<!DOCTYPE html>

<!--
 * Project   : Research Integrity (RI_INT)
 * Version   : 2.0.0
 * Release   : Fri Apr 24 2020 11:39:36 GMT+0100 (British Summer Time)
 * Copyright : Oxford University Press / Epigeum
-->

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="The Care and Use of Animals in Research">

	<head>
		<title>Examples of problems and poor practice</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="hca_1_60"
				current-module = "The Care and Use of Animals in Research"
				page-title = "Examples of problems and poor practice"
				screen-time = "4"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>

							<!-- USEFUL LINKS START -->
							<pod variant="a" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Useful links</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Useful links</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<hosted-link id="RI_INT_hca_1_60">
										<p><a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/eight-sanctioned-at-imperial-college-after-animal-testing-investigation/2016146.article" target="_blank">Eight Sanctioned at Imperial College After Animal Testing Investigation</a></p>
									</hosted-link>								
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- USEFUL LINKS END -->

						</page-content-sidebar>
						
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>It is your legal responsibility, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, to ensure that you carry out procedures within the agreed protocol. Failure to do this could result in severe consequences for you as the researcher, your supervisor/the main investigator, or the establishment licence holder (for a real-life example of these consequences, see the "Useful links" pod).</p>
							<p>When researchers fail to meet their responsibilities, animals can suffer needlessly and the research may end up being compromised. Irresponsible conduct also undermines the public's confidence in animal research and lends support to those who would like to see most, if not all, animal research ended. In sum, breaches of responsible conduct in animal research can harm:</p>
							
							<ul>
								<li>The animals used in research studies</li>
								<li>The researchers who conduct irresponsible research</li>
								<li>All researchers who conduct animal research, by undermining public support</li>
								<li>The reputation of the researcher and their institution</li>
								<li>The public, since they may rely on the results of animal research to make decisions about their health or medical treatment.</li>
							</ul>
							
							<h3>Care and use problems</h3>
							
							<p>Many of the problems that arise stem from carelessness, or simply a lack of attention to detail. These problems are evident in inspection reports issued in response to complaints, or as part of routine accreditation visits.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Click through the images for some examples of problems that have arisen in animal research.</p></instructional-text>
							<accessible-text><p>Continue on for some examples of problems that have arisen in animal research.</p></accessible-text>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<opinions>
								<opinion name="Poor communication with animal care staff" img-src="../images/activity_images/course_specific/hca_1_60_img1.png" img-alt="Alt">
									<p>"A wild-caught animal failed to eat after being brought into captivity, despite appropriate food being freely available." After four days it became ill and was euthanised. The failure of the animal to eat did not prompt interventions before it became ill. Communications between the animal care technician, the licensees who planned to use the animal, and the Named Persons responsible for it were poor. There was also evidence of a poor relationship between some Named Persons and the management. The establishment licence holder failed to provide adequate and effective liaison with and between:</p>
									<p>&ndash; Those entrusted with responsibilities under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and
									<br>&ndash; Others who had responsibility for the welfare of protected animals kept at the establishment.</p>
									<p>The establishment licence holder was sent a letter of written reprimand. They were also required to submit a report within four months detailing the measures they would put in place to ensure that there would be:</p>
									<p>&ndash; Regular and effective liaison with and between Named Persons and animal care staff at the establishment; and
									<br>&ndash; Effective cover whenever the Named Veterinary Surgeon or Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer was absent or unavailable."</p>
									<p><em>UK Home Office, Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 2017</em></p>
								</opinion>
								<opinion name="Careless staff" img-src="../images/activity_images/course_specific/hca_1_60_img2.png" img-alt="Alt">
									<p>"During routine observations, two mice were found dead in a cage by an animal technician. Water was provided for the animals but no food was present. It is likely that the mice had been without food for five days. The lack of provision of food and the deteriorating health of the mice were not noticed during routine daily observations. The establishment licence holder ensured that all technicians at the establishment underwent retraining. Procedures were put in place to ensure that responsibility for a single rack of cages/animals was assigned to a specific technician. The standard operating procedures were redrafted to minimise the possibility of such an incident recurring. The racks were also rearranged to enable the backs of the cages to be fully examined. The establishment licence holder was sent a letter of written reprimand."</p>
									<p><em>UK Home Office, Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 2017</em></p>
								</opinion>
								<opinion name="Incorrect delegation of protocols to non-licence holders" img-src="../images/activity_images/course_specific/hca_1_60_img3.png" img-alt="Alt">
									<p>"A personal licence holder instructed a non-licence holder to flush and remove cannulae from the limbs of 40 non-human primates under supervision. The personal licence holder mistakenly believed this was a task that could be legitimately delegated to a non-licence holder. The incident arose due to a misunderstanding by the personal licence holder as to which tasks could be delegated. The non-licensee subsequently supervised two other non-licensees to undertake the procedure. The procedures were carried out competently with no apparent avoidable adverse welfare consequences. The personal licence holder who delegated the tasks was sent a letter of written reprimand. The non-licence holders who undertook the tasks were each sent a letter of censure."</p>
									<p><em>UK Home Office, Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 2017</em></p>
								</opinion>
								<opinion name="Exceeding the agreed number of animals on a project licence" img-src="../images/activity_images/course_specific/hca_1_60_img4.png" img-alt="Alt">
									<p>"An establishment identified that more guinea pigs (9,820) had been used on a project licence protocol than was authorised (6,000). The incident was identified as a mistake and there was no intent to circumvent the regulations. The project licence holder immediately self-reported the incident to the Home Office once they were aware. The project licence holder was sent a letter of written reprimand."</p>
									<p><em>UK Home Office, Animals in Science Regulation Unit, 2017</em></p>
								</opinion>
								<opinion name="Outsourcing experiments to another country in which regulations are not as strict" img-src="../images/activity_images/course_specific/hca_1_60_img5.png" img-alt="Alt">
									<p>A case arose in 2013 in the UK, in which a researcher was found (during an undercover investigation by an anti-vivisection group) to have been collaborating in neurological experiments with baboons outside of the UK. Not only were the conditions in which the animals were being kept called into question (i.e. they did not meet the current guidelines for space allowance), the animals had been reportedly captured in the wild and brought into the research lab, something that it forbidden under ASPA. This incident led to a media campaign and much negative press for the institution in question, despite the institution issuing a clear rebuttal to many of the claims made in the investigation. In fact, it was adjudged by the Home Office that the university had done nothing wrong with respect to ASPA; however, the institution's reputation was (arguably) affected, as was the public's perception of primate research and researchers (University Herald Reporter, 2013).</p>
								</opinion>
							</opinions>
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>If researchers are properly trained and aware of their responsibilities, problems such as these should not arise. However, they do. Site visits seldom, if ever, find that nothing needs to be corrected, and most people will make a mistake at some point. Maintaining a perfect facility that meets all the requirements is a challenge. The most important thing is to be open and transparent with your colleagues, and with your inspector. Your responsibility is to do your best to meet the challenge of providing optimal conditions for the animals, avoid problems and correct and report them as soon as they are discovered.</p>
							
							<h3>Your experience</h3>
							
							<p>Maintaining a responsible animal care programme requires a strong institutional commitment.  Researchers must take their responsibility to follow the 3Rs seriously. Research administrators must provide the support needed to follow the 3Rs and provide appropriate training for all the staff involved in animal experimentation. Research institutions that support animal research must seriously consider the views of those who would like to see the use of animals in research reduced and eliminated.</p>
							<p>If you plan to or are already engaged in animal research, it is important to first reflect on the situation at your institution.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Select the responses that reflect your level of agreement or disagreement. You can click "View results" to see how others taking the poll have responded.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider each statement and reflect on your level of agreement or disagreement.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488798" noscript-text="The regulations that apply to my research provide adequate protection for the animals I use or plan to use."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488799" noscript-text="My institutional animal protection programme provides the support I need to conduct my research responsibly."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488800" noscript-text="Research staff at my institution are adequately trained to conduct responsible animal research."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<!-- POLL START -->
									<poll poll-id="10488801" noscript-text="My research institution seriously takes into consideration the views of those who would like to see the use of animals in research reduced and eliminated."></poll>
									<!-- POLL END -->
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Statement 1 of 4:</h4>
								<p>The regulations that apply to my research provide adequate protection for the animals I use or plan to use. </p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 2 of 4:</h4>
								<p>My institutional animal protection programme provides the support I need to conduct my research responsibly.</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 3 of 4:</h4>
								<p>Research staff at my institution are adequately trained to conduct responsible animal research.</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
								<hr>
								<h4>Statement 4 of 4:</h4>
								<p>My research institution seriously takes into consideration the views of those who would like to see the use of animals in research reduced and eliminated.</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Strongly agree</li>
									<li>Agree</li>
									<li>Neutral</li>
									<li>Disagree</li>
									<li>Strongly disagree</li>
									<li>Not applicable</li>
								</ul>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
							<p>If you have any concerns about how the animals used in research are being treated or feel that the protections they receive are inadequate, it is your responsibility to make those concerns known.</p>
							
							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>Feelings about the use of animals in research run deep &ndash; both on the side of those who consider it essential, and the side of those who believe some or all research of this type should be stopped. The position taken in most countries is that it is permissible but must be properly regulated.</p>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>