344 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
into the overall management of the institution, in- 
cluding the financial constraints under which it 
operates. Management personnel can often pro- 
vide information on the physical plant that may 
bear on care and husbandry issues. For the com- 
mittees to have clout, it is necessary to have a rep- 
resentative of the office of the president, dean, 
or provost. 
Monitoring the Monitors 
How can the successful functioning of animal 
care and use committees be determined? Some of 
the committee functions just described translate 
into fairly accessible benchmarks. The composi- 
tion of the committees, the number of protocols 
reviewed, and the types of experiments given full 
review are all factors that can be examined. Yet 
even this relatively “hard” data can belie more elu- 
sive factors at work. For example, as in the area 
of human subjects review, often the process by 
which a committee approves a protocol is one of , 
negotiation, during which an investigator may 
justify or change the number of animals, or spe- 
cies, or methods of experimental manipulation— 
a process that would not be reflected in a "yes” 
or "no” vote. , 
Since the review process itself is one that is dif- 
ficult to study, site visits have been relied on to 
examine committee functioning. In addition to ex- 
amining minutes of meetings, the composition of 
the committee, and number and types of protocols 
approved, site visits can afford the opportunity 
to interview scientists, committee members, and 
institutional officials and, perhaps, to sit in on a 
committee meeting. 
THE AAALAC PROCESS 
The American Association for Accreditation of 
Laboratory Animal Care is a voluntary organiza- 
tion that accredits institutions that conduct ani- 
mal research. According to the group (2): 
. . . [the association] was organized in 1965 to con- 
duct a voluntary program for the accreditation 
of laboratory animal care facilities and programs. 
The accreditation program is concerned with en- 
couraging high standards for the care and use 
of laboratory animals including appropriate vet- 
erinary care, controlling variables that might ad- 
versely affect animal research, and protecting the 
health of animal research workers. 
AAALAC is governed by a Board of Trustees com- 
posed of representatives of 27 professional orga- 
nizations in education and research, including the 
American Association for Laboratory Animal 
Science, American Veterinary Medical Association, 
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and 
American Association for the Advancement of Sci- 
ence. A 16 -member Council on Accreditation is ap- 
pointed by the board to make recommendations. 
All the Council members have D.V.M. or Ph.D. 
degrees and are actively involved in laboratory- 
animal medicine or biomedical science. As of 1985, 
a total of 483 institutions had received AAALAC 
accreditation (see app. D) (3). Table 15-1 summa- 
rizes the types of facilities that have received ac- 
creditation. 
To become AAALAC -accredited, a facility must 
pay a nonrefundable application fee prior to the 
Table 15-1.— Distribution of AAALAC-Accredited 
Facilities by Category 
Type of facility Percent of tota l 
Veterans’ Administration medical centers ... 15 
Commercial laboratories 14 
Medical schools 13 
Pharmaceutical manufacturers 9 
Nonprofit research laboratories 9 
Government laboratories 8 
Hospitals 8 
Universities (facilities serving an entire 
campus) 6. 
Combined facilities for health schools 4 
Dental schools 4 
Laboratory animal breeders 3 
Colleges of pharmacy 3 
Veterinary schools 1 
Colleges of biological science 1 
Colleges of arts 1 
Universities (programs serving only a 
portion of a campus) 1 
College of engineering 1 
Total 100 
SOURCE: American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, 
AAALAC Activities Report, vol. 13, New Lenox, IL, Apr. 1, 1985. 
