reader with additional information that supports statements made in the Guide or presents divergent opinions.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Guide charges users of research animals with the responsibility of achieving specified outcomes but leaves it up to them how to accomplish these goals. This ''performance" approach is desirable because many variables (such as the species and previous history of the animals, facilities, expertise of the people, and research goals) often make prescriptive ("engineering") approaches impractical and unwarranted. Engineering standards are sometimes useful to establish a baseline, but they do not specify the goal or outcome (such as well-being, sanitation, or personnel safety) in terms of measurable criteria as do performance standards.

The engineering approach does not provide for interpretation or modification in the event that acceptable alternative methods are available or unusual circumstances arise. Performance standards define an outcome in detail and provide criteria for assessing that outcome, but do not limit the methods by which to achieve that outcome. This performance approach requires professional input and judgment to achieve outcome goals. Optimally, engineering and performance standards are balanced, thereby providing standards while allowing flexibility and judgment based on individual situations. Scientists, veterinarians, technicians, and others have extensive experience and information covering many of the topics discussed in this Guide. Research on laboratory animal management continues to generate scientific information that should be used in evaluating performance and engineering standards. For some issues, insufficient information is available, and continued research into improved methods of animal care and use is needed.

The Guide is deliberately written in general terms so that its recommendations can be applied in the diverse institutions and settings that produce or use animals for research, teaching, and testing; generalizations and broad recommendations are imperative in such a document. This approach requires that users, IACUCs, veterinarians, and producers use professional judgment in making specific decisions regarding animal care and use. Because this Guide is written in general terms, IACUCs have a key role in interpretation, oversight, and evaluation of institutional animal care and use programs. The question frequently arises as to how the words must and should are used in the Guide and how IACUCs should interpret their relative priority. In general, the verb must is used for broad programmatic or basic aspects that the Committee to Revise the Guide considers are imperative. The verb should is used as a strong recommendation for achieving a goal. However, the committee recognizes that individual circumstances might justify an alternative strategy.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement