Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Jul 4;10(1):11.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-025-00169-9.

Institutional animal care and use committees and the challenges of evaluating animal research proposals

John J Pippin  1 , Jarrod Bailey  1 , Mark Kennedy  1 , Deborah Dubow Press  1 , Janine McCarthy  1 , Ron Baron  1 , Stephen Farghali  1 , Elizabeth Baker  1 , Neal D Barnard  2   3
Affiliations
Review

Institutional animal care and use committees and the challenges of evaluating animal research proposals

John J Pippin et al. Res Integr Peer Rev. .

Abstract

Background: In the U.S. and many other countries, animal use in research, testing, and education is under the purview of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees or similar bodies. Their responsibility for reviewing proposed experiments, particularly with regard to adherence to legal and ethical mandates, can be a challenging task.

Objective: To understand factors that may limit the effectiveness of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees and identify possible solutions.

Methods: This editorial review summarizes scientific literature describing the challenges faced by U.S. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees and those who rely on them and describes actions that may improve their functioning.

Results: Apart from what may be a sizable workload and the need to satisfy applicable regulations, committees have fundamental structural challenges and limitations. Under U.S. law, there is no requirement that committee members have expertise in the research areas under review or in methods that could replace animal use, nor could expertise in such vast technical areas be expected, in contrast with the review process of many scientific journals in which experts in the conditions being studied critique the choice of subjects and methods used. Although investigators are expected to consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress, they are not required to use them. While investigators must assure committee members that studies do not duplicate other research, committee members are not required to verify this. Consideration of alternatives to painful procedures is not required at all for experiments on animals not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The majority of U.S. research institutions now allow research proposals to be approved by a single committee member, using a system called Designated Member Review, without full committee consideration. In other countries, requirements differ considerably. In the European Union, for example, investigators must complete a harm-benefit analysis and must use alternatives, not simply consider them.

Conclusions: The review process may be improved by requiring searches for nonanimal methods regardless of species, favoring alternatives based on human biology, improving the education of committee members and investigators, using reviewers with subject matter expertise, and minimizing conflicts of interest. Because of the limitations of the review process, funding institutions and scientific journals should not use Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval of submissions as evidence of adherence to ethical guidelines beyond those legally required.

Keywords: Alternatives; Animal care committees; Animal experimentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Authors Pippin, Bailey, Kennedy, Press, McCarthy, Baron, Farghali, and Baker are employees of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and received compensation for their work on this manuscript. Dr. Barnard is an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. He serves without compensation as president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Barnard Medical Center in Washington, DC, nonprofit organizations providing educational programs, clinical research, and medical services. He writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources.

References

    1. The Animal Welfare Act specifies, in U.S. Code, title 7, section 2132(g), that “The term ‘animal’ means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (2) horses not used for research purposes, and (3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.”
    1. United States Code. Title 7, Section 2143.
    1. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 9, Section 2.31. - PubMed
    1. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 42, Section 52.8. - PubMed
    1. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Available at https://olaw.nih.gov/sites/default/files/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2024.

LinkOut - more resources