Ch. 15— Institutional and Self-Regulation of Animal Use • 353 
tion must either be A A AL AC -accredited or fulfill 
the steps outlined in the policy for self-assurance 
status. 
In 1985, Congress gave the force of Federal law 
to some of the provisions of the PHS policy and, 
in separate action, mandated the establishment of 
institutional animal care and use committees at 
all research facilities covered by the Animal Wel- 
fare Act as well as at Federal facilities (see ch. 13). 
Taken together, the new PHS policy and Federal 
statutes bring the overwhelming majority of ani- 
mal users in the United States under the oversight 
of institutional animal care and use committees. 
Researchers who use animals, their institutional 
colleagues, their peers in science, laboratory - 
animal veterinarians, and local community mem- 
bers are today viewed as^the appropriate arbiters 
of what constitutes acceptable care and use of ani- 
mals. The PHS policy charges these individuals with 
membership on institutional animal care and use 
committees at each site where animals are involved 
in PHS-funded research. Each IACUC shall have 
broad oversight authority of the animal welfare 
program at the institution and approve all portions 
of research protocols involving animals for proper 
animal care and treatment. 
The functions of animal care and use commit- 
tees may include: 
• ensuring compliance with local, State, and Fed- 
eral laws and regulations on animal care and 
use; 
• inspecting animal care facilities; 
• revie wing protocols for animal welfare issues; 
• assessing the qualifications of investigators; 
• overseeing student use of animals; 
• advising on institutional needs, costs of ani- 
mals, and animal procurement policies; 
• controlling allocation of animals within the 
institution; 
• serving as a resource on animal welfare is- 
sues and as an educator of the university com- 
munity and the community at large on ani- 
mal welfare issues; and 
• acting as a community complaint forum. 
The concept of review by committee is not 
unique to the use of animals in experimentation. 
In fact, institutional review boards and human- 
subjects committees have overseen research using 
humans for a decade or more. Current thinking 
about animal care and use committees is modeled 
after experience with IRBs. 
A voluntary private organization, the American 
Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Ani- 
mal Care, functions as a respected agent of cer- 
tification of an individual laboratory’s standards 
of care. As of April 1985, a total of 483 institutions 
using animals had received AAALAC accreditation 
after passing an inspection based on the NIH Guide 
for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 
Several scientific and professional societies, 
universities, and corporations have promulgated 
statements of policy concerning their members’ 
and employees' standards of conduct in the care 
and/or use of animals. An organization's policy 
statement usually reflects its characteristic inter- 
ests. Some policies are brief enough to cover only 
one column of a page, while others (e.g., Amer- 
ican Psychological Association) take many pages 
and go into great detail. These policies generally 
require: 
• humane care and use of animals, 
• use of a minimum number of animals, 
• alleviation of pain and suffering, and 
• supervision of animal use by qualified per- 
sonnel. 
At least eight of the organizations and institu- 
tions whose policies were reviewed by OTA sup- 
port the concept of animal care and use commit- 
tees. Twelve of the fifteen organizations reviewed 
specifically support or require consideration of 
the use of alternatives to animals in research, and 
three specify the maximum use of available statis- 
tical methodology. 
Several statements of policy require signed state- 
ments attesting to humane animal care prior to 
the publication and/or presentation of papers. Only 
three policy statements, those of the American Psy- 
chological Association, the Wisconsin Regional Pri- 
mate Research Center, and Smith Kline & French 
Laboratories, directly mention any sanctions against 
violators of their guidelines. As a rule, there are 
neither enforcement provisions accompanying the 
stated policies and principles of scientific and 
professional societies nor any apparent penalties 
for the violation of these policies. For these rea- 
sons, the practical significance of certain of these 
statements of principle is open to question. 
