Education and Training

The two quotes opening this chapter attest to the continued importance of and purpose and requirement for training in laboratory animal science. Moreover, evidence of the support for training in the conduct of research, teaching, and testing at institutions where animals are used has escalated. Since the publication of the first version of this chapter (Kennedy 2002a), the position of laboratory animal trainer has been defined (Kennedy 2002b) and is included on the organizational charts of many facilities. The current edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide) (ILAR 2011) mentions more than 150 different instances of the word training. Many lab animal societies have incorporated more training offerings into their membership benefits and conferences, most notably the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) and the Institute of Animal Technology (IAT). The European lab animal community, represented by the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA 2015), have proposed revisions and recommendations to enhance their accredited training programs. Several other international laboratory animal organizations”“including universities, national societies, and research entities”“have modeled their own training programs on these prominent groups.

Increasingly, animal research oversight bodies around the world mandate that individuals who work with animals in research and training settings provide evidence of their knowledge and skill at whatever task they do. This is aligned with the principles of refinement from the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement), where knowledge obtained through training addresses animal welfare, recognition of pain and distress, and appropriate housing (NC3Rs 2016a). And, whereas the institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs¹) today have the ultimate responsibility, it is typically the management of the program that is charged with and implements the training. To be clear, as stated in the Guide (ILAR 2011), “the IACUC (or institutional equivalent) is responsible for assessment and oversight of the institution’s program components and facilities.” Further, “the IACUC is responsible for providing oversight and for evaluating the effectiveness of the training program” (Foshay and Tinkey 2007).

This chapter is written to be both a practical and a conceptual guide for the laboratory animal manager engaged directly or indirectly in training. It is based on and extends the principles of managing training presented in the original chapter (Kennedy 2002a). The practical portion comes first and builds on the train-the-trainer (TtT) structures used to establish a training program, adding passages on the manager’s role in developing both cultures and programs of training. In support of practice, educational theories and concepts related to training and applied to training management in laboratory situations are also presented. Using a training metaphor, like learning to drive a car, the immediate want is to get in and go. That may seem to be practical, but it helps to know a little about the car (concepts), even if the driver (manager) is experienced. Thus, with both driving and training, an awareness of several factors can be beneficial: what the drivers need to operate, how the “ride” can be improved, how to avoid accidents, what compliance with the rules of the road means, and so forth.

In 2002, the notion of a facility trainer was novel (Kennedy 2002b). While training itself had been occurring for many decades, the more formalized practice of training in lab animal science was young and developing, having previously been largely a part-time responsibility of someone in the leadership of the lab animal facility (Pritt and Clifford 2014). As these authors noted, lab animal training has evolved in a relatively short time from basic concepts of content to considerations of learning. Previously, the focus was on topics pertaining to “what” should be taught and reiterations of the regulatory requirements to the “hows,” meaning educational techniques and ideas for presenting and then evaluating the effectiveness of training. Training now proceeds with the inclusion of all facility staff, from repair personnel to institutional officials, rather than only the select members of the husbandry team. At today’s laboratory animal conferences, there are more topics related to educating laboratory animal staff, and increasingly, they are focused on the details of competency and assessment tools, electronic learning management systems (LMSs), English language learners (ELLs), and unique organizational (institutional) models for training.

Alongside this evolution has been the growth of professional training organizations like the Laboratory Animal Welfare Training Exchange (LAWTE), which started in 1994 (Pritt and Clifford 2014; Kennedy 2015). Laboratory animal managers are working side by side with designated trainers, fulfilling training objectives as expressed in the LAWTE mission statement of “expanding animal welfare and enhancing public understanding through effective training and education of animal research professionals” (LAWTE 2015). Doubtless, the many lab animal organizations and programs around the world have contributed to and fostered the concepts of training in vivaria. The reader is referred to the abundance of listings in the appendices.

One perspective on what it means today to be involved with training in a lab animal setting comes from the website of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM 2015). While written expressly for veterinarians, the following passage conveniently summarizes the responsibilities for all who are engaged in training, especially facility managers.