Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Wolff, Axel; Garnett, Nelson; Potkay, S; Wigglesworth, Carol; Doyle, Denis P.; Thornton, Venita

doi:10.1038/laban1003-33

Cited by 24 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…committees may only approve, require modification (to secure approval) or withhold approval of a protocol 1,2 . We highly recommend using this unambiguous language when communicating with the principal investigator (PI) 3,4 . the phrase 'approved pending modifications' is confusing, and IAcUcs should avoid using it 4 .…”

Section: A Word From Olaw and Usdamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA

Brown¹,

Gipson

2011

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

can make a judgment on the animal work. We disagree with Covelli's viewpoint that the IBC approval is a substantive piece of information missing from her protocol. The protocol contains all the required information and should be accepted and approved by the IACUC.We believe that Covelli was incorrect in agreeing with Gordon that adding a species to the protocol can be considered a minor amendment, even though the IACUC has already discussed and approved the use of animals. The justification for the use of each species must be included in the protocol. Removal and subsequent addition of the rats would both need to be reviewed. This could

show abstract

Section: A Word From Olaw and Usdamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We highly recommend using this unambiguous language when communicating with the principal investigator (PI) 3,4 . the phrase 'approved pending modifications' is confusing, and IAcUcs should avoid using it 4 .…”

Section: A Word From Olaw and Usdamentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA

Brown¹,

Gipson

2011

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A change in animal model by the investigator post award is an action that, per the terms and conditions of the GPS, is considered a change in scope and therefore requires prior approval by the relevant GMO of the NIH awarding component (not OLAW). The 1995 OLAW guidance, referenced in two of the scenario responses, concerning criteria in determining what constitutes a "significant change" is in the context of whether IACUC review is required for changes that investigators might potentially make to approved protocols 5 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW

Wigglesworth

2006

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional submission of IACUC approval, subsequent to submission of the application/proposal, must represent approval of the information originally submitted in the application/proposal, or include notification of any significant changes required by the IACUC 1 ". It is clear that the University had a responsibility to review all aspects of the grant involving animal use and to notify OLAW of all required changes and modifications. In this case the choice of the inves-

show abstract

Ethical Issues for Animal Use in Toxicological Research in Africa

Aal

2014

Toxicological Survey of African Medicinal Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Abstract: The authors answer eight questions commonly asked of the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare concerning Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care of Use of Laboratory Animals.

Cited by 24 publications

References 5 publications

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW

Ethical Issues for Animal Use in Toxicological Research in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About