Reprinted with permission from SOMA, 1987. Soma, L.R. 1987. Assessment of animal pain in experimental animals. Lab. Anim. Sci.37:71-74. Reprinted with permission from Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals. Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1992.
C.2.d. Table C. Signs, Degree, and Length of Surgically Produced Pain*
Signs of Pain
Degree of Pain
Length of Pain
Head, eye, ear, mouth
Attempts to rub or scratch, self-mutilation, shaking, reluctance to eat, drink, or swallow, reluctance to move
Moderate to high
Intermittent to continual
Rubbing, licking, biting, abnormal bowel movement or excretory behavior
Moderate to high
Intermittent to continual
Reluctance to move, lameness, abnormal posture, guarding, licking, self-mutilation
Moderate to high: upper part of axial skeleton (humerus, femur) especially painful
Abnormal posture (hunched), anorexia, guarding
Not obvious to moderate
Reluctance to move, respiratory changes (rapid, shallow), depression
Abnormal posture of head and neck, reluctance to move, abnormal gait—“walking on eggs”
Moderate to severe
Spine, thoracic or lumbar
Few signs, often moving immediately
*Based on observations of dogs
Reprinted with permission from Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals. Committee on Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1992.
References American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. 1997. Anesthesia and Analgesia in Laboratory Animals. D.F. Kohn, S.K. Wixson, W.J. White and G.J. Benson, eds. Academic Press.
National Research Council. 2000. Definition of Pain and Distress and Reporting Requirements for Laboratory Animals.
Wolfensohn, S. and M. Lloyd, 1998. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare, Second Edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 334 pp.
Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals. NRC. 1992.
C.2.e. Personnel Qualifications
In evaluating proposed research projects, the PHSPolicy and the AWRs require the IACUC to assess whether personnel conducting procedures are appropriately qualified and trained in those procedures (IV.C.1.f and 2.31[d][viii]). A similar requirement can be found on page 10 of the Guide and in U.S. Government Principle VIII (see Appendix F).
Developing Guidelines To facilitate evaluation of personnel qualifications and training during proto-col review, each IACUC should develop a list of items to be assessed as well as a list of classifications of personnel required to participate in such training. This could be a list of qualifications and training items specific to protocols according to procedures and or manipulations proposed or the list could be broad enough to cover all aspects of the institution’s training requirements (see Section A.4).
A procedure specific checklist might include:
An important decision to be made by the IACUC is the level of training required of an investigator not actually involved in the day-to-day manipu-lation and care of the animals. If the investigator is responsible for the research activity and the animals involved, should she or he demonstrate proficiency in the areas indicated above? Is the investigator responsible for training personnel in the lab? If yes, should she or he demonstrate pro-ficiency in those areas? An IACUC policy on this issue will prevent conflict later.
Evaluating Qualifications and Training To prevent problems related to assessment of qualifications and training during protocol review, it is helpful if the IACUC determines any training needs during the protocol development and veterinary consultation. Dis-cussion of new techniques, procedures, or manipulations at this time can provide the impetus for a training opportunity for both the veterinary staff and the research staff with demonstrated proficiency completed prior to protocol review. This training experience should be so noted in the protocol or otherwise documented.
Maintaining a database of all participants in the facility’s training program who use laboratory animals will facilitate assessment of qualifications and training. With such a database, preliminary evaluation of an individual’s
expertise can be an administrative task performed by the IACUC or staff assigned to assist with managing the animal care program. If a deficiency is noted, a follow-up memo can be sent to the investigator stating that protocol review is pending until training requirements have been completed.
IACUCs should note that high morbidity or mortality rates or requests for more animals than originally planned may indicate a training opportunity and should be followed up in the context of the relevant protocol, either immediately or during the semiannual review.
Evaluating the qualifications and training of new personnel or those propos-ing to use new techniques, procedures, or manipulations will necessitate another approach by the IACUC.
One way to manage the training of new personnel is to initiate an IACUC policy that no protocol will be reviewed until training requirements have been satisfied. Such training would need to incorporate all institutional re-quirements as well as those specific to the work expectations of the indi-vidual, and might include those listed above.