Which justification would likely be accepted by an IACUC if a research team plans to withhold pain relief from animals during a study?

The justification that would likely be accepted by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) for withholding pain relief is that the pain relief would interfere with the aims of the project. This aligns with ethical research practices, where it is recognized that pain may be allowed only if it is essential to achieving the scientific objectives of the study and if no viable alternatives exist.

In research involving animals, IACUCs are tasked with ensuring that any potential pain and distress is minimized and justified. If a research team can demonstrate that the research's scientific validity is contingent on not using analgesics—perhaps because the effects of the treatment being tested may require the study to be conducted in a state of unmitigated pain—this could provide a valid rationale for withholding pain relief under strict conditions.

In contrast, the other justifications are generally not accepted in ethical research practices. The belief that animals do not feel pain is outdated and inaccurate; it fails to recognize current understandings of animal welfare. Similarly, lack of funding is not a valid reason for not providing appropriate care, as ethical standards expect researchers to seek necessary resources to uphold animal welfare. Lastly, if research indicates that analgesics are generally ineffective, it must be demonstrated in a way that