Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Little Short

Lab Animal volume 33, pages 16–17 (2004)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Great Eastern's IACUC ensured this particular scenario by having a double standard for justification of animal numbers for in vivo versus in vitro studies. When justifying the number of animals to be used, it should make no difference whether animals are used for in vivo or in vitro experiments. The Health Research Extension Act, PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the U.S. Government Principles, the Animal Welfare Act and subsequent USDA regulations make no distinction between in vivo and in vitro when it comes to justifying the use of animals, the choice of species, and the number of animals to be used1,2,3,4,5.

Consequently, Rumstead fails to adequately justify his 5,500 mice. For additional justification of numbers, Great Eastern's IACUC asked Rumstead to provide more detail on the various experiments he proposed and the reason why each experiment required 30 million cells. Rumstead half-heartedly complies with this request by referencing his own work, which requires 30 million cells per experiment, but he doesn't address the issue of listing the various experiments he plans to do, saying only that earlier studies will dictate those that come later. Part of the beauty of the scientific process is that it changes course continuously, often meandering in unpredictable ways. However, it is inappropriate for Rumstead and certain IACUC members to use this attribute of the scientific process as an adequate justification for the thousands of mice he proposes. Both the PHS Policy and the USDA regulations require “a complete description of the proposed use of the animals”2,6. By not providing a complete description of the experiments Rumstead proposes, he is not satisfying this requirement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

References

  1. Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (PL 99-158), Animals in Research (20 November 1985).

  2. Public Health Service. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986).

  3. Interagency Research Animal Committee. U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC, 1985).

  4. Animal Welfare Act (7 USC, 2131–2159).

  5. 9 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A–Animal Welfare, Part 2.

  6. 9 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A–Animal Welfare Part 2, Subpart C, 2.31(e)(3).

  7. DHHS NIH. Amended Policy Statement. Laboratory animal welfare: change in PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Federal Register 67(152), 51289–51290 (7 August 2002).

  8. National Resource Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Matthews is Director, Office of Veterinary Services & Animal Care, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.,

    Monte Matthews

Authors
  1. Monte Matthews
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matthews, M. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Little Short. Lab Anim 33, 16–17 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0504-16

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0504-16

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing