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)
- Studied or 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 first 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. When Queen鈥檚 is affiliated to a collaborative project (e.g.: as the PI providing the funding, associates conducting procedures (at Queen鈥檚 or elsewhere), or as a host facility), it is important that the Queen鈥檚 UACC review the animal use protocol at its inception even if collaborative components might be planned for a future year of a multi-year protocol. This supports transparency and open communication between institutions and facilitates interinstitutional alignment. Consideration may need to be given to the entire project rather than just the isolated work conducted at Queen鈥檚 or by Queen鈥檚 personnel. A well-defined arrangement for monitoring the proposed project (e.g.: shared post-approval monitoring reports etc.) and the welfare of the animals, should be in place and communicated, before the work takes 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. When Queen鈥檚 is the home institution (i.e.: when the funding flows through Queen鈥檚 and therefore the PI is from Queen鈥檚), the UACC may ask for clarification as to where individual aspects of the protocol take place however also reserves the right to review all aspects of the protocol regardless of where they take place.
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 home institution's forms along with 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 pertinent outcomes and changes that are being made to those aspects of their home approved protocol. 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 or elsewhere.
Institutions will work together to ensure that appropriate training, monitoring and compliance are in place and communicated accordingly. Visiting researchers should have received relevant training at their home institution, however the Queen鈥檚 UACC usually still requires that local theoretical and practical training are completed to ensure institutional alignment. Special arrangements may be approved on a case-by-case basis.
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 |
9/25/2024 | Revised to clarify that UACC must review all affiliated projects regardless of when collaborative portion is planned; reserves the right to review all aspects of protocol regardless of where they take place; and clarified that visiting researchers usually require Queen鈥檚 theoretical and practical training. |