The authors discuss approaches to bolster investigator engagement, inviting investigators to be partners within the Animal Care Program. Regulatory burden in animal research endeavors continues to be reviewed and critiqued; therefore, this article intends to encourage Animal Care Programs to promote transparency and incorporation of unique educational training initiatives to tailor and focus compliance efforts across research programs. Borrowing from concepts of patient engagement, adherence, and enrollment efforts within the medical profession, it is likely that gains in trust, understanding, and communication between stakeholders within animal programs can be achieved without excessive efforts to alter existing approaches. Institutions will continue to be challenged to balance animal welfare expectations with promotion of research missions. This article provides a framework for somewhat radical ideas, including the use of collaborative orientations, assistance with self-evaluations, timely self-reporting, and meaningful and directed trainings, that are all aimed to resonate in contemporary animal care programs and foster investigator engagement in ongoing compliance efforts.

postprocedure care2 (§2.33). If we assume that this communication occurred, the amendment should have been sound from a welfare perspective. If the IACUC was comfortable with those welfare-related recommendations made by the AV, then it would need to determine whether the proposed modification is consistent with the scope of the original protocol. The proposal may be considered a new activity, in which case the concept of multiple survival surgeries becomes a regulatory issue as well as a welfare issue. Instances in which multiple survival surgeries may be justified are clearly outlined in the AWARs (§2.31) and include scientific justification, veterinary care or approval by the APHIS Administrator2. The scientific soundness of carrying out these two procedures on one animal is also questionable. Will two affected limbs, which are no longer weight-bearing, still be give the IACUC the authority to make that interpretation—to decide whether “activities related to the care and use of animals...are in accordance” with the provisions of the AWARs (§2.31). Furthermore, as stated in the Animal Care Resource Guide3, in its review, the IACUC must consider whether the multiple surgeries are “required to meet the objective of a single animal study activity, [and] justified for scientific reasons by the Principal Investigator.” The IACUC and Wycoff should be commended for providing guidance for and consideration of, respectively, the principles of the 3Rs1. Although Wycoff did mention cost, the most taboo of all justifications, he was correct that adequate pain control should be paramount in determining appropriate surgical procedure endpoints. During the development of this major amendment, the Attending Veterinarian (AV) should have been consulted regarding proper ReSponSe

related or adequately justified. In response to Wolfson’s question, “does the species make a difference?”, the IACUC should not consider species as a primary factor in determining the appropriateness of potentially painful or distressful procedures; however, as part of the overall decision process, the IACUC and the investigator should consider whether species lower on the phylogenetic scale can be used to replace higher organisms or whether oocytes could be obtained from a vendor. The IACUC must also consider refinement: nonsurgical methods for collecting eggs from frogs, such as natural breeding and ‘stripping’ (or ‘milking’) the frogs. Although these methods can be used to obtain eggs and oocytes, the quantity and developmental stage of the oocytes may not be consistent with the experimental requirements, possibly yielding less usable material and requiring more animals for the planned experiments. In comparison, a surgical approach should allow researchers to obtain a large quantity of oocytes in the early stages, I–VI (refs. 3,4). To justify the use of multiple surgeries, the investigator should have specified in the protocol the stage of oocyte needed for the study, searched for alternative procedures and explained why using multiple surgeries on each frog is preferable to using single surgeries on more frogs to collect the same number of usable oocytes. Finally, the IACUC should consider reduction. If surgery is required, is it preferable to carry out multiple surgeries in one animal or to use multiple animals one time each? To 1. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1996). 2. Russell, W.M.S. & Burch, R.L. Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques (Methuen and Co., London, 1959).