In the case of Monteverde’s protocol, the Greater Eastern University IACUC had a golden opportunity to improve relations with a troublesome investigator and paint themselves in a positive light as a partner and resource. Frankly, they blew it. The suspension of Monteverde’s protocol seems to be a harsh, unnecessary penalty for what amounts to a policy violation that they are also guilty of. The IACUC’s first responsibility is to animal welfare and in this case, there does not appear to be any animal welfare concerns as the animal work had been approved without revisions at a full committee meeting.

The actions of the IACUC to permanently suspend Monteverde’s protocol highlight the importance of training and communication in an institutional setting. There were internal breakdowns of IACUC policy about how and when approvals are communicated to investigators. Monteverde’s approval letter was not sent as required; rather, someone in the IACUC Office reported the approval verbally. Current policy dictates that an investigator must wait for written approval prior to beginning research. Monteverde did not seem to recognize the difference between verbal and written approval, but the fact that he was given a verbal confirmation over the phone might be an indication that the IACUC Office does not understand this difference either. Re-training of the IACUC Office staff and investigators should be considered.

Regarding Monteverde’s complaint, there are a few things to consider. The accusations against the IACUC member raising the concerns must be investigated. It is interesting that one IACUC member holds enough power to convene an unscheduled meeting and convince the committee to unanimously suspend Monteverde’s protocol. Is he railroading the committee? Is he harassing Monteverde? At this point, another meeting should be called, and the suspended protocol should be reviewed again. Since the work had already started, what will happen to the animals? The IACUC should also evaluate the process of cage card management and animal transfers as his use of previously printed cage cards and transferred animals may have contributed to this issue. At most, we would consider a written warning issued to Monteverde for starting his work prior to having written confirmation of the protocol approval and for potentially using incorrect cage cards.

While there are things Monteverde could have done better and should be re-trained on, and while the committee is within its rights, the suspension of this protocol was not warranted. IACUCs are frequently seen as bureaucratic groups that hinder and slow research. The actions of the IACUC in this case show why investigators believe this! The policy violation was committed by both the IACUC Office and Monteverde and could have been addressed in less severe ways that all parties could learn from. The incident could have sparked discussions about training and communication across various groups. In the end, Monteverde was working under an approved protocol and there were no serious animal welfare concerns. This should have been an easy win for the IACUC.