INSTITUTIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEES - A FLAWED PARADIGM OR WORK-IN-PROGRESS

In his challenging article, Steneck (1997) criticized the creation of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) system establi shed by the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. He saw the IACU C review and approval of biomedical and behavioral research with anima ls as an unnecessary ''reassignment'' of duties from existing animal c are programs to IACUC committees. He argued that the committees are un able to do the work expected of them for basically three reasons: (a) the membership lacks the expertise in matters relevant to animal resea rch and care, (b) there exists an inherent and disabling conflict: of interest, and (9) the committee's operational base of authority is ali en to academic culture and violates essential aspects of academic free dom. In addition, he found that the system is burdensome, requiring en ormous expenditures of time and money that inappropriately diverts res ources away from the business of scientific discovery. We dispute seve ral aspects of Steneck's historical account and the coherence of his p roposals. We believe his proposals, if followed, would be a step back into a failed past.