Doug, At UCHC our IACUC approves a discreet # of animals for each protocol.
 This data is maintained by the IACUC staff in a db shared with the animal
facility.  The animal facility orders all animals.  Reqs must reference the
approved IACUC protocol.  Then the animal facility staff maintain a db on #
animals used  against each protocol, again on the same shared db.  This
works pretty well, except in the case of protocols where in-house breeding
occurs, e.g., transgenics.  Then it becomes an exercise in tracking  cage
card data and interaction with PIs to determine how many animals have been
bred.  Fortunately, we don't have a lot of breeding colonies, yet.  The
amount of $ in the grant for animals, and the numbers in the grant
application take a secondary position to the # approved by our IACUC.

Len Paplauskas
Asst. VP for Research
UCONN H.C.
 ----------
From: Research Administration Discuss
To: Multiple recipients of list RES
Subject: Animal Expenditures on PHS Grants
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 1996 2:02PM

 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