Share thisHow 50-year-old Cubicles are Changing with the Times
Two major challenges exist for those planning new animal facilities and those with existing facilities: 1) implementing biosafety and biosecurity risk mitigation in a cost effective manner, which also addresses the operational efficiency and productivity needs of research and animal care staffs, and 2) forecasting long term animal model use, possible variations in biosafety level, and potential expansion of the facility.
In the first case, implementing the CDC/NIH recommendation for biosafety and biosecurity is an immediately expensive proposition, but a poor layout will lead to serious long termoperational costs. In the second case, designing and building for a specific animal model and/or biosafety level can artificially limit the business future of the facility.
Conventional laboratory plans (Figure 1) rely on the implementation of the recommended secondary barriers within the building’s architectural and mechanical design. Typically, individual animal models and researchers will be spread out and isolated in separate rooms and/or buildings. Dedicated rooms are designed for each ABSL agent that is planned for study in the facility. The rooms are designed to support species-specific animal equipment (like ventilated cage racks) and recommended biosafety cabinets (BSCs). These plans may limit flexibility for future animal models, variation in biosafety level, and limit the ability to increase animal densities. Operational efficiencies may decline as animal care staff is required to travel large distances, spending extra time and materials donning and removing PPE to complete daily animal care tasks in a wide variety of rooms.
Existing laboratories are limited by existing architectural design and mechanical systems. Upgrading to different animal models and/or new biosafety levels can entail extensive renovations which may be cost prohibitive.
