The IACUC should not approve Moroski's protocol because he has failed to provide sufficient justification for the use of live animals in the proposed training. This is required by the AWA and Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy).

Superficially it appears that Moroski has a good plan—to increase the flow of surgeons into society by providing increased surgical training to residents that will reduce by one year the surgical residency training program. However, the following four issues about the proposal need to be addressed unambiguously if live animals are to be approved.

First, what are the deficiencies of the current training program, and how will the use of animals address these deficiencies? Moroski does not list any deficiencies of the current surgical training system so it appears that the quality of surgeons graduating from the program is adequate. However, to use animals, it is mandatory under the AWA and PHS Policy that Moroski provide details on the specific problems in the current residency program, list the options for resolution, and discuss each one. Finally, there needs to be a rational argument as to why the use of live animals is the best of these options.

In several veterinary and medical schools, the use of unowned live animals has been replaced by computer models, simulators, replicate models, cadavers, and owned animals (including those at shelters). Moroski needs to develop an argument which proves that while veterinary students who will perform surgery on animals do not need to be trained on unowned live animals, medical residents, who will not in their profession perform surgery on animals, do need this training.

Second, what are the benefits of the new program to humans and animals? There would appear to be limited benefit to animals, and none are claimed. In fact, the only benefit claimed is done so implicitly, in that a larger pool of surgeons available one year earlier would benefit the general population. Importantly, Moroski does not claim that the surgeons will have improved competence, but only that they will be able to practice as surgeons a year earlier. The other benefits appear to accrue only to the school itself (and perhaps to Moroski) in that better residents apply. However, Moroski does not describe the current quality of residents as inferior in any way, so it would appear that the latter 'benefit' is desirous but not mandatory. Moroski needs to discuss the benefits to society and show that they represent a cumulative improvement over benefits provided by current training.

Third, the overall proposal, even if successful, appears to have the potential for negligible to small impact on the number of surgeons graduating one year early. Moroski needs to provide data to show the short-, medium-, and long-term effect of the proposal on surgeon numbers.

Has Moroski provided evidence that alternatives to the use of animals have been fully explored? No. Is the use of animals justified? Moroski has failed to justify the use of animals.

Return to Protocol Review