CAAT Newsletter: Vol. 13, No. 2, Winter 1996

Director's Diary

By Alan M. Goldberg, Ph.D.

The CAAT Advisory Board met for its annual meeting November 16-17, 1995 in Baltimore. Although CAAT board meetings are always lively and interesting, this year's meeting was particularly significant for a number of reasons. First, two distinguished academicians (one of whom has served on the Advisory Board since the Center's inception) will rotate off the board.

At this time, we would like to thank Dr. Peter Ward, University of Michigan, for 14 years of dedication and commitment to the work of the Center. We would also like to thank Dr. Robert Roth, Michigan State University, for his service on the Board and particularly for his careful reading and astute criticism of the materials produced for CAAT's education and information program. Both of these individuals are deeply committed to quality science and both will be missed. We will announce our new academic members in the next issue of this newsletter. We welcome Dr. Wallace Hayes of The Gillette Company to the Board. As you will note on our contributor's page, Gillette has become a sponsor of the Center and we are pleased to have Dr. Hayes represent the company on the CAAT Advisory Board.

This issue of the CAAT Newsletter has a special focus, institutional animal care and use committees. As we reviewed the varied and interesting collection of articles submitted for this issue, it occured to me that many of the problems and concerns identified by members of these committees are identical to those expressed by members and observers of the first institutional review committees for human subjects. Instituted over 30 years ago, committees charged with oversight of all scientific studies involving human subjects were initially greeted with the same mixed feelings as contemporary animal care and use committees.

However, as IRBs (institutional review boards) became a familiar part of the research process, it became clear to all that this added layer of peer review, initially viewed as a burdensome and unnecessary intrusion, was really an opportunity to improve the scientific quality of experiments, as well as enhancing the protection of humans involved in research. I expect that the same process of initial resistance followed by respect and appreciation for the committee's work will take place with respect to animal care and use committees. I'd like to thank all of our contributors for their honesty in sharing their insight and concerns with the readers of the newsletter.