�鶹����

�鶹����’s Researchers Conducting Work at Other Institutions:

An approved �鶹���� animal use protocol (AUP) must cover all animal-based work by �鶹���� personnel. As the body which reviews and approves AUP’s, the �鶹����’s 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 �鶹���� who wishes to carry out animal-based work within another institution’s facilities must first submit an animal use protocol to the �鶹����’s UACC.

Generally, the institution that is managing the funding for the work is classified as the “home” institution and the institution where the work takes place, the “host”. 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 �鶹����’s is affiliated to a collaborative project (e.g.: as the PI providing the funding, associates conducting procedures (at �鶹����’s or elsewhere), or as a host facility), it is important that the �鶹����’s 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 �鶹����’s or by �鶹����’s 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 �鶹����’s is the home institution (i.e.: when the funding flows through �鶹����’s and therefore the PI is from �鶹����’s), 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 �鶹����’s 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 �鶹����’s:

Researchers from other institutions who use animals in research, teaching or testing at �鶹���� (e.g.: researchers from other institutions using the �鶹���� Biology Station (QUBS)) must provide the UACC with copies of their home approved protocols for review and approval by the �鶹����’s 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 �鶹����'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 �鶹����’s must familiarize themselves with relevant UACC policies. In particular, the UACC Policy on Visitors 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 �鶹����, either being carried out at �鶹����’s or at another institution, must have �鶹����’s 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 �鶹���� 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 �鶹����’s 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 �鶹����’s UACC approval, please contact the UACC Coordinator (uacc@queensu.ca).