Animal Research Ethic Board’s Policy on Animal-Based Projects Involving Two or More Institutions

Background

The faculty and research community at McMaster University are engaged in collaborative research with colleagues throughout the world. This approach has advanced scientific understanding and research missions. This has also likely reduced the use of animals by reducing duplication of experiments. In the context of facilitating the research enterprise and the ethical use of animals, McMaster University’s Animal Research Ethics Board (AREB) has developed the following categories of collaborative research. The objective is to provide a framework for the ethical use of animals and concurrently support the essential research activities of the University.  The following list is not exhaustive, and if cases arise where an activity does not fall within a particular category, the Principal Investigator (PI) should consult with the University Veterinarian for additional guidance.

The following policy, prepared by AREB, applies to McMaster PIs involved in collaborative projects that house live animals at one or more institutions, in addition to or other than, McMaster University. This also includes field work involving live animals (see point #3). This policy does NOT include the sharing of tissues; preserved specimens or arthropods. These projects are described in the following scenarios:

1. Investigators and teachers carrying out animal-based work in host institutions outside of McMaster University

This section applies to animal work conducted by a McMaster investigator (e.g., on a sabbatical leave) or student at an animal facility outside of McMaster University. AREB suggests that, if the work will only be done at a host institution, the approved protocol form to be used should be the decision of the host institution. A copy of the host institutions approved AUP must be submitted to McMaster’s University’s Animal Research Ethics Board. The University Veterinarian or the Chair of AREB or their designate will review the final approved protocol and report and discuss it at the next AREB meeting, or via email if time is of concern. It is recommended that the Animal Care Committee (ACC) coordinators, on behalf of the Chairs of each ACC, communicate directly with each other to discuss any questions that either committee may have. The goal is to arrive a mutually satisfactory consensus that is consistent with the ethical use of animals. A copy of the approved protocol from the host institution will be kept on file with AREB. In the event the host institution is not certified by a recognized regulatory body, a McMaster AUP will be required and McMaster University’s AREB will undertake the review process.

2. Animal-based projects undertaken at two or more institutions

For any animal-based work conducted at animal facilities located at various institutions, AREB requires a written AUP review of the most comprehensive protocol and should coordinate and address questions and comments from the other ACCs involved. McMaster University PIs need to submit a McMaster AUP, as they would for any other project, for the actual animal work that will be conducted at McMaster University.  In addition, they may submit the approved signed page of the AUP from each additional institution with an AREB Amendment form describing the animal work at the second institution or the entire approved AUP from the second institution.   The University Veterinarian or the Chair of AREB or their designate will review the documents from the second institution and report and discuss it at the next AREB meeting, or via email if time is of concern.  Clear and direct communication between ACCs is strongly recommended to facilitate the process and to ensure that CCAC guidelines and policies are applied, and animal care and use is appropriately overseen throughout all phases of the collaborative project.

3. Field studies

Field work involving animals where a McMaster University investigator or students are conducting some of the work with another institution should follow the CCAC Guidelines: The Care and Use of Wildlife.  The Lead PI should take the responsibility for submitting the AUP to their ACC and the other investigators involved should ensure their ACCs have access to the protocol, and that the protocol has received approval from the Lead PI’s ACC.  If the McMaster University PI is not the Lead on the work, AREB will accept the approved signed page of the AUP from the second institution with an AREB Amendment describing the animal work that will be done in the field or the entire approved AUP from the Lead institution. The most local institutional ACC is often the point of contact for the public and they should be able to answer any questions concerning wildlife studies in their area, but if the field site is remote to all institutions involved, the Lead PI’s ACC will take on this role.

Additional Points:

• The research should be conducted in facilities that are accredited and/or sanctioned by the regulatory organization in that jurisdiction. Animal research conducted outside of McMaster University at facilities that are not accredited by a regulatory organization may be subject to additional review by AREB, including, but not limited to in-person and/or virtual audits.   AREB may require the PI to provide additional information related to the scope and nature of the research activity.
• PIs must disclose to AREB any animal research that is conducted outside of McMaster University.  An opportunity to make this disclosure is provided by a “check box” on the original AUP and Annual Renewal forms. An alternate mechanism for disclosure is available for PIs without current McMaster University Animal Use Protocols (AUPs).
• The host institution (which could be more than 1 institution if animal work is happening at more than 1 site) is responsible for conducting Post Approval Monitoring, frequent reviews, and veterinary oversight of the project at their institution and providing reports back to the home institution.
• Census of animals used in the projects should be collected by the host institution and reported to the CCAC.
• Visiting investigators should arrive at the host institution trained and be able to provide documentation of such training. If some aspect of training is missed, this can be provided by the host institution.
• Any documentation or information that cannot be shared for proprietary reasons will be dealt with on an individual basis and arrangements will be made that is mutually agreed upon by all parties.

This Policy is reviewed annually and updated as required.
Updated: September 2023