Connecting Two Worlds: A High School Teacher's Work on an IACUC Fosters Communication Between Scientists and Students

Seven years ago, I had never even heard of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)—despite the fact that I had been teaching biology, life science, and health at Beverly Hills High School for 15 years and was the sponsor of an animal welfare club at my school. Therefore, when Vice-Chancellor Albert Barber from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), asked me to be the federally mandated unaffiliated member of the UCLA Animal Research Committee, I was intrigued yet also apprehensive. I was intrigued by the opportunity to be actively involved in assuring the humane treatment of animals used in research and to gain firsthand knowledge of current research, yet I was apprehensive because I lack a research background and because of the increasing negative public perception of animal research orchestrated by animal rights groups.

During my initial interview with Dr. Barber, I was pleased to learn that the research community has addressed many of the concems expressed in recent years in regards to the ethical treatment of animals. It was enlightening to learn that under current regulations some of the experiments I did during my college physiology classes are no longer considered appropriate, and in many cases fewer animals are used to achieve the same teaching objective. Much of this change can be attributed to prodding by animal rights groups and to federal policies goveming animal research issued in the mid-1980s (Animal Welfare Regulations, 1985; Animal Welfare Act; PHS, 1986). My students often discuss their concerns with me regarding animal research, and participating on this committee seemed like a good opportunity to learn firsthand just what was being done to protect animals in research institutions. After discussing with Dr. Barber the purpose of the committee, the time commitment involved, and the potential risk of harassment from extremist groups, I agreed to give it a try.

I have since learned that the unaffiliated member is often a source of concern for other members of the committee, but I have found that my background as a biology teacher has helped alleviate some of these concerns. Although I do not have a research background, my training in the sciences has definitely helped me in dealing with the technical terminology needed for reviewing research protocols, and it has also given me an understanding of the research process, which allows me to understand problems that may arise in the course of a research project. I also find that the other committee members are more than willing to answer any questions I raise about actual procedures. Because I interact daily with my students, who loudly voice their concerns about animal research, I bring this perspective of the community at large into the research and teaching activities of the university world.

At a recent national conference of biology teachers from various parts of the United States, I concluded that most of the participants were totally unaware of IACUCs and their function. Therefore, when I talk with colleagues about my work with UCLA's committee, I can help bridge the gap between the committee and the public by clarifying the IACUC's work as well as by developing an understanding of the importance of the IACUC process in protecting animals while not restricting ethically sound research.

My work on the committee has been a mutually beneficial arrangement. I have been able to contribute to the committee, and the committee provides me with valuable experience that enriches my teaching and therefore benefits my students. I am somewhat embarrassed to admit the two initial reflections I had after I attended my first monthly meeting. First, I found it a real pleasure to work with adults who did their homework! (I spent 8 to 10 hours reading the protocols for that first meeting, but my preparation time gradually decreased to 2 to 3 hours as I became more familiar with the material). Second, I was struck by how pleasant it was to be in a situation where my opinion and experience were respected and appreciated and where my views were solicited. I have never been made to feel that any question I ask or concern I raise is unworthy of discussion, and I have been made to feel I am an integral part of the process.

In 1987, UCLA sent me to a conference in Boston sponsored by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R) and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. This conference proved to be memorable to me for two reasons. First, it was exciting and enlightening for me to meet with so many people actively committed to the welfare of animals and working hard to put their concerns into action, giving me a glimpse of the national commitment and overall process. Secondly, it gave me an opportunity to reunite with a student from my first biology class, Dr. Michael Grodin, an Associate Professor of medical ethics at Boston University and a member of the Board of Directors at PRIM&R—a real treat!

During the past 6 years, because of my IACUC membership, I have had the opportunity to attend other conferences at the University of Southem California (USC) and in San Francisco. Most recently I attended a National Association for Biomedical Research Conference in Washington, D.C., and my reaction was the same as always: renewed excitement and energy toward the task of the IACUC in general and the UCLA committee in particular. Whenever I am tired or feel as if the work is unimportant or not worth the effort, attending the conferences invigorates me and sustains my sense of purpose and dedication to the ultimate goal of humane treatment of laboratory animals used in research.

My work on this committee has been helpful to me in the classroom. When students come to me with concerns about animals used in research, I can tell them based on personal observations about the safeguards that are in place, about the facilities in which the animals are maintained, and how the numbers of animals used have been reduced. Students often come to class with outdated photos and stories of animal torture under the guise of science, and I am able to say with certainty that I know such abuses no longer occur, at least not at UCLA or at any other institution that receives public funds for research and consequently must have an IACUC. Not only have the numbers of animals used in research been reduced, but the committee consistently requests modifications in the protocols in answer to concerns about animal welfare. Reducing stress and promoting the animal's well-being lead to more accurate experimental outcomes for the researcher. My students' interest has encouraged me to continue my involvement with the committee.

I have also been able to talk directly with students who are not in my classes through the animal welfare club I sponsor at school. The club focuses primarily on preservation of endangered species, but has also dealt seriously with alternatives for animal research. I often relate a comment I heard at a USC conference from a strident animal rights activist. She does not wear leather or eat meat, she says, because there are satisfactory alternatives to those uses of animals by humans, but she does support the use of animals in some types of research because to date, there are often no satisfactory alternatives.

Learning about the ‘cutting edge’ of biomedical research has also added a new dimension to my classroom teaching Without compromising confidentiality, I have been able to relay to my students some of the latest ideas and innovative methodologies that are being pursued in research. The university professors on the IACUC have also been helpful in working with some outstanding students from my school, and on occasion research scientists will speak at our high school.

One of the major drawbacks of being involved in an IACUC is the considerable time commitment involved. I read a minimum of 2 to 3 hours each month in preparation for the monthly 2 to 3 hour meeting at UCLA, and this takes place after a full day of teaching. Also, the regulations require biannual ‘walk-through’ inspections of all animal facilities, which take another 4 to 5 hours each. For these reasons I appreciate the fact that the UCLA IACUC has two unaffiliated members, so that in an emergency or when schoolwork is too overwhelming, I can miss a meeting without being concerned that the federal guidelines are being compromised.

I would highly recommend that other IACUCs consider using local high school biology teachers as unaffiliated members. By involving teachers, the committee gains people who are interested in the scientific process, knowledgeable enough to understand most of the protocols, and in touch with community and student concerns about animal welfare. Teachers benefit by participating in a program that helps to ensure the welfare of animals used in research, keeps them informed of current research in their field, and establishes university contacts that can benefit both the teacher and students.

References