Study Casts Doubts on Their Reliability
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires that research facilities appoint Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to approve research protocols and assure compliance. A 2001 study published in Science casts doubts on the reliability of decisions made by IACUCs in the U.S. (1)
Funded by the National Science Foundation, the three-year study took a random sample of 50 IACUCs’ three most recently reviewed animal protocols.
The protocols were then randomly assigned to be reviewed again by a second IACUC participating in the study. The results showed that approval decisions by the original IACUC vs. the second IACUC reviews were unrelated. A majority of the protocols approved by the first committee were not approved or were deferred by the second committee. The study concluded that “the reliability of their proposal reviews is at chance levels – literally, a coin toss.” (2)
The results call into question the reliability of the IACUC protocol review and, thus, the effectiveness of animal research regulation. In a press release, the study’s authors, Plous and Herzog, anticipated that the results of their study “will prompt a reevaluation of the way animal research proposals are approved.” (3) Sadly, it has not.
The study’s findings included:
- Decisions made by the original vs. the second IACUC differed significantly, even on research involving terminal or painful procedures – including procedures such as electric shock, food or water deprivation, surgery, and drug or alcohol research; protocols involving euthanasia; and protocols in which the reviewing IACUC expected animals to experience a significant amount of pain. The original and second IACUCs protocol reviews differed nearly 80% of the time (118 out of 150 reviews).
- Only 43% of the reviewed protocols were seen as having justification for the type and number of animals used – a requirement of the AWA.
- Nearly two-thirds (61%) of the reviewed protocols were judged as either “not very understandable” or “not understandable at all;” as having “poor” research designs and procedures; or as justifying the type and number of animals in a way that was deemed “not very convincing” or “not convincing at all.”
Proponents of animal use in research cite the establishment of IACUCs as a way to assure the caring public that the use of animals in research is well-monitored - an assurance this study scientifically calls into question.
Last revised: 1/12/06
Sources
(1) Plous, S., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (2001). Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science, 293, 608-609.
(2) http://www.socialpsychology.org/articles/scipress.htm (July 27, 2001 press release from Wesleyan University).
(3) http://www.socialpsychology.org/articles/scipress.htm (July 27, 2001 press release from Wesleyan University).