The American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), the organization responsible for setting educational standards for veterinary schools in the U.S. and Canada, provides guidelines on animal use based on the “4 Rs”:

• Replace animals with non-animal models
• Reduce the number of animals used
• Refinement of procedures to minimize pain and distress to animals
• Respect for animals

How closely do veterinary colleges adhere to these guidelines? As a first step toward finding out, a team of researchers contacted schools to learn how common it is to use animals for medical training and the justifications that educators give for doing so.

Between December 2022 and January 2023, the researchers made public records requests for all active Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocols from each of the 30 accredited public veterinary colleges in the U.S. and Canada. IACUCs are the groups that make decisions about whether to allow the use of animals for educational and research purposes. Protocols submitted to IACUCs typically outline the numbers and types of animals being requested, as well as the planned procedures and, in some cases, the reasons why animals are being chosen over alternatives. In the U.S., protocols cover a three-year period, while Canadian protocols are approved for four years.

The study focused on cadavers and “terminal use” of animals. Cadavers can include animals who were already dead when acquired or who were alive but euthanized by the school before the teaching exercise. IACUC approval isn’t necessarily required for cadavers. Terminal use involves animals who were acquired with the expectation that their use will end in death. For example, an animal might be put under anesthesia, operated on, and then euthanized.

The researchers analyzed a total of 120 IACUC protocols from the 26 veterinary schools that responded. Only two schools reported having no relevant protocols to provide, suggesting that they don’t use animals for terminal procedures — though they could still be using cadavers. A further two schools refused to provide the information requested.

The total number of animals used was impossible to determine because the protocols often didn’t include counts or the counts were unclear. Most requests were for equines (24 schools), followed by cows (20), small ruminants (19), fishes (13), and pigs (13). Other species were requested by fewer than half of colleges, and included dogs (10 schools), poultry (9), camelids (8), exotics (8), cats (7), avians (6), rodents (5), ungulates (2), and non-human primates (1).

“Donations” were a common source of animals (20 schools), but details on these programs were scarce and inconsistent. Donated animals can include those euthanized by their guardians or at animal shelters, as well as farmed animals given to schools by producers. Other sources of animals included outside vendors or internal transfers (25 schools), university-owned herds, flocks, colonies, or hatcheries (14), and, much less commonly, pet stores (2).

The researchers point out that even if schools ostensibly followed AAVMC recommendations when sourcing animals, these are somewhat inconsistent, stating that “only pets who died naturally or were euthanized for medical reasons should be considered eligible” but also that “willed body program[s], animal shelters, abattoirs, renderers, and deceased institutionally owned animals” are ethical choices. Given this ambiguity, they argue that protocols should be far more transparent about how the animals will be acquired.

Most animal use requests were for surgeries (24 schools), medical procedures like imaging and injections (22), anatomy (17), and necropsy and pathology (16). Overall, there was no species that every college used to teach any specific procedure. This suggests that some schools teach a procedure with terminal animals, while others may teach the same procedure with cadavers, live animals who aren’t euthanized, or non-animal methods.

The most common justifications for needing live animals or cadavers were:

• Alternatives exist but don’t provide an equal learning experience (72.5% of requests)
• Live animals are needed for students to learn non-surgical techniques like handling and restraint (59%)
• Live animals are needed for students to learn aspects of surgery like anesthesia and tissue handling (54%)

In response to these sorts of justifications, the researchers note that the AAVMC doesn’t explicitly recommend terminal surgeries as a teaching method. They also highlight how past research has shown that non-terminal methods and non-animal alternatives are effective in preparing students for surgical competency. However, 15% of protocols gave no consideration to alternatives whatsoever.

This study is preliminary and inherently limited due to the lack of standardization of records across colleges. However, it may point to a potentially overlooked opportunity for animal advocates, especially those positioned in veterinary schools. Pushing for more transparency in animal use requests and advocating for equally effective non-animal alternatives for training future veterinarians are two ways to make a small but positive difference for animals.