Search for Alternatives

According to the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, animal care and use protocols must address the "Availability or appropriateness of the use of less-invasive procedures, other species, isolated organ preparation, cell or tissue culture, or computer simulation." The guide does not specifically address the mechanism by which this must be accomplished.

It is even less clear for the USDA. Under policy 12 (as directed by the Animal Welfare Act), "The Prinicipal Investigator must provide a written narrative of the sources consulted to determine whether or not alternatives exist to procedures which may cause pain or distress." Although "written narrative" does not equate with literature search, the policy goes on to define the minimum written narrative to include: the databases search or other sources consulted, the date of the search and the years covered by the search, and the key words and/or search strategy used by the Principal Investigator when considering alternatives or descriptions of other methods and sources used to determine that no alternatives were available to the painful or distressful procedure.

Of course a strong argument can be made that neither regulation requires a literature search be performed. Although this is true, choosing to not conduct a search puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of the investigator. Meaning, the committee has the responsibility to ensure that a "good faith" effort has been made to identify all possible alternatives/refinements. Just saying "I personally know there are no alternatives", although meeting the "letter of the law", does not provide substance on which the committee can feel assured that this requirement is being addressed adequately.

It is my personal opinion that even if you know there are no computer programs or in vitro tests available to replace the experiments that you propose, it is still good science to keep abreast of how others are approaching the same types of questions. You never know when you might find a better, more humane way of doing an experiment instead of just finding a non-animal alternative. A good scientist will already be doing this on a continuing basis, so it may only be a matter of documenting how you do this and that you keep alternatives in mind during these reviews. If you don't routinely keep up with things, it is not a very daunting task to sit down and spend 1/2 hour doing a Medline search once a year! I would say in most cases its easier to just do the search than to come up with a convincing narrative that won't have the committee saying, "Is this really adequate?" Again, this is just my opinion and I welcome other opinions or interpretations. (quinnr@upstate.edu)