Ch. 15— Institutional and Self-Regulation of Animal Use • 339 
Figure 15-1.— Example of Acceptable Verification for Grant Submission to NIH 
[Date] 
Division of Research Grants 
National Institutes of Health 
5333 Westbard Avenue 
Westwood Building, Room 240 
Bethesda, Maryland 20205 
Dear Sir: 
The following application submitted to the Public Health Service was reviewed and approved by this institution’s Animal Care 
and Use Committee on [insert date of approval]: 
Title of application: 
Name of principal investigator: 
Name of institution: 
This institution has an Animal Welfare Assurance on file with the Office for Protection from Research Risks. The Assurance 
number is [insert old assurance number until a new assurance number is assigned]. 
As a condition of approval, this institution’s Animal Care and Use Committee required the following modifications to the above 
referenced application: 
[This information is required when the modifications are not reflected in the original grant application or con- 
tract proposal.] 
[Signature] 
[Title] 
SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, “Laboratory Animal Welfare,” NIH Guide 
for Grants and Contracts 14(8): June 25, 1985. 
tution. The new sample assurance, released in 
1985, is seven pages long, including two tables (one 
on membership of the IACUC and one summariz- 
ing the institution's individual animal facilities, their 
REVIEW BY 
Recourse to committees to sort through a thicket 
of value questions occasioned by advances in bio- 
medicine, and in particular biomedical research, 
is not unique to the area of research with animals . 
For example, there has been a recent explosion 
of interest in the formation of hospital ethics com- 
mittees to develop policies and consult in individ- 
ual cases. According to one newspaper account, 
"quietly and without fanfare, hundreds of Amer- 
ican hospitals are organizing internal ethics com- 
mittees that are coming to play crucial roles . . . 
involving life and death decisions for thousands 
of patients” (24). 
Concern in this country about the objects of re- 
search— and the link between animal and human 
subjects— has been evident for decades . A recently 
square footage, the species within, and the aver- 
age daily inventory of species), and requires spe- 
cific detailed data on the institution’s animal wel- 
fare program. 
COMMITTEE 
published historical account describes nonthera- 
peutic research into the cause of syphilis conducted 
at the beginning of the century and reviews the 
reaction to the use of orphans and hospital patients 
who had not given their consent. The result was 
a nearly 20-year campaign against “human vivisec- 
tion” conducted by antivivisectionists who saw the 
use of human beings without their consent in non- 
therapeutic research as the logical outcome of a 
science built on animal suffering: "To whomsoever, 
in the cause of Science, the agony of a dying rab- 
bit is of no consequence, it is likely that the old 
or worthless man which in the cause of learning 
may well be sacrificed” (22). A number of State 
and Federal legislative initiatives proposed 60 to 
70 years ago regarding animal research were 
amended to regulate "human vivisection” as well. 
