Alternative Searches

As part of the ASRF each investigator must complete the section on alternatives to animal use in research. The IACUC, in compliance with the AWA, is ensuring that the principles of the 3R's are being adhered to. Dartmouth has a wonderful resource in Sheila Gorman at the Dana Library. If you would like assistance in completing your search please contact Sheila for more information.

The 3 R's and Literature Searches - USDA Policy #12

AC 12.1

Alternatives or alternative methods are generally regarded as those that incorporate some aspect of replacement, reduction, or refinement of animal use in pursuit of the minimization of animal pain and distress consistent with the goals of the research. These include methods that use non-animal systems or less sentient animal species to partially or fully replace animals (for example, the use of an in vitro or insect model to replace a mammalian model), methods that reduce the number of animals to the minimum required to obtain scientifically valid data, and methods that refine animal use by lessening or eliminating pain or distress and, thereby, enhancing animal well-being. Potential alternatives that do not allow the attainment of the goals of the research are not, by definition, alternatives.

A fundamental goal of the AWA and the accompanying regulations is the minimization of animal pain and distress via the consideration of alternatives and alternative methods. Toward this end, the regulations state that any proposed animal activity, or significant changes to an ongoing animal activity, must include:

1. a rationale for involving animals, the appropriateness of the species, and the number of animals to be used;

2. a description of procedures or methods designed to assure that discomfort and pain to animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically valuable research, and that analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs will be used where indicated and appropriate to minimize discomfort and pain to animals;

3. a written narrative description of the methods and sources used to consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals; and

4. the written assurance that the activities do not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments.

The USDA believes that the performance of a database search remains the most effective and efficient method for demonstrating compliance with the requirement to consider alternatives to painful/distressful procedures. However, in some circumstances (as in highly specialized fields of study), conferences, colloquia, subject expert consultants, or other sources may provide relevant and up-todate information regarding alternatives in lieu of, or in addition to, a database search. When other sources are the primary means of considering alternatives, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and the inspecting Veterinary

Medical Officer should closely scrutinize the results. Sufficient documentation, such as the consultant's name and qualifications and the date and content of the consult, should be provided to the IACUC to demonstrate the expert's knowledge of the availability of alternatives in the specific field of study. For example, an immunologist cited as a subject expert may or may not possess expertise concerning alternatives to in vivo antibody production. When a database search is the primary means of meeting this requirement, the narrative must, at a minimum, include:

  • 1. the names of the databases searched;
  • 2. the date the search was performed;
  • 3. the period covered by the search; and
  • 4. the key words and/or the search strategy used.

The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) is an information service of the National Agricultural Library specifically established to provide information about alternatives. AWIC offers expertise in formulation of the search strategy and selection of key words and databases, access to unique databases, on- and off-site training of institute personnel in conducting effective alternatives searches, and is able to perform no-cost or low-cost electronic database searches. AWIC can be contacted at (301) 504-6212, via E-mail at awic@nal.usda.gov, or via its web site at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic. Other excellent resources for assistance with alternative searches are available and may be equally acceptable.

Regardless of the alternatives sources(s) used, the written narrative should include adequate information for the IACUC to assess that a reasonable and good faith effort was made to determine the availability of alternatives or alternative methods. If a database search or other source identifies a bona fide alternative method (one that could be used to accomplish the goals of the animal use proposal), the written narrative should justify why this alternative was not used.

The written narrative for federally-mandated animal testing (for example, testing product safety/efficacy/potency) needs only to include a citation of the appropriate government agency's regulation and guidance documents. Mandating agency guidelines should be consulted since they may provide alternatives (for example, refinements such as humane endpoints or replacements such as the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay) that are not included in the Code of Federal Regulations. If a mandating agency-accepted alternative is not used, the principal investigator should explain the reason in the written narrative.

Alternatives should be considered in the planning phase of the animal use proposal. When a proposal is modified during its performance, significant changes are subject to prior review by the IACUC, including the review of the implications of those changes concerning the availability of alternatives. Although additional attempts to identify alternatives or alternative methods are not required by Animal Care at the time of each annual review of the animal protocol, Animal Care would normally expect the principal investigator to reconsider alternatives at least once every 3 years, consistent with the triennial review requirements of the Public Health Service Policy (IV,C,5).