Task force members:
- Qian-Quan Sun, Zoology & Physiology
- Sreejayan Nair, School of Pharmacy
- James Pru, Animal Sciences
- David Williams, Botany
- Eric Moody, Research Assoc. Dean, Health Sciences
- Kevin Shimkus, Assistant Director, Compliance
- Jennie Cook, Director, MORF
- Jami Miller, Sr. Director, Gudget, Operations, Facilities, REDD
- Arun Pradhan, Deputy VP, Research & Innovation
FAQs
The task force was formed in December 2025 and over the following months:
- Reviewed best practices by other institutions of similar size as the University.
- Resarched administrative and management structures and policies need for a centralized management structure.
- Researched what staff needs would be needed for a centralized management structure of animal facilities.
- Researched strategy for financial support and management needs of animal facilities.
The task force understands the desire for departments and facilities to uphold autonomy and self-governance. Future animal facilities management strategies should reflect both institutional and departmental buy-in and consider all reasonable strategies to execute the expectations above. The taskforce discussed overall guiding principles that reflect best practices which any future changes should take in to account. More specifically, the anticipated benefits and notable changes in roles and responsibilities could include:
- Improved animal welfare through fully-centralized or semi-centralized management.
- Shifting the burden of animal husbandry from student researchers to centralized staff.
- Shifting the burden of animal husbandry from faculty researchers (PIs) to centralized staff.
- Potential reduction of administrative burden on respective departments by shifting certain administrative duties to a centralized approach.
For a full list of pros and cons the committee identifed about the best practicies please read the full report.
- 1: Establish IACUC approved standard operating procedures (SOPs) and metrics (for consistency) across all facilities with respect to animal care.
- 2: Establish consistent training programs and resources for all personnel involved in animal care and animal specific handling protocols.
- 3: Centralize administrative responsibilities
- Staff Needs
- Director
- Assistant Director, training officer
- Senior Technicians (MORF, Pharmacy, Biological Sciences, AcC/Vet Lab)
- Weekend Technicians
- Part-time Technicians
- Administrative and Management Structure
- Decentralized model (each facility managing and covering all costs)
- Hybrid (shared costs, centrally managed)
- Federated (shared costs and shared management) coordination.
- Completely centralized
For more detailed information about the points mentioned, please read the full report.
- Decentralized model (each facility managing and covering all costs) - This is the current successful model in many facilities, demonstrating high faculty satisfaction, compliance, and ROI.
- Hybrid (shared costs, centrally managed)
- Federated (shared costs and shared management) coordination - This is the model faculty have proposed as a collaborative alternative, preserving local autonomy while enabling
- Completely centralized - This model removes faculty from governance, eliminates local control, and imposes a rigid structure that cannot accommodate the diverse needs of biomedical, agricultural, and pharmaceutical research.
- Review the report and recommendation with a broader audience for input.
- The report has been sent to Faculty Senate's Research Committee for review and feedback.
- Two Town Halls will be held to gather feedback about the report and the animal facilities from campus. Dates and Times TBA.
- Objective assessment of the four management models, including data on:
- Financial
- Expenses
- Revenue (support)
- Impact
- Duplication
- Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
