Finding Similarities Through Our Differences: A Canadian Perspective on US “Continuing Review” in Animal Research

By Kathy Banks, BSc, MSc, continuing review coordinator, animal ethics, University of British Columbia 

PRIM&R is pleased to share a post from Kathy Banks, a member of the PRIM&R Blog Squad for the 2015 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Conference. The PRIM&R Blog Squad is composed of PRIM&R members who blog here, on Ampersand, to give our readers an inside peek of what is happening at the conference in Boston, MA.

One of the bonuses of being a PRIM&R Blog Squad member was attending the IACUC 101 pre-conference program on March 18. While the majority of the program topics were US-centric (OLAW, PHS, and AAALAC), much of the content translated to the standards I work under as set out by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). Two of the sessions, IACUC Functions, presented by Jerry Collins, PhD, of Yale University, and Protocol Review, presented by Ernest D. Prentice, PhD of University of Nebraska Medical Center, peaked my interest the most as they repeatedly mentioned “continuing review” (CR) and “post-approval monitoring” (PAM), terms I thought I was very familiar with.

What became clear throughout the sessions was, while PAM is universal, the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) definition of CR was much different than what was presented during IACUC 101. I had the opportunity to briefly speak with Drs. Collins and Prentice during a break to discuss their definition of CR and to go over the differences and similarities with the Canadian/UBC version of CR that I had noted. They indicated that, to them, CR encompasses the annual review of protocols by the IACUC.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.