• University Policy: Animal Use in Research, Teaching and Testing
• UConn Occupational Health and Safety Program for Animal Handlers
• Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations
• Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW)
• Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
• AAALAC International
• Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
• The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching
• Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research
• Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research
• Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research
• Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field Research
• AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia
• USDA APHIS Animal Care
• Guidelines for the Care and Welfare of Cephalopods in Research

The IACUC has members whose backgrounds & experience are relevant to the Committee’s responsibilities, including veterinarians, non-scientists, and scientists representing schools and colleges that use animals, as well as members who are not affiliated with the University in any way other than as a member of the IACUC.

The Institutional Official appoints the IACUC members.

Chair: Randall Walikonis, PhD, randall.walikonis@uconn.edu 860.486.9031

Institutional Official: Michael Centola, MHS, CIP, Associate Vice President for Research Integrity centola@uchc.edu

Interim Attending Veterinarian: Ramaswamy M. Chidambaram, BVSc, MSc, PhD, DACLAM, ramaswamy@uchc.edu

The University of Connecticut/Storrs has an Assurance of Compliance #D16-00077/A3124-01.  It was most recently renewed and approved by the Office of Laboratory Welfare (OLAW) effective February 18, 2025 and is valid for a period of four years, expiring on February 28, 2028.

Those affiliated with animal research may access the University of Connecticut/Storrs PHS Assurance by going to this link.

University Policy: Animal Use in Research, Teaching and Testing

AW-01-2011: Reporting Animal Welfare Concerns and Incidents of Non-Compliance

AW-02-2012: Animal Transportation

AW-03-2012: Acclimation of Newly Arrived Research and Teaching Animals

AW-04-2011: Animal Adoption

AW-05-2011: Use of Non-Pharmaceutical Grade Compounds in Animals

AW-06-2011: Single Housing of Social Species

AW-07-2018: Housing Rats and Mice in Shared Spaces

AW-08-2018: Animal Housing Areas

AW-09-2018: Guillotine and Scissor Maintenance

AW-10-2018: Environmental Enrichment

BP-01-2010: Use of Full Committee Review (FCR)

BP-02-2012: Use of Designated Member Review (DMR)

BP-03-2012: Responsibilities of the Primary Reviewer

BP-06-2010: Requires Modifications to Secure Approval

BP-07-2012: Responsibilities of Full Voting Members

BP-08-2013: Biomedical vs. Agricultural Use of Agricultural Species

BP-09-2011: Veterinary Review of Protocols

BP-10-2011: Program Responsibilities: Attending Veterinarian

BP-11-2012: Annual Review of Protocols

BP-12-2012: Animal Welfare Investigation and Reporting

BP-13-2012: Post Approval Monitoring of Protocols

BP-14-2012: Semiannual Inspection of Facilities

BP-15-2012: EHS Review of Protocols

BP-16-2012: Pre-Review of Protocols

BP-17-2012: Administrative Changes to Protocols

BP-18-2012: Withholding Approval of Protocols

BP-19-2012: Holding Protocols

BP-20-2012: IACUC Emergency Business Practices

BP-21-2013: Suspension of Approved Animal Activities

BP-22-2012: IACUC-Safety Committee Coordination of Protocol Review

BP-23-2012: IACUC By-Laws

BP-25-2013: Grant Review

BP-26-2018: Modifications to Approved Animal Activities

BP-27-2022: Assessing and Reporting Protocol Deviations, Adverse Events or Unexpected Outcomes

BP-28-2022: Evaluating Scientific Rigor During Protocol Review

SI-01-2011: Use of Invertebrate Animals in Research and Teaching

SI-02-2012: Animal Transfer Between Protocols for Traditional Laboratory Species

SI-03-2010: Individuals Listed on Animal Protocols

SI-04-2010: Students Registered in Classes or Programs described in Protocols

SI-05-2011: Principal Investigator Responsibilities

SI-06-2011: Guidelines for Assigning Animals Into USDA Pain and Distress Categories

SI-07-2012: Activities Requiring IACUC Oversight

SI-08-2012: Animal Tracking for Animal Science General Husbandry Protocols

SI-09-2013: Regulation of Food or Fluid Intake

SI-10-2013: Determining Expiration Dates

SI-11-2012: Requirements for Personnel Listed on Protocols

SI-12-2020: Photography and Other Media Capture of Research Animals

SI-13-2021: Procurement of Animals for Research and Teaching

SI-14-2024: Protocol Oversight During Principal Investigator Absence

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocols are reviewed once per month; the typical turnaround time from submission to approval is 6-8 weeks. Please allow sufficient time to secure approval when approvals are required to meet funding deadlines.

Protocols must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format to iacuc@uconn.edu

Federal Stop-Work or Grant Termination Directives

These guidelines are intended to assist investigators who may be at risk for or have received a directive from a federal funding agency to stop, pause, terminate or otherwise prematurely end a research study involving animals.  Please contact the IACUC Office promptly if you receive a stop-work directive and/or would like to discuss further.

• IACUC Guidelines for Investigators – Federal Stop-Work or Grant Termination Directives (updated 5/20/2025)

Concern for the welfare of animals used in research and teaching is the responsibility of all members of the University community. The University of Connecticut is committed to complying with all animal welfare regulations governing animals used in research and teaching. If you have concerns about animal welfare or non-compliance, please communicate them to the Attending Veterinarian, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or Research Compliance Services (RCS). Non-compliant incidents of a serious nature (those which harm animals or threaten their health) should be reported immediately. Your anonymity will be protected; however, providing your contact information will allow us to contact you if we need additional information. The Animal Welfare Act protects the rights of individuals reporting animal welfare concerns and prohibits discrimination or reprisal for reporting violations of regulations or standards.

You may contact the Attending Veterinarian at: Phone: 860-486-8882, e-mail: vet@uconn.edu

The IACUC Chairperson at: Phone: 860-486-9031

RCS at: Phone: 860-486-2459, e-mail: iacuc@uconn.edu

Concerns can also be reported anonymously through the REPORTLINE by calling a toll-free number at (888) 685-2637 or via the REPORTLINE website. The REPORTLINE is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year operated by a private (non-UConn) company. You may contact the hotline to report a concern without giving your name. You will be able to re-contact the REPORTLINE to track your report to provide further information at a later date or to obtain general updates about the status of your concern.

The University welcomes and encourages good-faith reporting. As such, individuals who submit a report or participate in a compliance investigation in good faith are provided protection from retaliation per the University’s Non-Retaliation Policy.

Additional information on reporting concerns can be found at the Office of University Compliance website.

Approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee on October 24, 2018.

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is responsible for reviewing the University of Connecticut’s program for the humane care and use of animals in research and teaching as described in its Assurance and University Policy.

The IACUC is created by and subject to federal law: the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS 1986), the USDA Animal Welfare Act/Regulations (CFR 1985) and related Guides. Members include scientists and nonscientists, veterinarians and nonaffiliated individuals from the community. Members are appointed by the Institutional Official.

For information, visit IACUC Contacts page.

Which form should I use?

Form IRB-1: Protocol Application for the Involvement of Human Participants in Research: for Expedited or Full Board Review. Expedited and Full Board studies require the same level of review, so the same form is used for both types of review.  See the next section to determine which level of review is required.

Form IRB-5: Request for Exemption from Continuing IRB Review. The IRB makes exemption determinations.  This category requires initial IRB review, but the study is then exempt from continuing review.  See the next section to determine which level of review is required.

Form IRB-7: Protocol Application for Research Methods Courses (RMC). Course Instructors must submit an application for IRB approval of the types of research projects to be conducted by students in the class.  The IRB-7 protocol will receive expedited review.

Form IRB-9: Protocol Application for Ethnographic/Naturalistic Research.  Ethnographic/naturalistic research activities may require expedited or full board review.  The same form is used for both types of review.  See the next section to determine which level of review is required.

What level of review  is required: exempt, expedited or full board review?

Investigators make an initial determination for which type of review is appropriate for their study (full board, expedited, or exempt) and submit the required number of copies of the protocol and supporting documentation.  Upon receipt, the IRB staff, in consultation with the Chair or an IRB member, screens the protocol to verify the investigator’s initial determination.  The protocol is then placed into the appropriate queue for review.  The Chair, or his/her designee, makes the final determination of the type of review required and the appropriate expedited or exempt category.

For more information on each type of review, please see:

• Exempt Procedures (New Protocol Submissions)
• Initial Review by Expedited Procedures
• Initial Review by the Full Board

How long does a  review take?  When will I receive  approval?

Several factors affect the amount of time a review will take.  These factors include how many other applications were received ahead of yours, whether all investigators on the application have completed the CITI training program, and whether the application is complete or if there is missing information required.  The IRB reviews application in the order in which they were received.  When a new application is received, the IRB Cover Page is stamped, and an IRB protocol number is assigned.  The IRB Cover Page is returned to the Principal Investigator (or Correspondent) to verify receipt.  From the date of receipt, the amount of time a review takes is as follows:

• Exempt reviews generally  take one to two weeks.
• Expedited reviews  generally take two to three weeks, depending on the time of year.  The heaviest submission period is at the  beginning of the semester.
• Full  Board reviews are dictated by the Meeting Dates/Deadlines.   IRB determination letters are sent to  investigators within one week of the meeting.   If a protocol determination is deferred, the study must be revised and  be returned to the full board for review.   If the IRB approves the protocol contingent upon minor modifications  being made, the study can be approved as soon as the modifications are made and  approved by the IRB Chair or his/her designee.

Which Consent Form template should I use?

The consent discussion that takes place between an investigator and participant must be captured in a document called an “informed consent form”, or “consent form.”  Ordinarily, all research participants must indicate in writing their willingness to participate in research by signing the consent form. However, signed consent may not be necessary or appropriate in certain studies, such as surveys, interviews and other minimal risk research, or in research where the participants are to remain anonymous. In these cases, the IRB gives an investigator permission to alter the consent process (waiver of signed consent), and the investigator should prepare an information sheet appropriate for the study. Federal regulations identify certain specific elements required for informed consent.  Depending on the nature of the research, the IRB may require additional elements.

For more information, see Standard Consent and Documentation section of the IRB Policies and Procedures documentation.

Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) Policy describes this Institution’s commitment to the protection of human participants at UConn-Storrs.

IRB Policies and Procedures describes how UConn-Storrs puts the various federal and local regulatory HRPP requirements into practice; refer to the following documents for updates:

• • Standard Operating Procedures to Address the 2018 Common Rule Requirements is an addendum describing the updated requirements for the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”, effective January 21, 2019)

• • HRPP SOPs for UConn-Storrs (in process): Finalized sections here supersede relevant sections in the prior version of the IRB Policies and Procedures (above).

This Researcher’s Guide provides investigators and students with information that will be helpful for meeting the standards set by the UConn IRB policies and by the Federal Regulations for the protection of human subjects in research.

• Download the entire Researcher’s Guide

Or go to each section in the guide:

• Secondary Data Analysis
  Guidance on analysis of existing data sets.
• Data Security Guidance for Human Subjects Research
  Protecting and securing data on devices and during transmission over the internet.  Conducting research on the web.
• Closure of Human Subjects Research Studies
  Guidance on study closure procedures, record retention, and adverse events learned after study closure
• Consent Process
  Informed consent is more than the form.
• Deception/Debriefing
  Guidance for use of deception in research and debriefing requirements.
• Documentation
  Good research documentation habits are essential to reliable research data.
• Does Evaluation Require IRB Review?
  The decision about whether review is required should be made in concert with the IRB.
• Ethnographic/Naturalistic Research
  Guidelines for submission of ethnographic/naturalistic research protocols.
• Focus Groups
  Guidance on when research involves focus groups to obtain data.
• Responsibilities of Principal Investigators (PIs)
  Your part in the compliance partnership.
• Normal Educational Practice
  What type of educational research may or may not qualify for review under the exempt criteria?
• OHRP Guidance
  A brief introduction to the Federal office that oversees research with human participants.
• Oral Histories and Other Activities not Subject to IRB Approval
  When are oral histories “human subject research” under the federal rules definition?
• PI Mentoring of Student Researchers Conducting Research with Human Participants
  Guidance regarding the importance of mentoring student researchers and the responsibilities of mentorship.
• Recruitment and Advertising Guidance
  Guidance for recruitment and advertising, including a recruitment flyer template.
• Student Athlete Involvement in Research Studies
  Guidance regarding recruitment and compensation.
• Study Design and Scientific Review
  How design is related to participant protection.
• Wording Tips
  Need to simplify language for participants?
  • Download the PRISM Toolkit Word List
  • Download the full PRISM Readability Toolkit

Beginning in January 2025, UConn will have two IRB committees, IRB 1 and IRB 2, which will allow us to hold two IRB meetings per month. With this change, there will no longer be submission deadlines for studies that require convened board review.  Submissions will be assigned to the next available agenda after undergoing pre-review.

IRB Members

The IRB is composed of members of the University and local communities. The individual members contribute the professional competency necessary to review specific research activities representing a broad range of disciplines through experience and expertise in their fields. In addition, the IRB seeks diversity in race, gender and cultural backgrounds to promote sensitivity to community attitudes and respect for the rights and welfare of human subjects. If you are interested in serving on the IRB, contact the IRB Office.

Each IRB meets virtually once per month.

InfoEd IRB Module updates were implemented on December 16th!

See the InfoEd Updates page for more information.

UConn-Storrs Human Research Protection Program (HRPP)

UConn-Storrs is dedicated to the protection of human subjects in research activities conducted under its auspices. The HRPP also covers research involving human participants conducted under the auspices of the Hartford, Waterbury, Avery Point, and Stamford campuses of the University of Connecticut.

The UConn-Storrs Institutional Review Board (IRB) within the HRPP reviews human subjects research to ensure that the studies it approves have appropriate safeguards for the ethical, compliant, and safe conduct of research, as well as the protection of the rights and welfare of the human subjects who will volunteer for participation. UConn-Storrs investigators must appreciate and understand their ultimate responsibility and obligation to protect the subjects participating in their studies. This includes conducting the study as approved by the IRB and reporting any unanticipated problems or noncompliance to the IRB for review and appropriate action.

The IRB is guided by the ethical principles of Autonomy, Beneficence and Justice, as outlined in the Belmont Report. The subject’s autonomy must be respected, study harms must be minimized and potential study benefits must be maximized, and the selection of who is versus who is not asked to serve as research subjects must be fair and directly related to the problem being studied (and not because of a group’s easy availability or compromised position).

If an investigator is part of an institution that already has its own IRB, either the UConn or the other institution’s IRB may serve as the IRB of record. The arrangement would be documented by a reliance or authorization agreement, which outlines each institution’s role in the research.

Financial Services includes the following activities: invoicing, cash application, collections, and interim financial reporting.

Amy ZurowskiFinancial Assistant II860.486.0934amy.zurowski@uconn.edu