The Veterinary Consortium for Research Animal Care and Welfare Survey on Revisions to the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
The Veterinary Consortium for Research Animal Care and Welfare (VCRACW or Consortium) was established in 2019 to provide accurate information to the public, lawmakers, and the scientific community about the veterinary care and welfare of research animals. The consortium includes 2 representatives from 4 member organizations: AALAS, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM), Association of Primate Veterinarians (APV), and American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners (ASLAP). As time for revision of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide) approaches, the Consortium sought to conduct a survey of the animal research community with the goal of generating objective data and providing analysis that would identify priorities for updating the Guide. An initial survey was conducted of stakeholders from the 4 member organizations. “Chapter 3 Environment, Housing, and Management” was identified as most in need of revision. The “Terrestrial Housing” section was ranked most in need of revision, followed by the “Terrestrial Environment” and “Terrestrial Management” sections, all from Chapter 3. Of the top ten topics the respondents identified that needed revision, 9 were from Chapter 3. Open-ended questions asked respondents to describe key issues that needed to be revised and what new topics should be added, including references. Most responses (199) related to the revision of Chapter 3 and focused on space requirements and environment. New topics proposed for inclusion ranged from additional information on ferrets, agricultural species, and cephalopods to new sections on mental health for employees and study design and additional information pertaining to operations. As a follow-up to the original survey, 5 additional questions were posed to ACLAM diplomates and National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) members. These questions focused on topics that came from responses to and discussion about the original survey. These topics included the use of must, should, and may; inclusion of additional species; inclusion of mental health topics; future format; and funding source for the Guide. The results of both surveys are presented here. The Consortium believes that these data could be used to refine and revise portions of the Guide to ensure it remains the most current and relevant reference document for the care and use of research animals.
Survey respondents selected their primary job roles from a multiple-choice list: 40% Veterinarian, 32% Program Director, 16% Compliance, 7% Researcher, 2% Operations/Facility Manager, and 3% Other.
Open-ended response themes for “Chapter 1 Key Concepts”: 26 total responses: 9 related to Must, Should, May; 8 related to Harm/Benefit Analysis, 3Rs, and Ethics; 4 Miscellaneous; 2 Study Design; 2 Operations; and 1 Inclusion of Invertebrates.
Open-ended response themes from “Chapter 2 Animal Care and Use Program”: 76 total responses: 21 related to IACUC; 16 to Disaster Planning; 11 to Compliance; 9 for Training; 4 Restraint; 4 Veterinary Care; 3 Nonpharmaceutical Grade Substance Use; 3 Must, Should, and May; 3 Miscellaneous; and 2 Compassion Fatigue.
Open-ended response themes for “Chapter 3 Environment, Housing, and Miscellaneous”: 199 total responses: 43 related to Space Requirements, 41 related to Environment, 27 Miscellaneous, 22 Social Housing, 21 Enrichment, 16 Cleaning, 13 Additional Information on Aquatics, 11 Alternate Caging Systems, and 5 Food Storage and Expiration.
Open-ended response themes for “Chapter 4 Veterinary Care”: 75 total responses: 17 related to Pain and Distress, 11 Miscellaneous, 11 Pathogen Surveillance/Sentinels, 10 Euthanasia, 10 Anesthesia and Surgery, 5 Transportation and Shipping, 5 Mental Health, 2 Medical Records, 2 Training, and 2 Separation of Species.
Open-ended response themes from “Chapter 5 Physical Plant”: 62 total responses: 26 Miscellaneous; 11 related to Noise and Vibrations; 8 Lighting; 6 Temperature, Humidity, and HVAC; 3 Cleaning; 3 Food Storage; 3 Aquatics; and 2 IVC usage.
Themes for new topics to be addressed in the next version of the Guide: 93 total responses: 16 related to Operations; 12 Study Design; 11 Mental Health; 11 Compliance; 7 Cephalopods; 6 Animal Behavior; 6 Adoption; 5 Wildlife, Field Studies, and Agricultural Species; 5 Additional Species; 4 Community support; 4 Animal Reuse; 3 Ferrets Specifically Mentioned; 2 Must, Should, and May usage, and 1 Cut Back on Detail.
Primary job roles for supplemental survey respondents from the NABR community: 36% Compliance, 19% Program Director, 18% Clinical Veterinarian, 8% Researcher, 4% Operations/Facility Manager, 4 % Technicians, and 11% Other.
Results for question 1 from the supplemental survey: “Which of these terms should be used in the next edition of the Guide?” Results are shown for both ACLAM (left) and NABR (right) respondents. Results for both groups were very similar with “no change” having the majority for both.
Results for question 2 from the supplemental survey: “Should specific guidance on mental health/compassion fatigue be included in the next edition of the Guide? Both groups responded with “No” as the majority response.
Results for question 3 from the supplemental survey: “Future versions of the Guide should be expanded to include new and/or additional guidance on the following specific species or topics (choose all that apply).” Most respondents from both ACLAM (left) and NABR (right) selected cephalopods and tertiary species. The majority of NABR respondents also selected wildlife species to be included.
Results for question 4 from the supplemental survey: “What format should be used for the next edition of the Guide?” The majority of both groups selected a static document with regular/defined review intervals.
Results for question 5 from the supplemental survey: “How should future revisions of the Guide be funded?” The majority of respondents from both ACLAM (left) and NABR (right) selected federal funding (United States) as their response.
Contributor Notes