Madison Schute, who was responsible for training new members of her laboratory, walked slowly to her meeting with a subcommittee of the Great Eastern University IACUC. The issue was whether or not a new person in her laboratory was trained adequately to perform intracerebral (IC) injections in mice. During a regular semiannual inspection the IACUC inspectors found that almost half of all mice given intracerebral injections by the new lab member had died, whereas those administered by more experienced personnel were doing fine. Now Schute and the new research technician had to face an inquiry by the subcommittee.

Schute told the subcommittee that the new research technician was trained following her lab's standard IACUC approved procedures. That is, training began by the new person observing a skilled technician performing the technique. Then the new person, with Schute's oversight, practiced the technique on dead mice, progressing to doing the procedure with animals under non-recovery anesthesia, and finally to performing the injection under general anesthesia from which the animals recovered. In Schute's opinion the new technician was fully qualified to perform the procedure. The subcommittee thought otherwise, saying that the proof could be found in the unfortunate results of the injections when compared to the results from other lab members. Additionally, the subcommittee said the problem was compounded by Schute not advising the IACUC or any school veterinarian that there was a problem. Schute responded that she did not think that there was a problem because 30–50% mouse mortality was not unusual for a new person performing IC injections, and the IACUC protocol even listed extra animals to account for experimental failures.

Do you think that Schute's explanation is credible or does her lab have more of a problem than she realizes? How would you proceed with handling the finding from the semiannual inspection?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: More oversight and communication might be needed

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Adverse events and deficiencies

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Postapproval monitoring could have identified problems earlier

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Word from OLAW