What is the primary difference between the AWA and PHS Policy in terms of scope?

• A. The primary difference between AWA and PHS Policy is their scope, with AWA applying to regulated species and PHS Policy applying to PHS-funded vertebrate work; both require welfare oversight.
• B. AWA applies to all animals, while PHS covers only invertebrates.
• C. PHS Policy is proactive; AWA is reactive.
• D. They have identical scope.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is understanding how far each policy reaches—their scope. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) governs only certain “regulated” species defined by the statute, and institutions must comply for those animals with USDA oversight. In contrast, the PHS Policy applies to all vertebrate animals used in research that is funded by the Public Health Service, regardless of species. That means the PHS Policy covers more species (including mice, rats, and birds if the work is PHS-funded) because the trigger is funding, not a predefined list of species. Both frameworks require welfare oversight, but they differ in what triggers coverage: AWA’s scope is species-based, while PHS Policy’s scope is funding-based.