Dr. Larry Covelli was proud of the IACUC he chaired at Great Eastern University. There was a culture of thorough but reasonable protocol reviews, open discussions at meetings and an honest effort to balance animal welfare with research requirements. Why, then, was he morose and bitter after talking to the IACUC Administrator?

Unknown to the IACUC, an investigator without an IACUC protocol was given a single-needle biopsy sample taken from the liver of a sheep that was being used in a survival abdominal surgical procedure for an unrelated purpose. The sheep study did have IACUC approval, but the approval did not include the biopsy. The Principal Investigator (PI) of the sheep study thought he was just doing a favor for a colleague who needed a small sample of liver tissue. In fact, as was later learned, the PI thought he was reducing animal usage because his colleague would not have to use an entirely separate animal for the biopsy. As for the sheep, she recovered uneventfully.

All of this occurred on a Monday, and by the next morning, Covelli knew of the incident. He quickly contacted both investigators, told them why they were noncompliant with NIH/OLAW policy and USDA/Animal Care regulations, and stated that no further biopsies were to be done without an approved protocol amendment or a new protocol. Coincidentally, the monthly IACUC meeting took place that Wednesday, and at the meeting, Covelli dutifully reported what had transpired. After a discussion, the committee concluded that the actions taken by Covelli were appropriate and voted to send a letter of explanation and reprimand to both investigators. Although the incident was a protocol noncompliance, the discussion and vote indicated it was not serious enough to inform NIH/OLAW of the incident and its resolution.

Some months later, during a routine USDA/Animal Care inspection, the inspecting veterinarian read the minutes of the IACUC meeting during which the sheep incident was discussed. He then cited Great Eastern for inadequate training of research personnel and for not having an appropriate proposal to conduct an animal activity. Covelli was mortified. “My God,” he said, “if there was ever a reason to hide animal welfare problems under the rug, this is it. There was no requirement for us to report anything to the USDA but we got slammed nevertheless for just discussing it. And now it's going to be publically posted and blown out of proportion. Why not just cite us for every repair order that's submitted or every time the vets ask a PI to change an anesthetic dosage. This is ridiculous and untenable!”

Now we know why Covelli was morose and bitter. But did he have a reasonable complaint, or was he just angry that Great Eastern received an IACUC-focused USDA citation while under his watch? Do you think Covelli was right when he implied that less will be said at future IACUC meetings about protocol noncompliance with USDA-covered species?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Don't hide it

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A word from OLAW and USDA

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Retraining required

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Reasonable and right