Each local IACUC reviews research protocols and conducts evaluations of the institution's animal care and use, which includes the results of inspections of facilities that are required by law.
[4] The corresponding, parallel, and equivalent local ethical body responsible for overseeing U.S. federally funded research involving humans is the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Subsequent editions of the Guide were supported by NIH and published by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research branch of the National Academy of Science.
In 1996 this committee changed its name to the "Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC)".
Public opinion was particularly galvanized by the case of a pet dog that was stolen from her owners in Pennsylvania and later died during an experimental surgery at a hospital in New York.
[3] Thus catalyzed, and spurred by the efforts of Representative Joseph Y. Resnick,[3] Congress created the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, which named the USDA the responsible agency.
In 1979, U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) policy took over, requiring an animal care committee for each animal-using grantee institution and expanding the species covered to include all vertebrates.
[7] The APHIS branch of the USDA conducts surprise inspections of institutions that use species covered by the Animal Welfare Act up to every six months.
The Plous and Herzog work was criticized by some in the animal research community as drawing invalid conclusions because IACUCs rely on knowing the experience of the investigators and staff.
[12] A September 2005 audit report issued by the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Agriculture also spelled out problems with the reliability of IACUC oversight.
The document described failure of some IACUCs to effectively review protocols and ensure compliance with federal animal welfare laws: