CCAC Policy on the Importance of
Independent Peer Review of the Scientific Merit
of Animal-Based Research Projects (2000)

1. General

   
   The October 1989 CCAC Ethics of Animal Investigation Policy Statement (Appendix XV-A, CCAC Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, Vol. 1, 2nd Edn., 1993) states:
   
   
   1. "The use of animals in research, teaching, and testing is acceptable only if it promises to contribute to understanding of fundamental biological principles, or to the development of knowledge that can reasonably be expected to benefit humans or animals...." (opening statement).
      
      
   2. "Expert opinion must attest to the potential value of studies with animals" (point 3).
      
      

2. Research

   
   In particular, for all animal-based research projects, institutional animal care committees (ACCs) must ensure that scientific merit has been demonstrated through an independent peer review before the corresponding protocols are given final approval by the committee. Several CCAC documents attest to this:
   
   
   1. "It is the responsibility of the ACC to: ... d) ensure that, for research projects, a peer review of scientific merit is carried out; if the review is not carried out by an external, peer review agency, the ACC should require that it be obtained according to the 1997 CCAC guidelines on: animal use protocol review" (Section 3, CCAC Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees, March 2000).
      
      
   2. "Information provided within the protocol review form should provide the ACC with a clear sense of the need for the experimental project, and of the relationship between the proposed experiment and the overall objective. ACCs must ensure that all approved proposals have been peer reviewed for scientific merit. Proposals associated with competitive funding applications to agencies with adequate peer review processes generally do not require review for scientific merit by the ACC. The requirement for scientific merit should normally be satisfied if the application is funded. Where ACC approval is required by the funding agency before it will review the application, ACC approval should be provisional, pending assurance from the funding agency that the application has high scientific merit.
      
      Projects approved and funded by some agencies or organizations, or from internal funds may have been subjected to little or no peer review. Some funding agencies award 'Program Grants' which, unlike their 'Project Grants', may include animal use that is not subjected to a focussed peer review for scientific merit" (CCAC guidelines on: animal use protocol review, 1997).
      
      

3. Process

   
   Where evidence of good peer review is absent, the institutional ACC must proceed as follows:
   
   "... the ACC should solicit two reviews of the objectives, hypotheses, methods and contributions of the project by knowledgeable scientists who do not collaborate with the investigator. As a minimum, one referee must be external to the committee. The reviews must be documented and must contain sufficient information to support the reviewers' conclusion(s)" (CCAC guidelines on: animal use protocol review, 1997).
   
   

March 2000

[ Back to top ]