Revisiting the Assessment of IACUC Effectiveness in Oversight of Investigator Compliance

Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 70-75

  Ingham, Kim M ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL CARE; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL WELFARE; NONHUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESEARCH; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; TRAINING;

ANIMAL CARE COMMITTEES; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; DATA COLLECTION; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0344271033     PISSN: 10600558     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Code of Federal Regulations Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A - Animal Welfare, Part 2.
2. Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources. National Research Council. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
3. Public Health Service. 2000. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC (September 1986, reprinted October 2000).
4. Newcomer, C. E. 2000. General composition of the IACUC and specific roles of the IACUC members, p. 37-58. In J. S. Silverman, M. A. Suckow & S. Murthy (ed.), IACUC handbook. CRC Press: New York.
5. Ingham, K. M., Goldberg, J. A., Klein, H. J., Johnson, R. G., Kastello, M. D. (2000). A novel approach for assessing the quality and effectiveness of IACUC oversight in investigator compliance. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science. 39(1): 28-31.
6. For a comprehensive description of the initial survey process and results, the interested reader is referred to the Contemporary Topics article by Ingham et al. (2000).
7. National Research Council. 1991. Education and Training in the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: A Guide for Developing Institutional Programs, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
8. To encourage participation in the follow up survey, recipients were informed that lunch passes would be presented to a number of randomly selected survey recipients equal to 10 percent of the total number of surveys returned.
9. Data presented in Figure 1 excludes "No Opinion" responses. The management consultant concluded that the number of "No Opinion" responses reflected the number of survey participants who did not complete animal protocol forms.
10. Estimate provided by Zuckerman, A. Project Director at International Survey Research, Chicago, Illinois (http:/ /www.isrsurveys.com): March, 2001 (e-mail communication).
11. Gallup, G. 1988. Employee research: From nice to know to need to know, PersonnelJournal. 67:42-43.
12. Welch, J. 2001. Jack: Straight from the gut. Warner Books Press, New York.