At UTDallas we consider a significant change to be a change in the
species, an increase in the number of animals to be used, and a change in
the procedures to be used with the animal. Therefore, we hold a PI to the
purchase of animals only for the specific procedures described. Since we
have centralized the purchasing of animals and feed, through the animal care
attendant, he is able to verify that the purchase request matches up with
the protocol. Since we charge an animal per diem that does not cover
our costs we carefully monitor the animals and the grant expenditures to
make sure that we can recoup grant money allocated for these costs.

I hope this helps.

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Research Administration Discussion Group
wrote:

>      I know this question has been asked of this group more than once, but
> I do not remember seeing an answer.  Is there a listserv that deals with
> IACUC issues in much the same way as the Medical College of Wisconsin
> listserv deals with IRB issues?  If so, I would appreciate the address.
>      Since I do not know of an IACUC list, I'll post my question to this
> list - it is also a grants management question.  How do other
> institutions oversee/control expenditures from PHS grants for animal
> acquisition and daily care?  Do you hold the P.I. on a grant to the
> purchase of the animal species described in Section (f) of the proposal?
> Do you hold the P.I. on a grant to the purchase of animals ONLY for the
> specific procedures described in section (f) and approved by study
> section?  Do you even attempt to "match-up" IACUC protocols with
> particular grants to be certain that money spent from the grant for
> animals is within the scope of the award (as described in the proposal)?
> If so, How is it monitored?  Who is responsible?  The P.I.? Grants
> management?  The Animal Facility?  Some Combination of these?
>      PHS Grants Policy Statement (in Section 8 under the heading "Prior
> Approval Authorities Retained by PHS for Research Grants") states that
> prior approval is required for 1) substitution of one animal model for
> another and 2) any change from the approved use of animals.  This is
> similarly stated in the instructions for PHS 2590, the continuation
> application form.  That is, "if significant changes regarding the use of
> animals are now proposed, [describe the changes]".  In this latter case,
> examples of significant changes given are: a) substituting one animal
> model for another or b) changing from noninvasive to invasive procedures.
> I assume that the term "animal model" loosely translates to "species",
> but when does a change "animal use" reach the level of significance
> requiring prior approval?  I would assume that a change from acute
> experiments in which the animals do not survive to experiments which
> require survival surgery would represent a "significant change from the
> approved use of animals", but it is unclear just where PHS draws that
> line.
>      How are other institutions handling this responsibility?
>      If you would prefer to reply to me directly, I will be glad to
> compile the responses (without identifiers) and post the results to this
> list.
>      Thanks to all.
>
> Doug Wilkerson, Ph.D.           VOICE:  (419) 381-4252
> Assoc. V.P. for Research        FAX:    (419) 381-4262
> Professor of Pharmacology       e-mail: xxxxxx@GEMINI.MCO.EDU
> Medical College of Ohio
> 3000 Arlington Ave.
> Toledo, OH 43614
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Marianne Rinaldo Woods
Office of Sponsored Projects
University of Texas at Dallas
Phone: 214-883-2313
Fax: 214-883-2310
E-mail: xxxxxx@utdallas.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------