Laboratory Animal Care Workforce Study
Rebecca Loveland, Anna Curtis, William Proulx, Raija Vaisanen
and Jeremy Wolf
For the Massachusetts Society for Medical Research
February 2008
Produced by the Economic and Public Policy Research Unit, University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute.
Dr. Michael Goodman, Director
Katera Como, Administrative and Projects Coordinator
Anna Curtis, Research Assistant
Deb Furioni, Data Analyst
John Gaviglio, Data Manager
Mathew Hoover, Research Analyst
Lindsay Koshgarian, Research Analyst
Liming Liu, Demographer – Population Program
Rebecca Loveland, Research Manager
Roger Magnus, Research Analyst – Population Program
Kathleen Modzelewski, Research Analyst
William Proulx, Research Assistant
Susan Strate, Manager – Population Program
Raija Vaisanen, Research Assistant
Roy Williams, Senior Research Analyst
Jeremy Wolf, Research Assistant
Copyright January 2008
University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute
The contents of this publication may be reproduced only with permission of the authors.
II
UMass Donahue Institute
Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... VI
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................8
Introduction........................................................................................................................8
The risk..............................................................................................................................9
Key findings .....................................................................................................................10
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................13
Industry Background ................................................................................................................14
The role of laboratory animal care in biomedical research..............................................14
Preclinical research .........................................................................................................15
Growing demand for laboratory animal care services .....................................................16
Employment growth in research-intensive life science sectors ........................................ 17
Increased use of animals in research ............................................................................... 18
Increased NIH grants and funding .................................................................................... 21
Geographic concentration of biomedical research ........................................................... 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 23
The Laboratory Animal Care Workforce .................................................................................24
Key occupations ..............................................................................................................24
Laboratory animal veterinarians........................................................................................ 25
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors....................................................... 26
Veterinary technicians....................................................................................................... 26
Laboratory animal technicians and laboratory animal caretakers .................................... 26
Cage washers ................................................................................................................... 27
Education and Training ............................................................................................................28
Education and training for key occupations in all industries ............................................28
Education, training and certification for laboratory animal care settings .........................29
Laboratory animal veterinarians........................................................................................ 29
Education and training ......................................................................................... 29
Dual degree DVM / MS programs........................................................................ 31
Comparative medicine residency program at Tufts Cummings School of
Veterinary Medicine ............................................................................................. 31
Postdoctoral training program in biomedical research at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology ...................................................................................................... 32
ACLAM certification ............................................................................................. 32
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors....................................................... 33
Education and training ......................................................................................... 33
AALAS certification for laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors ..... 33
III
UMass Donahue Institute
Veterinary technologists and technicians ......................................................................... 34
Education and training ......................................................................................... 34
Laboratory animal technicians / laboratory animal caretakers ......................................... 35
Education and training ......................................................................................... 35
AALAS certification for veterinary technicians and laboratory animal technicians
............................................................................................................................. 36
Cage washers ................................................................................................................... 36
Education and training ......................................................................................... 36
AALAS certification .............................................................................................. 37
Occupational Staffing Patterns................................................................................................38
Key occupations: current employment and annual salary levels.....................................38
Occupational vacancy rates ............................................................................................40
Salaries by occupational category, MA and U.S............................................................... 40
Salary comparison with other states ................................................................................. 41
Occupational projections, MA..........................................................................................44
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................44
Laboratory Animal Care Workforce Survey: Summary of Key Findings .............................46
Survey responses............................................................................................................46
Methodological note.......................................................................................................... 46
Facility characteristics .....................................................................................................47
Organization type .............................................................................................................. 47
Number of employees in the laboratory animal care program.......................................... 47
Market information...........................................................................................................48
Services provided ............................................................................................................. 48
Potential obstacles to expansion ...................................................................................... 49
Importance of laboratory animal research to the institutional research program ............. 50
Workforce information .....................................................................................................50
Education levels ................................................................................................................ 50
Staffing distribution ........................................................................................................... 51
Hiring challenges .............................................................................................................52
Difficult positions to fill in the past two years .................................................................... 52
Difficulties with hiring veterinarians................................................................................... 53
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal facility senior managers..................................... 54
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal facility supervisors ............................................. 56
Difficulties with hiring veterinary technicians .................................................................... 57
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal technicians......................................................... 59
Difficulties with hiring cage washers ................................................................................. 60
Employee turnover and retention ....................................................................................62
Primary factors leading to turnover ................................................................................... 62
Anticipated hiring – new hiring and replacement hiring .................................................... 64
IV
UMass Donahue Institute
Starting salary ................................................................................................................... 66
Desired education level..................................................................................................... 67
Inability to hire qualified workers, facility responses ......................................................... 69
In-house training and career paths..................................................................................70
In-house promotion ........................................................................................................... 70
Professional development opportunities........................................................................... 71
Possible strategies for a better workforce .......................................................................72
Appendix 1. Occupational Staffing Patterns Methodology ...................................................73
Appendix 2. Mean Wage Estimates Per Occupation, All Industries, 2006...........................75
Appendix 3. State Comparison of Occupations by Annual Median Salary, 2006 ...............77
Appendix 4. Bibliography.........................................................................................................79
V
UMass Donahue Institute
List of Figures
Figure 1: Biopharma Development Diagram .................................................................... 15
Table 1: Employment Growth by NAICS Code, Life Science Industry Sectors, 2001–2005
County Business Patterns................................................................................................. 18
Table 2: State Ranking of Animals Used in Research, 2005............................................ 20
Table 3: Massachusetts and United States Comparison of All Animals Used in Research,
2005 .................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 4: Top Ten States Ranked by NIH Awarded Medical Research Funds ................. 21
Table 5: National Distribution of Educational Attainment, 2006 ....................................... 28
Table 6: U.S. Standard Profile of Laboratory Animal Care Occupations.......................... 29
Table 7: Laboratory Animal Facility Staffing Patterns, Massachusetts, 2006 .................. 39
Table 8: Other Potential Sources of Animal Research Employees, 2006 ........................ 40
Table 9: Median Wages by Occupation, All Industries, 2006 ........................................... 40
Table 10: Massachusetts Median Salary Estimates by Occupation, All Industries, 1999–
2006 .................................................................................................................................. 41
Table 11: State Comparison of Veterinarians by Annual Median Salary, May 2006........ 42
Table 12: State Occupational Comparison by Annual Median Salary, May 2006............ 43
Table 13: Massachusetts Employment Estimates for Animal Research Occupations,
1999–2006 ........................................................................................................................ 44
Table 14: Survey Respondents by Organization Type and Non-profit Status................. 47
Table 15: Number of Employees at Responding Laboratory Animal Care Facilities....... 48
Table 16: Services Provided by Responding Laboratory Animal Care Facilities ............ 48
Table 17: Potential Obstacles to Expansion .................................................................... 49
Table 18: Portion of all Research Dependent on Laboratory Animal Research.............. 50
Table 19: Employment Proportion by Education Level (N=42)......................................... 50
Table 20: Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Employment by Occupation (N=45)....................... 51
Table 21: Staffing Distribution by Occupation.................................................................. 51
Table 22: Hiring Experience in the Past Two Years ........................................................ 52
Table 23: Hiring Challenges in the Past Two Years ........................................................ 52
Table 24: Top Ranked Hiring Challenges by Occupation................................................ 53
Table 25: Difficulties with Hiring Veterinarians ................................................................ 54
Table 26: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Facility Senior Managers ............... 55
Table 27: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Facility Supervisors ........................ 57
VI
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 28: Difficulties with Hiring Veterinary Technicians................................................. 58
Table 29: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Technicians .................................... 60
Table 30: Difficulties with Hiring Cage Washers.............................................................. 61
Table 31: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation.................................................. 62
Table 31a: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation, For-profit Institutions............. 63
Table 31b: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation, Non-profit Institutions............ 64
Table 32: Anticipated New Hires by Occupation ............................................................. 65
Table 33: Anticipated Replacement Hiring by Occupation .............................................. 65
Table 34: Replacement and New Hiring by Occupation ................................................... 66
Table 35: Typical Starting Salaries by Occupation .......................................................... 67
Table 36: Desired Education Levels by Occupation ........................................................ 68
Table 37: Desired Certification Levels by Occupation ..................................................... 68
Table 38: Desired Years of On-the-Job Experience by Occupation................................ 69
Table 39: Responses to Inability to Hire Qualified Workers ............................................ 70
Table 40: In-House Promotion Trends in Responding Facilities ..................................... 71
Table 41: Professional Development Opportunities in Responding Facilities ................. 71
Table 42: Strategies for Workforce Development Ranked by Level of Impact................ 72
VII
UMass Donahue Institute
Executive Summary
Introduction
Important life-saving and life-enhancing therapies, cures and medical devices originate in Massachusetts
every year, helping lives and giving hope to millions of people worldwide.
The fundamental research behind these crucial medical advances is an enterprise of more than
$2.4 billion annually in Massachusetts, employing at least 20,000 skilled workers statewide in
universities, medical centers, biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms, and contract research
organizations.
Crucial, but too often overlooked, is the fact that more than half of all biomedical research in
Massachusetts depends at some point upon animal studies. Laboratory animal studies are conducted
under carefully controlled conditions and adhere to federal, state, and local animal care regulations, as
well as to procedures identified by expert professional societies such as the American Veterinary
Medical Association.
Absolutely essential to the success of biomedical research in our region is the workforce of
laboratory animal care workers, employed at laboratory animal facilities within the research
organizations and contract facilities.
There are at most a few thousand workers in Massachusetts laboratory animal research facilities
– 2,331, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics – yet the Life Sciences industry and its monumental
medical advances are fully dependent upon them.
8
UMass Donahue Institute
The risk
Massachusetts schools and colleges do not train enough students with the special skills and
hands-on experience to fill the growing number of laboratory animal care positions in the
Commonwealth. The shortfall appears to occur at every level – from specialist laboratory animal
veterinarians to entry-level animal care husbandry technicians.
The necessary education has two parts: (a) instilling the specific scientific knowledge and
technical animal care skills; and (b) informing students about the career opportunities in laboratory
animal work. Right now, many of those who do learn the specialized skills, such as veterinarians and
veterinary technicians, do not know enough about the laboratory animal field, instead choosing lowerpaying jobs at clinics and shelters.
For example, colleges in Massachusetts collectively awarded 73 veterinary technician degrees in
2006. The predicted 3-year need for this category of worker is 130, or nearly 60% of all future
graduates.* But the actual number going into laboratory animal research is far less. The statistics for
laboratory animal veterinarians are even more unbalanced.
As a consequence of a shortfall in the available trained labor pool, research operations are forced
to (i) leave positions vacant, (ii) hire employees with less than the needed skills and try to fill the
training gap themselves, (iii) hire temporary or contract staff, or (iv) look outside the state, where
recruitment/relocation is difficult because of our region’s high cost of living. The long-term effect of
staffing problems could be a slow-down in life-saving research in the state, or the relocation of research
to other regions, where laboratory animal careers are more strongly promoted and where training is more
broadly available.
*
Our survey respondents employ about 45% of the animal care workers in Massachusetts. The “needed” employee numbers are
extrapolated from the survey projections.
9
UMass Donahue Institute
The Massachusetts Society for Medical Research, a non-profit member organization founded in
1953 and representing the state’s stakeholders in biomedical research, engaged the UMass Donahue
Institute to investigate the animal care workforce. We sought to understand the current challenges to
hiring and retention, the expected future demand for workers, and the possible mechanisms for
improving knowledge of and preparation in animal care work for research facilities.
Key findings
Education is critical: a high school diploma is an essential entry-level requirement in every job
category in the laboratory animal facility. An associate’s or bachelor’s degree becomes increasingly
important as one moves up the animal husbandry technician ladder – 35% of organizations want their
senior husbandry techs to have a college degree. At the next step, more than 56% of organizations
expect their veterinary technicians to have at least a bachelor’s degree. At the supervisory and manager
levels, these numbers rise to 62% and 89%, respectively.
Just to cover staff turnover in the next 3 years, the agricultural high schools, community and
four-year colleges would need to train 500 animal care workers (equal to about 21.4% of the entire
current total workforce). Projected growth in the period calls for about 298 more trained workers (about
an additional 12.8% of the current total workforce.)
And from the mid-level husbandry technician upward, more than half of all organizations want
their staffs also to have the appropriate professional certifications.
Our lab animal facilities understand the educational dilemma. When queried, 92% of our
respondents identified customized skills training and certificate programs at Massachusetts community
colleges as the strategy that would be beneficial or highly beneficial in building the needed workforce.
10
UMass Donahue Institute
The research facilities are trying hard: more than 95% offer informal and more than 74% offer
formal in-house training to get and keep their animal care staffs prepared. But of course, that is after the
employees are already hired.
To help their employees improve, more than 75% pay for or reimburse professional society
membership fees, certification training programs, and national and local professional society meetings;
83% give release time for employees to attend national meetings. More than half give salary incentives
for certification. And 49% even offer English as a Second Language, because many positions are now
being offered to non-native speakers.
Hiring is already difficult: nearly ⅔ of the organizations reported hiring difficulties in all but the
entry-level cage washer position. “Lack of workers with the necessary job or technical skills” was the
predominant reason for this difficulty. For the critical category of animal husbandry technician, more
than 68% cited it as the top hiring difficulty. This is exactly the area where more training at the high
school, associate’s degree, and certificate courses is needed.
Local salary/benefits competition was the second principal difficulty, but generally far less of an
issue than just finding people with the needed skill set.
An added hurdle – non-profits are at a salary disadvantage to biotechnology, pharmaceutical and
contract research companies. Workers are 2 to 4 times as likely to leave a non-profit for salary/benefit
reasons than a for-profit. This sometimes makes the non-profit academic and medical animal research
operations feel like training leagues, whose best employees are then skimmed off by companies that can
offer better pay and benefits.
Inadequate English language skills are a slight problem for the husbandry technicians but
become truly significant for organizations trying to hire cage washers, with more than 17% reporting
inadequate language skills as the primary difficulty in hiring for that category.
11
UMass Donahue Institute
Keeping employees can also be challenging, particularly at the junior- and mid-level husbandry
technician levels, where career advancement and higher pay induce employees to move to competitors.
For example, 44% of organizations reported that their mid-level husbandry technicians leave for these
reasons. Exactly these same two categories also have the highest “failure” rate (“employee unable to
perform as expected”) so just the place where the most workers are needed is also the place where there
is the greatest attrition, creating accelerating need.
Many positions are open to new workers: a significant majority of the organizations hiring cage
washers, junior- and mid-level husbandry technicians will hire a candidate with only one year or less of
experience. Workers with just one to three years of experience are desired by more than half of the
organizations seeking senior-level husbandry technicians, veterinary technicians, facility supervisors and
laboratory animal veterinarians. As expected, senior managers need to have lots of experience: nearly
78% of facilities wanted more than five years’ experience here.
New workers could be recent graduates, adults re-entering the workforce, career changers, and
immigrant workers … if the training and practical skills development were available.
If no qualified workers are available: the options are not ideal. More than half the organizations
will leave a senior manager or supervisor position open if an appropriate candidate cannot be found. But
because of the need for continual animal care and observation, less than 20% of the organizations will
leave an animal husbandry position open and nearly 53% will hire a candidate with less than the desired
minimum qualifications.
Between 15% and 30% will hire a contract or temporary worker in all categories except
veterinarian, where the number jumps to nearly 50%.
12
UMass Donahue Institute
Conclusion
We believe that the biomedical research industry, the education community and state
government can all participate in a successful effort to: (a) train more in-school students for careers in
laboratory animal research through the development of a consistent statewide curriculum; (b) inform
students, potential workers, and job placement agencies about research animal care careers through a
variety of outreach mechanisms; (c) create specialty training and certification programs for those who
want to enter this field from another work area, or who are already working in it and want to advance,
and offer the programs through the community college system.
13
UMass Donahue Institute
Industry Background
Massachusetts has established itself as a central hub of biomedical research and development,
home to a full range of life science institutions engaged in the research and development process.
Laboratory animal care operations, serving institutional research programs, are critical participants in the
early stages of the biomedical research process. The institutions most likely to use the services of
laboratory animal care facilities include pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies
as well as academic research programs in universities, medical schools, and teaching hospitals.
Established biopharma and device companies and major research consortia tend to support their own
laboratory animal care facilities. Private preclinical contract research organizations also support their
own facilities. As the importance of these laboratory animal facilities has grown, additional businesses
have evolved specifically to serve their operations. These include placement agencies supplying custom
recruiting of laboratory animal care workers and maintenance service companies specifically serving
laboratory animal facilities.
The role of laboratory animal care in biomedical research
The development of a biomedical product is a complex and expensive process. Each phase of
biomedical research involves multiple players, sometimes in multiple institutions, bringing together an
array of scientific, regulatory, and administrative expertise. The life sciences cluster in Massachusetts,
which invests heavily in early-stage biomedical research operations (e.g., basic research, discovery
research and preclinical research), is reliant on laboratory animal care facilities to provide health care
and husbandry services to its research animals.1 Institutions in the state are aggressively translating
1
Nakajima, Eric and Rebecca Loveland. A Critical Alliance: The Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries in Massachusetts. UMass
Donahue Institute. February, 2007.
14
UMass Donahue Institute
basic research into meaningful discovery research, resulting in a constant flow of promising drug and
therapeutic candidates requiring laboratory and animal studies (preclinical research). It is in this context
that laboratory animal care operations have evolved to become major players within institutional
research programs, providing critical functions in support of early-stage research.
Figure 1: Biopharma Development Diagram
Source: UMass Donahue Institute, 2006.
Preclinical research
Preclinical research involving laboratory and animal studies takes place once a promising drug or
therapeutic candidate is identified. This stage of drug development is time consuming and has become
increasingly expensive. The risks at this stage are high: only one of every five to ten thousand
compounds tested receives FDA approval. Twenty-six percent of research and development (R&D)
15
UMass Donahue Institute
expenditures within the industry are spent on prehuman / preclinical testing and thirty-five percent of
R&D personnel are focused on prehuman / preclinical work.2
Laboratory animal care operations exist to provide a variety of services for basic research and
preclinical studies. A major component of work in these facilities is to ensure compliance with strict
Federal statutes, regulations and policies requiring the humane care and use of animals in research.3 In
addition to this fundamental role in promoting animal welfare, laboratory animal veterinarians, with
their expertise in comparative medicine and the use of animal models, make important contributions to
ensuring high-quality research design. The range of functions provided by laboratory animal care
operations includes humane and proper medical care for research animals; animal husbandry services
such as housing and feeding the research animals; animal technical services (including, for example,
surgical services, pathology services and breeding colony management); contract research and testing
services; and regulatory oversight and documentation management.
Growing demand for laboratory animal care services
A convergence of factors over the years has led to an ever-increasing demand for laboratory
animal care services, particularly in the Boston Metro and Central regions. These factors include:
significant growth in research-intensive life science sectors over the past decade; increased use of
animals in research over the same period; and geographic concentration of major biomedical companies
and institutional research programs located in the Boston Metro and Central regions. This has led to the
expansion and development of laboratory animal care operations in these regions.
2
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “Pharmaceutical Industry Profile, 2006.” Pages 2 & 47.
“Memorandum of Understanding Among Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, FDA, and NIH.” Office of Extramural
Research. 2006. National Institutes of Health. 2/20/2008 <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/finalmou.htm>.
3
16
UMass Donahue Institute
Employment growth in research-intensive life science sectors
Life sciences industry employment in Massachusetts has grown at higher rates than in the rest of
the state’s economy, and employment growth has been particularly strong in research intensive sectors.
The strong growth of the industry indicates a growing need for workers with research-related skills,
including those provided by the laboratory animal care workforce. According to County Business
Patterns data (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), employment grew in each of the life science industry
sectors in Massachusetts between 2001 and 2005. Remarkably, pure life science sectors grew by almost
twenty percent over that time in contrast to an overall employment decline of 4.3 percent in the state.4
Table 1 illustrates the employment growth shown by County Business Patterns data. Of relevance to
this study is the fact that employment grew fastest in those sectors most invested in scientific research
and development activities: biopharmaceutical firms and research & development firms in the life
sciences. Given the strong growth of university and hospital employment overall (as seen in Table 1),
we can assume that the massive academic and hospital-based research enterprise also grew steadily in
the same period, despite employment declines across the state.
4
According to County Business Patterns, employment in Massachusetts in 2001 was 3,129,980 but by 2005 had declined to 2,996,347.
17
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 1: Employment Growth by NAICS Code, Life Science Industry Sectors, 2001–2005 County Business
Patterns
Sector and NAICS
Code
Biopharmaceuticals
32541 (includes:)
Description
Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing
8,191
9,534
16.4
256
1749
583.2
5,358
4,674
-12.8
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
1,537
1,981
28.9
Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing*
1,040
749
-28.0
5,924
2,183
11,661
6,285
2,229
12,568
6.1
2.1
7.8
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing *
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413
325414
Medical Devices
334510
334517
33911 (includes:)
%
Growth
‘01—‘05
Employment
2001
2005
Electromedical & Electrotherapeutic
Apparatus Manufacturing
Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing
Medical Equipment & Supplies Manufacturing
339111
Laboratory apparatus and furniture manufacturing
781
1,022
30.9
339112
Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing
6,313
6,948
10.1
339113
Surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing
2,088
2,419
15.9
339114
Dental equipment and supplies manufacturing
76
59
-22.4
339115
Opthalmic goods manufacturing
1,544
1,306
-15.4
339116
Dental laboratories
859
814
-5.2
Colleges, Universities & Professional Schools
119,562
127,267
6.4
Teaching Hospitals & Research Institutions
Testing Laboratories
Research & Development in the Life
Sciences***
TOTAL, pure (not partial) LS sectors****
137,068
146,068
6.6
2,048
2,595
26.7
13,951
43,958
19,415
52,626
39.2
19.7
Scientific Research
and Development
(basic and applied
research)
611310 (partial**)
6221 (partial**)
54138
5417102
Source: County Business Patterns 2001 & 2005.
*These numbers were released as employment ranges (1,000-2,499 & 500-999); we used the mean.
** Only a portion of the employment totals in these sectors are life-sciences related.
***According to the 2002 Economic Census, MA, life sciences R&D is 56 percent of NAICS code 54171, Scientific R&D.
****These totals do not include employment in Universities or Hospitals.
Increased use of animals in research
Massachusetts’ significant investment in, and dependence on, basic and preclinical biomedical
research is evident in the number of animals used by the Commonwealth’s research facilities. Table 2
shows the number of animals reported in 2005 through the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which is
administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). The AWA enforces minimum standards of care and treatment for animals
used in research and exhibition. Facilities subject to the AWA’s rules include research facilities,
18
UMass Donahue Institute
hospitals, educational institutions, and firms practicing within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology
industries.5
Table 2 demonstrates that Massachusetts’ life sciences industry is a significant force within the
national animal research community. In 2005, research facilities within the Commonwealth reported
75,157 animals used in research, ranking in the top five states for reported animal numbers. It is
important, however, to keep in mind two important facts about omissions from the AWA statistics: a)
the AWA does not require that domestic mice, rats or birds be reported,6 and b) the AWA does not
require the reporting of “cold-blooded” animals such as fish, snakes, amphibians, reptiles, arachnids or
insects. Because the AWA does not require that these animals be reported, it is difficult to calculate the
numbers being used in laboratories. Despite this, it is worth noting that in recent years, the number of
AWA registered animals has declined while the number of mice has been estimated to have grown.
According to AWA reports, there were just over 2.1 million reported animals in 1985 compared to the
1.1 million reported in 2005.7
By contrast, the number of mice used in biomedical research has grown significantly in recent
years. A 1986 study estimated that, in 1983, 12 to 15 million mice and rats were used nation-wide in
animal testing activities.8 Mice are small, relatively inexpensive to produce and maintain, and have a
physiology and genetic make up that is similar to humans. Because of these factors, mice have proven
to be a crucial component of the activities of genetic and biomedical research – and the use of mice has
grown significantly.9 In 2007, the Foundation for Biomedical Research estimated that approximately
5
“Animal Welfare Act FAQ.” Animal and Plant Inspection Service. 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2/20/2008.
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_awawact.html>.
6
“Licensing and Registration Under the Animal Welfare Act.” Animal and Plant Inspection Service. 2004. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 2/20/2008. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/awlicreg.html#IUOBS>.
7
USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Reports of Inspection, 2005.
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf>
8
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, OTA-BA-273, February 1986).
9
“Rats and Mice: The Essential Need for Animals in Medical Research.” The Foundation for Biomedical Research. Accessed 2/20/2008.
<http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/pdf/RatsAndMice.pdf>.
19
UMass Donahue Institute
97% of all animals used in research are mice and rats.10 If this estimate is correct, then the animals
represented in Table 2 account for, at most, 3% of all animal research. This would mean that in
Massachusetts in 2005, in addition to the 75,157 animals reported under the AWA, an estimated 2.4
million mice and rats were used in research, plus any cold-blooded animals that are not included in the
AWA censuses. Particularly important is the rapidly growing population of zebrafish in research.
While there has been no count of zebrafish or other cold-blooded animals, it is possible that there are
hundreds of thousands of zebrafish in research facilities across the state.
Table 2: State Ranking of Animals Used in Research, 2005
Rank
State
Cats
1
CA
2,385
2
NY
3,184
3
PA
1,254
4
OH
1,108
5
MA
244
6
MD
7
IA
8
TX
9
GA
Dogs
4,225
Guinea
Pigs
Non
Hamsters
Pig
human
Rabbits
Sheep
Primates
4,340
4,718
47,685
2,747
Other
All Other
Farm
Covered
Animals
Species
9,022
16,751
124,633
Total by
State
26,834
5,926
5,599
22,347
45,539
2,129
1,538
12,609
267
590
8,555
102,357
6,408
15,343
2,709
4,033
2,069
50,249
585
1,037
6,512
90,199
4,473
15,648
2,900
865
3,217
11,561
105
327
35,006
75,210
3,253
23,988
10,338
4,451
5,036
14,051
997
1,124
11,675
75,157
709
1,155
19,485
9,336
5,568
1,904
8,795
410
765
14,931
63,058
1,599
1,657
6,381
40,741
26
1,450
5,332
887
1,510
785
60,368
472
1,257
7,965
4,543
3,602
2,434
14,863
1,201
4,017
16,933
57,287
1,211
1,658
1,259
13,303
3,738
1,008
6,018
102
1,366
18,591
48,254
10
NJ
148
4,450
20,675
2,375
2,869
950
8,450
27
7
4,831
Note: The Animal Welfare Act excludes rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus as well as birds used in research.
Source: USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Reports of Inspection, 2005,
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf>.
44,782
Table 3 shows the reported AWA numbers for 2005 in Massachusetts compared to all animals
reported within the United States. The Commonwealth was responsible for approximately 6.4% of all
animals registered nationally through the AWA in 2005.
10
Ibid.
20
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 3: Massachusetts and United States Comparison of All Animals Used in Research, 2005
Cats
MA
244
Dogs
3,253
Guinea
Pigs
23,988
NonHamsters
human
Pigs
Rabbits
Sheep
Primates
10,338
4,451
5,036
14,051
997
Other
All Other
Farm
Covered
Animals
Species
1,124
11,675
Total
75,157
22,921
66,610
58,598
US
221,286
176,988
57,531
245,786
32,260
64,146
231,440
1,177,566
Note: The Animal Welfare Act excludes rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus as well as birds used in research.
Source: USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Reports of Inspection, 2005,
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf>.
Increased NIH grants and funding
An analysis of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding, long regarded as an
indicator of a state’s early-stage research strength and innovative capacity, shows that Massachusetts has
a uniquely concentrated need for the services provided by the laboratory animal care workforce.
Recent research shows that vertebrate animal-based research accounted for approximately 43
percent of grants competitively funded annually by NIH. Furthermore, there has been a steady increase
(32 percent between 1995 and 2002) in the number of grants requiring animals.11 Given increasing
levels of NIH funding directed toward animal-related research, NIH funding levels can be used as a
good indicator of increased demand for laboratory animal care services. This is particularly true in
Massachusetts given its dominance as a location for NIH-funded research.
From 1998 to 2005,
Massachusetts has consistently followed California as the leading location for NIH awards. In 2006,
Massachusetts institutions received 10.6 percent of all NIH awards by dollar value and 9.7 percent of
award numbers that year.
Table 4: Top Ten States Ranked by NIH Awarded Medical Research Funds
11
“National Need and Priorities for Veterinarians in Biomedical Research.” Committee on Increasing Veterinary Involvement in
Biomedical Research, National Research Council. 2004. National Academy of Sciences. <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10878.html>.
21
UMass Donahue Institute
1998
2006
Rank
1
State
California
Dollars
Awarded
$1,662,020,713
Rank
1
State
California
Dollars
Awarded
$3,142,616,266
2
Massachusetts
$1,176,783,188
2
Massachusetts
$2,203,864,837
3
New York
$1,122,769,429
3
New York
$1,897,902,992
4
Pennsylvania
$740,589,474
4
Pennsylvania
$1,392,276,239
5
Maryland
$683,944,010
5
Texas
$1,076,631,203
6
Texas
$551,476,356
6
Maryland
$998,692,033
7
North Carolina
$440,724,292
7
North Carolina
$933,117,507
8
Washington
$396,973,011
8
Washington
$813,356,455
9
Illinois
$348,051,863
9
Illinois
$694,144,151
10
Ohio
$338,974,477
10
Ohio
$626,901,433
USA
$11,135,995,226
USA
$20,813,103,332
Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research, 2008.
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/State_Congressional/StateOverview.cfm>.
Geographic concentration of biomedical research
The Commonwealth’s strength in basic and preclinical research generates increasing demand for
laboratory animal care services across the state. This is especially true for the Boston Metro region and
Worcester County, where biomedical firms, contract research organizations, and academic research and
medical centers are particularly dense.
We find the highest densities of laboratory animal care
operations and staff in these same regions. And, unfortunately, it is in these same regions that we find
reports of difficulties staffing laboratory animal care operations.
Key informant interviews with staff from a range of research organizations in the Greater Boston
region yield evidence of ongoing difficulties in finding, recruiting and retaining laboratory animal care
workers.12 Some difficulties appear significant at academic research centers and academic medical
centers, especially due to lower pay scales at these non-profit institutions. Survey data confirming some
of the problems are presented in Tables 31, 31a, and 31b. Difficulties with work force recruitment and
retention are disturbing, given the critical importance to the cluster of high-quality academic research
22
UMass Donahue Institute
centers and academic medical centers. Greater Boston’s teaching hospitals, in particular, are considered
a cornerstone of the nation’s $451 billion annual academic, medical and research sector.13
Boston’s
teaching hospitals are not only considered some of the best in the world, but are also central to the
region’s economy.14
Along with their affiliated medical schools, these hospitals are responsible for
generating over $24 billion in economic activity for the region. Of this, nearly $1.4 billion in federal
research funding is brought to the region, feeding the Commonwealth’s strong life science cluster. Of
the ten largest private employers in Boston, six are teaching hospitals.15
Conclusion
This first section of the report has argued that the state is not only a premier location for life
sciences research but, because of this, also has a unique need for laboratory animal care operations and
services. We have discussed the numerous factors driving the increased demand for laboratory animal
research within the Commonwealth. These same trends drive an increased demand for the services
provided by laboratory animal care operations – and the workers that staff them. The next section
provides information on the specific types of workers who staff laboratory animal management and care
operations. It summarizes typical job responsibilities as well as education and training needs. It also
provides a look at current numbers of workers in these occupations as well as salary information for
workers in the region and in the U.S. as a whole.
12
Personal interviews with key informants at eleven different life sciences institutions (public and private companies, academic research
centers, academic medical centers, and contract research organizations), Fall of 2007.
13
“The Economic Impact of AAMC-Member Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals.” January 2007. Association of American Medical
Colleges. 2/20/2008. <https://services.aamc.org/Publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=177&prv_id=211>.
14
“Driving Greater Boston & New England: The Impact of Greater Boston’s Teaching Hospitals.” N.d. Conference of Boston Teaching
Hospitals (COBTH). <http://www.cobth.org/pdfs/COBTH_Impact_Report.pdf>.
15
Ibid.
23
UMass Donahue Institute
The Laboratory Animal Care Workforce
Laboratory animal care operations require a diverse mix of workers to ensure a successful
operation. Workers in these facilities provide a full range of services: humane and proper medical care
for research animals; animal husbandry services such as housing and feeding the research animals;
animal technical services (including surgical services, pathology services; and breeding colony
management); contract research and testing; and regulatory oversight and documentation management.
In order to accomplish these functions, laboratory animal operations rely on three major types of
workers – veterinary health care providers, husbandry workers, and program and facility managers – to
accomplish day-to-day operations in the facility.
In this section of the report, we identify and discuss the range of occupations typically found
within laboratory animal facilities and the primary responsibilities of workers in these positions. Later,
using occupational codes corresponding to key positions, we examine existing numbers of workers in
these positions in Massachusetts, both within and outside of laboratory animal care settings.
16 17
This
analysis of workforce numbers provides some context on the local labor pool available for laboratory
animal care settings.
Key occupations
Laboratory animal care operations rely on workers to provide veterinary health care as well as
husbandry services including feeding, cleaning, and monitoring the animals in the facility. Most of the
workers in laboratory animal care facilities are employed to provide these health and husbandry
16
To provide data on occupations pertinent to laboratory animal care settings, we use data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), using
their system of Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes.
17
We were informed by a variety of sources in compiling the list of key occupations. These sources included: published material from the
American Association of Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) and from the American College for Laboratory Animal Medicine (cont.)
24
UMass Donahue Institute
services. An additional group of workers provides management oversight of the day-to-day operations
and programs with the facility. Laboratory animal care facilities tend to function as service providers
within an institutional research program, so occupations related to scientific investigation itself (namely
principal investigators and their teams) are not included in this report.
Important occupations
corresponding to animal health and husbandry as well as animal and facility management functions are
identified in this section accompanied by a discussion of typical job responsibilities in lab animal care
settings.
Laboratory animal veterinarians
Laboratory animal veterinarians are medical specialists who are experts in the humane, proper,
and safe care and use of laboratory animals. They are employed as attending veterinarians, staff
veterinarians and facility directors overseeing the care and use of laboratory animals in biomedical
research institutions according to regulatory requirements.18
They provide clinical medical, surgical,
and diagnostic support for a variety of species and otherwise safeguard and improve the welfare of
laboratory animals. Other responsibilities include direction of technical staff and protocol review;
functions such as management of facility operations; maintenance of Association for Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) accreditation for organizations that have such
accreditation; study design and administration. Veterinary specialties found in laboratory care animal
settings include laboratory animal medicine, comparative medicine, veterinary pathology, and
nonhuman primate medicine.
(ACLAM); data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and interviews and group discussions with representatives from institutions running
laboratory animal facilities.
18
National Research Council of the National Academies. National Need and Priorities for Veterinarians in Biomedical Research. 2004.
p. 16.
25
UMass Donahue Institute
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day
supervision and overall management of laboratory animal care personnel and the animal facility
operation as a whole. Specific responsibilities include planning and delegation of work to laboratory
animal technicians; the management and review of facility activities in accordance with policies and
standard operating procedures; assuring overall facility compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations; working with other administrators in establishing long-range plans for staff, equipment,
supplies, maintenance, safety and capital improvements; ensuring that on-the-job training is provided for
animal care and use protocols, procedures and techniques; occupational safety procedures; and
equipment operation.
Veterinary technicians
In laboratory animal care facilities, veterinary technicians assist veterinary staff in the
documentation and triage of animal health cases. They perform routine veterinary technical work as
well as surgical technical procedures as needed (for example, tissue sampling, routine animal
manipulations, and administration of fluids or other treatments).
They monitor animal health by
conducting ongoing follow-up observations and maintaining animal treatment and medical records in
accordance with study and regulatory requirements. Veterinary technicians may also assist in surgery
and peri-surgery care (for example, provide and monitor anesthesia, prepare surgical packs, administer
supportive therapy).
Laboratory animal technicians and laboratory animal caretakers
Laboratory animal technicians and laboratory animal caretakers (also called husbandry
technicians19, research animal specialists, animal resource technicians, etc.) perform duties related to
19
In the survey, we use the term husbandry technicians to refer to these occupations.
26
UMass Donahue Institute
husbandry and health care support for laboratory animals.
These functions include feeding and
providing water; cleaning and disinfecting cages and work areas; and sterilizing laboratory and surgical
equipment. Basic health care support functions include performing daily health observations which
include examining animals for signs of illness, disease, or injury. These workers also maintain animal
inventory records. Mid- and senior-level husbandry staff are often trained to provide routine medical
care and minor surgical technical procedures. These responsibilities might include the provision of
routine post-operative care, administration of medication orally or topically, and collection and
preparation of samples for laboratory examination under the supervision of veterinary technicians,
veterinarians, or scientists.
Cage washers
Cage washers are also sometimes called animal care technicians. Cage washer duties revolve
around daily preparation of clean cages used in the animal facility.20 Specific duties include disassembly
of dirty cages, washing and sanitation of animal cages and equipment, operating mechanical washing
equipment, and performing routine waste disposal. Cage washers must possess the ability to lift heavy
objects (up to 50 lbs), handle unpleasant elements and wear protective clothing or equipment.
20
“Animal care technician job description.” Office of Technology Development, Harvard University. February 2008.
<http://www.hound.com/gjviewjob.php?jid=4217aaf5cc6af4bd7467318422b533f31cfe9>.
27
UMass Donahue Institute
Education and Training
Education and training for key occupations in all industries
Laboratory animal care occupations span a wide range of skill levels. The tables in this section
look at the typical levels of educational attainment across all industries. Veterinarian positions require
an advanced degree as well as specialized certification. Natural sciences managers, a potential work
force for laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors, are an educated group of workers: 100
percent of this group has a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Veterinary technologists and veterinary
assistants typically have an associate’s degree. Husbandry workers often have only a high school
diploma or less. A potential group of candidates for higher-level husbandry positions are biological
technicians, who work in medical and life sciences research settings. Given this group’s potential as a
work force in lab animal care settings, we include information about this group as well.21
Table 5: National Distribution of Educational Attainment, 2006
Occupation
Natural Sciences Managers
Veterinarians
Veterinary Technologists & Technicians
Biological Technicians
Veterinary Assistants & Laboratory Animal Caretakers
Total, All Occupations
Percent of Employees Aged
25 to 44 in the Occupation
Whose Highest Level of
Educational Attainment is:
High
Bachelor
School
or
Some
Degree
Less
College or More
0.00%
0.00%
92.8%
0.00%
0.00%
100.0%
27.00% 57.00%
16.0%
13.70% 25.90%
60.4%
30.60% 58.90%
10.4%
38.80% 29.10%
32.1%
Source: Occupational Information Network, <http://online.onetcenter.org/>; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics
and Employment Projections (Education/Training Level, Educational Attainment); National Center for Education Statistics (Typical
Instructional Programs).
21
Biological Technicians (BLS OES Code: 19-4021) assist biological and medical scientists in laboratories. They set up, operate, and
maintain laboratory instruments and equipment, monitor experiments, make observations, and calculate and record results. They analyze
organic substances, such as blood, food, and drugs. < http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm> Accessed November 2007.
28
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 6: U.S. Standard Profile of Laboratory Animal Care Occupations
SOC Occupation
SOC
Code
(BLS)
Natural Science Managers
11-9121
Veterinarians
29-1131
Veterinary Technologists & Technicians
29-2056
Biological Technicians
19-4021
Veterinary Assistants & Laboratory Animal Caretakers
31-9096
Education
Level
Required*
Bachelor’s Plus
Experience
First
Professional
Degree
Associate
Degree
Associate
Degree
Short-Term onthe-job Training
*Most significant source of postsecondary education or training. An occupation is placed into one of eleven
categories that best describes the postsecondary education or training needed by most workers to become
fully qualified in the occupation.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational employment and job openings data, 2004–14” and “Worker
characteristics, 2004.” <http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/optdtabiv_1.pdf>.
Education, training and certification for laboratory animal care settings
Laboratory animal veterinarians
Education and training
As in all states, practicing veterinarians in Massachusetts are required to have a degree from an
accredited college of veterinary medicine and a passing grade on a national board exam. Veterinarians
trained at non-accredited schools outside of the United States are required to be certified through the
Educational Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates (ECFVG).
Certification through the
ECFVG involves a four-step process that includes skills assessment in English and clinical proficiency.
Once certified, applicants seeking licensure are eligible to take the North American Veterinary
Licensing Exam (NAVLE), administered by the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
(NBVME).22 In addition, Massachusetts veterinarians must obtain a state license.23 Massachusetts, like
most states, also requires a jurisprudence examination to test prospective veterinarians’ knowledge of
22
“Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition, Veterinarians.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. U.S. Department of Labor.
2/20/2008. <http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos076.htm>.
23
Ibid.
29
UMass Donahue Institute
state laws and regulations and may also require applicants to undergo an oral examination or interview.24
Finally, mandatory continuing education requirements for licensed veterinarians are typical for most
states and remain the standard in Massachusetts.
In June 2006, the American College of Laboratory Medicine (ACLAM) convened a curriculum
working group together to assess the adequacy of training at American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) accredited veterinary medicine programs for laboratory animal medicine careers. Although
laboratory animal medicine is a post-graduate specialty, the need to expose students to laboratory animal
medicine in their initial coursework is crucial for the recruitment of future laboratory animal
veterinarians. The recommendations from the working group included mandatory comparative medicine
instruction and instruction in local, state and national regulatory standards for oversight of research
animal use.25
Within the New England region, these types of resources are available to veterinary students
through only a limited number of institutions. Tufts University currently offers the only AVMA
accredited program in New England.26 Students seeking a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) at
Tufts have the opportunity to gain biomedical research skills through a number of short-term training
programs. These include summer research training programs such as the Veterinary Research Training
Program for National Defense, and the Merck-Merial Veterinary Scholars program. To encourage
career involvement in research, the school also sponsors a twelve-month research training program to
develop skills in biomedical research.27
Also in the New England region, the Division of Comparative Medicine at MIT offers the
Summer Veterinary Research Fellows Program, which provides several NIH-funded biomedical
24
The Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Rules and Regulations Governing Veterinarians. 256 CMR 1.00–10.00.
ACLAM Veterinary Curriculum Working Group. Recommendations for Teaching Laboratory Animal Medicine to Veterinary Students
in North America. June 2006.
26
“Veterinary Colleges Accredited by the AVMA.” 2008. American Veterinary Medical Association. 2/20/2008.
<http://www.avma.org/education/cvea/colleges_accredited/allcolleges.asp>.
25
30
UMass Donahue Institute
research positions for veterinary students. In this program, veterinary students with an interest in
pursuing research during the summer can apply to participate in the research programs in laboratories of
established investigators at MIT, Tufts, or Harvard.
Dual degree DVM / MS programs
In 2004, the Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine began offering two combined
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and Master of Science (DVM/MS) degree programs – one in Laboratory
Animal Medicine and the other in Comparative Biomedicine – to prepare students for careers in
biomedical research settings. As part of their training, students work closely with professors in local
labs in such places as Charles River Laboratories, Genzyme, and MIT. Up to six students each year are
admitted into the Laboratory Animal Medicine dual-degree program.
A number of additional DVM joint degree programs also exist at the school to prepare students
for careers in biomedical research. 28
Comparative medicine residency program at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary
Medicine
The Residents’ Enhanced Veterinary Education and Academic Learning (REVEAL) program at
Tufts Cummings School prepares veterinary residents for careers in biomedical research settings.
Through strong mentoring and a diverse mix of research opportunities, the REVEAL program helps its
residents to become well-trained comparative medical scientists. The program includes symposia on
spontaneous animal models of human disease for collaboration among researchers in the field, a multi-
27
“Student Research Training Programs.” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. 2006. Tufts University. 2/20/2008.
<http://www.tufts.edu/vet/researchtraining/>.
28
“Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Joint Degree Programs.” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. 2006. Tufts University.
2/20/2008. <http://www.tufts.edu/vet/academic/joint.html>.
31
UMass Donahue Institute
functional website to facilitate research, academic seminar series to encourage interest in research, and
short-term introductory and intensive research electives.29
Postdoctoral training program in biomedical research at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
MIT’s Division of Comparative Medicine runs an important program to provide training for
postdoctoral veterinarians in comparative medicine and the conduct of biomedical research.30 The
program, run in collaboration with the Tufts/New England Medical Center Hospital, the Harvard New
England Regional Primate Center, Harvard Medical School, and the Harvard School of Public Health,
prepares candidates for ACLAM board certification eligibility. The first year of the program focuses on
clinical, surgical and transgenic laboratory rotations, along with instruction specifically in laboratory
animal medicine. Trainees take part in the review of animal use protocols through the Committee for
Animal Care at MIT and other affiliated institutions, and gain practical experience by reviewing ongoing
and proposed research. In the final years of the program, trainees focus on research training in scientific
methodology and development of animal models of biomedical research. Through this work they
develop a research focus, participate in laboratory rotations, and prepare a manuscript for publication in
a peer-reviewed journal.
ACLAM certification
For veterinarians, ACLAM certification is an important measure of expertise in the field of
laboratory animal medicine. ACLAM acts as the certifying organization for laboratory animal medicine
and is recognized officially as such by the American Veterinary Medical Association.31 Candidates must
complete two types of requirements before qualifying to take the ACLAM exam. First, a candidate must
29
“Residents’ Enhanced Veterinary Education and Academic Learning.” Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. 2006. Tufts
University. 2/20/2008. <http://www.tufts.edu/vet/reveal/>.
30
“Postdoctoral Training.” Division of Comparative Medicine. 1998. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2/20/2008.
<http://web.mit.edu/comp-med/postdoc/index.html>.
31
“Certification—Benefits.” American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. Accessed 2/20/2008.
<http://www.aclam.org/certification/benefits.html>.
32
UMass Donahue Institute
have one of the following types of qualifying experience: a) completion of an ACLAM-approved
training program in laboratory animal medicine following the receipt of a DVM, or b) a minimum of six
years of relevant full-time laboratory animal medicine experience upon receipt of a DVM. Secondly,
candidates must also have published a first-author original article in a peer-reviewed journal.
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors
Education and training
Laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day
supervision and overall management of laboratory-animal care personnel and the animal facility
operation. Most often, a bachelor’s degree in a relevant discipline is required to be an animal research
facility manager. More importantly, a minimum of three years of animal facility experience or the
equivalent combination of education and experience is typically required.
AALAS certification for laboratory animal facility managers and supervisors
American Association of Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) certification training classes are
an important source of training for these workers. Survey data suggest that a significant number of
facilities desire AALAS certification at the LATG level for Facility Managers and Supervisors (see
Table 35). A number of facilities desire at least LAT certification for their Facility Supervisors. In
addition to these certification programs, AALAS has developed a certification program for laboratory
animal resource managers through the Certified Manager of Animal Resources (CMAR) certification
program.32 Eligibility requirements for the program are strict and are based on education level, number
of years of work experience in the laboratory animal field, and number of years of work experience in a
managerial capacity.
32
American Association of Laboratory Animal Science. “Certified Manager of Animal Resources.” 2008.
<http://www.aalas.org/pdf/CMAR_Handbook.pdf>. Accessed January 2007.
33
UMass Donahue Institute
Veterinary technologists and technicians
Education and training
In general, a “veterinary technician” is a graduate of a two-year program while a “veterinary
technologist” is a graduate of a four-year program. A degree from an accredited veterinary technician
program prepares a student for the Veterinary Technician National Examination (VTNE) as well as
preparing him or her for entry-level positions with better potential for advancement.33 Massachusetts is
home to four of the one hundred thirty-eight programs in the United States that are accredited through
the AVMA. These programs are:
•
Becker College: Leicester, MA
•
Holyoke Community College: Holyoke, MA
•
Mt. Ida College: Newton, MA
o
o
o
•
http://www.becker.edu/pages/274.asp
http://www.hcc.edu/programs/documents/VeterinaryTechnicianX036.pdf
<http://www.mountida.edu/sp.cfm?pageid=326>
North Shore Community College: Danvers, MA
o
<http://www.northshore.edu/programs/pos.php?code=VT&postype=degree&creditInd=Y&title=Veterinary%20Technology
&term=200709>
As with veterinarians, veterinary technicians are required to take a National Board exam. The
Veterinary Technician National Examination (VTNE) is given by the American Association of
Veterinary State Boards (AAVSB). Though a degree from an AVMA-accredited vet tech program is
preferred, it is not required, and, depending on their education and work experience, candidates without
a degree may still take the National Boards.34
Upon graduation, a veterinary technician must apply for registration in the state where he or she
wishes to work.
Each state has its own licensure requirements that may include the Veterinary
Technology National Examination (VTNE), an interview, and/or a test developed by that state. Each
state has differing continuing education (CE) requirements to maintain licensure each year. The generic
33
“Education.” 2007.National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America. 2/20/2008.
<http://www.navta.net/education/index.php>.
34
“Membership.” N.d. Massachusetts Veterinary Technician Association. 2/20/2008. <http://www.massvta.org/membership.html>.
34
UMass Donahue Institute
term for someone who has passed the state's requirements to become a recognized veterinary technician
/ technologist is “credentialed”.
Laboratory animal technicians / laboratory animal caretakers
Education and training
While some veterinary assistants working as laboratory animal technicians may have training in
their field through high school, college, or even an on-line training program, most are trained on-thejob.35 The AVMA does not accredit veterinary assistant programs, nor does a credential exam exist for
veterinary assistants.
However, the National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America
(NAVTA), along with the Association of Veterinary Technician Educators (AVTE) and the Committee
on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities (CVTEA), has created a set of guidelines for
developing a veterinary assistant program.
These guidelines were created in recognition of the
importance of veterinary assistance and with the expectation that a structured training program for this
position could only help workers in these positions be more efficient.36
While laboratory animal operations would typically consider veterinary assistants for higherlevel husbandry positions, facilities are increasingly seeking college graduates with Bachelor of Science
degrees and laboratory research experience for these same positions.37
Historically in the region, a large number of entry-level husbandry workers – laboratory animal
caretakers as well as cage washers – have not had college educations.38 On-the-job training programs –
both formal and informal – serve as a critical source of education and skill development for these
workers.
American Association of Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) training classes (in
35
“ Education.” 2007. National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America. 2/20/2008.
<http://www.navta.net/education/index.php>.
36
National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America. “Policy on Assistant Training.” 2/20/2008
<http://www.navta.net/pdf/assist_tr_policy.pdf>.
37
Face-to-face interviews with key informants from laboratory animal care facilities (included representatives from industry, contract
research organizations, academic research groups and academic medical centers). Fall 2007.
38
Ibid. This finding is confirmed by survey data as seen in Table 34.
35
UMass Donahue Institute
preparation for AALAS certification) provide an additional, important resource for professional
development.
AALAS certification for veterinary technicians and laboratory animal technicians
AALAS certification programs have been developed to provide a standard measure of
competence for laboratory animal technicians and veterinary technicians in laboratory animal care
facilities. As reported in our survey, most facilities seek job candidates with appropriate level of
AALAS certification for laboratory animal technicians and many seek the same for veterinary
technicians (see Table 35). Certification credentials are often a factor in promotions as well as hiring.
Facilities encourage certification training and advancement as important measures of job performance
and professional growth.
The AALAS certifies laboratory animal technicians at three levels based on the following
factors: competence on exams, educational background, and work experience. The three levels of
certification include: Assistant Lab Animal Technician (ALAT), Laboratory Animal Technician (LAT),
and Laboratory Animal Technologist (LATG). The first two levels of certification apply to entry- and
mid-level technicians. The highest level of certification typically applies to higher-level technologists as
well as veterinary technicians and facility supervisors and managers. The certification exams cover
three major domains: animal husbandry, facility management, and animal health and welfare.
Cage washers
Education and training
Cage washer positions generally require a high school diploma but some facilities – about one quarter of
those surveyed – have no minimum educational requirement for workers in these positions.
36
UMass Donahue Institute
AALAS certification
Survey data show that the majority of facilities require no certification for cage washers, but a little over
ten percent desire AALAS’s ALAT-level certification for cage washers.
37
UMass Donahue Institute
Occupational Staffing Patterns
Key occupations: current employment and annual salary levels
Estimates of current Massachusetts employment and annual salary levels for three key laboratory
animal care occupations are shown in Table 7.39 The first row shows the potential pool of employees for
laboratory animal care jobs in the Commonwealth, while the second row shows the mean salary for
these occupations across all Massachusetts industries. It is important to note, however, that not all of
those individuals who are qualified to work in laboratory animal care settings are available for, or
interested in, this work. The third, fourth, and fifth rows of Table 7 provide an estimate of the numbers
of people in these occupations who are actually working in laboratory animal facilities (this includes
laboratory animal operations as well as laboratory animal research settings more generally), and the final
row shows the proportion of individuals in each occupation in the Commonwealth who are working in
these settings. Significantly, more than one in ten veterinarians practicing in the Commonwealth are
employed in laboratory animal facilities.
39
Please see Appendix 1 for an explanation of the method by which these estimates were calculated.
38
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 7: Laboratory Animal Facility Staffing Patterns, Massachusetts, 2006
All MA Employees
MA Employees in Non-Academic
Laboratory Animal Facilities
MA Employees in Academic
Laboratory Animal Facilities
Total MA Employees in Laboratory
Animal Facilities
Employees in Laboratory Animal
Facilities as Proportion of All MA
Employees
Veterinarians
1,414
Veterinary
Technologists
& Technicians
1,849
Veterinary
Assistants
&
Laboratory
Animal
Caretakers
2,581
93
247
1,011
93
304
583
186
551
1,594
13.2%
29.8%
61.8%
Source: OES State Occupational Wage Estimates, May 2007: <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm#b29-0000>;
UMass Donahue Institute Veterinary Industry Study, February, 2008.
As Table 7 illustrates, the workforce in animal research facilities is heavily weighted toward the
less-skilled occupations, both in terms of absolute numbers and the proportion of all workers in a given
occupation who work in animal research settings. Over three-fifths of veterinary assistants in the
Commonwealth work in animal research facilities as compared to less than one-eighth of veterinarians.
This means that there are more than eight times as many veterinary assistants and laboratory animal
caretakers working in animal research facilities as there are veterinarians. It is also worth noting that the
distribution of these occupations differs between the academic, commercial research, and development
sectors. Commercial animal research facilities have a lower ratio of veterinary technologists and
technicians to veterinarians than do academic facilities. However, these same commercial research
facilities have a substantially higher ratio of veterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers to
veterinarians than do their academic counterparts.
While the three occupations discussed above are vital to the animal research industry, they do not
account for all of the workers necessary to sustain these facilities. Table 8 shows the number of workers
in Massachusetts in three additional occupations. While not every worker in these occupations is
employed in an animal research setting, these employment numbers represent a potential pool of
39
UMass Donahue Institute
employees in these occupations for animal research facilities. That is, while it may be the case that not
all of 1,260 natural science managers in the Commonwealth manage animal research facilities, any of
them potentially could, and this means that all of them are available to work in the industry if demand
and compensation are sufficient.
Table 8: Other Potential Sources of Animal Research Employees, 2006
Employees in All MA Industries
Natural
Science
Managers
1,260
Biological
Technicians
5,110
Source: OES State Occupational Wage Estimates. May 2006.
<http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ma.htm#b29-0000>.
Occupational vacancy rates
Salaries by occupational category, MA and U.S.
As Table 9 illustrates, Massachusetts remains above the national median wage for key
occupations related to the laboratory animal care workforce. Higher wages in life sciences settings may
be a factor in increasing the median wages in these occupations. As the table illustrates, and our survey
confirms, the key occupations are disparate in terms of annual compensation. Managers, scientists and
veterinarians occupy the higher-paying positions at the top of the hierarchy. Biological technicians earn
lower median wages. And veterinary technicians and veterinary assistants are compensated significantly
less than those occupations at the top of the hierarchy.
Table 9: Median Wages by Occupation, All Industries, 2006
Occupation (SOC code)
Veterinarians (29 1131)
Natural Sciences Managers (11 9121)
Veterinary Technologists & Technicians (29 2056)
Biological Technicians (19 4021)
Veterinary Assistants & Laboratory Animal Caretakers (31
9096)
Massachusetts
$73,320
$130,710
$31,050
$44,470
United
States
$71,990
$100,080
$26,780
$35,710
$26,520
$19,960
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Occupational Employment Statistics.” February 2008.
<http://www.bls.gov/oes/>.
40
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 10 illustrates that salaries have increased for each of these occupations in Massachusetts from
2000 to 2006.
Table 10: Massachusetts Median Salary Estimates by Occupation, All Industries, 1999–2006
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
00-06 %
change
Natural
Sciences
Managers
Veterinarians
Veterinary
Technologists
& Technicians
$87,670
$101,590
$107,480
$106,960
$117,210
$117,320
$132,070
$130,710
$52,370
$58,760
$58,810
$61,130
$58,140
$63,800
$72,010
$73,320
$25,600
$24,210
$24,800
$25,440
$27,770
$29,650
$29,120
$31,050
Veterinary
Assistants &
Laboratory
Animal
Caretakers
$20,090
$20,490
$23,830
$23,820
$24,620
$26,350
$26,060
$26,520
22.3%
19.9%
22.0%
22.7%
Biological
Technicians
$35,100
$35,840
$39,020
$36,810
$41,540
$42,040
$42,370
$44,470
19.4%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “State OES Estimates” and “Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey.” January 2008. <http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>.
Salary comparison with other states
A comparison of salaries across the United States illustrates that Massachusetts is relatively
uncompetitive in compensation for veterinarians across all industries. The 2006 annual median salary
for Massachusetts veterinarians ranks sixteenth in comparison with other states.
Veterinarians in
Massachusetts made an annual median salary of $73,320 in 2006, well below the highest median salary
offered in Washington, D.C. at $111,870. It is also worth noting that many of the states ranked above
Massachusetts are geographically close to the Commonwealth. Massachusetts veterinarians earn less
than veterinarians in Connecticut ($20,400 less), New York ($10,300 less), and New Hampshire ($4,800
less). Higher paying jobs in nearby states could factor into more Massachusetts veterinarians leaving the
state. However, our survey data indicate that veterinarians in lab animal settings tend to have much
higher annual earnings. More than half of survey respondents indicated that veterinarians in their
facilities start at $105,000 per year or more. This disparity might provide an important incentive for
41
UMass Donahue Institute
veterinary students to specialize in laboratory animal medicine rather than preparing for careers in
private clinical practice.
Table 11: State Comparison of Veterinarians by Annual Median Salary, May 2006
Veterinarians
Ranking
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
District of Columbia
New Jersey
Connecticut
California
Delaware
Maryland
New York
Nevada
Alaska
Pennsylvania
Virginia
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington
Massachusetts
Arizona
North Carolina
Ohio
Hawaii
Annual Median Salary
$111,870
$95,190
$93,730
$87,350
$84,670
$83,670
$83,640
$83,270
$80,040
$79,980
$79,080
$78,180
$74,310
$74,060
$73,440
$73,320
$72,420
$72,320
$72,160
$71,900
NOTES: (1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown
separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.
(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by 2,080 hours; where an hourly mean wage is
not published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. “State OES Estimates” and “Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey.” Data
extracted on August 15, 2007. <http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>.
When compared with other states, veterinary technologists and technicians in Massachusetts are
ranked fifth in terms of wages (see Table 12). The BLS projects this occupational category as one of the
fifty fastest growing from 2004 to 2014. While the median income among all veterinary technicians in
Massachusetts is $31,050 per year, our survey data indicate that more than one-third of veterinary
technicians in laboratory animal care settings start at more than $45,000 per year. The annual median
salary in 2006 for veterinary assistants and animal caretakers in Massachusetts was the highest in the
nation, and this was likely driven at least in part by salaries in laboratory animal settings.
42
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 12: State Occupational Comparison by Annual Median Salary, May 2006
Veterinary Technologists & Technicians
Ranking
Annual
Median Salary
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Connecticut
Alaska
Michigan
Illinois
Massachusetts
California
New York
Washington
Rhode Island
Oregon
New Mexico
Nevada
Virginia
Delaware
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
Maine
Ohio
Wyoming
$33,750
$32,390
$32,270
$31,450
$31,050
$30,540
$30,250
$30,170
$29,660
$29,590
$29,290
$28,590
$28,590
$28,520
$28,100
$28,050
$28,020
$27,950
$27,740
$27,300
Veterinary Assistants & Animal
Caretakers
State
Massachusetts
District of Columbia
Delaware
Connecticut
Alaska
Maine
Pennsylvania
New York
Minnesota
Washington
California
Maryland
Rhode Island
Oregon
Michigan
Ohio
Arizona
Wisconsin
Virginia
New Mexico
Annual
Median Salary
$26,520
$25,880
$24,540
$22,800
$22,520
$22,520
$22,520
$22,270
$22,130
$21,850
$21,540
$21,440
$21,180
$21,100
$21,080
$20,540
$20,520
$20,400
$20,140
$19,980
NOTES: (1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately.
Estimates do not include self-employed workers.
(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by 2,080 hours; where an hourly mean wage is not
published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. “State OES Estimates” and “Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey.” Data extracted on
August 15, 2007. <http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>.
43
UMass Donahue Institute
Occupational projections, MA
Table 13: Massachusetts Employment Estimates for Animal Research Occupations, 1999–2006
Veterinary
Veterinary
Assistants &
Technologists & Laboratory Animal
Technicians
Caretakers
560
2,110
Year
1999
Veterinarians
710
Natural
Sciences
Managers
1,580
2000
890
1,700
1,210
1,850
2,010
2001
770
1,570
1,180
2,240
1,970
2002
850
1,320
1,350
2,290
1,970
2003
870
1,160
1,620
2,360
2,380
2004
970
1,080
1,770
2,350
3,340
2005
1,110
1,130
1,730
2,160
3,820
2006
1,220
1,260
1,780
1,830
5,110
00-06 %
change
37.1%
-25.9%
47.1%
-1.1%
154.2%
Biological
Technicians
1,930
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “State OES Estimates” and “Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey.” "1999-2006, State
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates." <http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>.
Note: Estimates Calculated by the author.
Table 13 reflects a growth in the number of veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and biological
technicians between 1999 and 2006. During the same span of time, however, the state lost a significant
number of natural science managers and veterinary assistants. Most significantly, for our study of key
laboratory animal care occupations is that the number of veterinary assistants and animal caretakers
appears to be decreasing. Between 2005 and 2006 alone, workers in these positions decreased by 330,
dropping from 2,160 to 1,830. According to our survey, given the stable- to moderate-growth of
employment in many laboratory animal care facilities, it is likely that these positions are declining in
private clinical settings rather than in biomedical ones.
Conclusion
The previous two sections of this report have provided information on the types of workers who
staff laboratory animal management and care operations. These sections have covered a discussion of
44
UMass Donahue Institute
typical job responsibilities, general education standards, and specific training requirements for these
workers. This section has provided a look at current levels of employment in key occupations as well as
information on these workers in the region. This section serves to provide context for the final section
of this report – a discussion of survey findings related to training hiring and retention of the laboratory
animal workforce within the region. While workforce issues differ depending on the type of position as
well as by size and type of research institutions, some common themes emerged. These findings are
covered in the survey analysis that follows.
45
UMass Donahue Institute
Laboratory Animal Care Workforce Survey: Summary of Key Findings
Survey responses
Total valid survey response rate = 33.6% (51 of 152 surveys administered)
Organizational Response Rate = 40%
(51 of 129 organizations)
Number of organizations = 129
Number of surveys administered = 152
Number of primary contacts = 128
Number of secondary contacts = 24
Number of companies found to not be laboratory animal care facilities through survey = 1
Number of follow-up calls made = 129
Methodological note
Due to the size both of our sample (those who completed the survey) and of the industry in
question, the tables that follow should be treated as descriptive of those who completed the survey,
rather than as statistically significant for the laboratory animal care industry as a whole. That is, while
the results discussed below can tell us a great deal about those who responded to the survey, they should
not be used to impute truths about the industry outside of our pool of respondents. For this reason, we
have expressed the vast majority of the data below in terms of the proportion of respondents who fall
into a given category. It is our hope that this will allow the reader to gain an understanding of the
industry in terms of those who responded to the survey, without giving the appearance of a level of
specificity or statistical significance that is not possible due to the small size of the sample.
The survey had an overall response rate of 40 percent. Fifty-one of the one hundred and twentynine facilities that were contacted responded to some or all of the survey. Each respondent, however,
did not necessarily respond to every question. We have supplied a response “n” in the tables when it is
applicable.
46
UMass Donahue Institute
Facility characteristics
Organization type
Organizations whose representatives completed the survey were of several types. Over 40
percent of the organizations were biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. Nearly half of the
responding organizations were academic facilities: 20.8 percent identified their organizations as
academic research centers, and 18.8 percent as academic medical centers.
It is also worth noting that more than half of the respondents identified their organizations as
non-profits. Also, in addition to the laboratory animal facilities who responded, two staffing agencies
completed the survey. The results from these surveys were integrated into the findings wherever
possible. Table 14 shows a full breakdown of respondents by organization type and non-profit status.
Table 14: Survey Respondents by Organization Type and Non-profit Status
Organization Type
For Profit
Non-Profit
% of All
Respondents
19
1
0
1
1
9
9
0
40.0%
20.0%
18.0%
2.0%
4
25
6
25
20.0%
100.0%
Biotechnology or Pharmaceutical
Company
Academic Research Center
Academic Medical Center
Contract Research Organization
Other (includes placement
agencies)
N=
Note: one respondent did not answer this question
Number of employees in the laboratory animal care program
Laboratory care animal programs represented by the survey ranged in size from 1 to 160 fulltime equivalent employees, with a median size of 8 full-time equivalent employees. Table 15 shows the
distribution of laboratory animal care programs by number of employees, three years ago and at the
present time.
47
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 15: Number of Employees at Responding Laboratory Animal Care Facilities
Time
Period
Present
2005
No
4 or Fewer
5-8
9-12
13-20
21 or More Answer
Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Given N=
32.0%
40.8%
20.0%
18.4%
4.0%
6.1%
18.0%
6.1%
20.0%
20.4%
6.0%
8.2%
50
49
Mid-range employers (5 – 20 employees) currently represent 41.7 percent of respondent organizations.
Three years ago, they represented 29.3 percent of respondent organizations. And looking forward, the
vast majority of respondents expected the number of people employed within their laboratory animal
programs to remain the same or increase moderately over the next three years, with only 4.3 percent
expecting a substantial increase, and 4.4 percent expecting a moderate or substantial decrease.
Market information
Services provided
Almost all (93.5%) of the respondents reported that their programs provide animal husbandry
services. Additionally, a large portion (80.4%) reported that their programs provide animal technical
services such as surgical services and breeding colony management.
The table below shows the
complete breakdown of services provided by survey respondents. Please note, the answers are not
mutually exclusive, so totals do not add up to 100 percent.
Table 16: Services Provided by Responding Laboratory Animal Care Facilities
Service Type
Animal Husbandry Services
Animal Technical Services
Training
Preclinical Testing
Consulting
Contract Housing and Husbandry
Contract Research Testing
Contract Workers
48
UMass Donahue Institute
Percent of
Respondents
(Total N=46)
93.5%
80.4%
67.4%
37.0%
34.8%
13.0%
8.7%
6.5%
Potential obstacles to expansion
Responses indicated that the three largest obstacles to expansion of laboratory animal operations
were, in order, a) difficulty recruiting qualified workers into a laboratory animal setting, b) lack of
workforce with required skills and/or expertise, and c) competition with other facilities for workforce.
More than half of all respondents indicated that these three obstacles were of great or moderate concern
to their operations. Survey comments also indicate that some companies have found the cost of living in
New England to be a barrier for expanding their operations.
At the same time, the majority of
respondents also indicated that municipal, state, and federal regulations and permitting processes were
not a substantial obstacle to expansion. A full detail of the level of concern raised by various obstacles
is shown in the table below.
Table 17: Potential Obstacles to Expansion
Great
Concern
Moderate
Concern
Little or
No
Concern
Not
Applicable
to
Operation/
No Answer
25.5%
17.0%
6.4%
51.1%
21.3%
31.9%
25.5%
21.3%
Difficulty Recruiting
Qualified Workers into
a Laboratory Animal
Setting
34.0%
38.3%
19.1%
8.5%
Lack of Workforce
with Required
Skills/Expertise
23.4%
36.2%
23.4%
17.0%
2.1%
23.4%
55.3%
19.1%
4.3%
29.8%
51.1%
14.9%
Potential Obstacle
Diminished NIH
Funding
Competition with
Other Facilities for
Workforce
State and Municipal
Regulations and
Permitting
Federal Regulations
and Permitting
N=47 (including placement agencies)
49
UMass Donahue Institute
Importance of laboratory animal research to the institutional research program
We asked about the proportion of studies involving laboratory animal research within the overall
research program of the responding organization. Sixty-one percent of respondents stated that more
than half of their organization’s research projects rely at some point on laboratory animal research.
Table 18: Portion of all Research Dependent on Laboratory Animal Research
Portion of Research
Projects Which Rely on
Laboratory Animal
Research Projects
0 – 25 Percent
26 – 50 Percent
51 – 75 Percent
76 – 100 Percent
Percent of
Respondents
22.0%
17.1%
24.4%
36.6%
Workforce information
Education levels
The respondents indicated that this industry is nearly evenly split between employees with an
associate’s degree or less, and employees with a bachelor’s degree or more. The largest single grouping
encompasses those employees with a high school diploma or less (44.4 percent). However, this is also a
relatively highly-trained workforce, with more than one in seven employees having a master’s degree or
higher. See Table 19 for a detailed breakdown of employees by education level.
Table 19: Employment Proportion by Education Level (N=42)
High
School
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Master's
Degree
Non-US
Doctoral
Degree
U.S.
Doctoral
Degree
44.4%
6.5%
33.8%
3.7%
1.9%
9.7%
Consistent with the education distribution illustrated above, the largest single grouping of
employees by occupation is Mid-Level Husbandry Technicians (184) followed by Veterinary
Technicians (108). See Table 20 for a detailed breakdown of employees by occupation.
50
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 20: Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Employment by Occupation (N=45)
Occupation
Veterinarians
Facility Senior Managers
Facility Supervisors
Veterinary Technicians
Husbandry Technicians, Sr.Level
Husbandry Technicians, MidLevel
Husbandry Technicians, Jr.Level
Cage Washers
Other
TOTAL
Employment
62
42
54
108
79
184
99
51
73
752
Staffing distribution
The operations tended to be fairly small. Over 80 percent of respondents reported that their
facilities employ two or fewer FTE veterinarians, and over 90 percent reported two or fewer FTE senior
managers. More than half of respondents indicated that their facilities employed two or fewer seniorlevel husbandry technicians, junior-level husbandry technicians, and cage washers. In fact, mid-level
husbandry technicians were the only occupation group employed in a number greater than two by more
than half of respondents. See below for a detailed breakdown of employment by occupation.
Table 21: Staffing Distribution by Occupation
Occupation
Veterinarians
Facility Senior
Managers
Facility
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians,
Mid-Level
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-Level
Cage Washers
Other
N/A
(not
applicable)
1
2
3
4
5 or
more
24.3%
45.9%
13.5%
5.4%
2.7%
8.1%
20.6%
50.0%
23.5%
0.0%
2.9%
2.9%
11.8%
58.8%
14.7%
8.8%
0.0%
5.8%
20.6%
32.4%
11.8%
8.8%
2.9%
23.4%
20.6%
29.4%
14.7%
2.9%
11.8%
13.3%
12.9%
19.4%
16.1%
9.7%
16.1%
25.7%
38.5%
34.6%
38.5%
23.1%
19.2%
7.7%
7.7%
19.2%
0.0%
0.0%
19.2%
7.7%
11.5%
0.0%
7.7%
19.1%
7.7%
38.5%
51
UMass Donahue Institute
Hiring challenges
Difficult positions to fill in the past two years
Respondents were asked which positions were the most difficult for their facilities to fill in the
past two years. This question is a measure of actual difficulty in hiring over the past two years. Among
those with recent hiring experience, the most difficult to fill positions were senior and mid-level
husbandry technicians, with about 70 percent of companies who have faced hiring in the past two years
reporting very or moderately difficult experiences. Least difficult to fill were junior-level husbandry
technicians and cage washers.
Table 22: Hiring Experience in the Past Two Years
Experience Hiring in
the Past Two Years
Have Not
Hired
Have
Hired
Respondents
-N
Veterinarians
37.0%
63.0%
46
Facility managers
Facility supervisors
Veterinary technicians
Husbandry technicians,
senior-level
Husbandry technicians,
mid-level
Husbandry technicians,
junior-level
Cage washers
47.6%
40.9%
34.9%
52.4%
59.1%
65.1%
42
44
43
33.3%
66.7%
42
23.3%
76.7%
43
33.3%
43.9%
66.7%
56.1%
42
41
Table 23: Hiring Challenges in the Past Two Years
Recent Hiring Experience
Very or
Moderately
Difficult
Not Difficult
Positions
Veterinarians
Facility managers
Facility supervisors
Veterinary technicians
Husbandry technicians,
senior-level
Husbandry technicians,
mid-level
Husbandry technicians,
junior-level
Cage washers
52
UMass Donahue Institute
N
58.6%
59.1%
53.8%
57.1%
41.4%
40.9%
46.2%
42.9%
29
22
26
28
71.4%
28.6%
28
69.7%
30.3%
33
39.3%
34.8%
60.7%
65.2%
28
23
Table 24: Top Ranked Hiring Challenges by Occupation
Top Factors
Difficulty
Skills
Lack of workers with necessary job
or technical skills
Lack of workers with necessary
English fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New England
Salary/benefit competition from other
facilities
Location/lifestyle competition from
other facilities
Education/career path opportunities
at other facilities
Competition from outside of New
England
Salary/benefit competition from other
facilities
Location/lifestyle competition from
other facilities
Education/career path opportunities
at other facilities
No Difficulty
Veterinarians
16
Facility
Senior
Managers
17
50.0%
64.7%
56.3%
47.6%
79.3%
42.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
28.6%
43.8%
11.8%
43.8%
38.1%
13.8%
14.3%
6.3%
5.9%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
4.8%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5.9%
5
0.0%
9
0.0%
6
0.0%
4
7.1%
10
Facility
Veterinary Husbandry
Cage
Supervisors Technicians
Techs
Washers
16
21
29
14
Difficulties with hiring veterinarians
As seen in Table 23, 59 percent of respondents stated that they had experienced difficulty in
hiring veterinarians over the past two years. We asked respondents to reflect on hiring difficulties more
generally, indicating the top three factors that have made hiring veterinarians difficult for their
organizations.
Among the respondents who have experienced difficulty in hiring, 80 percent
experienced difficulty in hiring veterinarians for laboratory animal care settings. Among those who
experienced difficulty in hiring veterinarians, 50 percent reported that competition from other facilities
within New England was a top factor, and over 43 percent reported it was a secondary factor. Fifty
percent responded that lack of workers with necessary job or technical skills was a top factor creating
difficulty in the hiring of veterinarians. About 20 percent indicated that they had no difficulty in hiring
veterinarians. One respondent stated that a severe shortage of ACLAM-certified vets was a problem.
Several stated that they their current veterinarians had been on staff for a long period of time and two
53
UMass Donahue Institute
respondents indicated that the cost of living in New England made it difficult to attract veterinarians,
both from other regions in the country and internationally.
Table 25: Difficulties with Hiring Veterinarians
Veterinarian Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
Veterinarian Hiring
Skills
Lack of workers with
necessary job or technical
skills
20
16
4
100.0%
80.0%
20.0%
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
50.0%
6.3%
50.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Lack of workers with
necessary English
fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities in New
England
50.0%
43.8%
43.8%
12.5%
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities in New
England
6.3%
18.8%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
37.5%
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of New
England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities outside
New England
0.0%
18.8%
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities outside
New England
0.0%
18.8%
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New England
0.0%
0.0%
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal facility senior managers
As seen in Table 23, 59 percent of respondents reported difficulty in hiring lab animal facility
senior managers in the past two years. We asked respondents to indicate the top three factors that have
54
UMass Donahue Institute
made hiring senior managers difficult for their laboratory animal facilities. Among respondents who
experienced difficulty in hiring over the years, 77 percent experienced some difficulty in hiring senior
managers.
Among those who experienced difficulty in hiring senior managers, over 64 percent
responded that lack of workers with necessary job or technical skills was a top factor. One respondent
stated that finding a candidate with both managerial and technical skills was particularly difficult.
Competition from other facilities within New England was a top factor for 23 percent of respondents and
a secondary factor for 70 percent of respondents. About 23 percent indicated that they had no difficulty
in hiring senior managers.
Table 26: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Facility Senior Managers
Facility Senior Manager Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
Facility Senior Manager
Hiring
Skills
Lack of workers with necessary
job or technical skills
Lack of workers with necessary
English fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities in New England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities in New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities outside New
England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities outside New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New England
55
UMass Donahue Institute
22
17
5
100.0%
77.3%
22.7%
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
64.7%
5.9%
64.7%
0.0%
0.0%
5.9%
23.5%
70.6%
11.8%
35.3%
5.9%
29.4%
5.9%
5.9%
11.8%
17.6%
0.0%
17.6%
5.9%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal facility supervisors
Fifty-four percent of respondents reported difficulty in hiring lab animal facility supervisors in
the past two years. We asked respondents to indicate the top three factors that have made hiring
supervisors difficult for their laboratory animal care facilities. Among respondents who experienced
difficulty in hiring over the years, 64 percent experienced some difficulty in hiring supervisors. Among
those who experienced difficulty in hiring supervisors, 56 percent responded that lack of workers with
necessary job or technical skills was a top factor. Competition from other facilities within New England
was a top factor for 43 percent of respondents with difficulty hiring supervisors. Seventy-five percent
responded that it was a secondary factor, with most respondents citing salary/benefit competition
specifically. About 36 percent indicated that they had no difficulty in hiring senior managers.
56
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 27: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Facility Supervisors
Facility Supervisor Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
Facility Supervisor
Hiring
Skills
Lack of workers with
necessary job or technical
skills
Lack of workers with
necessary English
fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities in New
England
Location/lifestyle
competition from other
facilities in New England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of
New England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities
outside New England
Location/lifestyle
competition from other
facilities outside New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New
England
25
16
9
100.0%
64.0%
36.0%
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
56.3%
6.3%
56.3%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
43.8%
75.0%
43.8%
50.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
18.8%
0.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Difficulties with hiring veterinary technicians
As seen in Table 23, fifty-seven percent of respondents cited very or moderately difficult hiring
experiences with veterinary technicians in the past two years. We asked respondents to indicate the top
three factors that have made hiring veterinary technicians difficult for their laboratory animal care
facilities. Among respondents who experienced difficulty in hiring, about 78 percent have had some
difficulty in hiring veterinary technicians. Among those who experienced difficulty in hiring veterinary
57
UMass Donahue Institute
technicians, 47 percent responded that lack of workers with necessary job or technical skills was a top
factor. Competition from other facilities within New England was a top factor for 47 percent of
respondents, and a secondary factor for 71 percent of respondents with difficulty hiring veterinary
technicians. One respondent stated that the biggest problem was identifying qualified technicians who
want to work in laboratory animal medicine, as many prefer jobs in more traditional roles assisting
private veterinary practitioners. Twenty-two percent responded that they had no difficulty in hiring
veterinary technicians.
Table 28: Difficulties with Hiring Veterinary Technicians
Veterinary Technician Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
Veterinary Technicians
Skills
Lack of workers with necessary
job or technical skills
Lack of workers with necessary
English fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities in New England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities in New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities outside New
England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities outside New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New England
58
UMass Donahue Institute
27
21
6
100.0%
77.8%
22.2%
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
47.6%
23.8%
47.6%
9.5%
0.0%
14.3%
47.6%
71.4%
38.1%
38.1%
4.8%
19.0%
4.8%
14.3%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
Difficulties with hiring laboratory animal technicians
About 70 percent of respondents cited very or moderate difficult hiring experiences with senior
and mid-level husbandry technicians in the past two years. We asked respondents to indicate the top
three factors that have made hiring husbandry technicians difficult for their lab animal facilities over the
years. Among respondents to this question who experienced difficulty in hiring, about 87 percent
experienced some difficulty in hiring husbandry technicians. Among those who experienced difficulty
in hiring husbandry technicians, 82 percent responded that lack of skills (either technical or language)
were a top factor, and 48 percent responded that skills were a secondary factor. Twelve percent
responded that they had no difficulty in hiring husbandry technicians. One respondent stated that it was
difficult finding people interested in working with mice.
59
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 29: Difficulties with Hiring Laboratory Animal Technicians
Husbandry Technician Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
33
29
4
100.0%
87.9%
12.1%
Husbandry Technicians
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
Skills
Lack of workers with necessary
job or technical skills
Lack of workers with necessary
English fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities in New England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities in New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of New
England
Salary/benefit competition from
other facilities outside New
England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities outside New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New England
82.8%
48.3%
79.3%
10.3%
3.4%
37.9%
17.2%
41.4%
13.8%
20.7%
0.0%
10.3%
3.4%
10.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difficulties with hiring cage washers
As seen in Table 23, about 35 percent of respondents cited very or moderate difficult hiring
experiences with cage washers in the past two years. We asked respondents to indicate the top three
factors that have made hiring cage washers difficult for their laboratory animal facilities over the years.
Among respondents to this question who experienced difficulty in hiring, about 58 percent experienced
some difficulty in hiring cage washers. Among those who experienced difficulty in hiring cage washers,
71 percent responded that lack of skills (either technical or language) were a top factor, and 50 percent
responded that skills were a secondary factor. Competition from other facilities within New England
60
UMass Donahue Institute
was a top factor for 21 percent of respondents and a secondary factor for 50 percent of respondents with
difficulty hiring cage washers. Forty-one percent responded that they had no difficulty in hiring cage
washers. One respondent stated that there are too few applicants for these jobs: that demand exceeds
supply.
Table 30: Difficulties with Hiring Cage Washers
Cage Washer Hiring
Total Respondents
Difficulty in Hiring
No Difficulty in Hiring
24
14
10
100.0%
58.3%
41.7%
Cage Washers
Top Factor
Secondary
Factors
Skills
Lack of workers with
necessary job or technical
skills
Lack of workers with
necessary English
fluency/literacy skills
Competition within New
England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities in New
England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities in New
England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities in New England
Competition outside of
New England
Salary/benefit competition
from other facilities outside
New England
Location/lifestyle competition
from other facilities outside
New England
Education/career path
opportunities at competing
facilities outside New
England
71.4%
50.0%
42.9%
21.4%
28.6%
28.6%
21.4%
50.0%
14.3%
28.6%
7.1%
14.3%
0.0%
7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
61
UMass Donahue Institute
Employee turnover and retention
Primary factors leading to turnover
Turnover among senior-level positions at laboratory animal research facilities is low, with over
half of respondents reporting that their facilities do not tend to lose people they hire as veterinarians,
senior managers, or supervisors. The story is different, however, for the other positions. The most
common reason for loss of a veterinary technician, for example, is a career advancement opportunity
offered by a competing organization (29.4%). Similarly, the most common reason for loss of a midlevel husbandry technician is an offer of higher pay or better benefits for similar work from a competing
organization (26.5%). For junior-level technicians, the most common cause of turnover is the inability
of the employee to perform as expected (26.7%). Please see below for a detailed table of the causes of
employee turnover by occupation.
Table 31: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation
Occupation
Veterinarians
Senior Managers
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Husbandry
Technicians, Sr.
Career
Advancement
Opportunity
Provided by a
Competing
Organization
5.9%
Higher
Pay/Benefits
Lifestyle
for Similar
Change
Work Offered
Offered by a
by a Competing Competing
Organization
Organization
17.6%
2.9%
Changing
Careers Leaving
Laboratory
Animal Care
0.0%
Returning
to School
2.9%
Employee
Unable to
Perform as
Expected
2.9%
N/A (High
Employee
Retention)
61.8%
Other
5.9%
10.0%
14.7%
26.7%
17.6%
3.3%
2.9%
6.7%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
53.3%
55.9%
0.0%
2.9%
29.4%
17.6%
5.9%
8.8%
8.8%
0.0%
23.5%
5.9%
16.1%
12.9%
0.0%
9.7%
6.5%
6.5%
41.9%
6.5%
11.8%
0.0%
17.6%
26.5%
0.0%
13.3%
14.3%
3.3%
3.6%
26.7%
7.1%
26.7%
50.0%
3.3%
10.7%
Husbandry
Technicians, Mid
26.5%
17.6%
0.0%
Husbandry
Technicians, Jr.
6.7%
20.0%
0.0%
Cage Washers
7.1%
7.1%
0.0%
Note: “Other” category responses were for descriptive answers.
The causes of employee turnover differ somewhat between for-profit and non-profit institutions.
Many for-profit and non-profit organizations in our survey cite high retention rates for most positions,
except for veterinary technicians and mid-level husbandry technicians. For-profit institutions report that
62
UMass Donahue Institute
workers often leave these positions for job in competing facilities to obtain better career advancement
opportunities (47.1% and 30.8 % respectively).
Across the board, salary competition is a bigger
problem for non-profit organizations than it is at for-profit settings. For every position, non-profit
facilities report higher rates of hiring difficulties due to higher pay / benefits at competing facilities than
do for-profit institutions. Tables 31a and 31b detail causes of employee turnover by institution type.
Table 31a: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation, For-profit Institutions
For Profit
Responses N=19
Veterinarians
Senior Managers
Facility
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Career
Advancement
Opportunity
Offered by a
Competing
Organization
7.1% (1)
Higher
Pay/Benefits
Lifestyle
for Similar
Change
Work Offered
Offered by a
by a Competing Competing
Organization
Organization
7.1% (1)
0.0% (0)
Changing
Careers Leaving
Laboratory
Animal Care
0.0% (0)
Returning
to School
0.0% (0)
Employee
Unable to
Perform as
Expected
7.1% (1)
N/A (High
Employee
Retention)
78.6% (11)
Other
0.0% (0)
Response
Count
14
21.4% (3)
21.4% (3)
0.0% (0)
7.1% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (7)
0.0% (0)
14
20.0% (3)
13.3% (2)
0.0% (0)
13.3% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
53.3% (8)
0.0% (0)
15
47.1% (8)
5.9% (1)
5.9% (1)
5.9% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
35.3% (6)
0.0% (0)
17
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-level
30.8% (4)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
7.7% (1)
0.0% (0)
15.4% (2)
46.2% (6)
0.0% (0)
13
Husbandry
Technicians, Midlevel
31.3% (5)
12.5% (2)
0.0% (0)
6.3% (1)
0.0% (0)
18.8% (3)
31.3% (5)
0.0% (0)
16
14.3% (2)
7.1% (1)
14.3% (2)
7.1% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
7.1% (1)
21.4% (3)
7.1% (1)
7.1% (1)
28.6% (4)
7.1% (1)
21.4% (3)
42.9% (6)
7.1% (1)
7.1% (1)
14
14
2
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-level
Cage washers
Other
Note: “Other” category responses were for descriptive answers. Response counts included to emphasize qualitative usefulness of data, rather
than statistical significance.
63
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 31b: Cause of Employee Turnover by Occupation, Non-profit Institutions
Non-profit
Responses N=21
Veterinarians
Senior Managers
Facility
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Career
Advancement
Opportunity
Offered by a
Competing
Organization
5.3% (1)
Higher
Pay/Benefits
Lifestyle
for Similar
Change
Work Offered
Offered by a
by a Competing Competing
Organization
Organization
26.3% (5)
5.3% (1)
Changing
Careers Leaving
Laboratory
Animal Care
0.0% (0)
Returning
to School
5.3% (1)
Employee
Unable to
Perform as
Expected
0.0% (0)
N/A (High
Employee
Retention)
47.4% (9)
Other
10.5% (2)
Response
Count
19
0.0% (0)
26.7% (4)
6.7% (1)
6.7% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
60.0% (9)
0.0% (0)
15
11.1% (2)
16.7% (3)
5.6% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
61.1% (11)
5.6% (1)
18
6.3% (1)
31.3% (5)
6.3% (1)
12.5% (2)
18.8% (3)
0.0% (0)
12.5% (2)
12.5% (2)
16
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-level
5.9% (1)
17.6% (3)
0.0% (0)
11.8% (2)
11.8% (2)
0.0% (0)
41.2% (7)
11.8% (2)
17
Husbandry
Technicians, Midlevel
5.9% (1)
35.3% (6)
0.0% (0)
17.6% (3)
0.0% (0)
17.6% (3)
23.5% (4)
0.0% (0)
17
0.0% (0)
7.7% (1)
20.0% (3)
7.7% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
20.0% (3)
7.7% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
26.7% (4)
7.7% (1)
33.3% (5)
61.5% (8)
0.0% (0)
7.7% (1)
15
13
5
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-level
Cage washers
Other
Note: “Other” category responses were for descriptive answers. Response counts included to emphasize qualitative usefulness of data, rather
than statistical significance.
Anticipated hiring – new hiring and replacement hiring
Respondents anticipate doing very little hiring over the next three years. More than half of
respondents indicated that their facilities do not plan to do any hiring for newly created positions in any
of the listed occupations over the next three years, and more than half reported that they expected to do
no hiring to replace employees lost to turnover for any position except veterinary technicians and cage
washers. See tables 32 and 33 detailing these trends.
64
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 32: Anticipated New Hires by Occupation
Anticipated Hiring for Newly Created Positions Over the Next 3 Years
Occupation
Veterinarians
Response
N=
27
0
81.50%
1
14.80%
2
3.70%
3
0.00%
4 or
More
0.00%
Total Expected
Hires
6
Facility Senior
Managers
Supervisors
25
26
84.00%
73.10%
12.00%
26.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
8
7
Facility
Veterinary
Technicians
29
58.60%
24.10%
10.30%
3.40%
3.40%
20
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-Level
26
61.50%
34.60%
0.00%
0.00%
3.80%
14
Husbandry
Technicians,
Mid-Level
28
53.60%
21.40%
14.30%
3.60%
7.20%
34
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-Level
Cage Washers
28
26
53.60%
65.40%
28.60%
19.20%
7.10%
7.70%
7.10%
3.80%
3.60%
3.80%
26
19
Table 33: Anticipated Replacement Hiring by Occupation
Anticipated Replacements Due to Turnover Over the Next 3 Years
Occupation
Veterinarians
Response
N=
22
0
50.00%
1
36.40%
2
9.10%
3
4.50%
4 or
More
0.00%
Total Expected
Hires
15
Facility Senior
Managers
21
61.90%
38.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8
Facility
Supervisors
21
57.10%
33.30%
9.50%
0.00%
0.00%
11
Veterinary
Technicians
25
48.00%
24.00%
8.00%
8.00%
12.00%
32
Senior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
22
59.10%
27.30%
4.50%
0.00%
9.00%
20
Mid-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
23
56.50%
13.00%
17.40%
4.30%
8.60%
51+*
Junior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
Cage Washers
21
22
61.90%
45.50%
14.30%
13.60%
0.00%
18.20%
4.80%
9.10%
19.00%
13.50%
24
34
* One respondent selected the answer choice "31+"
The combined hiring needs of the responding facilities, both new hires and anticipated
replacement rates, are outlined in Table 34. Mid-level husbandry technicians are expected to be the
65
UMass Donahue Institute
largest hiring need although this is partially a reflection of one facility’s need for over thirty-one
employees in this occupation. Cage washers, junior-level husbandry technicians and veterinary
technicians are the next most common employment demand over the upcoming three years.
Table 34: Replacement and New Hiring by Occupation
Anticipated Replacement and New Hires Over the Next 3 Years
Total
Combined
Hires
0
1
2
3
4 or
More
Veterinarians
67.35%
24.49%
6.12%
2.04%
0.00%
21
Facility Senior
Managers
73.91%
23.91%
0.00%
0.00%
2.17%
16
65.96%
29.79%
4.26%
0.00%
0.00%
18
53.70%
24.07%
9.26%
5.56%
7.41%
52
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-Level
60.42%
31.25%
2.08%
0.00%
6.25%
34
Husbandry
Technicians, MidLevel
54.90%
17.65%
15.69%
1.96%
7.84%
85+*
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-Level
57.14%
22.45%
4.08%
2.04%
6.12%
50
Cage Washers
56.25%
16.67%
12.50%
4.17%
8.33%
53
Occupation
Supervisors
Facility
Veterinary
Technicians
* For the question on anticipated replacement needs, one respondent selected the answer choice "31+".
Starting salary
Starting salaries vary greatly by occupation. The most common starting salary range for
veterinarians is $105,001-$120,000 per year (34.6%), but substantial numbers of respondents report
starting salary ranges both lower and higher than this, with 19.2 percent of respondent facilities starting
veterinarians in the $75,001-$90,000 per year range, and 15.4 percent starting veterinarians in the
$150,000+ range. For veterinarians, the median starting salary range is significantly above the median
annual average salary for all veterinarians in Massachusetts. See table 35 for a detailed table of starting
salary ranges by occupation.
66
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 35: Typical Starting Salaries by Occupation
0$30,000
$30,001$45,000
$45,001$60,000
$60,001$75,000
$75,001$90,000
$90,001$105,000
$105,001$120,000
$120,001$135,000
$135,001$150,000
$150,001+
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
22.2%
7.4%
33.3%
11.1%
3.7%
14.8%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
32.0%
28.0%
24.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Facility
Supervisors
0.0%
23.1%
38.5%
34.6%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Veterinary
Technicians
6.7%
56.7%
36.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Husbandry
Technicians,
Senior-Level
21.4%
71.4%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Husbandry
Technicians,
Mid-Level
41.4%
58.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
61.5%
38.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
78.3%
21.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Veterinarians
Facility
Senior
Managers
Husbandry
Technicans,
Junior-Level
Cage
Washers
Typical Income Range is in BOLD.
Desired education level
As one might expect, desired minimum expected education levels vary widely by occupation in
this industry.
All respondents expect veterinarians to have DVM degrees, and the majority of
respondents expect senior managers, supervisors, and veterinary technicians to have at least a bachelor’s
degree. The remaining occupations are expected to be filled by individuals with at least a high school
diploma. See Table 36 for a detailed breakdown of expected minimum education level by occupation.
67
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 36: Desired Education Levels by Occupation
Occupation
Veterinarians
Senior
Managers
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Senior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
Mid-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
Junior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians
Master's,
High
School or Associate's Bachelor's PhD, MD, or
Degree
Degree
DVM
No Minimum Equivalent
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cage Washers
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
10.3%
3.4%
27.6%
89.7%
62.1%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
9.4%
34.4%
56.3%
0.0%
3.2%
61.3%
19.4%
16.1%
0.0%
3.6%
71.4%
21.4%
3.6%
0.0%
10.3%
75.9%
6.9%
6.9%
0.0%
26.1%
73.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table 37: Desired Certification Levels by Occupation
Certification
Occupation
Veterinarians
Facility Senior
Managers
Facility
Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Husbandry
technicians,
Senior-Level
Husbandry
Technicians, MidLevel
Husbandry
Technicians,
Junior-Level
Cage Washers
None
Required
ACLAM
ACLAM-Eligible
CMAR
LAT
LATG
ALAT
Response
N
28.0%
36.0%
36.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25
14.3%
0.0%
3.6%
10.7%
10.7%
50.0%
10.7%
28
19.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.9%
42.3%
11.5%
26
42.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.5%
34.6%
11.5%
26
21.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
32.1%
28.6%
17.9%
28
47.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.1%
0.0%
26.1%
23
70.8%
89.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
29.2%
10.5%
24
19
Additionally, there are several types of certification that are valued by prospective employers. 72
percent of respondents expected laboratory animal veterinarians to be certified by ACLAM or at least
eligible for ACLAM certification. Half of all respondents expected senior managers to be certified by
the AALAS as Laboratory Animal Technologists, and 42 percent expect the same from supervisors.
Nearly one-third of respondents expect senior-level animal husbandry technicians to be certified Animal
68
UMass Donahue Institute
Laboratory Technicians. Finally, the amount of on-the-job experience expected by potential employers
varies considerably by occupation. See below for a detailed table of respondents’ expectations regarding
work experience by occupation.
Table 38: Desired Years of On-the-Job Experience by Occupation
Occupation
Veterinarians
Senior Managers
Supervisors
Veterinary Technicians
Senior-Level Husbandry
Technicians
Mid-Level Husbandry
Technicians
Junior-Level Husbandry
Technicians
Cage Washers
1 Year
14.3%
0.0%
3.8%
46.2%
2 Years
28.6%
7.4%
15.4%
26.9%
3 Years
10.7%
7.4%
38.5%
15.4%
4 Years
10.7%
7.4%
11.5%
7.7%
5 or More
Years
35.7%
77.8%
30.8%
3.8%
13.8%
31.0%
24.1%
10.3%
20.7%
54.2%
29.2%
12.5%
4.2%
0.0%
85.7%
100.0%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Inability to hire qualified workers, facility responses
As the above responses suggest, it is not always assured that a facility will be able to hire
qualified candidates to fill all open positions. Respondents report that reactions to an inability to hire
qualified candidates would vary depending upon the nature of the position to be filled. That is, the most
common reaction to an inability to hire qualified veterinarians (48.4%) would be to employ a temporary
or contract worker, while the inability to hire a qualified husbandry worker (52.7%) would be more
likely to lead to a decision to hire a less qualified candidate. One respondent stated that they would
“groom” a current, and lower-level, employee for the position. See Table 39 for a complete breakdown.
69
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 39: Responses to Inability to Hire Qualified Workers
Veterinarians
Senior Managers
Supervisors
Veterinary Technicians
Husbandy Technicians (all)
Cage Washers
Leave the
Position
Vacant
45.2%
69.2%
57.1%
29.0%
19.8%
25.9%
Hire a Candidate
with Less than
the Minimum
Qualifications
6.5%
15.4%
28.6%
41.9%
52.7%
48.1%
Employ a
Temporary or
Contract Worker
48.4%
15.4%
14.3%
29.0%
27.5%
25.9%
These responses are particularly important, as respondents also indicated that a substantial
portion of their facilities’ total research was dependent upon the laboratory animal operation. Sixty-one
percent of respondents reported that more than half of their organizations’ total research relied on
laboratory animal research, and only 22 percent reported that less than 25 percent of their organizations’
total research relied on laboratory animal research.
In-house training and career paths
In-house promotion
Respondents reported that there are limited opportunities for in-house promotion in most
laboratory animal facilities. Individuals in top-level occupations (veterinarians and senior managers) are
rarely promoted, possibly because there is nowhere to go. Mid-level workers (supervisors and veterinary
technicians) are occasionally promoted, and lower-level workers (husbandry technicians and cage
washers) are less likely to be promoted. See Table 40 for a detailed table of responses.
70
UMass Donahue Institute
Table 40: In-House Promotion Trends in Responding Facilities
Veterinarians
Facility Senior
Managers
Facility Supervisors
Veterinary
Technicians
Husbandry
Technicians
Cage Washers
Frequently
Promoted
3.0%
Occasionally
Promoted
12.1%
Never
Promoted
84.8%
9.7%
15.2%
38.7%
42.4%
51.6%
42.4%
25.0%
53.1%
21.9%
34.7%
29.6%
36.8%
29.6%
28.4%
40.7%
Professional development opportunities
Respondents reported that their facilities provided a number of professional development
opportunities. Almost all respondents (97.5%) reported that their facilities offer informal, in-house
training, and most (73.7%) also reported that their facilities offer formal, in-house training. Please see
below for a table detailing professional development opportunities in respondent facilities, in order of
frequency.
Table 41: Professional Development Opportunities in Responding Facilities
Professional Development Opportunity
Informal, In-House Training
Reimbursement and Release Time for National Meetings
Membership Reimbursement for Local/State/Regional Professional Organizations
Membership Reimbursement for National Professional Organizations
Fee Reimbursement for Licensing and Certification
Subsidized Tuition for Certification Programs
Formal, In-House Training
Assistance with Career Path Planning
Collaborative Training Programs
Salary Incentives for Certification
English as a Second Language
State Training Grants
71
UMass Donahue Institute
Percent of Facilities
97.5%
82.9%
79.5%
78.9%
78.9%
75.6%
73.7%
66.7%
57.9%
54.1%
48.7%
0.0%
Possible strategies for a better workforce
Finally, respondents were asked to assess how beneficial they believed a number of possible
strategies for improving the laboratory animal workforce would be. Their responses are listed below, in
order of proportion of respondents who believed that a given possibility would be highly beneficial.
Table 42: Strategies for Workforce Development Ranked by Level of Impact
Possible Strategy
Improved Promotion of Specialty
Training Programs for Veterinary
Students in Veterinary Schools
Customized Skills Training or
Certificate Programs at Community
Colleges
Expanded Coursework for College
Science Majors in (Laboratory)
Animal Science
Externship for College Science
Majors Providing Laboratory Animal
Exposure
Expansion of Sponsored PostDoc/Post-Veterinary Opportunities
Speakers Bureau for Veterinary
Students and College Science
Industry-targeted Job Recruitment
Events or Services
Targeted Relationship Building and
Recruiting with In-City Communities
Speakers Bureau Focused on High
School Students
Externship Program for High
School Teachers in Laboratory
Animal Facilities
72
UMass Donahue Institute
Highly
Beneficial
Somewhat
Beneficial
Not
Beneficial
Don't
Know
60.0%
12.5%
12.5%
15.0%
52.5%
40.0%
2.5%
5.0%
50.0%
37.5%
7.5%
5.0%
47.5%
37.5%
10.0%
5.0%
45.0%
22.5%
5.0%
27.5%
42.5%
32.5%
17.5%
7.5%
33.3%
46.2%
2.6%
17.9%
25.0%
27.5%
20.0%
27.5%
17.5%
47.5%
20.0%
15.0%
15.0%
40.0%
22.5%
22.5%
Appendices
Appendix 1. Occupational Staffing Patterns Methodology
In order to estimate the number of veterinarians, veterinary technologists and technicians (vet
techs), and veterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers (vet assistants) working in animal
research settings in Massachusetts, we were forced to choose among three sets of data that provided
conflicting pictures of the occupational staffing patterns in this industry.
The first of these sets was collected by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
It gives detailed information regarding veterinarians practicing in all six New England states, including
Massachusetts. These data were utilized by other researchers at the UMass Donahue Institute in a 2008
study on the veterinary industry. The main advantage of this data set was the fact that is was a count,
rather than a sample, and should contain less error than a sample would. Also, because this dataset was
the result of a direct survey, rather than a sample, it was able to provide a level of specificity that most
government-collected data could not. However, this data set contained only information about
veterinarians, and would not allow us to examine staffing patterns of vet techs or vet assistants.
The second data set was the 2005 Industry Occupation Matrix and the accompanying OES crossindustry count of workers by occupation, provided by the Massachusetts Division of Unemployment
Assistance. This data set had the advantage of providing information about the ratio of vet techs and vet
assistants to veterinarians, but had the disadvantage of being based upon a sample. This would not have
been a problem in and of itself, but it appeared to be an issue when it became apparent that this dataset
was not consistent with other important sources of information.
This problem arose when we determined that, because the AVMA data were the result of a direct
count, rather than a sample, they were our best source of information regarding the number of
veterinarians in Massachusetts and their distribution among different activities. In order to use these data
73
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
as the basis for our analysis, we needed to determine the ratio of veterinary technicians and veterinary
assistants to veterinarians so that we could determine how many veterinary technicians and veterinary
assistants there were in the Commonwealth. Our first attempt at determining this ratio was based upon
the 2005 Massachusetts Industry Occupation matrix discussed above. However, the ratios we calculated
from that matrix, when applied to the AVMA count of veterinarians, conflicted substantially with the
OES cross-industry count of workers by occupation. That is, if we took the ratio of vet techs to
veterinarians for a given industry from the Industry-Occupation Matrix and multiplied it by the number
of veterinarians in that industry (according to the AVMA), and aggregated the results for all
Massachusetts industries, we arrived at a number of vet techs and vet assistants that far exceeded the
estimate in the OES cross-industry count.
We reasoned that this was likely a result of sampling error, and that our best chance of limiting
this error was to use a set with the largest sample possible. For this reason, we moved from the 2005
Massachusetts Industry Occupation matrix choosing instead to use the 2005 National Industry
Occupation matrix, provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Using this matrix, we calculated the
ratios of vet techs and vet assistants to veterinarians in scientific research and development (NAICS
5417) and colleges and universities (NAICS 6113). We then multiplied the number of veterinarians
working in animal research settings in each of these industries by the resulting ratios in order to estimate
the number of vet techs and vet assistants supporting these veterinarians.
74
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Appendix 2. Mean Wage Estimates Per Occupation, All Industries, 2006
Animal Research Occupations - National Estimates by Industry, 2006
Veterinary
Assistants
Industry
Veterinary
&
Technologists
Veterinarians
Laboratory
(291131)
& Technicians
Animal
(292056)
NAICS Code
Description
Caretakers
(319096)
112910
325412-10
325414
541380
541710
541710-11
541710-12
541710-21
541710-22
541720
541720-20
611310
621511
621512
622110
Other Animal
Production
Pharmaceutical
Preparation
Manufacturing (pt)
Biological Products,
except diagnostic,
mfg
Testing
Laboratories
R&D in the
Physical,
Engineering, & Life
Sciences
Non-commercial
R&D in the Physical
& Engineering
Sciences
Commercial R&D in
the Physical &
Engineering
Sciences
Non-commercial
R&D in the Life
Sciences
Commercial R&D in
the Life Sciences
Non-commercial
R&D in the Social
Sciences &
Humanities
Commercial R&D in
the Social Sciences
& Humanities
Colleges,
Universities, &
Professional
Schools
Medical
Laboratories
Diagnostic Imaging
Centers
General Medical &
Surgical Hospitals
75
UMass Donahue Institute
Natural
Science
Managers
(119121)
50
80
N/A
N/A
160
190
340
3,170
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,230
230
610
2,500
10,130
N/A
N/A
N/A
210
560
1,830
3,510
1,460
N/A
N/A
N/A
200
N/A
80
270
290
Appendices
622310
Specialty (except
Psychiatric &
Substance Abuse)
Hospitals
TOTAL
N/A
170
N/A
N/A
1,000
2,960
6,620
16,690
SOC code: Standard Occupational Classification code - <http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm>.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Industry - Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2006 <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm#11>.
76
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Appendix 3. State Comparison of Occupations by Annual Median Salary,
2006
State
State Comparison of Key Occupations by Annual Median Salary - May, 2006
Medical
Veterinary
Medical &
Veterinary
Scientists,
Assistants &
Health Service
Veterinarians Technologists
Except
Animal
Managers
& Technicians
Epidemiologists
Caretakers
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
$70,530
$78,320
$62,740
$62,190
$88,610
$75,030
$83,270
$72,110
$46,610
N/A
$60,860
$64,950
$73,770
$71,740
$80,950
N/A
$66,710
$80,040
$72,420
$71,870
$87,350
$63,010
$93,730
$84,670
$21,360
$32,390
$25,310
$18,450
$30,540
$27,210
$33,750
$28,520
$16,870
$22,520
$20,520
$17,090
$21,540
$18,530
$22,800
$24,540
$74,600
$78,050
$67,190
$84,480
$62,280
$67,460
$65,490
$59,790
$62,180
$66,590
$59,110
$65,780
$79,260
$86,210
$72,170
$78,320
$62,940
$68,790
$64,400
$65,320
$75,000
$68,530
$65,500
$76,900
$58,360
$35,580
$56,590
N/A
N/A
$50,480
N/A
$56,170
$76,770
$76,770
$51,950
$54,740
N/A
$58,190
N/A
$37,590
$83,380
$111,870
$69,900
$65,650
$71,900
$60,190
$68,130
$70,120
(3)$62,380
$59,410
$63,600
$67,730
$83,670
$73,320
$71,590
$69,120
$57,480
$64,300
$53,980
$58,450
$83,270
N/A
$23,970
$24,670
$24,150
$25,120
$31,450
$26,700
$24,290
$25,350
$21,000
$19,880
$27,950
$25,910
$31,050
$32,270
$28,100
$22,860
$25,020
$22,740
$22,930
$28,590
$25,880
$19,540
$16,820
$18,930
$19,730
$19,240
$19,030
$17,590
$16,450
$19,540
$17,360
$22,520
$21,440
$26,520
$21,080
$22,130
$18,120
$19,610
$17,520
$15,950
$18,760
$75,790
$90,360
$67,330
$85,130
$70,080
$61,140
$68,870
N/A
$81,060
N/A
$59,840
N/A
N/A
$52,670
$78,180
$95,190
$62,340
$83,640
$72,320
$58,770
$72,160
$28,020
$28,050
$29,290
$30,250
$24,470
$25,740
$27,740
$19,380
$19,580
$19,980
$22,270
$18,160
$18,010
$20,540
77
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
$60,730
$76,290
$67,900
$53,110
$80,850
$63,270
$66,540
$64,450
$68,720
$71,700
$76,630
$74,570
$97,710
$58,900
$74,100
$66,060
$42,480
N/A
$60,320
$47,920
$49,980
$56,530
$50,860
$58,300
$44,120
$55,010
$74,080
$61,600
$60,570
$83,710
$46,270
N/A
$60,680
$66,380
$79,980
$65,240
$74,310
$64,290
$57,090
$64,140
$74,060
$70,430
$65,740
$79,080
$73,440
$70,150
$65,780
$50,310
$21,660
$29,590
$26,970
$23,600
$29,660
$25,420
$22,430
$22,790
$22,450
$24,050
$26,700
$28,590
$30,170
$18,760
$26,910
$27,300
$17,570
$21,100
$22,520
$15,850
$21,180
$18,680
$18,130
$18,600
$19,420
$18,730
$17,760
$20,140
$21,850
$17,190
$20,400
$17,110
Notes: (1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately.
Estimates do not include self-employed workers. (2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by
2,080 hours; where an hourly mean wage is not published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from thre reported survey
data. (3) Estimate not released.
Source: State OES Estimates, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, <http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>. Data extracted on August 15, 2007.
78
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Appendix 4. Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM). American College of Laboratory
Animal Medicine Newsletter 38.4 (2007). <http://www.aclam.org>.
--------. ACLAM Veterinary Curriculum Working Group. “Recommendations for Teaching
Laboratory Animal Medicine to Veterinary Students in North America.” June (2006).
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). “The Economic Impact of AAMC-Member
Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals.” 2007
<https://services.aamc.org/Publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=17
7&prv_id=211>.
Britz, William R. “Lean Times for Lab Animal Managers.” ALN Magazine May/June (2004).
<http://www.alnmag.com/articles.asp?pid=59>.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational employment and job openings data, 2004–14 and worker
characteristics, 2004.” Accessed 2007. <http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/optdtabiv_1.pdf>.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “State OES Estimates” and “Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) Survey.” "1999-2006, State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates."
<http://stats.bls.gov/oeshome.htm>.
Center for Scientific Review. “Roster Index for Regular Standing Study Sections and Continuing SEPs.”
Accessed July 16, 2007. <http://www.csr.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp>.
National Research Council of the National Academies. Committee on Increasing Veterinary
Involvement in Biomedical Research, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Division of
Earth and Life Studies. “National Need and Priorities for Veterinaries in Biomedical Research.”
Washington, D.C,: The National Academies Press. 2004
<http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309090830>.
Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. “Driving Greater Boston & New England: The Impact
of Greater Boston’s Teaching Hospitals.”
<http://www.cobth.org/pdfs/COBTH_Impact_Report.pdf>.
Foundation for Biomedical Research. “Rats and Mice: The Essential Need for Animals in
Medical Research.” Accessed August, 2007.
<http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/pdf/RatsAndMice.pdf>.
Hartman, Gail. “Tackling the Credentials Problem with Massachusetts Technicians.” 2007
<http://www.massvta.org/>.
Huneke, Richard and Steve Dixon. “Salary Survey of Laboratory Animal Veterinarians for the
79
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Year 2005.” American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine and the American Society of
Laboratory Animal Practitioners. April (2006).
Jha, Alok. “RSPCA Outrage As Experiments On Animals Rise To 2.85m” Education Guardian. 2005
<http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,,1663535,00.html>.
John Adams Innovation Institute. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. “2007 Index of the
Massachusetts Innovation Economy: Meeting of the Index Advisory Committee.” 2007
<http://www.mtpc.org/institute/index.htm>.
John Adams Innovation Institute. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. “NAICS-based
definitions of Life Sciences cluster by organization and report.” 2007
<http://www.mtpc.org/institute/index.htm>.
Leclaire, Jennifer. “Pharma Companies Facing Talent Shortage in Specialty Areas.” Boston
Business Journal October 19-25 (2007).
Lindler, Vanessa and Susan Chapman. “The Clinical Laboratory Workforce in California.” San
Francisco: The Center for Health Professions, University of California. 2003
<http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/clinical_lab_workforce.pdf>.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Postdoctoral and Veterinary Student Training Program
Brochure.” Division of Comparative Medicine. <http://web.mit.edu/comp-med/>.
The McGinn Group. “The Case For Animal Research: Key Findings From A Survey Among
1,002 Adults Nationwide Conducted April 15 -18, 2005.”
<http://www.fbresearch.org/Journalists/Polls/HartPoll2005.pdf>.
Nakajima, Eric, Rebecca Loveland, Alexandra Proshina, and William Proulx. “A Critical
Alliance: The Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Industries in Massachusetts.” Amherst: UMass
Donahue Institute (2007).
National Association for Biomedical Research. “The Humane Care and Treatment of Laboratory
Animals” 1999 <http://www.nabr.org/pdf/orange.pdf>.
National Institute of Health. Biomedical Information Science and Technology Initiative
Committee (BISTIC). “NIH Working Definition of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology.”
2000 <http://www.bisti.nih.gov/CompuBioDef.pdf>.
New England Healthcare Institute. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. “Super Cluster:
Ideas, Perspectives and Updates from the Massachusetts Life Sciences Industry.”
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007). <http://www.pwc.com>.
Nolen, R. Scott. “Despite High Demand, Laboratory Animal Veterinarians in Short Supply:
Economic Survey Shows Upward Trend in Specialists’ Salaries.” JAVMA News 3 October 2003.
<http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct03/031001i.asp>.
Office of National Institutes of Health History. “Memorandum of Understanding among the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and
Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National
80
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Concerning Laboratory
Animal Welfare.” 2006 <http://history.nih.gov/laws/pdf/MOU_APHIS_FDA_OLAW.pdf>.
Patrick, Michael. “What Are the Different Levels of Experience in a Veterinary Hospital?” 2005
<http://www.vettech.com/specialties/smallanimal.htm>.
Romick, Molly. “Outsourcing in Laboratory Animal Programs.” ALN Magazine July/August
2006. <http://www.animallab.com/articles.asp?pid=178>.
Sbrogna, Jennifer. “Best Practices For Training Laboratory Animal Staff” ALN Magazine March
2007. <http://www.animallab.com/articles.asp?pid=230>.
Schub, Tanja. “Is There A Shortage Of Animal Laboratory Veterinarians?” Lab Animal 30.6
(2001). <http://www.labanimal.com/laban/jobs/articles/30-6-39.pdf>.
Smith, D. “Rats, Mice and Birds Excluded from Animal Welfare Act.” Monitor on Psychology
33.7(2002). <http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug02/rats.html>.
Stephens, Martin and Andrew Rowan. “An Overview of Animal Testing Issues.” Humane
Society of the United States. 2007
<http://www.hsus.org/webfiles/PDF/ARI/ARIS_An_Overview_Of_Animal_Testing_Issues.pdf>.
Texas Biotechnology and Life Science Cluster Team. “Texas Biotechnology and Life Sciences
Industry Cluster: The Right to Play & the Right to Win.” 2005
<http://www.texasindustryprofiles.com/PDF/twcClusterReports/TexasBiotechnologyandLifeScie
ncesCluster.pdf>.
United States. Office of Technology Assessment. “Alternatives to Animal Use in Research,
Testing, and Education.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.
<http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_3/DATA/1986/8601.PDF>.
Ward-Cook, Kory, Susan Chapman and Vanessa Lindler. American Society of Clinical
Pathology (ASCP). “Executive Summary: 2002 Annual Survey of Accredited/Approved
Medical Laboratory Science Programs.” 2002
<http://www.ascp.org/Certification/ForProgramDirectors/research/documents/Svy02.pdf>.
Weigler, Benjamin J., Joseph D. Thulin, Sue Vandewoude and Thomas L. Wolfle. “The Supply
and Demand for Laboratory Animal Veterinarians from 1980 to 2005.” Contemporary Topics
Lab Animal Science. 36.2(1997):39-46.
WEB PAGES
American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Website. Accessed June 21, 2007.
<http://www.aclam.org/>.
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science Website. Accessed June 21, 2007.
<http://www.aalas.org/index.aspx>.
American Association of Veterinary State Boards Website. Accessed July 9, 2007.
<http://www.aavsb.org/Default.aspx>.
81
UMass Donahue Institute
Appendices
American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine Website: Certification/Benefits Page.
Accessed January 17, 2008. <http://aclam.org/certification/benefits.html>.
American Veterinary Medical Association Website. Accessed July 5, 2007.
<http://www.avma.org/default.asp>.
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International Website.
<http://www.aaalac.org/index.cfm>.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Projections and Training Data. Accessed 2007.
<http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/>.
Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals Website. Accessed July 19, 2007.
<http://www.cobth.org/index.html>.
Delaware Valley Innovation Network. “DVIN Goals.”Accessed 2007.
<http://www.ipphila.com/dvin/>.
Foundation for Biomedical Research Website. Accessed August 17, 2007.
<http://www.fbresearch.org/>.
82
UMass Donahue Institute