Very few researchers require llamas for their studies, but Dr. Helen Zymansky had such a need. Zymansky, a professor at Great Eastern University’s College of Agriculture, used small llama-derived antibodies (nanobodies) as part of her investigations on bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV), a lentivirus with an uncertain impact on animal health, that is found in cattle from the U.S. and other countries. The research was funded by federal government grants and focused on determining if BIV affected the reproductive efficiency of dairy cows. The IACUC was aware of Zymansky’s work because the llamas were housed in the same barn with animals used for studies overseen by the IACUC. However, because Zymansky’s animals were being used to study the effect of BIV on reproductive efficiency of dairy cows, the research committee of the College of Agriculture, not the IACUC, approved and monitored Zymansky’s work.

During an AAALAC site visit for the colleges of medicine and veterinary medicine, the visitation team went to the barn that housed Zymansky’s animals and those under the jurisdiction of the IACUC. The visitors saw a llama with a generalized skin infection that was rubbing itself against the side of its stall. There was no record of any veterinary examination of the animal and no indication that the infection was being treated. The barn manager said that he had not noticed the problem. At the site visit exit briefing the visitors questioned the lack of an IACUC protocol for Zymansky’s work and stated that the untreated infection will lead to a recommendation that AAALAC issue a mandatory notice indicating a need for more thorough animal monitoring and veterinary oversight. The schools replied that research on and for the benefit of agricultural animals did not fall under the jurisdiction of the IACUC and therefore no IACUC protocol was required, but they would inform the College of Agriculture research committee that the animal required medical care and the veterinarians would immediately contact Dr. Zymansky. The site visitors said they agreed with the immediate action to be taken. They then cited the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals1, which states that “Regardless of the category of research [i.e., agricultural or biomedical], institutions are expected to provide oversight of all research animals and ensure that pain and distress are minimized.”

Did the schools of medicine and veterinary medicine respond appropriately in this situation? Do you think that the BIV study was biomedical or agricultural? Did the site visitors overstep their authority by recommending a mandatory item for correction when the IACUC claimed that it had no jurisdiction over the study?