HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scanes, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scanes, C. G.

The Well-Being of Poultry in Research

The use of animals in research, teaching, and outreach and extension has enabled considerable progress to be made in agriculture as well as in human and veterinary medicine. It is important when using animals for research to treat them in a manner that minimizes discomfort. Poultry Science requires that "experiments are conducted to avoid unnecessary discomfort to the animal by use of proper management" (Poultry Science Instructions for Authors; http://ps.fass.org/misc/ifora.dtl) and that methods for euthanasia are described. Anesthesia is required for all intrathoracic and intraabdominal surgeries (including caponization). Statements need to be included in papers from the United States that the work has been conducted in accordance with the Guidelines for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (FASS, 1999; also known as "the Ag Guide") and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academy of Sciences, 1996) for agricultural and biomedical research, respectively. This requirement is usually met by listing the protocol and approval number of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Papers from other countries require equivalent reviews to ensure the welfare of the experimental animals. The basis of these requirements is to provide an assurance that the animals used in the published studies were treatment in a humane manner. Ensuring adherence to these requirements protects the reputation of the journal and of the publisher (the Poultry Science Association) and enhances the value of the journal to authors and readers.

In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990), provides the minimum acceptable standards for animal care. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees were established under the Animal Welfare Act and are responsible for assuring the humane care and use of animals in research and ensuring that facilities, personnel, training, and veterinary care are adequate. Moreover, the IACUC reviews experimental protocols to assure the following:

• Reduction—to minimize the number of animals;
  
• Refinement of scientific techniques—to minimize discomfort to the animals;
  
• Replacement—to find alternative approaches to using live animals; and,
  

last, the IACUC ensures that appropriate manipulations are made and then only by trained personnel. These committees contain at least five members, including the attending veterinarian (a DVM with delegated program responsibility) and someone not affiliated in any way with the facility or the immediate family of someone affiliated; additional members are usually research scientists. The attending veterinarian should not chair the IACUC. The institutional officer responsible for the animal facilities (often the Vice President/Chancellor/ Provost for Research) appoints the IACUC members. The American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC; www.aaalac.org) evaluates and accredits programs for the care and use of laboratory animals (for biomedical research).

Although the Animal Welfare Act specifically excludes rats, mice, and birds in its definition of animals (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awabrief.htm), the USDA Agricultural Research Service and many US universities have policies stating that "animals not covered under Public Health Service policy receive the same level of humane animal care and treatment" following the Ag Guide (chapters 5 through 11 outline appropriate husbandry practices for various species of farm animals). This approach is designed to protect the institution and the investigator.

So, how well does the system work? I write as someone with experience as an investigator, chair of an animal science department, member and chair of an IACUC, and as the institutional officer responsible for laboratory animal programs. My opinion, based on 25 years of observation, is that broadly the system works very well. Several areas require attention, including the following:

1. As with all committees, there may be personality disputes between an investigator and the IACUC. A report from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) subcommittee on Academic Freedom and Tenure expressed the view that Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for research on human subjects (analogous to IACUC) were a "potential threat to academic freedom" (AAUP, 2006). The report expressed concerns about the potential for faculty and outside members to suppress or significantly delay a colleague’s research. Another major area of concern was that "no provision is made in the regulations for an appeals process in case a research protocol is rejected by a campus IRB" (AAUP, 2006). A similar situation exists in the IACUC system with no outside or independent appeals process.
   
2. There is anecdotal evidence that the statistical power of a study might be adversely affected by an IACUC’s concern to see reduction in the number of animals used.
   
3. "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" groups and activists have the right, with open records laws, to get copies of detailed protocols and IACUC minutes.
   
4. The self-policing that journals employ depends on the veracity of the authors and the diligence of the reviewers and editors.
   
5. The potential difficulty inherent in getting IACUC approval for a study employing poultry industry standards or for a collaborative project to be performed with industry scientists at an industry facility. This then leads the poultry industry to question the relevance of academic research. On the other hand, this situation leads to discussions of where industry standards should be.
   
6. A gray area in which animals that were reared by industry are donated, where biopsy samples are obtained at an industry facility, or postmortem tissues are obtained at slaughter in a commercial facility.
   
7. The absence of an electronic, and hence readily accessible, version of the Ag Guide.
   
8. Concerns that the Ag Guide does not reflect the state of science today.
   

These issues emphasize the importance of poultry scientists, and other animal scientists, being active in their university or research facility IACUC. It is critically important that our journal continues to evaluate its requirements for the humane treatment of animals in research. A subsequent editorial will address welfare issues in the poultry industry.

	REFERENCES

TOP REFERENCES

 
AAUP. 2006. Research on human subjects: Academic freedom and the institutional review board (2006). http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/About/committees/committee+repts/CommA/ResearchonHumanSubjects.htm Accessed Jan. 30, 2007.

FASS. 1999. Guidelines for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. FASS, Savoy, IL.

National Academy of Sciences. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 1996. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scanes, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scanes, C. G.