Catching up on some news from Canada (yes, I’m really far behind on Canadian current events!):
At the end of last year, the administration at Laurentian University changed the locks to the research facility housing the animals used in research in the behavioural neuroscience program. The lock-out of researchers was initiated by the university’s Animal Control Committee (ACC) after that committee rejected all of the animal use protocols of one of the faculty members in the behavioural neuroscience program.
Apparently, the ACC judged the problems with the protocols siognificant enough to warrant shutting down the research altogether, since that’s what the lock-out accomplished. And now, some LU students are wondering how seriously the university takes its obligations to them.
Here’s how the lockout was covered in the University of Calgary Gauntlet:
Students locked out of labs
December 08, 2005
by Simon Jackson, Gauntlet News
Twenty-four students at Laurentian University are suffering academically in what has become a prolonged and bitter battle between the university administration, its Animal Control Committee and the faculty member responsible for much of the behavioural neuroscience program, Dr. Michael Persinger.
The problems began for students on Wed., Nov. 9 when LU administration changed all the locks to the research facility where the behavioural neuroscience program operates, preventing them from accessing any of their animals.
“The hardest part of this situation is being locked away from the ongoing research in the facility,” said undergraduate student Dawn Shea. “Knowing that some experiments are no longer viable and all that scientific data is gone. I am actually considering University of Calgary for grad studies but am worried I will not have the lab experience required.”
Senior LU administrators claimed they were forced to take the steps after the university’s ACC had rejected all of Persinger’s animal use protocols. Anybody wishing to conduct animal research at a Canadian university are regulated by a local ACC. Any research undertaken must be submitted first to the ACC for approval, before an animal use protocol is granted.
U of C veterinarian and ACC member Dr. Doug Morck explained the role ACC’s play in approving research.
“The ACC provides the review, discussion, debate, and decisions with respect to applications made by faculty members to use animals in research, teaching, or testing,” said Morck. “It is the role of the ACC to not only debate the applications by faculty members using animals, but to ensure that the three Rs of animal use are considered and implemented. Researchers must replace animal use if it is feasible and defend their proposed use of animals if replacement is not feasible. They must also reduce the number of animals used and must defend the numbers of animals they propose to use. And finally they must refine their methods to ensure that the use is optimal and that any discomfort experienced by their animals is minimized or eliminated.”
Problems at LU began in 2004. According to documents provided by LU administration, every ACC is regulated and guided by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. The CCAC is funded by federal grants and is responsible for publishing guidelines regarding the care and use of animals in experimental research.
LU Media Relations Officer Paul de la Riva explained that the university might lose funding for not complying to CCAC guidelines.
“Institutions meeting guidelines are given a Good Animal Practice Certificate,” said De la Riva. “Institutions failing to comply with CCAC guidelines have this withdrawn and are also likely to lose funding. In 2004 LU’s ACC was disbanded following a CCAC visit which placed their Good Animal Practice Certificate on probation. The university put an interim committee in place and eventually appointed a new one. It was this new committee which rejected or would not renew the animal use protocols without significant changes.”
The conflict has reached fever pitch, with the students employing legal representation in order to gain access to the facility or gain compensation.
“I am, sort of, a member of the ACC, however I am excluded from participating in the discussions concerning the neuroscience research group’s protocols because they deem me to be in conflict of interest,” said graduate student Debra Meades. “They refused to let ongoing projects continue while all the details were ironed out. Obviously they do not care about research.”
LU administration is unmoved by the students’ plight. De la Riva highlighted their position in a press statement.
“Laurentian University is under no obligation to have an animal research facility,” he said. “However, as long as it operates one, it will be administered in accordance with CCAC guidelines, as required by the relevant granting councils.”
The students are currently pursuing an injunction to have the facility reopened.
“The university does not support us at all,” said Meades. “They only care about the big dollar. Universities choose to cower and comply rather than upholding the spirit of active and creative research.”
Neither side was willing to comment about the nature of the alleged CCAC violations.
(Bold emphasis added.)
What’s going on here?
First, it looks like Laurentian University is trying very hard to fulfil its obligations to the animals under its care (which is to say, the animals used in university research). Given Canadian law and the strings attached to funding, the university has to take these obligations seriously. Protocols have to defend the use of animals (because there are no appropriate non-animal systems with which to answer the research question), demonstrate that the proposed research uses the minimum number of animals to get reliable research results, and detail the steps that will be taken to minimize or eliminate animal discomfort. If the university’s ACC approves protocols that don’t meet these standards, the university can lose its Good Animal Practice Certificate from the Canadian Council on Animal Care. And, it can lose federal funding.
From the story above, LU lost its Good Animal Practice Certificate. Apparently, CCAC didn’t feel that LU’s ACC was holding protocols to the necessary standards before approving them. To get back in compliance (and to protect research funding), LU needed to get an ACC that the external regulatory body (the CCAC) believed was exercising the proper oversight in appropving — or not approving — experimental protocols.
It seems safe to assume that some of the protocols the old ACC had approved must have been seen as problematic by the CCAC. Thus, it’s not surprising that the new ACC would deal with these proposals by asking the PIs who submitted them for changes. It’s hard to know, based on the Gauntlet story, whether the back and forth between ACC and PI that followed was civil or hostile, whether there were good faith efforts to communicate the requirments of the animal care regulations and the central features of the experimental design, or whether each side dug in its heels out of inclination.
What is clear is that the lock-out indicates a loss of faith that the negotiations about the protocols were going to be resolved productively.
As graduate student Debra Meades frames the situation, this is a case of the university valuing the animals more than research. Actually, more precisely, it’s a case of the university valuing the funding that comes from compliance with the regulations (which are there to value the animals) more than research. As LU Media Relations Officer Paul de la Riva frames the situation, the university is fulfilling its obligations to its funders and government regulators, which is essential if the university is to fulfil its educational mission.
Surely, there may be ironies in shutting down the research in the interests of the animals. Given that the research projects were already in progress, the animals likely had already experienced some discomfort. Now, however, since the experiments were stopped midway through, some of this may be discomfort that doesn’t bring any new knowledge. Depending on the ways in which the animals were used, it’s even possible that the animals might end up having to be destroyed — which, arguably, could be a bigger harm to the animals than the continuation of the experiments. This is not to say that the protocols might not have needed revision — just that there might have been better ways to ride out the period during which they were being revised if the interests of the animals were really what was at stake.
But there’s another interesting issue here: As part of its educational mission, does a university have an obligation to provide opportunities for its students to do research with animals?
Undergraduate Dawn Shea expressed concerns that, without a certain level of lab experience, she may not have the necessary preparation to be admitted to or succeed in graduate programs in her field. Yet, the Media Relations Officer claims, “Laurentian University is under no obligation to have an animal research facility.”
Is the existence of an animal research facility required when a university offers particular areas of study as part of the education it provides? Can the university offer areas of study like behavioural neuroscience without providing laboratory classes or appropriate opportunities for original research? (This may be more of a question at the undergraduate level; graduate students in a field like behavioural neuroscience are clearly expecting to get research experience.) If the university is not committed to supporting such fields of study, should it shut them down rather than failing to provide students with the full range of experiences that such studies require?
An easy solution to the problem of complying with animal use regulations is not to use any animals. However, while a private research firm might be able to rework its business plan to accommodate such a dramatic change, it’s not clear a university can use the same trick. While the university is required to care for the animals in its care, it also has an obligation to provide a certain level of educational opportunities for its students. If certain branches of science are on the menu, experimental work with animals may be one of those opportunities the university has to provide.
And this means that, in order to fulfil all its obligations, the university may have to take a more active role in moderating slugfests between PIs and the ACC.
“Surely, there may be ironies in shutting down the research in the interests of the animals. Given that the research projects were already in progress, the animals likely had already experienced some discomfort.”
Great. Given that I already stole your car, may I keep it using longer?
“Now, however, since the experiments were stopped midway through, some of this may be discomfort that doesn’ bring any new knowledge. Depending on the ways in which the animals were used, it’s even possible that the animals might end up having to be destroyed — which, arguably, could be a bigger harm to the animals than the continuation of the experiments.”
Why do we say “destroyed” and not “killed”? Why hide the ugly reality?
“This is not to say that the protocols might not have needed revision — just that there might have been better ways to ride out the period during which they were being revised if the interests of the animals were really what was at stake.”
And then we start another experiment, and the argument is carried on further…
While I have a softer spot for Canadian universities than American ones, I do think the grad student has a point. The universities want to keep these research grants because of the massive overhead. In the US universities can expect 66% overhead from grants, meaning PIs have to create a 66% buffer greater than what they actually need, and this money goes straight to the university.
At my university, not only do they take the 66% (which is supposed to defray admin costs and lab costs), they then charge labs for phones, internet, utilities… all the things one would think the 66% would go towards. Universities are corporate and rarely act in students’ or PIs best interests any more. I’m still in science and proud of my work, but that’s probably in large part because I’m active in the fight against corporatization and casualization of academia.
Neither side was willing to comment about the nature of the alleged CCAC violations.
That information should be public. Without it, no one can have very much to say about this particular case.
I’d venture to guess, though, that the violations were pretty egregious — institutional ethics committees do not exist to shut down but to facilitate research, and my experience of them is that they will do whatever they can to avoid such a situation as this. What good does it do the University or the ethics committee to create a shitstorm over an already controversial topic (animal models in research)?
We use transgenic mouse models in the lab I work in. Every experiment has to be approved, every mouse accounted for. This is as it should be. If I want to run an experiment that the IACUC (Inst Animal Care & Use Committee; = ACC) won’t approve, the answer is to work with them: change the experiment or change their minds. If I think the guidelines behind the decision are wrong, there are avenues through which I can address that too. Here’s what WON’T work: ignoring the IACUC. They’ll warn me, then they’ll warn me again, then they’ll shut me down — at which point, I will have deserved it, because that’s at least TWO different times I’ve been told what’s wrong and how to fix it, and given the opportunity to argue my case (in front, I might add, of a reasonably sympathetic panel of veterinarians, researchers, physicians and admin personnel — that’s who make up the IACUC).
As for the grad students, they are supposed to be learning how to do research — which includes knowing what ethical approval is for and how it works. At first glance I don’t think they can hide behind “but my PI said it was OK” — as this dispute progressed, they had opportunities to work with the ACC as well. (I’m aware that the power imbalance between a PI and a grad student can make this difficult in some cases, though.)
Good to know – not to apply in Canada. Nobody starts an experiment on a whim. It takes months – sometimes more than a year, to think through all the proposed experiments, to write and submit an IACUC proposal, to have it apporved (which may take a few revisions), to write and submit a grenat proposal and have it funded, before you ever start. Nobody takes the process lightly, and PIs least of all. Also, no PI wants the fishy data that comes from research on stressed and unhappy animals as it is worthless. Also, especially in case of non-traditional species, nobody knows what the animals need (and not need) better than the PI in question.
On the other hand, members of the IACUC tend to be fascizoid, power-hungry bureacrats who are, if you are lucky, failed researchers of the past. The IACUC usually also has a veterinarian (who can be a real moron), and a “person from the street” (the “citizen”) who is likely to be a PETA plant. On many campuses there is no mechanism in place to address the grievances against the IACUC, thus the process of removing the Head (or a member) of IACUC has to start with the President of the University and may last 2-3 years.
In the meantime, people quit animal research and do something else (or just teach), student leave science and go pre-med, and the US science loses the key research areas to the Third World (which is fine, but not good for the US economy). After all, mountains of molecular and in vitro data are just hypotheses to be tested in whole animals. What works in the test tube or in a petri dish or on a gel, may or may not really be what happens in the whole organism. Without animal experiments, all the molecular biology remains at the level of hypothesis, and the applications and patents are snagged by researchers in countries that cannot afford expensive molecular studies, but have a more reasonable view of animal research.
“The IACUC usually also has a veterinarian (who can be a real moron)”
Way to go, folks. The veterinarian is a moron, probably because he cares about animals’ fate, eh?
There is something wrong here. When physicists created the atomic bomb, they were among those who cared *the most* about the ethical problems the thing brought with itself. To the contrary, this discussion shows to me clearly that the predominant view among biologists about animal rights is that they are a fake problem pushed on them by “morons” and “PETA plants”. It shouldn’t be so.
Leaving alterior motive of the university funding behind, the obligations of a university to it’s students absolutely must fall second to the welfare and safety of animals which we decide to torture.. err i mean use as a required means for experimentation. The scientific community has a great ethical debt to pay, as millions of animals have been brutally treated over many years, and is still done so. We must accept the utmost scrutany of research and take an objective view of criticism, however extreme the action taken.
If the experiment was not functioning in the utmost humane way, then it should absolutely be stopped immediately. Experiments can be repeated, the existance of each animal, something which you or I do not own, is only once.
So, who’s feeding and watering the animals in that locked laboratory?
And yes, we need more information both about the experimental protocols, and the regulatory protocols (fair warning etc).
this discussion shows to me clearly that the predominant view among biologists about animal rights is that they are a fake problem pushed on them by “morons” and “PETA plants”. It shouldn’t be so.
Roman, please don’t take coturnix as representative of the profession. I am also a professional molecular biologist; I work with transgenic mice; and coturnix’s attitude offends and disturbs me.
Coturnix, if you really feel that way, quit your job. Seriously. Get the hell out of science, get out of the way of people who take their ethical responsibilities as seriously as their research problems. You are only making our job harder. If you cannot see that whatever problems you may have with IACUC are an inevitable part of dealing with complex issues by committee, and not the malevolent offspring of a covert PETA operation that mated in secret with assorted “morons”, “fascists” and “failed researchers”, then you have lost perspective in the worst way.
no PI wants the fishy data that comes from research on stressed and unhappy animals as it is worthless.
Garbage. The data are worth less, yes; but there is no shortage of PIs who don’t care, will publish anything just to have more papers coming out as quickly as possible. If this were not true we would scarcely need ethics committees.
Also, especially in case of non-traditional species, nobody knows what the animals need (and not need) better than the PI in question
Then the PI is in a position to argue convincingly for those needs, right? That “nobody knows better” attitude is, in large part, what generates public distrust of scientists and obstinate IACUC members. This is what I mean when I say that you are making my job harder.
Obfulldisclosure: I don’t serve on our IACUC, but my boss does.
I don’t currently have a problem with my IACUC (and NEVER do stuff without their approval), but the whole university has a problem with our IACUC because its composition is as described above. The process of removing the Head and putting grievance mechanisms in has been going on for more than three years now. I speak from experience, and have welfare of my animals first and foremost, and quality of research immediately after.
But I hear IACUC horror stories from friends at other Universities, too – it is a pandemic of PC and PETA inflitration and gutless University administrators.
My proposals for future research are geared towards “no surgery, no IACUC fuss” protocols instead of research that actually is needed the most: peripherals, boring gene-jockeying and hormone essays instead of key experiments that actually test models. And I have yet to meet a PI who does not care about his/her animals and cares more about speedy publications (perhaps there are some in molecular fields where animals are just vehicles for genes, are used as “tools”, and are not the object and subject of study in their own right).
Some of my comments above were out of line. I apologise for the “quit your job” remarks, that was uncalled for. You touched a nerve, and I am sorry I took it out on you. Mea culpa.
(I do maintain, however, that remarks like your first comment in this thread do make things more difficult by furthering the “arrogant scientist” stereotype and causing resentful IACUC members to dig their heels in.)
linklog 060315
Linklog 060315.
This is a topic that gives me hives, for reasons of personal experience. And I was in a foul mood all day, leaving nasty comments all over the blogosphere which is really not my style. So, I apologize, too.
‘”The IACUC usually also has a veterinarian (who can be a real moron)”
Way to go, folks. The veterinarian is a moron, probably because he cares about animals’ fate, eh?’
no no no. Not the point at all. The fact is that IACUC vets are quite often totally clueless about any animal other than albino mice & rats. I’m a herpetologist and EVERY protocol I have submitted (at 3 institutions) has been held up and transmogrified into a redtape nightmare because of vets that want me to provide cedar shavings for toads or elaborate filtration/aeration systems for aquatic turtles that BREATHE AIR, etc. This is a very common topic for ranting and bitching over beer at herp meetings.