University Animal Care Committee (UACC)
The and the provide the framework for institutions to follow when developing a process for animal-based collaborative work. Institutions are responsible for the ethical acceptability of animal-based research, teaching, and testing undertaken by their faculty, staff, other personnel and students, regardless of where the work is conducted. While most animal use is undertaken by investigators and teachers working within their own 鈥渉ome鈥 institutions and overseen by the local animal care committee (ACC), in certain cases, investigators and instructors undertake animal work in one or several 鈥渉ost鈥 institutions or in the field. The following policy is intended to provide guidance on how collaborative animal-based projects are managed.
All animal work conducted at Queen鈥檚 University or by Queen鈥檚 University personnel (even at another institution such as during a sabbatical) requires prior approval of the Queen鈥檚 University Animal Care Committee (UACC). For Queen鈥檚 University personnel, this means that prior approval is required for all animals that are:
- Housed/held in Queen鈥檚 University facilities
- Housed/held in external facilities (private or public institutions within or outside of Canada)
- Collected in the wild (within or outside of Canada)
Queen鈥檚 Researchers Conducting Work at Other Institutions:
An approved Queen鈥檚 University animal use protocol (AUP) must cover all animal-based work by Queen鈥檚 University personnel. As the body which reviews and approves AUP鈥檚, the Queen鈥檚 UACC is consequently responsible for overseeing this work, even when it involves two or more institutions, and even when the animals are housed, and the work takes place at another institution. Therefore, a researcher from Queen鈥檚 University who wishes to carry out animal-based work within another institution鈥檚 facilities must submit an animal use protocol to the Queen鈥檚 UACC.
Generally, the institution that is managing the funding for the work is classified as the 鈥渉ome鈥 institution and the institution where the work takes place, the 鈥渉ost鈥. In some cases, the home ACC reviews the protocol first to ensure it meets the ethical expectations of the institution and to verify scientific or pedagogical merit review and then provides conditional approval contingent on host ACC approval (ensuring the work follows institutional ethical expectations and can occur in practice). However, this process can also occur in reverse in that the host institution may review the application first followed by the home institution. Both parties must conduct a thorough review and communicate the outcome (including any relevant conditions or details accompanying the decision) accordingly prior to any work being initiated. A well-defined arrangement for monitoring the proposed project (i.e.: shared post-approval monitoring reports etc.) and the welfare of the animals, should be in place.
Where parts of a project take place at different institutions or in the field, each ACC may choose to approve and monitor only those parts that take place at their institution or are undertaken by its associates in the field. To facilitate the review process, it is preferable that proposals where Queen鈥檚 is the home institution be submitted and processed through Topaz Elements. When necessary, external protocol forms will be attached and processed through Topaz Elements for record management purposes.
Associates from Other Institutions doing Work at Queen鈥檚:
Researchers from other institutions who use animals in research, teaching or testing at Queen鈥檚 University (e.g.: researchers from other institutions using the Queen鈥檚 University Biology Station (QUBS)) must provide the UACC with copies of their home approved protocols for review and approval by the Queen鈥檚 UACC. These protocols may be submitted on the forms from the home institution including a statement of approval. Where parts of a project take place at different institutions or different field sites, it must be clear which aspects of the protocol pertain to each animal care committee to facilitate review. PIs must clarify the aspects of their home approved protocol that are relevant to Queen's and for renewals and amendments PIs must highlight the changes that are being made. Individuals conducting work at Queen鈥檚 must familiarize themselves with relevant UACC policies. In particular, the UACC Policy on Visitor鈥檚 Within Animal Facilities and the UACC Policy on Taking and Sharing Images of Animals in Science must be respected.
In Summary
Any animal work with an affiliation to Queen鈥檚 University, either being carried out at Queen鈥檚 or at another institution, must have Queen鈥檚 UACC approval prior to animals being acquired and work commencing. Research funding will not be released until adequate approval is in place, regardless of whether the work will be performed at Queen鈥檚 University.
As per the , institutions will work together to ensure that appropriate training, monitoring, and compliance are in place and will communicate all outcomes accordingly.
If you are unsure as to whether you require Queen鈥檚 UACC approval, please contact the UACC Coordinator (uacc@queensu.ca).
| Date | New Version |
|---|---|
| 01/10/2007 | Policy Created and Approved |
| 05/10/2010 | Triennial Review |
| 11/19/2014 | Triennial Review |
| 10/26/2017 | Triennial Review |
| 10/22/2020 | Triennial Review; Revised to further define approval and post approval monitoring process when more than 1 institution is involved; reference to CCAC FAQ on Animal Based Projects Involving Two or More Institutions |
| 10/25/2023 | Triennial Review; Reference to policies on visitors and images of animals in science for associates from other institutions performing work at Queen鈥檚; New Format |