Ch. 15— Institutional and Self-Regulation of Animal Use • 351 
American Veterinary Medical Colleges recom- 
mended use of the NIH Guide and pursuit of 
AAALAC accreditation by all its member institu- 
tions (11). It also supports education in ethical con- 
siderations; use of alternatives where feasible, and 
continual monitoring of animal use and policies. 
It urges that "administrators . . .voluntarily estab- 
lish standards of excellence for animal care and 
use programs rather than relying upon external 
enforcement agencies.” 
STATEMENTS OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICY 
In addition to scientific and professional socie- 
ties, several universities have formulated policies 
regarding animal use in research and education. 
Three such statements are reviewed here for pur- 
poses of illustration. 
University of Southern California 
In 1984, the University of Southern California 
published Policies Governing the Use of Live Ver- 
tebrate Animals, which contains a "Code of Ethics 
for the Use of Animals in Research and Teaching” 
adopted by the university’s Animal Ethics Review 
Board. The code contains guidelines on avoidance 
of unnecessary pain or distress, searching for alter- 
natives for all LD 50 studies, prohibition of pro- 
longed physical restraint or deprivation studies, 
the use of euthanasia and anesthesia, and consid- 
eration of alternatives to animal use. It further 
states that “this University shall expect each In- 
vestigator to consider alternatives to the use of 
animals in research or teaching before present- 
ing a protocol for the use of live animals . The signed 
protocol should contain a statement to that effect.” 
All protocols must be approved by the Animal 
Ethics Review Board. Principles governing the use 
of live animals for teaching are similar to those 
for research animals (47). 
University of Wisconsin 
The University of Wisconsin system began re- 
quiring in 1981 that all animals used for teaching 
and research on all of its campuses be used and 
cared for according to the NIH Guide , regardless 
of the species or source of funds used to conduct 
the teaching or research. The university at that 
time took a second extraordinary step and required 
the certification of all investigators, technicians, 
graduate students, or staff who supervise, use, or 
care for animals. On the main campus in Madi- 
son, for example, approximately 1,400 persons 
have been certified to date through instruction 
and examination (49). 
Wisconsin Regional Primate 
Research Center 
In 1982, the Director of the Wisconsin Regional 
Primate Research Center (WRPRC) published a Pol- 
icy Statement on Principles for the Ethical Uses 
of Animals at the Wisconsin Regional Primate Re- 
search Center (18). This statement deals with the 
issues of respect for animals, care, choice of alter- 
natives, use of animals in education, personnel 
training, appointment of animal rights advocates 
to oversight groups, and the use of good ethical 
judgment in evaluating the significance of proposed 
research. It is official WRPRC policy that "all ani- 
mals under its control are recognized as creatures 
of great intrinsic value, remarkable complexity, 
and inherent dignity.” 
In a section of the Policy dealing with the unique 
value of nonhuman animals as models, research- 
ers are charged to make the following choices 
when designing experiments: 
• When the research question can be meaning- 
fully pursued using nonanimal or in vitro 
models, the researcher must choose these 
alternatives . 
• When animal experimentation is required , the 
researcher must seek the least traumatic tech- 
niques feasible, minimize the intensity and du- 
ration of any distress, and minimize the num- 
ber of subjects. 
• Nonhuman primates should be used only in 
projects for which they are the most suitable 
animal model. 
All research at the WRPRC must have a "rea- 
sonable expectation that the experiment will con- 
tribute significantly to knowledge that may even- 
