C.F.R. » Title 9 » CHAPTER I—ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER A—ANIMAL WELFARE › PART 2—REGULATIONS › Subpart C—Research Facilities

9 C.F.R. § 2.32

Personnel qualifications

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall be the responsibility of the research facility to ensure that all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties. This responsibility shall be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel.

(b) Training and instruction shall be made available, and the qualifications of personnel reviewed, with sufficient frequency to fulfill the research facility's responsibilities under this section and § 2.31.

(c) Training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in at least the following areas:

(1) Humane methods of animal maintenance and experimentation, including:

(i) The basic needs of each species of animal;

(ii) Proper handling and care for the various species of animals used by the facility;

(iii) Proper pre-procedural and post-procedural care of animals; and

(iv) Aseptic surgical methods and procedures;

(2) The concept, availability, and use of research or testing methods that limit the use of animals or minimize animal distress;

(3) Proper use of anesthetics, analgesics, and tranquilizers for any species of animals used by the facility;

(4) Methods whereby deficiencies in animal care and treatment are reported, including deficiencies in animal care and treatment reported by any employee of the facility. No facility employee, Committee member, or laboratory personnel shall be discriminated against or be subject to any reprisal for reporting violations of any regulation or standards under the Act;

(5) Utilization of services (e.g., National Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine) available to provide information:

(i) On appropriate methods of animal care and use;

(ii) On alternatives to the use of live animals in research;

(iii) That could prevent unintended and unnecessary duplication of research involving animals; and

(iv) Regarding the intent and requirements of the Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1992–2006 · leading case: Bajalo v. Nw. Univ., 860 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bajalo v. Nw. Univ., 860 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 3× “9 C.F.R. §§2.32 (a), (b), (c)(1) through (c)(4) (1994).”
Luethans v. Washington Univ., 894 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. 1995). · cites it 2× “Lueth-ans also alleged that Washington University retaliated against and wrongfully discharged him in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 2.32 (c)(4) (1994) 1 for reporting abuses of laboratory animals to his superiors and discussing the possibility of reporting the abuses to people outside…”
Luethans v. Washington Univ., 838 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “or laboratory personnel shall be discriminated against or be subject to any reprisal for reporting violations of any regulation or standards under the Act_” 9 C.F.R. § 2.32 (c)(4) (1992). Plaintiff ultimately pleaded that defendant retaliated against and wrongfully discharged…”
Bajalo v. Nw. Univ. (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 3× “9 C.F.R. §§2.32 (a), (b), (c)(1) through (c)(4) (1994).”
— 9 C.F.R. § 2.32(c)(4) — 1 case
Bajalo v. Nw. Univ. (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “9 C.F.R. §§2.32 (a), (b), (c)(1) through (c)(4) (1994).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.