Back to Front PageVOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

Readers Respond

What impact would including rats, mice, and birds in the Animal Welfare Act have on biomedical research? The While Stanford University strongly believes that all animals used in research should receive humane care and treatment, it does not believe the proposed regulations are necessary. Rats, mice, and birds used in research are already protected by regulations issued by the Public Health Service (PHS), and all recipients of federal funds for research are required to follow PHS policies for the care and treatment of animals. Stanford is concerned that the proposed regulations would result in increased administrative cost burdens to the research enterprise, reduced willingness of investigators to use relevant models of human disease that are available in rodents, and most importantly, have no positive effect on animal welfare. Edward S. Mocarski Jr., Ph.D. Associate Dean of Research Stanford University School of Medicine The Medical University of South Carolina is an AAALAC-accredited institution, therefore, rats, mice, and birds are already covered by the regulations in the NIH "Guide for the Care and Use of Lab Animals." The main effect of inclusion of these species in the Animal Welfare Act would be an increase in the amount of time required for inspection and review of the program and its facilities by the USDA. This would compel us to devote additional time and money to comply with any new standards and reporting requirements that accompany the inclusion of these species. M. Michael Swindle, D.V.M. Director, Division of Laboratory Animal Resources Medical University of South Carolina Expanding the current definition will have little immediate impact on AAALAC-accredited institutions receiving PHS funds. The key word here is "immediate." The impact of new regulations increasing the annual reporting requirements would be huge. Those most impacted - investigators - would have to implement individualized records on rats and mice documenting the occurrence and management of pain and distress. Think of it as managing, depending on your institution, a 20,000- to 80,000-bed hospital. B. Taylor Bennett, Ph.D. Associate Vice Chancellor Research Resources University of Illinois at Chicago The impact of the increase in regulated species would be greatest on the amount of time myself and my staff spend in performing regulatory activities. Ninety percent of the animals at our institution are mice, and I anticipate we would need to spend 10 days or more, compared with two currently, with USDA inspectors. The other major change for us would be the implementation of precise tracking of rodent production by breeding in all our facilities. With the explosive increase in the production and use of genetically manipulated animals, this is not a trivial matter. From an animal welfare point of view, the increased regulatory burden would not translate into an improvement in the health and welfare of these animals. We are already treating them as USDA-regulated species as called for in PHS policy. We would merely be increasing our vigilance pertaining to rodent numbers in production facilities and spending more time with regulatory officials. Sanford H. Feldman, D.V.M., Ph.D. Director, Center for Comparative Medicine University of Virginia My In general, the outcome is consistent with the overall animal rights and anti-science strategy to use the legal system to impede and siphon resources away from biomedical research. Resources would need to be redirected to regulatory compliance at the cost of research, with little evidence that the overall welfare of animals would improve. Specifically, significant federal dollars would be shifted from research into regulatory enforcement. There would also be a dramatic increase in the burden of institutional annual reporting, and institutional staffing for research programs would become increasingly regulatory driven. Mark Klinger, D.V.M. Director, Center for Laboratory Animal Care University of Connecticut Health Center The USDA continually increases the research community's regulatory burden through "interpretations" of the Animal Welfare Act. Extending its domain to mice and rats, which make up the bulk of research animals, would adversely impact future biomedical research. It would duplicate other oversight and would consume valuable resources without adding to the welfare of these animals. The USDA would be better advised to simply require and accept AAALAC accreditation. Howard B. Dickler, M.D. Associate Dean Research and Graduate Studies University of Maryland School of Medicine Next month's question: What should be the new administration and Congress' top health care priority? Please send your responses (75 words or fewer) to rmuir@aamc.org or fax to (202) 828-1123. Responses must be received by December 13 for consideration, and may be edited for length and clarity. Also, please include your title, institution, and any academic degrees. Select answers will be printed in the September edition of the AAMC Reporter.

AAMC Home | Government Affairs | Newsroom | Publications | Meetings | Students and Applicants | About the AAMC | Search | Site Map
Questions and Comments | © 1995-2004 AAMC Terms and Conditions | Privacy Statement