The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm

RSR
39,2 The Animal Welfare Act and why
it matters to librarians
John E. Osinski
318 William Madison Randall Library, University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Wilmington, North Carolina, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief history of the Animal Welfare Act and
suggest that librarians and other information professionals can play an active role in helping
researchers to comply with the Act.
Design/methodology/approach The author attended workshops directed towards Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) and Biomedical Researchers. As a result of attending these
workshops, the author recognized the potential for librarians and information specialists to assist
researchers in performing literature searches, a required component of research protocols. The
purpose of the literature search is to seek alternatives to the use of animals in experiments and to
ensure that the researchers are not unnecessarily duplicating previous experiments. A research guide
consisting of proprietary databases, free databases, books, web sites, and tutorials facilitates the
literature review mandated by the Act.
Findings While serving on his institutions Animal Care and Use Committee, the author was
charged with reviewing research protocols involving the use of live, vertebrate animals. These
protocols call for a literature review to determine if there are acceptable alternatives to the use of
animals, or to methods that cause pain and distress to the animals. The author found that the majority
of the searches that were performed needed improvement, with many failing to meet the minimum
requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Through his participation in relevant workshops, the author
also found that many researchers were unaware of the requirements of this search for alternatives, and
that they lacked familiarity with the resources available to them.
Originality/value The author performed a search in Library and Information Science Abstracts
and Library/Information Sciences & Technology Abstracts using the keywords alternatives and
animals and received only four relevant results, dated 1990, 2001, 2004, and 2007.
Keywords Animals, Welfare, Laws, Literature, Librarians, United States of America
Paper type Conceptual paper

Most people would be surprised to learn that the passage of Public Law 89-544, the
Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966 (United States Code, 1966, the first federal law
governing animal use in research, can be traced directly back to the theft of a

Reference Services Review
Vol. 39 No. 2, 2011
pp. 318-334
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0090-7324
DOI 10.1108/00907321111135510
Authors note: This article begins with history provided to contextualize the existence of the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). For those interested in a more detailed
history of the Animal Welfare Act, see USDA (2007). The Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee was established as a means of checks and balances on researchers using certain types
of live, vertebrate animals. Owing to the fact that a properly performed literature search can
mean the difference between life and death, or pain and suffering for these animals, readers may
find that the author has intentionally set aside some of the customary neutrality so often typical
of a scholarly writing. Note additionally that this article does not set out to debate whether or not
alternatives to animals should be sought. That debate has already taken place in Congress,
resulting in the Animal Welfare Act.
Dalmatian named Pepper from a farm in Pennsylvania. During the 1960s, several bills The Animal
providing for the humane treatment of laboratory animals languished in Congress, Welfare Act and
without ever gaining the necessary support to move forward and become law. But that
changed dramatically with the publication of the November 29, 1965 issue of Sports librarians
Illustrated magazine. An article by Coles Phinizy appearing in that issue documents the
story of Pepper. On June 22, 1965, Pepper disappeared from the farm of Julia and Peter
Lakavage in Slatington, Pennsylvania. Someone later told the Lakavages that they had 319
seen Pepper being loaded into the back of a truck near their farm. Thus began a nearly
two-week odyssey for Pepper in the grip of dog dealers who made a profit by selling
animals to research laboratories. Although they tried their best to track down her
whereabouts and bring her back home, the Lakavage family was unable to save
Pepper. They came painfully close when, as fate would have it, days after Peppers
disappearance, a dealer named Bill Miller was pulled over by police in Easton,
Pennsylvania. The police saw 18 dogs and two goats crammed into an enclosure in the
back of Millers truck (Engber, 2009). It was a hot day in late June and the 20 animals
had little ventilation. The police turned the dogs and goats over to the county shelter.
The shelter workers told Miller he would have to return with proper bills of sale and a
truck that had adequate ventilation. Photographs of the animals were taken at the
shelter that evening and the local paper, the Allentown Morning Call, ran a story about
Miller and the dogs and goats. The Lakavages happened to see the article, which
mentioned two female Dalmatians. They contacted the shelter and were told that Miller
had returned for the animals and said that he was taking them to a dealer in High Falls,
New York (Phinizy, 1965). Julia Lakavage, her daughter, and grandson got in their car
and drove 130 miles to see if they could find Pepper at the dealers farm in New York
(Engber, 2009). They stopped at a state police station and asked the police to
accompany them to the property. The police told Julia that they could not gain access
to the property without a warrant. And so Julia and her family were forced to return
home.
Through a series of telephone calls, the Lakavages story made its way to
Congressman Joseph Resnick, Representative for Ulster County, New York. Resnick
contacted Arthur Nersesian, the owner of the property in upstate New York, asking
permission for Julia to enter his property to look for Pepper. Nersesian told
Congressman Resnick that he would not grant access without a warrant and charges in
writing (Engber, 2009). The truth that was subsequently revealed is that it would not
have mattered if Julia had been able to look for Pepper on Nersesians farm that day.
Later, when an investigation was ordered, an Everett, Pennsylvania dog enforcement
officer questioned Bill Miller. Miller admitted that he had lied to the shelter workers.
Instead of going to upstate New York, he drove directly into New York City. Pepper
had already been sold to Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. While the Lakavages were
desperately trying to find her and bring her home, Pepper died in a research
experiment and her body was incinerated. On July 9, 1965, Congressman Joseph
Resnick introduced HR 9743, a bill that would require dog and cat dealers, and the
laboratories that purchased them, to be licensed and inspected by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
If the Sports Illustrated article was the stimulus that got Congress to finally move on
animal welfare legislation, then the photographic essay that appeared in the February
RSR 4, 1966 issue of Life magazine was the tipping point. In that issue, Life ran a story
39,2 about an animal dealer in Maryland, Lester Brown. Frank McMahon of the Humane
Society of the USA, Life photographer Stan Wayman, and a group of Maryland State
Troopers went to Browns property. The conditions they encountered were horrific. Of
all the dogs they found there that day, authorities were able to rescue 28. Brown was
charged with 29 counts of cruelty to animals, 28 for the dogs that were rescued, plus
320 one count for a dog that was found frozen to death (Silva and Wayman, 1966). Life
received more mail on this story than any other in their history (Stevens, 1990, p. 74).
Congress too, was flooded with mail. Finally, on August 17, 1966, a bill emerged from
Congress supported by both the House and Senate. On August 24, 1966, President
Lyndon Johnson signed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, the first federal law
governing animal use in research.
The law authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the transport, sale, and
handling of animals pre-research and for other purposes. It defined animals as dogs,
cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. And it established the
licensing and inspection of dog and cat dealers and called for humane handling at
auction sites. In 1970, the law was amended and renamed the Animal Welfare Act. The
list of animals covered by the Act was expanded to include all warm-blooded animals
intended for use in experimentation or exhibition, except horses not used in research
and farm animals used in food and fiber research. However, this amendment made
retail pet stores, state and county fairs, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and
agricultural exhibitions exempt from the Act. The 1970 amendment also directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to develop regulations regarding recordkeeping and humane
treatment of animals in or during commerce, exhibition, experimentation, and
transport. It was not until a 1976 amendment that the interstate or foreign transport of
animals used in fighting ventures was outlawed. This amendment also required
carriers of regulated animals to be licensed, and it established minimal standards for
transport, including requiring a health certification prior to transport or commerce.
Animals used for hunting waterfowl, foxes, etc. are exempt from the Act.
As a result, then of public awareness and public outcry, laws were put in place to
regulate dealers and others involved in the sale, transport, and handling of animals.
Fast-forward to 1981 and a young man named Alex Pacheco (co-founder of People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)). Pacheco got a volunteer job at the
Institute for Behavioral Research in Silver Springs, Maryland. He documented abuses
against animals taking place in the laboratory and took that documentation to police.
On September 11, 1981, the first police raid of a research facility in the USA took place.
Dr Edward Taub was charged with 17 counts of cruelty to animals. The National
Institute of Health suspended Taubs grant and called for an accounting of his
expenditures and research results. Taub was convicted on six counts of cruelty.
Eventually, five counts were overturned and he was acquitted of the sixth. The
Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that:
The issue in this case is whether the animal cruelty statute [. . .] is applicable to research
pursuant to a federal program [. . .] we do not believe the legislature intended [the cruelty
statute] to apply to this type of research activity under a federal program (Pacheco and
Francione, 1985).
On May 28, 1984, five men and women surreptitiously entered the University of The Animal
Pennsylvanias Head Trauma Research Center. They vandalized equipment and Welfare Act and
removed approximately 30 videotapes that had been made by the researchers to
record the day-to-day experiments. The videotapes showed baboons in states of librarians
paralysis and incapacity and researchers who seemed indifferent to the distress of the
animals (Beauchamp et al., 2008). The tapes were turned over to PETA, who produced
a 20-minute film from the footage called Unnecessary Fuss. The film showed, among 321
other things, laboratory personnel ridiculing the injured animals for their inability to
use their limbs (Beauchamp et al., 2008). As a result of the publicity and subsequent
investigation, the head injury clinic was closed, the universitys chief veterinarian was
fired, and the university was put on probation.
Between 1981 and 1984, several bills were introduced into the House and Senate
regarding the care of animals in research laboratories. Eventually, Senator Robert Dole
of Kansas included Amendment No. 904 The Improved Standards for Laboratory
Animals Act as part of The Food Security Act of 1985 (United States Code, 1985) and
it was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on December 23, 1985.
Up to this point, Congress had essentially regulated animal welfare up to the
laboratory door. They had focused on the animal dealers, not the researchers. The Food
Security Act of 1985 set guidelines for the appropriate use of tranquilizers, analgesics,
anesthetics, paralytics, and euthanasia. It established the Institutional Animal Care
and Use Committee (IACUC). The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to establish
regulations for exercise for dogs and a physical environment adequate to promote the
psychological wellbeing of primates. This Act also established an information center at
the National Agricultural Library. In 1990, The Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act required shelters and other holding facilities to hold dogs and cats for five
days before they could sell them to research facilities. It required dealers to provide
written certification about each animals background, a it described mechanisms of
enforcement and penalties for violations. In 2000, in response to a lawsuit, the USDA
agreed to include rats, mice, and birds under the Animal Welfare Act. But in The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina
added an amendment which definitively excluded mice, rats, and birds bred for
research, thus making their exclusion part of federal law.

The Food Security Act of 1985 and librarians

The Food Security Act of 1985 established both the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC) and an information center at the National Agricultural Library.
Both of these initiatives are directly relevant to the role and responsibilities of
academic librarians, corporate librarians, or any information specialists in an
institution where research is performed using live, vertebrate animals.
An IACUC consists of a group of people appointed by the chief executive officer of a
research institution (or a chancellor at a university). USDA policy requires a minimum
of three members, while public health service (PHS) policy requires a minimum of five
members. Of those five members, four distinct roles must be filled: one doctor of
veterinary medicine with training or experience in laboratory animal science, one
practicing scientist experienced in research involving animals, one member whose
primary concerns are in a non-scientific arena, and one member not affiliated with the
RSR institution and not a member of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with
39,2 the institution.
At least once every six months, IACUC members are required to review the
institutions program for the humane care and use of animals. At least once every six
months they are to inspect all of the institutions animal facilities. They are to ensure
that personnel who use or care for animals are trained and also that there is an
322 adequate occupational health and safety program. Finally, they are to review research
proposals involving the use of animals.
A typical research proposal contains the title of the project, the estimated start and
completion dates, and the names of the principal investigator (PI) and the research
team members. Also included in a typical research proposal is an assurance of
peer-review for scientific and technical merit and information about the location of the
experiments and animal housing. The PI certifies that he/she understands PHS policy
and USDA regulations. The PI certifies that all participants will be properly trained.
He/she describes the experiment in lay terms and explains why it is important. He/she
notes any safety issues or special concerns. The PI justifies the species and number of
animals being used and assigns a pre-defined pain classification to which the animals
will be subjected. The proposal also includes a place where the PI explains how the
procedures have been refined, if possible, so as to reduce or eliminate unnecessary pain
and distress to the animals. Written description of any surgery, administration of
drugs, dietary manipulation, and food and water deprivation, if applicable, are also
expected components. The PI is expected to describe the disposition of the animals at
the conclusion of the experiment (release, euthanasia, etc.) and speak to disposal of the
bodies if euthanized. He/she is also expected to describe the nature of pain and distress
and prolonged restraint, if applicable. And the PI must certify that he/she is not
unnecessarily duplicating previous experiments. S/he must also describe their search
for alternatives to animal use and why alternatives are not appropriate. It is to be noted
that the term alternatives here is defined by Russell and Burchs (1959) 3 Rs
reduction, refinement and replacement. Reduction is minimizing the number of animals
used. Refinement is employing techniques that reduce pain and distress. Finally,
replacement means substituting animals with non-animal methods or lower organisms
(Russell and Burch, 1959).
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 1, Subtitle A, Section
2.31(d):
The IACUC shall determine that [. . .] (ii) The Principal Investigator has considered
alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to
the animals, and has provided a written narrative description of the methods and sources [. . .]
used to determine that alternatives were not available. (iii) The Principal Investigator has
provided written assurance that the activities do not unnecessarily duplicate previous
experiments (GPO Access, 1998).
The Federal Register (1989) states:
The principal investigator must provide a written narrative of the sources [. . .] We believe
that in fulfilling this requirement Committee members will discuss these efforts with the
principal investigator in reviewing the proposed activity. We also believe that considerations
 of alternatives will be discussed during Committee meetings where proposed activities are The Animal
presented for approval, and made part of the meeting minutes [. . .].
Welfare Act and
According to Animal Care Policy #12 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, librarians
2000):
[. . .] the performance of a database search remains the most effective and efficient method for
demonstrating compliance with the requirement to consider alternatives to painful/distressful 323
procedures [. . .].
The database search narrative must, at a minimum, include names of the databases
searched, the date the search was performed, the period covered by the search, key
words and/or the search strategy used (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
2000).
In an article published in the February 2004 issue of Lab Animal, members of The
Animal Welfare Information Center at the National Agricultural Library recommend
that a researcher make a reasonable and good faith effort to uncover alternative
methods.(Allen et al., 2004)
In sum, the law states that alternatives to animals must be considered, and USDA
policy makes it quite clear that [. . .] the performance of a database search remains the
most effective and efficient method for demonstrating compliance with the
requirement to consider alternatives to painful/distressful procedures [. . .] This
presents the perfect opportunity for librarians and information specialists to step up
and say, We can help. Librarians have the knowledge and experience to develop
search strategies, assemble relevant search queries, and mine the proper databases.
Additionally, this presents opportunities for librarians or information specialists to
interact with researchers who might not be aware of some of the resources that their
libraries can provide.

Compliance with the Act

In order to help facilitate the required literature search at the University of North
Carolina Wilmington, a guide, consisting of both free and proprietary databases
available to members of the university community, was created. The guide also
includes links to catalog records of books in the librarys collections and links to
relevant web sites. The goal was to be as comprehensive as possible, without being
overwhelming, and without reinventing the wheel there are many fine existing
resources on the web for those who seek them. All resources in this guide are available
to any member of the university community who accesses them from on campus.
Faculty, staff and students can access them from off-campus via a password protected
log-in. With regard to proprietary databases, the guide includes only those relevant
proprietary databases to which our university subscribed. This ensures that users
would always get citations or full-text results when they performed a search. For
librarians or information specialists considering creating a similar guide, consider
including databases to which your institution subscribes, and excluding those to which
your researchers do not have access. The guide can be found at this URL: http://library.
uncw.edu/guides/performing_required_literature_search_alternatives_animals_used_
research (accessed December 17, 2010).
The guide begins with a justification for the literature search as follows:
RSR The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations require principal investigators to consider
alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to
39,2 the animals and provide a written narrative of the methods used and sources consulted to
determine the availability of alternatives including refinements, reductions, and
replacements.
The guide further sets the stage by referencing the responsibilities of PIs and
324 highlighting the inherent value of a multiple database search:
The principal investigators must also provide written assurance that their research activities
do not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments.
A multiple database search is considered the most effective and efficient method for
demonstrating compliance with the requirement to consider alternatives to painful/distressful
procedures.
The narrative must, at a minimum include:
The names of the databases searched.
The date(s) the search was performed.
The period covered by the search.
The key words and/or the search strategy used (Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 2000).
This is followed by indicators of an inadequately performed literature search, classified
as Red Flags by the National Institutes of Health Library. The National Institutes of
Health Library lists the following Red Flags to an inadequate database search:
.
only one database searched;
.
terms only for painful aspects;
.
the term alternative used alone with no other alternative terms;
.
keywords listed not relevant to protocol;
.
keywords and concepts linked in an incorrect manner; and
.
search doesnt cover adequate time period.
In addition to the authors guide, a suggested guide to planning a search strategy and
choosing key words (how to search) is the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in
Medical Experiments (FRAME) site, Planning a Search: Search Terms and
Strategies, available at www.frame.org.uk/page.php?pg_id 141 (accessed
February 1, 2011). Here, librarians and information specialists will find explanations
of the principles and fundamentals behind a good literature search. The importance of
combining subject specific terms with terms used in the search for alternatives is
stressed.
A link to the Guide to Bibliographic Databases for Alternatives Searching,
from the UC Davis Center for Animal Alternatives Information addresses the
question of where to search. This site lists various species of animals, and then
pairs them up with databases likely to contain information relevant to that species.
This site takes the same approach with topics such as behavior, euthanasia, and
toxicity. It lists the resources in two columns, the first being free resources available
to anyone. The second column is populated with proprietary databases available to
members of the UC Davis community (www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/animalalternatives/
databaseapproach.php (accessed February 1, 2011)).
Databases: free and proprietary The Animal
Whereas the previous section directs researchers to sites they can utilize to develop a Welfare Act and
good foundation of how and where to search, this section highlights various databases,
both free (available to anyone) and proprietary (available to members of the University
librarians
of North Carolina Wilmington Community). Select databases follow in alphabetical
order; several of the accompanying descriptions are taken from the databases
themselves: 325
.
Academic Search Premier. A proprietary database with indexing and abstracts
for more than 8,500 journals, with full-text for more than 4,600 of those titles. It
has multidisciplinary coverage, including biology, chemistry, engineering,
literature, physics, psychology, religion, sociology, etc.
.
Agricola. A free resource from the National Agricultural Library. It serves as the
catalog and index to the collections of the National Agricultural Library, as well
as a primary public source for worldwide access to agricultural information. The
database covers materials in all formats and periods, including printed works
from as far back as the fifteenth century (http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/ (accessed
January 28, 2011)).
.
AGRIS: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and
Technology. This is a free resource from the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. The AGRIS open archives and bibliographic databases
cover forestry, animal husbandry, aquatic sciences and fisheries, and human
nutrition. Material includes gray literature such as unpublished scientific and
technical reports, theses, conference papers, and government publications. It is in
the public domain with nearly three million records (http://agris.fao.org/
(accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
ALTBIB: Alternative Bibliography on Alternatives to Animal Testing. This is a
free resource from the National Library of Medicine on Alternatives to the use of
Live Vertebrates in Biomedical Research and Testing. The intent of this
bibliography is to assist in identifying methods and procedures helpful in
supporting the development, testing, application, and validation of alternatives
to the use of vertebrates in biomedical research and toxicology testing. This
bibliography is produced from MEDLINE database searches, performed and
analyzed by subject experts from the Toxicology and Environmental Health
Information Program (TEHIP) of the Specialized Information Services Division
(SIS) of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/altbib.
html (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
American Chemical Society Publications. A proprietary database from ACS
Publications which publishes over 35 journals, Chemical & Engineering News
including back issues going back to 1998 and archives going back to 1923, ACS
Legacy Archives with over 464,000 articles from 1879 to 1995, and the ACS
Symposium Series, covering agricultural and food chemistry, cellulose and
renewable materials, chemical education, organic chemistry, polymer chemistry
and materials.
RSR .
Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstract (ASFA). A proprietary database that
39,2 monitors over 5,000 serial publications, books, reports, conference proceedings,
translations, and limited distribution literature. Coverage includes such subjects
as aquaculture, fisheries, wildlife management, etc.
.
CSA Illumina. A proprietary platform with multidisciplinary coverage,
providing access to more than 100 full text and bibliographic databases
326 published by CSA and its publishing partners. Subjects include arts and
humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, technology, etc.
.
Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj). A free resource from
the United States National Library of Medicine. HSRProj contains descriptions of
research in progress funded by federal and private grants and contracts for use
by policy makers, managers, clinicians, and other decision makers. It provides
access to information about health services research in progress before results
are available in a published form. Records cover both grants and contracts
awarded by major public and private funding agencies and foundations
(wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov/hsr_project/home_proj.cfm (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
ISI Web of Knowledge. This is a proprietary research platform that includes
23,000 journals, 23,000,000 patents, 110,000 proceedings, 9,000 web sites, over
250 product categories, current articles as well as over 100 years of backfiles in
the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities, over 40 million source items
and 700 million cited references. The files are indexed, searchable and linkable.
.
MasterFile Premier. A proprietary database designed for public libraries. It
contains full text for almost 1,700 periodicals, more than 500 reference books, and
over 107,000 primary source documents. Its topics include general reference,
business, health, education, general science, etc.
.
Oxford Journals. This is a proprietary database which is a division of Oxford
University Press, a department of Oxford University. Oxford University Press
publishes over 230 academic and research journals, two-thirds of which are
published in collaboration with learned societies and other international
organizations.
.
PsycArticles. This is a proprietary database of full-text articles, errata, and letters
to the editor from a select number of journals published by the American
Psychological Association, the APA Educational Publishing Foundation, the
Canadian Psychological Association, and Hogrefe Publishing Group. Coverage
dates vary by title.
.
PsycInfo. This is a proprietary abstract database that provides systematic
coverage of the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present. PsycInfo
also includes records from the 1600s and 1700s. Included are bibliographic
citations, abstracts, cited references, and descriptive information.
.
PubMed. This is a free resource developed and maintained by the National
Center for Biotechnology Information at the United States National Library of
Medicine, located at the National Institutes of Health. PubMed comprises
approximately 20 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life
 science journals, and online books. Subjects covered include the fields of The Animal
medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary medicine, the health care system, and Welfare Act and
preclinical sciences (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ (accessed January 28,
2011)). librarians
.
Sage Journals Online. This is a proprietary database with full text access to over
560 journal titles covering multiple disciplines, including business, humanities,
social sciences, science, technology, and medicine. 327
.
Science Direct. This is a proprietary database with access to over 2,500 journals
and more than nine million full text articles, plus over 11,000 books covering the
physical sciences, engineering, life sciences, health sciences, social sciences, and
humanities.
.
SpringerLink. This is a proprietary integrated database with online full text
access to peer reviewed journals in biomedicine, life science, clinical medicine,
physics, engineering, mathematics, computer science, humanities, and
economics. SpringerLink currently offers 2,568 journals and 42,876 books.
.
TOXLINE. The National Library of Medicines database for toxicology. This
covers biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of
drugs and other chemicals. TOXLINE contains over four million bibliographic
citations, most with abstracts and/or indexing terms and CAS Registry Numbers
(http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?TOXLINE (accessed January 28,
2011)).
. TOXNET (Toxicology Data Network). This is a free resource which is a cluster of
databases covering toxicology, hazardous chemicals, environmental health, and
related areas. It is managed by the Toxicology and Environmental Health
Information Program (TEHIP) in the Division of Specialized Information
Services (SIS) of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Databases contain
bibliographic citations dating from 1965 to the present; however, it is possible to
retrieve citations dating back to the 1940s. Databases are updated when new
information becomes available and checks for new data are made at least once a
week. Examples of databases included are TOXMAP, Household Products
Database, and TOXLINE. The TOXNET Multiple Databases option allows for
integrated searching (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Wiley InterScience. This is a proprietary database with a multidisciplinary
collection of resources covering life, health, and physical sciences, social science
and the humanities. It provides access to over four million articles from 1,500
journals, 9000 books, and hundreds of reference works, laboratory protocols, and
databases.

Books
Relevant titles can be found by searching the following Library of Congress Subject
Headings: Animal experimentation moral and ethical aspects, Vivisection, Animal
Welfare, and Animal testing alternatives. Some examples of books that explore the
moral and ethical aspects of this topic as well as the practical application of
alternatives follow in alphabetical order:
RSR .
Fano, A. (1997), Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health, and
39,2 Environmental Policy, Zed Books Ltd, London and New York, NY. This book
discusses the issue of animal experimentation in terms of environmental policy
and public health. The main focus here is on toxicological testing. The author
addresses the problems inherent in inter-species extrapolation. Also included are
detailed descriptions of animal testing methods as well as a chapter on available
328 alternatives.
.
Greek, J.S. and Greek, C.R. (2000), Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human
Cost of Experiments on Animals, Continuum, New York, NY. The authors
document the myriad institutions, interest groups, and entire industries that
have a vested interest in perpetuating the business of animal experimentation.
The book includes many examples of the failures of animal models, and
addresses the issues of legislation and alternatives. Dr Jean Swingle Greek, DVM
is a board-certified veterinary dermatologist. Dr C. Ray Greek, MD is president of
Americans for Medical Advancement, Medical Director of Europeans for Medical
Advancement, and Science Advisor to the National Anti-vivisection Society of
the United States.
.
Greek, J.S. and Greek, C.R. (2004), What Will We Do If We Dont Experiment on
Animals?: Medical Research for the Twenty-first Century, Trafford, Victoria. This
book provides examples of how extrapolating data from experiments on animals
and applying that data to humans has repeatedly led to faulty and sometimes
tragic results. This book calls for a paradigm shift away from using animal
models to research based on such methods as genomics, proteomics, and in vitro
research using human tissue. Dr Jean Swingle Greek, DVM is a board-certified
veterinary dermatologist. Dr C. Ray Greek, MD is president of Americans for
Medical Advancement, Medical Director of Europeans for Medical
Advancement, and Science Advisor to the National Anti-vivisection Society of
the United States.
.
Kapis, M.B. and Gad, S.C. (Editors) (1993), Non-animal Techniques in Biomedical
and Behavioral Research and Testing, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. The
editors invited recognized leading scientists from industry and academia to
contribute to this work. Authors wrote chapters on their areas of expertise
pertaining to alternatives. Topics covered include in vitro testing for products
and drugs, computational modeling, epidemiology, and medical microbiology.
Each chapter contains extensive references and an introduction for each new
topic.
.
Shapiro, K.J. (1998), Animal Models of Human Psychology: Critique of Science,
Ethics, and Policy, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, WA. This book examines the use of
animal models in the study of human behavior. The author traces the history of
psychologys use of animals and questions the relevance of research results to
the treatment of human psychological disorders. It discusses the question of the
ethics of animal experimentation in the behavioral sciences. The foreword is by
noted chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall.
Web sites The Animal
Web sites included in this section are of three types. Some provide resources for Welfare Act and
locating alternatives to animal research. Others provide literature or narrative relating
to the ethics of using alternatives to animal research. And still other web sites contain librarians
documentation of the legal requirements of searching for alternatives to animal
experiments, such as the Animal Welfare Act. Web sites follow in alphabetical order;
several of the accompanying descriptions are from the web sites themselves: 329
.
Animal testing and animal experimentation issues. This contains articles
covering a variety of animal testing alternatives issues at the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) site. Article subject areas include:
A new scientific understanding of animals, Regulatory issues, When animal
tests fail, and Non-animal methods in research and education. PCRM is a
nonprofit organization founded in 1985 supported by physicians and laypersons.
PCRMs advisory board includes 11 health care professionals from a broad range
of specialties (www.pcrm.org/animal_testing.html (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Animal welfare United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This contains annual reports of research
facilities, inspection reports, etc., available through the Freedom of Information
Act. APHIS Animal Care employs more than 120 inspectors nationwide who are
responsible for performing the bulk of inspections to support enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. Also included on the site are
annual reports of enforcement and animal care factsheets (www.aphis.usda.gov/
animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC). Located at the National
Agricultural Library, this is an excellent resource for information on a variety
of topics covering animal welfare. The AWIC is mandated by the Animal
Welfare Act to provide information for improved animal care and use in research,
testing, teaching, and exhibition. AWIC staff can provide users with assistance
in performing the required literature searches for research protocols (http://awic.
nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center 3&tax_level 1&tax_
subject 185 (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Alternative resources in education. This provides alternatives for use in
teaching and dissection. It is designed as a search engine to facilitate searching
for animal alternatives in education. This site provides links to the Norwegian
Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science & Alternatives, the European
Resource Center for Alternatives in Higher Education, and the International
Network for Humane Education. Hosted by the UC Davis Center for Animal
Alternatives Education (www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/
altsearch.htm (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Alternatives Research & Development Foundation. This is a source for grants.
The mission of the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation is to fund
and promote the development, validation, and adoption of non-animal methods
in biomedical research, product testing, and education (www.ardf-online.org/
index.html (accessed January 28, 2011)).
RSR .
Altweb: alternatives to animal testing. This is hosted by the Johns Hopkins
39,2 Bloomberg School of Public Health. Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing
web site, was created to serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information,
and resources on the internet and beyond. Altweb now is the US home of the
journal ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, which is the official
publication of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
330 (CAAT) (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/ (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
EURCA: European Resource Centre for Alternatives to Using Animals in Higher
Education. This provides resources for the substitution of animal
experimentation in educational curricula. EURCA actively promotes the use of
alternatives to using animals in higher education (HE). EURCA aims to provide a
mechanism for effective dissemination of information about alternatives to using
animals in HE. Site includes an alternatives database, opportunities to
demonstrate alternatives at conferences, opportunities to collaborate, and links
for obtaining materials for use in the classroom (www.eurca.org/index.asp
(accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM
was created in 1991 by a Communication from the Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament. ECVAM has been charged with coordinating and
promoting the development and use of alternatives to procedures including basic
and applied research and regulatory testing. ECVAM is also responsible for
setting up, maintaining, and managing public databases and information
systems on alternative approaches and their state of development. This site is a
portal to information about ECVAM and the resources they provide (http://
ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.htm (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
FRAME: Fund For the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments.
FRAME was founded by Dorothy Hegarty and registered as a UK charity in
1969. The site tracks news and trends in animal replacement, mainly focusing on
Europe. Grants are available here for researchers proposing projects that will
replace animals in experiments. Good site for general information on the
Replacement of Animals in Experiments. Also has a very good section on
literature searching techniques (www.frame.org.uk/index.php (accessed January
28, 2011)).
.
InterNICHE: International Network for Humane Education. InterNICHE is a
nonprofit organization which focuses on animal use and alternatives in
biological science, veterinary and human medicine. InterNICHE supports
progressive science teaching and the replacement of animal experiments by
working with teachers to introduce alternatives, and with students to support
freedom of conscience. The site provides links to relevant databases, news, and
research information. InterNICHE also loans out materials for humane
alternative education such as CDs, models, mannequins, and videos
(www.interniche.org/ (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Its hard to perform ethical research on animals. This is a very brief essay by
Daniel Engber, science editor of Slate Magazine, posted on Edge.orgs World
 Question Center. It answers the question, What have you changed your mind The Animal
about? Engber is a former animal researcher (www.edge.org/q2008/ Welfare Act and
q08_14.html#engber (accessed 28 January 2011)). National Agricultural Law
Center Animal Welfare Reading Room. This is hosted by the National librarians
Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas. This reading room
provides links to major statutes, regulations, case law, center research
publications, Congressional research service reports, and other various 331
reference resources. The National Agricultural Law Center is funded with
federal appropriations through the National Agricultural Library
(www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/animalwelfare/ (accessed January
27, 2011)).
.
NORINA: a Norwegian inventory of alternatives. NORINA is an
English-language database containing information on over 3,800 audiovisual
aids that may be used as alternatives or supplements to the use of animals in
teaching and training, including dissection alternatives, at all levels from junior
school to university. The information in the database has been collected from
1991 until the present (http://oslovet.veths.no/fag.aspx?fag 57&
mnu databases_1 (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Pepper: the stolen dog that changed American science by Daniel Engber. This is
an excellent five-part series published in the online magazine Slate.com. These
articles document the history and politics behind the Animal Welfare Act,
challenge the reader to examine the laboratory animal business, and to look at
how we define what is humane. The titles in the series are, Wheres Pepper,
Man cuts dog, Pepper goes to Washington, Brown dogs and red herrings,
and Me and monkey. Daniel Engber is a senior editor at Slate
(www.slate.com/id/2219224/ (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Searching the literature for animal testing alternatives. This is an excellent
tutorial from UNC Health Sciences Library. This site guides the researcher
through the various steps in the research process. It includes links to specialized
alternative databases, free online databases, and UNC-CH subscribed databases.
The tutorial instructs users on how to define the question, construct the query,
select and search a database, evaluate a search, manage search results, and
report search results. Quizzes are included after each section (http://guides.hsl.
unc.edu/content.php?pid 149221 (accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
UC Davis Center for Animal Alternatives Information. Another excellent site,
the UC Davis Center for Animal Alternatives places special emphasis on
disseminating up-to-date information concerning animal alternatives through
every level of public and private education. It also seeks to provide investigators
who use animals with information on the most current methods for improving all
aspects of animal care during their work. This is a good place to conduct
research or to ask for help (www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/animalalternatives/
(accessed January 28, 2011)).
.
Whole brain catalog. An open source, downloadable, multi-scale, virtual
catalog of the mouse brain and its cellular constituents. Users can view 3D
RSR representations of brain parts as well as cell and molecule models. Images are
39,2 rendered at high resolution and researchers can contribute data using upload
tools (http://wholebraincatalog.org/ (accessed January 28, 2011)).

Suggestions for further research

The authors own anecdotal evidence indicates that there is a dearth of academic
332 librarians either serving on institutional animal care and use committees or actively
promoting their services to such committees. Research examining the extent of
involvement of academic librarians in this area would be valuable.
Some commercial research laboratories employ their own in-house information
specialists. It would benefit the profession to see a comparison of the utilization of
information specialists in commercial research laboratories and their counterparts in
academic institutions.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, research into the effectiveness of using a
librarian or other information specialist in the search for alternatives to animals in
experiments needs to be done. What are the results that might be obtained by a
researcher working in conjunction with a librarian, versus one performing literature
reviews on his or her own?
To keep abreast of developments in this general arena, consider bookmarking the
web site of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) available at: http://awic.nal.
usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?tax_level 1&info_center 3 (accessed February 1,
2011). AWIC maintains links to all the regulatory information and has an excellent
News and Events section with regular updates on animal welfare news from various
sources. Users can also sign up for an RSS feed to have the news stories pushed to you.
To expand the scope of this topic further while maintaining currency, Google Blog
Search is a powerful tool for news and feedback. Searches using such terms as
alternatives to animals or animal welfare act provide more than sufficient results to
generate discussion and ideas for further research. It goes without saying that the
authority of results here should be verified. Google Blog Search is available at: http://
blogsearch.google.com/ (accessed February 1, 2011).

Conclusion
When it comes to animal experimentation, an individual falls into one of three
categories. The first category consists of those who feel that humankind has a right to
do whatever they want to animals. Second are those who feel that humankind has no
right at all to experiment on animals. The third category consists of those who feel that
humankind has a right to experiment on animals, as long as it is done humanely. That
debate continues and is not the topic of this article. Federal law states that animal
experimentation is legal as long as it is performed humanely.
The Animal Welfare Act mandated the creation of IACUCs as a means of ensuring
that researchers follow the guidelines established for humane treatment of animals in
their experiments. Part of an IACUCs charge is to see that researchers perform a
satisfactory literature search for alternatives to animals and include that information in
their research protocol. Librarians and other information specialists are uniquely
positioned to assist researchers in this important undertaking.
 The professional literature stresses that a librarys survival depends on its ability to The Animal
remain relevant. In these seriously challenging economic times, one way for libraries to Welfare Act and
remain relevant is to provide value to the people that they serve. That value can be in
the form of providing internet access to do research for homework. It can be a resume librarians
writing workshop for those seeking employment. That value can also be in the form of
helping a research faculty member comply with the law. In this example, academic
librarians can put their training and expertise to use to make the difference between life 333
or death, or pain and suffering for an animal used in an experiment. The author
suggests that there is perhaps immeasurable value in that.
To quote Engber (2006), cited several times in this article:
[. . .] it seems to me the pressure to keep the laboratory door shut comes from both sides. The
public acceptance of animal research, and the biomedical breakthroughs it engenders, has
always come with the understanding that no one will divulge too many of the gory details
we put up with animal sacrifice only so long as we dont have to think about it.

References
Allen, T., Crawford, R., Jensen, D., Adams, K., Goodman, G. and Erickson, H. (2004), Stepping on
stone, Lab Animal, Vol. 33 No. 2, p. 16.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2000), Policy #12, available at: www.aphis.usda.
gov/animal_welfare/downloads/policy/policy12.pdf (accessed October 27, 2010).
Beauchamp, T., Orlans, F.B., Dresser, R., Morton, D.B. and Gluck, J.P. (2008), The Human Use of
Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Engber, D. (2006), Its hard to perform ethical research on animals, available at: www.edge.org/
q2008/q08_14.html#engber (accessed October 27, 2010).
Engber, D. (2009), Pepper: the stolen dog that changed American science, available at: www.
slate.com/id/2219224/ (accessed October 27, 2010).
Federal Register (1989), Final rules: animal welfare; 9 CFR parts 1 and 2, Vol. 54 168, August 31,
available at: www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Legislat/awafin.shtml (accessed October 27,
2010).
GPO Access (1998), Code of federal regulations: title 9: animals and animal products, available
at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cecfr&sid273394ae8ab5bcdb765541
cc82e34154&rgndiv8&viewtext&node9:1.0.1.1.2.3.1.2&idno9 (accessed October 27,
2010).
Pacheco, A. and Francione, A. (1985), The Silver Springs monkeys, in Singer, P. (Ed.),
In Defense of Animals, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 135-47.
Phinizy, C. (1965), The lost pets that stray to the labs, Sports Illustrated, Vol. 23 No. 22,
pp. 36-49.
Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L. (1959), The principles of humane experimental technique,
available at: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/het-toc (accessed October 27,
2010).
Silva, M. and Wayman, S. (1966), Concentration camps for dogs, Life, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 22-9.
Stevens, C. (1990) in Leavitt, E.S. (Ed.), Animals and Their Legal Rights: A Survey of American
Laws from 1641 to 1990, Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, DC.
RSR United States Code (1966), Public Law 89-544, Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966,
available at: http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center3&tax_
39,2 level4&tax_subject182&topic_id1118&level3_id6735&level4_id11092&level5
_id0&placement_default0 (accessed January 28, 2011).
United States Code (1985), Public Law 99-198, Food Security Act of 1985, available at: www.
nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/#85 (accessed January 28, 2011).
334 USDA (2007), Legislative history of the Animal Welfare Act, September, www.nal.usda.gov/
awic/pubs/AWA2007/awa.shtml (accessed January 19, 2011).

Corresponding author
John E. Osinski can be contacted at: osinskij@uncw.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.