Literature DB >> 18849596

Avoiding an overzealous approach: a perspective on regulatory burden.

J R Haywood1, Molly Greene.   

Abstract

The authors discuss the impact of regulatory burden on the research enterprise, with emphasis on animal care and use programs. They identify three sources of regulatory burden: specific requirements in law and regulation, interpretive requirements or "guidance" by regulatory agencies, and self-imposed regulatory burden resulting from institutional interpretations. Attempting to minimize the risks of noncompliance through the overzealous application of "requirements" does not necessarily benefit the animals. Balancing risks associated with animal research and burden in a successful program requires clear and consistent communication among all stakeholders--the institutional leadership, institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC), attending veterinarian and staff, and scientists. An evaluation tool is provided for institutions to assess their approach to required and voluntary activities in their animal care program. Drawing on the knowledge and experience gained in a combined 40 years of serving on, managing, training, and evaluating animal care programs, the authors conclude that institutions must thoughtfully balance their research and compliance needs to successfully maintain their institutional goals. They stress that a culture of compliance based on knowledge of the regulations, dedication to quality animal care, reasoned use of science-based performance standards, and the judicious application of professional judgment is the foundation for facilitation of research in the context of animal welfare and regulatory compliance.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18849596     DOI: 10.1093/ilar.49.4.426

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ILAR J        ISSN: 1084-2020


  8 in total

1.  Reforming science: structural reforms.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  Postapproval Monitoring Practices at Biomedical Research Facilities.

Authors:  Jennifer N Davis; William Greer; Ron E Banks; Blythe H Philips; James O Marx
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.

Authors:  Madeline L Budda; Stacy L Pritt
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 4.  Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials.

Authors:  Barbara C Hansen; Sylvia Gografe; Stacy Pritt; Kai-Lin Catherine Jen; Camille A McWhirter; Susan M Barman; Anthony Comuzzie; Molly Greene; Justin A McNulty; Daniel Eugene Michele; Naz Moaddab; Randall J Nelson; Karen Norris; Karen D Uray; Ron Banks; Karin N Westlund; Bill J Yates; Jerald Silverman; Kenneth D Hansen; Barbara Redman
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  The Role of IACUCs in Responsible Animal Research.

Authors:  S Mohan; R Huneke
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2019-12-31

6.  Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Postapproval Monitoring Programs: A Proposed Comprehensive Classification Scheme.

Authors:  Stacy L Pritt; Trina M Smith
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 1.232

7.  Critical Analysis of Assessment Studies of the Animal Ethics Review Process.

Authors:  Orsolya Varga
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 2.752

8.  Researchers, animal support and regulatory staff: symbiosis or antagonism?

Authors:  Benjamin Tsang; Robert Gerlai
Journal:  Lab Anim Res       Date:  2022-07-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.