several characteristics of the specific experimental study. In particular, acceptance decreases as potential animal pain or distress increases. Our objective in this study was to quantify the magnitude of pain/distress that university undergraduate students and faculty would find to be justifiable in animal research, and to see how that justifiability varied according to the purpose of the research, or the species to which the animal belonged. We also evaluate how demographic characteristics of respondents may be associated with their opinions about justifiability. To accomplish this goal, we developed and administered a survey to students and faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our survey employed Likert-style questions that asked them to designate the level of animal pain or distress that they felt was justifiable for each of the following six purposes—animal disease, human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, or cosmetic testing. These questions were asked about five different species of animals including monkeys, dogs/cats, pig/sheep, rats/mice, or small fish. We used the data to establish a purpose-specific pain/distress scale, a species-specific pain/distress scale, and a composite pain/distress scale that, for each respondent, averaged the extent of justifiable pain/distress across all purposes and species. For purpose, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for animal disease research, followed by human disease, basic research, human medicine, chemical testing, and cosmetic testing. Faculty were more likely to choose the same level of pain for the first four purposes, followed by lower levels of pain for chemical and cosmetic testing. For species, students were more likely to choose higher levels of pain for small fish and rats/mice (tied), pigs/sheep and monkeys (tied), than for dogs/cats. For faculty, order from least to most justifiable pain/distress was small fish, rats/mice, pigs/sheep, then dogs/cats and monkeys (the latter two tied). Interestingly, exploratory factor analysis of the pain/distress scales indicated that when it comes to justifying higher levels of pain and distress, respondents identified two distinct categories of purposes, chemical and cosmetic testing, for which respondents were less likely to justify higher levels of pain or distress as compared to other purposes; and two distinct categories of species, small fish and rats/mice, for which respondents were more likely to justify higher levels of pain/distress than other species. We found that the spread of acceptance of animal research was much smaller when survey questions included pain/distress compared to when only purpose or species were part of the question. Demographically, women, vegetarians/vegans, and respondents with no experience in animal research justified less animal pain/distress than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, a lower level of support for animal research in general was correlated with lower justifiability of pain/distress. Based on these findings, we discuss the role of animal pain/distress in regulatory considerations underlying decisions about whether to approve specific animal uses, and suggest ways to strengthen the ethical review and public acceptance of animal research.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, part 2: structure and organizational functions

Support for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) varies among those in animal use-related professions. The authors designed and carried out an anonymous survey to solicit opinions on the structure and organizational functions of IACUCs. They found that most respondents believed a single, institution-based IACUC was an appropriate venue for institutional approval of animal care and use, that their IACUCs represented their institutions' constituencies and that the unaffiliated IACUC members adequately represented their surrounding communities. Respondents believed that members came prepared for IACUC meetings, and a majority agreed that full committee reviews were more thorough than designated member reviews. The quality of veterinary care for animals was deemed to be very good. Participants reported that the status of the person submitting an animal use protocol, the perceived monetary value of a grant associated with a protocol and pressure for a rapid protocol review did not alter the quality of the protocol review. On many of the survey items, opinions of IACUC members differently significantly from those of non-members, and opinions of non-member IACUC administrators differed from those of IACUC chairpersons, perhaps owing to differences in responsibilities and perceived status.

A self-assessment survey of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Part 1: animal welfare and protocol compliance

Nearly half of all external grants from the US National Institutes of Health require approval by the recipient organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the funds can be used for research with animals. Given that large sums of money are spent annually on research involving animals, studies evaluating the strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness of IACUCs and similar animal welfare committees are needed. The authors designed and carried out a self-assessment survey on IACUC function and effectiveness. They found that 98% of all respondents believed that their IACUCs advanced animal welfare, but in many instances, veterinarians' responses to individual survey items were significantly different from those of other IACUC members. Protocol compliance, protocol review training and better understanding among non-committee members of the need for regulatory oversight are some areas where improvements could be made. Less than 50% of respondents stated that literature searches to find alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures were helpful.

Involvement of neutrophilic granulocytes in the uptake of biodegradable non-stealth and stealth nanoparticles in guinea pig

The in vivo behavior of monomethoxypoly(ethylene oxide)-poly(lactic acid) (MPEO20-PLA45/PLA (75/25)) nanoparticles in comparison with PLA ones was studied in guinea pig. Indeed, the aim of this study was to bring to the fore the in vivo stealth character of these copolymer nanoparticles and to identify the phagocytic circulating cells involved in their uptake. After the intravascular administration of fluorescent nanoparticles (rubrene), their phagocytosis by granulocytes and monocytes was assayed by flow cytometry. At the same time, the evolution of the number of these phagocytic cells was realized in order to identify their function in the nanoparticle uptake. Finally, a histological study of the spleen (30 h after the nanoparticle administration) was investigated to highlight the splenic trapping of these stealth nanoparticles. This study has shown that the phagocytic circulating cells involved in the nanoparticle uptake were mainly neutrophilic granulocytes and some of them were found in the spleen.