title: Pedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in Canada.
abstract: There are two components to the review of animal based protocols in Canada: review for the merit of the study itself, and review of the ethical acceptability of the work. Despite the perceived importance for the quality assurance these reviews provide; there are few studies of the peer-based merit review system for animal-based protocols for research and education. Institutional animal care committees (ACC)s generally rely on the external peer review of scientific merit for animal-based research. In contrast, peer review for animal based teaching/training is dependent on the review of pedagogical merit carried out by the ACC itself or another committee within the institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the views of ACC members about current practices and policies as well as alternate policies for the review of animal based teaching/training. We conducted a national web-based survey of ACC members with both quantitative and qualitative response options. Responses from 167 ACC members indicated broad concerns about administrative burden despite strong support for both the current and alternate policies. Participants' comments focused mostly on the merit review process (54%) relative to the efficiency (21%), impact (13%), and other (12%) aspects of evaluation. Approximately half (49%) of the comments were classified into emergent themes that focused on some type of burden: burden from additional pedagogical merit review (16%), a limited need for the review (12%), and a lack of resources (expertise 11%; people/money 10%). Participants indicated that the current system for pedagogical merit review is effective (60%); but most also indicated that there was at least some challenge (86%) with the current peer review process. There was broad support for additional guidance on the justification, criteria, types of animal use, and objectives of pedagogical merit review. Participants also supported the ethical review and application of the Three Rs in the review process. A clear priority from participants in the survey was updating guidance to better facilitate the merit review process of animal-based protocols for education. Balancing the need for improved guidance with the reality of limited resources at local institutions will be essential to do this successfully; a familiar dilemma to both scientists and policy makers alike.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.|Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Marc T
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8696-3232
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Avey
authors.affiliation: Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Gilly
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Griffin
mesh_terms: D035661:Animal Care Committees; D032761:Animal Experimentation / Q000592:standards; D002170:Canada; D006801:Humans; D023421:Models, Animal; D017145:Models, Educational; D010380:Peer Review / Q000592:standards*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011786:Quality Control