Not sure why I am responding to this but this is foolish on at least two fronts. First, it may be an animal violation if the animal is stored outside animal housing area and your room is not approved by the local IACUC for long-term housing. Secondly, routine handling of rats changes their physiology and their response to stress. This animal should be removed from the study, as its environment is not similar to any other. It is just poor science.

Having this animal in the lab for longer than 24 hours violates IACUC regulations. It shuld be discontinued immediately.

Feel the chill? Sounds like some of these PIs are animal haters in disguise. Each commentator should reveal if he/she owns any pets personally.

If it is not part of the approved experimental protocol, the ""pet"" handling of the rat needs to end. In addition, the physiological adaptation of the lone rat is now different from that of the other animals in the experiment, which can generate invalid data from the experiment.

First, I agree it violates IACUC regulations to keep the animal in the lab. Secondly, I agree it is a confounder for the study. Environmental enrichment is certainly important, and should be part of any animal study (eg petting, toys, treats). But you would want to apply it equally to all animals within the limits of the study aims.

In response to Bird-Dog, it is not animal hating, it is doing good research and insuring proper animal care and welfare. You do not keep animals in the lab - who monitors the temperature, insures water and food, changes the cage on a regular basis, keeps the light cycle normal, etc. Plus, as pointed out by others, it is not good research treating one animal differently!

It violates nothing and attests to the good nature of your employees. Of course, the animal in question should be excluded from the study, but not from his right to life. Have one of you techs take the critter home, record that, exclude results from this animal prior and after this dasterly deed and then get a life. Denis English, Ph.D.

Gone are the days when employees can take an animal home. The animal welfare regulations as applied today make everything more difficult. Employees cannot even have a fish tank of guppies in the laboratory, let alone take an animal off an experiment and take it home. These employees need to be re-taught their responsibility in the performance of animal experiments. We may not like it, but this is where animal rights have brought us.

Having worked as an animal lab technician many years ago, I feel that having this one animal out of 200 as a pet would be a good thing for the morale and humanity of your technicians. It should be taken out of the study, of course. I would much prefer technicians treat an animal, with its short and unpleasant life, nicely as opposed to treating them with disdain as objects.

If it was my lab; the tech would be fired on the spot...a blatent violation of IACUC regulations AND a distraction from getting any work done

It seems like some commenters do not work in the biomedical field, and have a very vague idea about current animal regulations. Besides animal welfare and data validity, this is also the issue of environmental and biohazards. 'Hh', petting rodents is out of question for many reasons. 'Dr.Deek', an animal, even excluded from the sudy, cannot be taken home. Moreover, no animal is allowed to ever leave approved facilities and routes of transportation. If such a thing becomes known to your funding and institutional authorities, it will be a really big deal, up to and including termination. Please don't advise if you are not sure. (The same applies to ‘Dr.Deek’s comments to the earlier discussions on this site.)

Do any of today's researchers realize that we have "pure" genetic strains of mice partly because, in the early 1900s, there were "mouse fancier" clubs. These were mostly "upper society" women who kept mice as PETS! They raised "pure strains" (without understanding the gentics) by selecting for coat color, behavior and other easy characteristics. So why not honor a lab mouse or rat today, by elevating it to "pet" status?

True story: While working late one night in the lab I was interupted by the big, burly factory worker who cleaned our floor as his second job, after hours. He wasn't afraid of anythng, and his bulk sure scared me. He said there was a "mouse" loose in the neighboring lab--under the refrigerator. I went to aid in capture, but upons seeing it, I observed "That's not a mouse, it's a rat". Whereupon, he screamed "A RAT!! I'm outta here!", and fled the building.So maybe your mind determines if your lab rat is pet, tool, or The Devil?

Two comments. If a rat is maintained outside of the colony and has human interaction as a pet, the animal must be withdrawn from the study as has been pointed out. Many years ago a colleague had a male rat that survived a cancer treatment protocol. The animal compared to others in the colony was extremely docile. The animal was removed from the colony and taken to the ""bench"" lab and kept on the lab bench as a retired pet. Named Zero, the animal lived free on the bench, never tried to leave it. One of the small lab bench sinks became its outhouse. It lived just short of 18 months and weighed almost 700 grams just before its death.

How nice of the Feds to absent themselves from ruling on minutiae like an occasional lab pet. Gives me a warm spot for Christmas. But will the bureauCUCs be any better at deciding wisely yet humanely?

The safety of the rat being kept in the lab is a non issue, kids. A rat's needs are few, they are hardy and adaptable, and from the sound of it the rat is being treated better in the lab. Most animal care facilities, though adequate, aren't a picnic for the animals there. It is of course contamination of the data if the pet rat is still being used in a study, however, most animals are "sacrificed" (i.e. killed) after they're used, so taking them home instead shouldn't pose a problem. If someone takes a lab rat home, does the IACUC have to inspect their home? Animal research is just plain cruel, and not of much benefit, in fact, most research in general is just fudged. Look at climate gate. The ego maniacal investigators and the hypertrophied universities just need this charade to continue for their own benefit.

To start at the beginning - petting a rat is not a problem or a violation. Rats are manipulated all the time in transfer/feeding/and other experimentation. Let's not get into the ""good touching"" ""bad touching"" debate over a rodent. Walking the rat around the lab however poses potential risks to the rat and experiments. If you want a rat go buy one, or exclude thisone from the study and take it home. Is there anyone who actually makes decisions based on what the IACUC ""would do"" or ""recommend."" If this absurd obstructionist Shagri-la didn't have the power to cause you more pain than caused by NOT dealing with them - no one would give them the time of day. And certainly no-one would ask their opinion about their own experiments. Ever heard of industry coming and asking about some IACUC advice? Me neither.

As a top-ranked research chemist who lives with about 20 cats, two geese, a duck, and a dog as pets in a rural environment (and my wife is now raising a chick rooster in a cage in our kitchen), I read the the equally absurd exchanges above with disbelief and amazement. What bureaucratize and unreasonableness! If the technician can't take it home, give us the rat, and we'll look after it. I had one as a pet as a boy.

I am a PI who , more than 2 years ago, was collaborating with a lab working with rat pups. It was friday night and experiments were wrapping up, when I saw that one female remained. She may have been removed from the animal facility by mistake in that males were typically used in this lab's work. Unfortunately, she could not go back to the animal facility once removed. Not wanting to euthanize her, I took her home. She was a fantastic pet until she died a few weeks ago. I think having had her as a pet reinforced the goal of using as few rodents as possible in my work, and treating them as humanely as possible.

Students and Tech's from my research group have asked in the past if they could take a rat home as a pet - they were told no, due to the regulatory reasons listed above - but even if there were no IACUC violations to contend with - I have advised them against the practice of having rodent pets simply because of the possibility of developing allergic reactions to the animals - a real possibility the could end or limit their career as a researcher - and the one student who I found out did steal an animal and keep is as a pet is now unable to work with rats due to their sever "rat allergy"

When I was a student 25 years ago, we had a rat in the lab as a pet and everybody loved him. However, IACUC was different that time and was not against scientists and their research... Research life is not a style of life any more, it is a pure business and we have to follow these new regulation instead of thinking about our lab as our home (as was many years ago...)

Assuming the rat is removed from the study, removed from the labatory, has no residual attribute from an experiment that would make it dangerous to its caregiver or society in general, and the caregiver is familiar with the rodent alergery possibility (however remote), more power to the person who puts some respect/humanity into the life of even 1 lab animal.

Well Gumby, allergies are all in your head. I have had tons of pet rats and mice and never developed an allergy because I don't believe in allergies. You see, rats are all around us, we have all been exposed to rat dander, rat droppings and the like. If you have developed such a severe allergy from a pet rat that you can no longer work in the lab, you will find another better job anyway.

I don't see what the fuss is about. Having a rat as a lab mascot & pet is not only cool; it is good for lab morale. Nonetheless, i'd hide it in a drawer before iACUC inspection.

Is the tiny "leash" IACUC approved? Does he eat in the lab because that would violate a whole other set of rules? Is his little poo disposed of in the proper waste container? Does he wear afety glasses and little coat when experiments are underway? I am still trying to figure out if this is a real website or a very intricate joke.

The fact that the technicians are bonding to the rat speaks to a recognition of a common sentience. Our commonality is the very reason we think we can learn something of value to humanity from the study of rats in the first place. Doesn't it seem strange that we readily justify experiments that cause distress and pain, yet some of the same people who do this want firings and violations for showing a rat affection? I fully understand how this can affect experimental validity, but do worry that some engaged in this research can all too easily lose perspective. It's not a personal thing, it's just human. Consider Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971).

The P.I. doesn't have a heart! But he should not be allowed to hire only heartless lab. employees. He used our tax money!

Wrong question! Should "off protocol" activity be tolerated for an animal assigned to a protocol? Answer, NO. The description of the event is "off protocol" activity. As PI you are responsible for the animals on the protocol. This animal should be removed from the study, the technician reprimanded and the insititional IACUC should take appropriate action regarding the PI's research program.

Well, there goes our Institute's plan to have eight white rats pulling the mini-sleigh through the halls carrying the bunny wearing a red velvet suit.

I am against using live animals in experiments. The animals are suffering and it is poor science.

Mary Stinson is right. Don't experiment on rats, experiment instead on deans. You're much less likely to get attached to deans.

Many years ago, there was one young (but weaned) rat pup left over. It could not go back into the care facility, so the choice was, kill it or keep it. We kept it. It lived for 3 years (until it's death from old age)in it's cage under my desk. During the day, it had free run of the lab. It was very well cared for, and everyone in the lab enjoyed having him. Over holidays, I'd take him home in my pocket so he would have care when no one was there. Nobody had a problem with this. Today, however, regulations are much more strict and I think it would be difficult to get away with. But it was a good thing. It had a positive effect on lab morale. Of course Froedy was never used in a study - that would be bad science.

You are right on, Geoff, and Froedy's: bless you for taking good care of a living creature.

....I would point out the irony, happy09.... The regulations are stricter now because of pressures from animal rights organizations. While the regulations are there to ensure humane treatment of animals, a University also risks legal jeopardy if they are deviated from even a little. It would be impossible to get a pet rat approved by an IACUC today. It leaves the animal on University property, but outside the control of the regulations. Too many bad things could happen. The irony is that under today's rules, we would be required to euthanize Froedy in a painless manner. I wonder if that is what PETA had in mind?

I think the rat should get a promotion and a stimulus package, while the technician should substitute for the rat that was withdrawn from the study Compliance is creativity

From am IACUC perspective (and a PI) one of the main reasons I would not approve of keeping a rat in the lab is that it is not fair to other employees. Other lab workers will be exposed to the rat and may develop allergies (and it would be difficult for a lab tech to object if his/her boss is allowing this) and cleaning / maintenance staff will be exposed to dander, droppings, etc - not to mention the animal - without their knowledge. I would have much less of a problem with an animal going home with someone as a pet than keeping the rat in the lab full time.

There is no legal mandate to euthanize animals at the end of a project. However, in the animal is every state is property of the institution. What happens to an animal at the end of a study must be within requirements stipulated by the grantor of the funds, federal, state and local laws, and institutional policy. There are a number of reasons for and against transfering animal ownership to other parties following the end of their use as research subjects, but maintaining pets in a laboratory, especially free roaming pets, is an unbelievably poor decision. To name a few: 1) allergies to rodents are the most common occupational health issue related to using rodents in research and can be severe enough in some individuals to be life threatening, 2) rodents can carry many zoonotic diseases that staff will be exposed to, 3) animals in the laboratory serve as a reservoir of infectious diseases that can be transferred unintentionally by personnel that work in the lab to other animals in the vivarium, 4) animals loose in the laboratory may themselves be put at risk through exposure to chemicals, infectious agents, and other hazards in the laboratory, and the list could go on. If you want to keep an animal after a study is over take it home and don't work around other rodents or their predators until you have at least changed clothes after handling your pet.

I suggest as part of "full disclosure" for conflict of interest every staffer at OLAW and each IACUC be required to reveal annually if they currently have, or ever had, pet animals of any kind in their office or home. What species, and how many?

Does anybody know who has jurisdiction over the so-called "therapeutic pets" kept on hospital wards to cheer up pediatric and cancer patients? And who pays for their care, and inspects for disease?

From a grants administrator, quality manager, and animal lovers perspective, the question was pretty clear ""Can IACUCs authorize the adoption of research animals as pets after the animals are no longer needed for study?"" yet people felt the need to jump in and ATTACK, which I think would make those individuals very interesting specimens in a study on a topic such as the one that lead me to this website: Lab Violence (http://www.principalinvestigators.org/audio_conference_0210.php). There are already numerous studies that prove people with who disregard animal life are pathological and much more inclined to be violent toward humans... seems like a no brainer, since humans are animals but I guess some pompous jerks and religious zealots think of themselves as gods. Anyway, I wouldn’t want to share a workplace environment with those people. I wish I knew the answer to the question at hand.. but as a former veterinary technician, I’d agree with labvet in one respect... if possible, try to get this rat out of the environment sooner vs. later for the sake of the RAT’S health, as rats are indeed more likely to get sick from other rats, just as people who are more likely to get sick from other people. As for people getting sick from the rat, post-lab liberation, you have a greater chance of catching a disease from your lab colleagues than a rat, so don’t even try to pretend that this rat is a danger to people in ""general"" terms, as comments such as ""rats spread disease"" are absurd and illegitimate. They CAN, but children are full of germs and much more dangerous, should we kill them all? Watch, some obtuse blowhard will say I suggested killing children, which I DID NOT. What I do know is animals are indeed legally able to live a life outside a lab, but yes, there are multiple issues you’ll have to deal with. As for the ""property"" issue, tell the people what they want to hear: how THEY benefit from this. This is how: they don’t have to pay for the care of the rat anymore and saving it’s life will prevent any employee grievances that would be caused by killing the rat. Once you get all the relevant details and permissions, have the adopter agree to take the rat to a vet to get a check up for a clean bill of health, just as you would do with any animal adoption. So that was my professional advice. Personally, if I knew the rat was free of disease, and in all likelihood it is, and that I would be fighting against a bunch of Mr. Potato Heads, I’d probably take him home and claim that he was missing the next day. I say this because it’s the morally correct thing to do, IMHO, and sometimes you just know that all the logic and reason in the world won’t get through to an asshole who already has their mind made up and refuses to acknowledge evidence to the contrary. Just remember how we used to treat other humans in this nation. Sometimes you just have to take a stand, and in this case it would be making a choice of true non-violence (unlike the prolifers who off doctors who perform abortions). Yeah, I threw a lot in there... I just happen to observe a lot of people in my field who have lost so much capacity to just use common sense every once in awhile, which incidentally is exactly what got me out of Veterinary Medicine: narrow-minded, indoctrinated, cruel people... you’ll get more reason out of a 5 year old than a lot of scientists who have a ""know it all"" complex and are always eager to justify the cruel things they do, but lack the courage to take a real stand to do the right thing when challenged to do so.

Science is about correcting mistakes. If you are a scientist, you will make all possible efforts to correct the mistake. Admitting to a mistake can cause some minor embarrassment, but it does make your other results more trustworthy because it shows you're willing to double check.

I follow threads and blogs.Love to post and comments.There are lot of stuff of me and hoping to receive as well from Burberry Outlet. Thanks for sharing your article,it's very nice,thanks.I hope can read more good articles about Burberry Bags Outlet.