Online Issues

Journal Vol 48 (2)

Training Strategies for Laboratory Animal Veterinarians: Challenges and Opportunities

Lesley A. Colby, Patricia V. Turner, and Mary Ann Vasbinder

Lesley A. Colby, D.V.M., M.S., DACLAM, is Assistant Professor, Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Patricia V. Turner, D.V.M., D.V.Sc., DACLAM, is an Associate Professor, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Mary Ann Vasbinder, D.V.M., DACLAM, is a Senior Veterinarian with GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Address correspondence to Dr. Colby, Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, 018 Animal Research Facility, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0614, or email lacolby@umich.edu.

Abstract

The field of laboratory animal medicine is experiencing a serious shortage of appropriately trained veterinarians for both clinically related and research-oriented positions within academia, industry, and government. Recent outreach efforts sponsored by professional organizations have stimulated increased interest in the field. It is an opportune time to critically review and evaluate postgraduate training opportunities in the United States and Canada, including formal training programs, informal training, publicly accessible training resources and educational opportunities, and newly emerging training resources such as Internet-based learning aids. Challenges related to each of these training opportunities exist and include increasing enrollment in formal programs, securing adequate funding support, ensuring appropriate content between formal programs that may have diverse objectives, and accommodating the training needs of veterinarians who enter the field by the experience route. Current training opportunities and resources that exist for veterinarians who enter and are established within the field of laboratory animal science are examined. Strategies for improving formal laboratory animal medicine training programs and for developing alternative programs more suited to practicing clinical veterinarians are discussed. In addition, the resources for high-quality continuing education of experienced laboratory animal veterinarians are reviewed.

Key Words: educational resources; e-learning; laboratory animal medicine; laboratory animal veterinarian; training; training program

Introduction

Education and training of laboratory animal veterinarians may be conceived of as a two-pronged effort. The diversity of information relevant to this field and the rapidity of change within biomedical science mean that experienced laboratory animal veterinarians must seek ongoing, high-quality continuing education to keep them abreast of new developments. Additionally, efforts must be directed to provide high-quality training and educational resources for entry-level laboratory animal veterinarians. The national need for veterinarians in biomedical research—particularly the urgent need to produce veterinarians who are qualified in laboratory animal science—is an important issue for the research community. A prediction was made previously that a steady state of supply and demand for laboratory animal veterinarians would be reached by 1995 (Weigler et al. 1997). Despite this prediction, demands for laboratory animal veterinarians and veterinary scientists have continued to increase due to emerging needs for expertise in food safety, infectious diseases, the development of new therapies, bioterrorism initiatives, the development of more complex animal models, and the rapid proliferation in the use of transgenic rodent models.

The Committee on Increasing Veterinary Involvement in Biomedical Research (under the auspices of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research) recently examined the supply and demand of laboratory animal veterinarians. Their findings, which were reported in the National Research Council publication National Need and Priorities for Veterinarians in Biomedical Research, indicate that there is a shortage of veterinarians participating at all levels in the research community (NRC 2004). For example, there was a 25% decrease in the number of individuals who were completing postdoctoral training programs in laboratory animal medicine from 1996 to 2002 (NRC 2004). This decrease occurred at the time of a 31.7% increase in competitive National Institutes of Health (NIH¹) grants for research using animals that were awarded from 1995 to 2002. The report includes the following recommendations for dealing with this shortage: (1) familiarize students throughout veterinary school with opportunities in comparative medicine; (2) increase veterinary school recruitment of applicants with interest or experience in comparative medicine; (3) effect change in veterinary school curricula; (4) address financial barriers to postgraduate training in comparative medicine; (5) increase the number of veterinarians in roles that support biomedical research; and (6) increase the number of veterinarians who serve as principal investigators (NRC 2004). The urgent need for research-oriented veterinary scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians is further described with specific recommendations for addressing the shortage in the 2005 NRC publication Critical Needs for Research in Veterinary Science (NRC 2005).

There is agreement within the laboratory animal medicine community that timely, high-quality training and mentorship of students and postgraduate veterinarians comprise the key to expanding the veterinary pipeline. This community includes organizations such as the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM¹), the American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners (ASLAP¹), and the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine (CALAM¹). In partnership, ACLAM and ASLAP provide externship opportunities, mentorship, directed lectures, and career coaching to veterinary students. Postgraduate training and mentorship are also critical to properly prepare professionals for the field. In this article, we describe mechanisms by which veterinarians may obtain postgraduate training and experience in laboratory animal medicine and research. Recommendations for improved recruitment mechanisms, funding, and training are also detailed.

Sources of Training for Graduate Veterinarians

Formal Training Programs

Many veterinarians who are new to the field choose to participate in a formal postdoctoral training program in laboratory animal medicine. These programs provide the advantage of a structured learning environment designed to expose the student to the information and skills necessary to become a competent and productive professional within the field. Formal training programs can also be instrumental in preparing the individual for certification by ACLAM, a specialty college recognized by the American Board of Veterinary Specialties within the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA¹).

Formal postdoctoral training programs in laboratory animal medicine were first established in 1959 in response to the growing complexity of research using animal subjects. The training emphasis of these programs varied from providing hands-on clinical support of animal subjects and assisting research scientists as they designed and implemented research studies to training veterinarians to be primary or collaborative biomedical researchers (Loew and Cohen 2002; Moreland 1999). Because limited regulatory requirements existed at that time, regulatory training was not emphasized.

Training programs have changed significantly over the past four decades. The number and diversity of expected competencies necessary for an individual to successfully serve as a laboratory animal veterinarian have greatly expanded. Individuals not only must be skilled in the clinical management of animals but also must be knowledgeable regarding research methods, principles of personnel and financial management, and local and national regulatory requirements. As a result, programs have adapted to produce graduates with advanced skills and knowledge in these areas. The expectations for a laboratory animal veterinarian's knowledge and skills have been outlined by ACLAM in their Role Delineation Document (Table 1) and by CALAM in their Standards of Veterinary Care document (CALAM 2004: http://www.uwo.ca/animal/website/CALAM/Content/StandardsVetCare.pdf).

To examine the issue of how well formal training programs are meeting these objectives and to identify trends in training program content, we conducted a survey of the formal training programs in laboratory animal medicine in the United States and Canada from March through June of 2006. Sources of information for the survey included current training program descriptions submitted by program directors and available on the ASLAP/ACLAM training program website (ASLAP/ACLAM 2006: http://www.aslap.org/OnePage.php) as well as a questionnaire. The questionnaire was composed of both subjective and objective questions and was distributed to each program director. The survey explored aspects of each program's training history as well as issues pertaining to future training. Multiple training program directors were subsequently contacted by telephone or email to clarify responses or to seek additional information. Information was available from the website for 97.2% (35 of 36 programs) of training programs. The response rate for the questionnaire was 80.0% (28 of 35 programs) for the objective questions and 88.6% (31 of 35 programs) for the subjective questions. Respondents did not provide answers for all questions. One program had just accepted their first trainee and therefore was not included in the questionnaire portion of the survey. Selected survey results are listed in Tables 2-4 and Figures 1-3.

Figure 1 Proportion of training programs located at each institution classification. Results based on responses from the 2006 Survey of Formal Laboratory Animal Training Programs within the United States and Canada.

Figure 2 Proportion of reported employment sectors by American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Diplomates in 2006. Results based on responses from the 2006 Survey of Formal Laboratory Animal Training Programs within the United States and Canada.

Figure 3 Duration of training programs (35 respondents). Results based on responses from the 2006 Survey of Formal Laboratory Animal Training Programs within the United States and Canada.

A total of 36 postdoctoral training programs in laboratory animal medicine were identified as actively recruiting and training veterinarians in the United States and Canada (Table 3). This number is an increase over the 34 programs that were active in the summer of 2002 (Colby 2002). A total of 124 established training positions were identified among 35 of the 36 programs that provided information on this subject—a large increase from the 94 established positions identified previously from responding institutions (Colby 2002). This increase indicates that institutions are responding to the demand for trained laboratory animal veterinarians.

Current programs identified themselves as being associated with one of six types of institutions (Figure 1). Eighty-two percent of programs were associated with either a public (60%) or private (22%) academic institution. Significantly fewer programs were associated with a private corporation, government agency, or nonprofit research organization, or they did not identify themselves as belonging to one of these classifications. A number of training programs represent collaborations between multiple organizations such as academic institutions, private corporations, public or private research centers, and regional primate centers. Six programs were identified in which more than one institution contributed a significant portion of the training experience. The degree to which each collaborating organization in a program contributed to scholarly research, didactic instruction, and clinical experience varied widely.

The number of academic institutions that support training programs appears to be disproportionate to the number of ACLAM Diplomates employed by nonacademic institutions (NRC 2004). Neither the number of employed laboratory animal veterinarians nor the number of graduates of ACLAM-recognized training programs (regardless of employment sector) was available at the time of manuscript preparation. However, in 2006, 55.5% (381 of 687) of ACLAM Diplomates identified their primary employment as "academia," 23% as "industry," 17.3% as "government," and 3.3% as "practice" or "other" (Figure 2) (personal communication, Mel Balk, Executive Director, ACLAM, Chester, NH, 2006). Similarly, respondents to a recent economic survey distributed to 1062 ACLAM and ASLAP members identified themselves as being employed by one of six types of institutions: academia, industry, civil service, uniformed service, nonprofit institution/hospital, and self/other. Of the 470 respondents to this question, 50% identified their institution type as "academia," 29% as "industry," 8% as "nonprofit institution/hospital," 7% as "uniformed services," 4% as "civil service," and 2% as "self/other type" (ACLAM/ASLAP: http://www.aclam.org/PDF/2005SalarySurveyFinal.pdf). In addition, 34% of newly advertised jobs posted in the ACLAM Newsletter or website between June 2005 and February 2006 were identified as being within the industrial sector (personal communication, Sue VandeWoude, Associate Professor of Comparative Medicine, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 2006).

The findings described above are consistent with a 2001 publication, which reported that 30% of jobs newly advertised in the ACLAM Newsletter between August 2000 and June 2001 were within the industrial sector (Smith 2001). The proportion of each institution type that employs trained laboratory animal veterinarians should be approximately equal to the proportion of training positions supported by the institution type. In addition, institutions and organizations need to develop methods to document the number of training positions supported by and the number of laboratory animal veterinarians employed by each institution type.

Additional aspects of the institutions were examined to explore the potential quantity and type of research to which trainees may be exposed during their programs. Sixty-nine percent of programs (25 of 36) were associated with a medical school, and 33% (12 of 36) were associated with a veterinary school. Vivarium size (excluding farm acreage) ranged from 40,000 to 406,000 ft² although most institutions were between 60,000 and 170,000 ft² in size. Ninety-seven percent of vivaria (35 of 36) were accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC¹) or by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC¹). The one nonaccredited program was in the process of applying for accreditation. It is important for trainees to have a wide range of experiences with an array of species during their program, which may be more likely to occur at larger facilities. For this reason, smaller programs or programs with limited diversity may partner with nearby institutions to broaden training opportunities. It is also important for the training to occur at an institution that operates with high ethical standards for animal care and use. One way this quality can be ensured is through an institution's accreditation by AAALAC and CCAC.

Characteristics of the training programs were also evaluated to identify both similarities and differences between programs. Ninety-two percent of programs (33 of 36) were recognized by ACLAM. A summary of the minimum requirements for a program to be recognized by ACLAM is provided in Table 5. Although training programs that are not recognized by ACLAM usually have a didactic component, work experience-based training is often emphasized. Individuals who complete these programs are not eligible for ACLAM board certification under the Laboratory Animal Medicine Training Program Option and may apply for certification only through the Experience in Laboratory Animal Medicine Option (ACLAM 2006b: http://www.aclam.org/cert_applic.html).

One important characteristic that differentiated programs was the training emphasis. Provision of research training is critical for all laboratory animal veterinarians because they frequently serve as a primary or collaborating investigator. Approximately 69% (24 of 35) of the programs had a greater than 50% focus on clinical, management, and regulatory training, and 31% (11 of 35) devoted at least 50% of the program to either independent or collaborative research training. Of the programs with greater than 50% of the program time allocated to research, 55% (6 of 11) were structured to facilitate training of veterinarians as independent primary researchers. Many respondents from these programs noted significant difficulty in attracting individuals who planned to pursue a research career after they completed the training program. Given these statistics, it is highly unlikely that without a major shift in applicants' interest, laboratory animal training programs will be able to produce the needed number of veterinarians who are trained as principle biomedical researchers (NRC 2004). This trend may change in the future with the current increased focus on providing research opportunities to veterinary students early in their curriculum.

Programs varied in the number of concurrent trainees as well as the duration of the formal program. The number of potential concurrent trainees ranged from one to 14 across all programs (Table 4). Although this range indicates the number of established training positions, a small percentage of these positions were unfilled at any time due to a variety of reasons including the reorganization or expansion of a program, a temporary lack of funding, trainees' withdrawal from the program, or a program's inability to identify a suitable applicant. For example, in March 2006, 12 open training positions were identified across the 25 responding programs, representing 11.6% of the 103 established training positions within these 25 programs. Additional open training positions may have existed in the other 11 programs; however, this information was not provided by the institutions. Ninety-one percent of programs (29 of 32) accepted trainees immediately after graduation from veterinary school, and 32% of programs (10 of 31) accepted unlicensed veterinarians. These individuals may include veterinarians who attended AVMA-accredited veterinary schools but had not yet successfully completed the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE¹) or foreign-trained veterinarians who had not yet successfully completed the Educational Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates certification program or the NAVLE. Respondents from programs that did not accept unlicensed veterinarians expressed a concern regarding the knowledge and skill levels of these individuals. Some of the programs that accepted unlicensed veterinarians indicated that part of the reason for accepting these applicants was related to a lack of acceptable, licensed applicants.

The length of the programs ranged from 1 to 5 years (Figure 3). Programs with a primary research emphasis tended to be longer in duration than clinically based programs. The length of many programs varied if the trainee pursued a graduate research degree, especially at the doctoral level. Although 89% of programs (32 of 36) allowed trainees to pursue formal coursework, only 64% (23 of 36) facilitated completion of a graduate degree (M.Sc., M.P.H., D.V.Sc., or Ph.D.).

Sources of funding for the programs were also highly variable even though the salary or stipend for trainees was somewhat more uniform. The research component of 14% of programs (5 of 35) was either fully or partially funded through an NIH institutional T32 post-D.V.M. training grant, which, by design, may not be used to fund clinical training. A small number of additional NIH funding mechanisms were used by training programs and included individual research funding awards (i.e., K01, K08, F32) and research grants awarded to trainee research mentors. Considering the number of established positions within each of these programs, approximately 34% of all postdoctoral training positions in laboratory animal medicine were at least partially supported directly through NIH funding sources. If the 11 positions within the US Army Laboratory Animal Medicine Residency Program are considered, then 43% of all established training positions were at least partially funded through the government either through an NIH training grant or through the military. These numbers represent a decrease from the 49 and 68% of identified established laboratory animal training positions funded by the NIH or NIH and military, respectively, in 2002, and they represent a change in strategic direction by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR¹) after 1999 for funding laboratory animal veterinary training (Colby 2002). Data regarding the number of laboratory animal trainees supported by NIH grants for years other than 2002 and 2006 could not be identified. Therefore, we were unable to more closely examine the trends in NIH funding of laboratory animal trainee positions both before and after the shift in NCRR funding emphasis. To maintain the number of research training positions, programs will be forced either to seek additional funding from within their parent institution or to strongly encourage trainees to apply to other local or federal funding sources.

Compensation and benefits provided to trainees were also examined as part of the survey. The stipend range for trainees varied across programs and, within some programs, was based on years of previous experience in veterinary medicine. The reported starting stipend in March 2006 for new veterinary school graduates entering training positions in laboratory animal medicine ranged from $29,000 to $48,300. Many programs followed the NIH postdoctoral fellowship pay scale regardless of whether the program received NIH funding. Although a private corporation reported the highest starting salary, five academic institutions reported starting salaries of at least $40,000. This figure may be compared with a mean starting salary of $53,796 for new graduates entering small animal exclusive private practice positions in 2005 (Shepherd 2005). The trainee's health insurance was provided by 88% of programs (30 of 34), and 76% (22 of 29) did not require the trainees to pay educational fees or tuition. The remaining programs required trainees to pay nominal fees or tuition. The adequacy of current stipend levels should be examined to determine whether they must be increased in order to continue to attract high-quality applicants to the field. In addition, institutions should establish an educational debt forgiveness program to help defray the expense incurred by veterinary students and veterinarians who pursue careers in laboratory animal medicine. Debt forgiveness programs vary but generally are designed to excuse a portion of an educational loan in exchange for the recipient working for a given time period in a specific field or area of need. Such a program has been previously recommended in the United States (NRC 2005) for laboratory animal veterinarians and, as of this writing, is being promoted by the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges.

When asked about the quantity of applicants as well as their relative qualifications, most program directors reported approximately two to three applicants for each newly available training position. It is likely that many applicants applied to multiple training programs in a given year. Programs with a heavier research emphasis reported fewer applicants per available position than programs with a stronger clinical or administrative focus. Of the 13 respondents, some programs self-described the perceived competency of their applicants between 2002 and 2006 as "excellent" (2 respondents), "outstanding" (1 respondent), or "strong" (1 respondent); however, others reported the perceived competency to be only "fair" (2 respondents), "marginal" (1 respondent), "good" (2 respondents), or "fair-to-good" (1 respondent). Although most programs advertised available training programs in nationally distributed veterinary journals (e.g., Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association), others (8 of 35 respondents) advertised only in laboratory animal medicine journals, listservs, or newsletters. Many programs recruit potential trainees from across the country, whereas some (3 of 35 respondents) actively recruit students only from their immediate geographic vicinity. Although most programs expressed a desire for a larger applicant pool, it is noteworthy that the number of applicants has improved from 2002, before which some programs reported a marked reduction in the number of applicants (Colby 2002).

A further increase in the applicant pool will likely occur only if both veterinary students and preveterinary students are actively recruited and exposed to the field of laboratory animal medicine early in their educational careers. Both ASLAP and ACLAM currently support student outreach activities that include sponsoring student awards and externships, funding educational opportunities and presentations, and facilitating the creation and operation of student laboratory animal- or research-oriented student groups. Due to a lack of relevant data, it is not possible to definitively credit the recruiting actions of these and other organizations for the reported increase in student interest in the field. The increased student interest appears to be temporally related to increased outreach activities at veterinary schools (personal communication, Lesley A. Colby, ASLAP Veterinary Student Liaison Committee Chair, Ann Arbor, MI, November 2006). Additional emphasis must be placed on outreach to undergraduate students so that they learn of potential career opportunities before committing to a specific educational focus either within or outside veterinary medicine. Both organizations and individual laboratory animal veterinarians must accept the responsibility to perform these outreach activities.

Program directors indicated many challenges in filling available training positions. The most frequently cited challenges, in decreasing order, are the following: a lack of applicants who fulfill at least the minimum program entry requirements (including good interpersonal skills) (11 respondents); competition with other institutions for applicants (7 respondents); a lack of applicants with a strong research interest (5 respondents); a lack of appropriate funding and recognition by their institution to support the training program (4 respondents); a lack of applicants with prior experience or demonstrated interest in laboratory animal medicine (3 respondents); the real or perceived cost of living in the vicinity of an institution (3 respondents); and a lack of strong clinical skills by applicants (1 respondent).

The results of this survey help to support and quantify many of the issues that have been repeatedly identified by the laboratory animal medicine community. The structure and administration of programs in the United States and Canada are highly variable. This variability may be an asset in the training of veterinarians in the many diverse aspects of laboratory animal medicine. The current numbers of training positions, although improved from 2002, are not sufficient to produce the number of trained specialists needed to fill existing or future anticipated positions (NRC 2004). Administrators of programs that are structured to train primary researchers are finding it increasingly difficult to attract interested trainees. Partially in response to limited available funding and in an effort to optimize the educational experience, an increasing number of institutions are partnering in the design and administration of programs. These partnerships are one means by which multiple programs may contribute their unique strengths toward the training of future laboratory animal veterinarians without the responsibility of providing for all aspects of the program. Creation of additional cooperative programs should be pursued. Overall, although the interest in formal laboratory animal medicine training programs has improved, there is still a significant need for increasing the number of trainees completing these programs. The methods we suggest to effect this change are detailed later.

Experience-based Training

A significant number of laboratory animal veterinarians are trained by means other than a formal program. Approximately 25% of all ACLAM members qualified to take the ACLAM Board Certification Examination through the experience route (personal communication, Mel Balk, 2006). Less than half of the current 773 ASLAP members in June 2006 were ACLAM board certified (personal communication, Philip Tillman, ASLAP Webmaster, Davis, CA, June 2006), and only 4% of CALAM members are ACLAM Board certified (personal communication, Patricia Turner, July 2006). It should be noted that although achievement of ACLAM Diplomate status is a useful indicator of advanced level of knowledge in the field of laboratory animal medicine, the development of competency as a laboratory animal practitioner is not necessarily dependent on achieving Diplomate status. Many veterinarians who enter the field by the experience route are practicing small or large animal clinicians who are seeking career changes. Currently, these individuals can gain relevant clinical training and experience in several ways. Individuals seeking ACLAM board certification by the experience route are required to have 6 years of laboratory animal medicine experience with primary authorship of a refereed biomedical-related journal article. It is very difficult to find the time to perform research and to gain expertise while performing primary clinical duties. Additionally, for these individuals, there is no single method of obtaining study materials and training compared with the ability of veterinarians in formal training programs, who receive professional mentorship and have access to high-quality educational materials. Many will opt for the experience route because they are hesitant to engage in another academic venture and often are required to accept a significantly diminished salary.

On-the-job experience is the most common method for clinical laboratory animal practitioners to receive training. When clinical veterinarians join institutions that offer formal training programs, they may acquire training in part from courses or other opportunities offered by the program while they continue to fill their clinical role. Many institutions have collegial relationships with other local institutions, permitting expanded training opportunities for clinicians. These consortium relationships are an important method of experiential training for new laboratory animal veterinarians.

Publicly Accessible Resources for Training Veterinarians in Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine

Numerous training resources exist for veterinarians to enhance their proficiency in laboratory animal medicine. The breadth and volume of information resources can be used for primary training as well as for continuing education of experienced laboratory animal veterinarians. Lists of relevant educational resources and educational venues for laboratory animal veterinarians are provided in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Organizations such as the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS¹), ASLAP, ACLAM, CALAM, and the C. L. Davis Foundation hold annual meetings that provide seminars and workshops highly relevant to laboratory animal veterinarians. This type of continuing education is critically important for providing up-to-date information on a number of pertinent topics. Local AALAS branches, journal clubs, and veterinary medical associations also provide additional training opportunities. In addition, focused online study groups have been formed, which greatly facilitate learning by individuals preparing for ACLAM Board certification who are geographically isolated from larger communities of laboratory animal veterinarians (Hickman et al. 2006).

Evaluation of Current Training Opportunities and Recommendations for the Future

Formal Training Programs in Laboratory Animal Medicine—Future Directions

As discussed above, there is a wide range of formal training programs in existence. ACLAM monitors the quality of each program annually, tracks changes in program content and faculty, and conducts a full program review triennially. The diversity of formal training programs is an asset because it allows potentially interested veterinarians to tailor their postgraduate training experience to their needs in terms of location, attainment of an academic degree and type of degree, program emphasis, and duration of study. The variation in acceptance of unlicensed veterinarians and those without basic clinical experience (i.e., new veterinary graduates) into formal training programs may present a future challenge to the field. Unlike some other veterinary specialties, laboratory animal medicine requires current in-depth knowledge of clinical medicine for a range of species and disciplines including internal medicine, pharmacology, radiology, anesthesia, and surgery. Many institutions also require laboratory animal veterinarians to hold controlled drug licenses and import/export licenses. The wide variability in the background of candidates accepted into formal training programs may have an impact on their eligibility for state licensure and practice after training program completion, their ability to hold specialized licenses for the institution, and ultimately their career success as laboratory animal medicine practitioners. In consideration of this wide variability, the development of a standardized program entry requirement for ACLAM-recognized programs, which includes a current North American veterinary license, may improve the success of the programs and ultimately of the program graduates.

To further expose interested veterinarians to these programs, the application and selection process could be standardized. A well-established competition and matching program is already in place for clinical veterinary internships and residencies (Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program, AAVC 2006: www.virmp.org). This system or a similar one that involves a uniform applicant interview and selection schedule may enhance the laboratory animal medicine training programs and could decrease the difficulty experienced by both programs and applicants when many program start dates are clustered over a few months, most commonly June through August. Use of such a matching program has previously been suggested (NRC 2004). Participating program start dates would likely be limited with this type of system, but institutions could offer more flexible start dates during final negotiations with candidates. Having such a program in place would permit all residency/graduate programs to advertise through a common mechanism and would standardize acceptance dates for new candidates. In addition, this system would allow programs to share the names of nonselected applicants so that these applicants could be contacted by institutions unable to find a suitable applicant during the initial application process.

The future of current programs may be jeopardized by reduced federal funding for clinical training of laboratory animal veterinarians, which appears to be largely rooted in a lack of understanding of the many roles that laboratory animal veterinarians fill (Barthold 2005). Current T32 grants from the NCRR fund research training only, and institutions have been left to develop funding strategies for clinical training of new laboratory animal veterinarians (Grieder and Whitehair 2005). Considering the urgent shortage of laboratory animal veterinarians, this approach seems short sighted (Fox and Obernier 2005). The laboratory animal veterinarian plays a critical role in translational science and is an integral member of the biomedical research team. Discussions should be reopened with federal funding authorities to address this funding discrepancy and to assist with the creation of new training positions. Unlike other postdoctoral training programs, such as those within select veterinary subspecialties or human clinical residency programs, potential funding sources for laboratory animal training programs do not include clinical revenue or third-party sources (e.g., government or privately based insurance programs).

For some academic institutions, clinical training may be supported by per diem charges for laboratory animals, which are frequently paid from federal grants. To make training funding more equitable and uniform and because laboratory animals are a vital resource for NIH-funded investigators, the NIH should reconsider its position on central funding of clinical training to protect its research investment. Partnering with industry for the clinical portion of training may also assist in addressing the funding shortfall. This option, which has been explored on a limited basis with several formal training programs, should be expanded, possibly to include national competitions for industry-sponsored training, similar to the approach taken by the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and the Society of Toxicologic Pathologists (Cockerell and Patterson 2005a,b).

Nontraditional Education and Training Platforms for Laboratory Animal Veterinarians

As discussed above, there are many well-established formal training opportunities for veterinarians who are interested in laboratory animal medicine. Most of the existing training programs are built on the ACLAM requirement for full-time studies of at least 2 years in duration. This type of program is best suited to veterinarians who are within a few years of graduation from their basic clinical education.

It becomes much more difficult to address the needs of clinical veterinarians who are either considering a career change to laboratory animal medicine or are already working in this field and seek additional formal training in laboratory animal medicine. Often these individuals are mature clinicians with partners or families, strong community ties, and property or financial obligations that prevent them from relocating to a training center or undertaking full-time studies that are 2 to 3 years in duration. The primary educational goal for these individuals may not be immediate ACLAM board certification eligibility but instead, advanced education and training to improve working clinical competencies and to increase the individual's eligibility for a range of veterinary positions within laboratory animal science.

Institutions that offer a master's degree program in laboratory animal medicine or science may have the flexibility to allow program participants to register as part-time students. Other solutions include developing web-based courses and programs for at least some of their training. Essentially these applied programs would allow veterinarians to continue working full-time while gaining additional expertise in laboratory animal science. Examples of each of these are discussed in more detail below.

E-Learning

Web-based or e-learning has become increasingly popular as an educational tool in the human and veterinary health sciences sectors, both for delivery of information and for rapid feedback of content understanding and integration (Bernardo and Malinowski 2005; Molgaard 2005; Stansberry and Harris 2005). This technology allows participants to access didactic material at their convenience and to study at their own pace because they are able to submit assignments and complete examinations in due course as evidence of mastery of the material. Courses may be developed anywhere along the spectrum of introductory to advanced, and this format suits a range of topics within laboratory animal medicine. The didactic material may be combined with applied clinical training modules to round out the veterinarian's clinical competency. Formal recognition of these educational programs by the conferring academic institutions and also by professional organizations related to laboratory animal medicine could potentially permit successful graduates to become credentialed.

One example of the type of postgraduate training in laboratory animal medicine described above is the Canadian Certificate in Laboratory Animal Medicine (CLAM¹) (http://www.open.uoguelph.ca/offerings/program .cfm?pid=59)(University of Guelph 2006). This program is open to licensed veterinarians and consists of four courses. The first is a web-based self-study course, and the subsequent three courses are applied in nature, for a total of approximately 160 hours of effort. The first course covers the following topics in laboratory animal medicine: oversight of research animal care and use, ethics of experimentation, animal models and alternatives, factors that affect research data, environmental enrichment, anesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia, microbiological quality control and biosecurity, biosafety, and specific animal models. Topics may require completion of a short assignment, and each concludes with a multiple-choice quiz. Candidates have two attempts to achieve the minimum required score of 80% to complete each topic. The next three courses (Applied Laboratory Animal Medicine I, II, and III) consist of 1-week placements at regional training centers. Candidates spend 40 hours/week at these facilities and must acquire a number of applied skills during each week (e.g., animal handling, bleeding, protocol review). Regional training centers are assessed by the CCAC, and each center holds a Certificate of Good Animal Practice. Sites were selected based on location in Canada, number of experienced veterinarians, and range of species housed. There are three entry times per year for the online course.

The CLAM program was developed to provide rapid entry-level training for licensed veterinarians considering a career change into laboratory animal medicine. Development of content was highly collaborative and multi-institutional, resulting in widespread acceptance of the program by Canadian federal laboratory animal oversight agencies and the professional laboratory animal veterinary community (CALAM). Because the program has professional and academic approval, graduates of the program may use the credential "Cert. LAM" upon successful completion. The program may be completed in as little as 1 month or up to 2 years from initial entry. Since its inception in the fall of 2005, 14 veterinarians have enrolled, 12 individuals have graduated, and two are still in course. The current content is geared toward Canadian regulations and legislation; however, a more generic international version based on the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC 1996) is also under development (personal communication, Patricia V. Turner, Program Leader, Graduate Studies in Laboratory Animal Science, University of Guelph, November 2006).

Clinically Oriented Mentoring, Education, and Training

Laboratory animal medicine is a broad field with a range of employment prospects. Veterinarians must be aware of these opportunities to be initially attracted to the field. ACLAM has recently completed a review of veterinary college curricula in laboratory animal medicine and has developed recommendations for providing laboratory animal medicine instruction to veterinary students. The recommended instruction is at a basic level and generally geared toward engendering interest in the field and an awareness of regulatory oversight regarding the care and use of research animals (Turner PV, Colby L, Gaertner D, VandeWoude S, Vasbinder MA, manuscript in preparation). Implementation of these recommendations should assist in promoting awareness and core competencies in this field among newly graduated veterinarians.

Professional mentoring is also important for attracting veterinarians to the field and for providing support for development of early and mid-career laboratory animal veterinarians. ACLAM has recognized the importance of mentoring in laboratory animal medicine and has renewed its support for this strategic priority during 2006-2011 (ACLAM 2006a: http://www.aclam.org/aclam_strategic_dir.html) (AVMA 2006: http://mentoring.avma.org/3creekmentoring_dashboard/AVMA/index.cfm). ASLAP is also active in mentoring veterinary students and new ASLAP members. Mentoring opportunities should be more widely advertised to veterinarians and the concept should be extended to other organizations, including the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. In addition, professional organizations such as ACLAM, ASLAP, and CALAM or academic institutions should develop additional short courses and formal educational programs to provide flexible and practical continuing education to clinical laboratory animal veterinarians who may be less interested in longer, research-focused formal programs.

An example of an alternative academic program geared toward clinically focused veterinarians is the Diploma program offered by the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC¹). This program has been recognized by the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies since 1987 and is offered by many departments at OVC in a range of fields. The laboratory animal science Diploma program is offered through the Department of Pathobiology. Applicants are required to have a D.V.M. (or equivalent) degree with acceptable academic standing and a current veterinary license. Admission requires a guaranteed source of personal and research support for the veterinarian from their sponsoring institution. The objective of the Diploma program is to provide advanced training to veterinarians, and it emphasizes didactic and course-based applied training in laboratory animal medicine and pathology. The Diploma program requires a minimum of four semesters of full-time enrollment, satisfactory completion of three courses in applied laboratory animal science or pathology, at least one didactic graduate course in laboratory animal science, and a departmental research seminar presentation. Diploma program candidates are required to conduct a one- to two-semester hypothesis-driven research project and an in-depth literature review. This project can be related to any area within the fields of laboratory animal or biomedical science and is often geared toward the research objectives of the sponsoring institution. Diploma students must also pass a final oral comprehensive examination on general knowledge in laboratory animal science. This program is not recognized by ACLAM; however, it does provide veterinarians with broad-based didactic and applied information in laboratory animal science and exposure to several research facilities. Ideally, it results in a hypothesis-driven, first-author publication suitable for ACLAM Board Examination eligibility. Graduates of this program may use the credentials "Dipl. Path." Because these students receive credit for applied work, veterinarians may continue to work full- or part-time while completing this program, which makes it attractive to veterinarians and their employers alike.

Training Resources

The recent proliferation of web-based resources for training (Table 6) and online listservs such as COMPMED has been of enormous benefit to clinical veterinarians. Laboratory animal veterinarians are able to share information about cases rapidly, consult archives at various sites for similar cases, and extract relevant papers and images for comparison. Further sharing of resources in the future is strongly encouraged to enhance training standardization and competency of laboratory animal veterinarians. This process could take the shape of "What's Your Diagnosis?" case reports presented electronically on a monthly basis by ASLAP or ACLAM, similar to the cases presented on the Society for Toxicologic Pathology website (http://www.toxpath.org/what.asp). Image repositories could also be shared by educators in this field through institutional libraries either free of charge or for nominal membership fees.

Summary

The training of laboratory animal veterinarians is in a state of transformation, presenting a number of exciting opportunities and challenges for educators in this field. The range of opportunities currently available for formal and informal education and training of laboratory animal veterinarians allows veterinarians to tailor their learning experience. Some standardization within formal programs will ensure ongoing high-quality education of trainees. Professional organizations such as ACLAM have a vested interest in ensuring continued training of highly qualified laboratory animal veterinarians. However, the ultimate responsibility for devising strategies to support the funding of trainees at competitive levels lies with public and private funding agencies and private sector institutions, all of which require skilled laboratory animal veterinarians to provide critical infrastructure support for their research programs. New training strategies should also be considered by institutions and professional laboratory animal medicine organizations to attract experienced veterinarians to this field, address their needs as adult learners, and take advantage of new developments in electronic educational tools.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the program directors that participated in the described survey of formal training programs.

Abbreviations used in this article: AAALAC, Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, International; AALAS, American Association for Laboratory Animal Science; ACLAM, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine; ASLAP, American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners; AVMA, American Veterinary Association; CALAM, Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine; CCAC, Canadian Council on Animal Care; CLAM, Certificate in Laboratory Animal Medicine; NAVLE, North American Veterinary Licensing Examination; NCRR, National Center for Research Resources; NIH, National Institutes of Health; OVC, Ontario Veterinary College.

References

AAVC [American Association of Veterinary Clinicians]. 2006. Veterinary internship and residency matching program. Available online (http://www.virmp.org). Accessed July 6, 2006.

ACLAM [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2002. General information: Role delineation document. Available online (http://www.aclam.org/gen_rdd.html). Accessed July 6, 2006.

ACLAM [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2006a. ACLAM: strategic directions. Available online (http://www.aclam.org/aclam_strategic_dir.html). Accessed July 6, 2006.

ACLAM [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2006b. Certification: Application process. Available online (http://www.aclam.org/cert_applic.html). Accessed July 6, 2006.

ACLAM [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2006c. Certification: Training programs in laboratory animal medicine. Available online (http://www.aclam.org/cert_trng_progr.html#Top). Accessed July 6, 2006.

ACLAM/ASLAP [American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine/American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners]. 2006. Salary survey of laboratory animal veterinarians. Available online (http://www.aclam.org/PDF/2005SalarySurveyFinal.pdf). Accessed October 3, 2006.

ASLAP/ACLAM [American Society of Laboratory Animal Practitioners/American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2006. Laboratory animal training programs for graduate veterinarians. Available online (http://www.aslap.org/OnePage.php). Accessed July 6, 2006.

AVMA [American Veterinary Medical Association]. 2006. AVMA mentoring center. Available online (http://mentoring.avma.org/3creekmentoring_dashboard/AVMA/index.cfm). Accessed July 6, 2006.

Barthold SW. 2005. Musings of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: Antemortem analysis of the veterinary profession. J Vet Med Educ 32:306-313.

Bernardo TM, Malinowski RP. 2005. Progress in the capture, manipulation, and delivery of medical media and its impact on education, clinical care, and research. J Vet Med Educ 32:21-30.

CALAM [Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine]. 2004. CALAM/ACMAL standards of veterinary care. Available online (http://www.uwo.ca/animal/website/CALAM/Content/StandardsVetCare.pdf). Accessed July 6, 2006.

Cockerell GL, Patterson, DR. 2005a. Closing the supply vs. demand for veterinary pathologists: A multifaceted problem in need of a multifaceted solution. Toxicol Pathol 33:621-622.

Cockerell GL, Patterson, DR. 2005b. Closing the supply vs. demand for veterinary pathologists: A multifaceted problem in need of a multifaceted solution. Vet Pathol 42:403-404.

Colby LA. 2002. A Survey of US Residency Programs for Veterinarians in Laboratory Animal Medicine. Presentation at the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 30, 2002.

Fox JG, Obernier J. 2005. Veterinarians in biomedical research: A perilous future? J Vet Med Educ 32:301-305.

Grieder FB, Whitehair LA. 2005. Funding opportunities for research and graduate education: How the NIH can help you. 32:314-317.

Hickman D, King-Herbert A, Murphy SJ. 2006. The Laboratory Animal Boards Study Group (LABSG): A multifaceted tool for preparation for the American College for Laboratory Medicine Board Examination. JAALAS 45:33-39.

Loew FM, Cohen BJ. 2002. Laboratory animal medicine: Historical perspectives. In: Fox JG, Anderson LC, Loew FM, Quimby FW, eds. Laboratory Animal Medicine. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press. p 12-16.

Molgaard LK. 2005. Using a wireless response system to enhance student learning. J Vet Med Educ 32:127-128.

Moreland AF. 1999. Development of training programs in laboratory animal medicine. In: McPherson CW, Mattingly SF, eds. Fifty Years of Laboratory Animal Science. Memphis: American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. p 87-91.

NRC [National Research Council]. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 7th ed. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

NRC [National Research Council]. 2004. National Need and Priorities for Veterinarians in Biomedical Research. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

NRC [National Research Council]. 2005. Critical Needs for Research in Veterinary Science. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Shepherd AJ. 2005. Employment, starting salaries, and educational indebtedness of year—2005 graduates of US veterinary medical colleges. J Am Vet Med Assoc 227:1084-1086.

Smith AL. 2001. Laboratory animal medicine in a time of crisis. Comp Med 51:290.

Society for Toxicologic Pathology. 2005. What's your diagnosis? Available online (http://www.toxpath.org/what.asp). Accessed July 6, 2006.

Stansberry SL, Harris EL. 2005. Understanding the interrelationship of instructional technology use and organizational culture: A case study of a veterinary medical college. J Vet Med Educ 32:31-37.

University of Guelph. 2006. Certificate in laboratory animal medicine. Available online (http://www.open.uoguelph.ca/offerings/program.cfm?pid=59). Accessed July 6, 2006.

Weigler BJ, Thulin JD, Vandewoude SJ, Wolfle TL. 1997. The supply and demand for laboratory animal veterinarians from 1980 to 2005. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 36:39-46.