f6098d8b__and_Use_of_Laboratory_Animals__Comments
[ID] 516 [Entry Date] 04/26/2011 at 11:44:48 AM [Affiliation] Organization [Organization Name] Central Washington Unviersity [Organization City and State] Ellensburg, WA [Comments] 
Comment 1: As a scientist I applaud the efforts to maintain the highest levels of care for animals in research. There are a number of specific concerns, however, with the latest version of the Guide. To begin with, the new Guide is nearly twice as long as the 1996 version, and contains a great deal of new policy that promises to significantly increase a) the expense of research, b) the paperwork burden on researchers, and c) the authority of local IACUCs to restrict already peer-reviewed research. And while some of the new recommendations are based on empirical research, many are not (e.g., cage sizes, food and liquid restriction). Although only federally funded research is currently at issue, because the OLAW standards set the compliance agenda for all IACUCs, it is only a matter of time before the more stringent regulatory standards trickle down to even small-scale animal research and teaching programs. It is for these reasons that I vote against adopting the new Guide as policy. Comment 2: I recommend at least 4 years (e.g., 2015) given the expense of a variety of cage size and housing requirements at a time of great financial difficulty for research institutions.
Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals