The new vice-chair of the Great Eastern University IACUC was Dr. Misty Newland, a researcher with many years of laboratory and IACUC experience and who had a reputation for being a no nonsense administrator. Newland usually had very little to do as vice-chair because the committee chairman almost never missed an IACUC meeting. However, he missed the most recent meeting as he was away caring for an ailing family member. Newland chaired that meeting, during which there was a report concerning a research technician who intentionally did not administer the last scheduled dose of an analgesic to a rat. The technician had claimed that the animal was active, eating well, and showed no signs of pain from the placement two days earlier of a small intraperitoneal monitoring device. He saw no need to further stress the rat by giving it the final dose of analgesia. All of the members present at the meeting considered this to be a deviation from the protocol but most felt that given the excellent condition of the rat, it likely had no significant impact on animal well-being and did not rise to the level of reporting it to the NIH's Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). The attending veterinarian said she could not be sure, but in her opinion the final dose would have been helpful yet not absolutely critical to the rat's well-being. Newland disagreed, but wanting to remain neutral, she said nothing. She called for a vote and the large majority of members voted that there would be sanctions (other than a suspension) and the incident was not to be reported.
Newland was convinced that not reporting the incident would be a regulatory violation, so she took the initiative, called OLAW, and reported what had happened to the rat. When the regular chairman returned from his brief leave and found out what transpired, he turned on Newland, accusing her of betraying the committee's intent and violating the PHS Policy1 because any such notification to OLAW requires the IACUC to do so through the Institutional Official. But Newland quickly replied that any person has a right to inform OLAW of a concern, even if that person is a member of the IACUC.
In your opinion, did the IACUC have the right to vote to withhold informing OLAW of the incident? Was Newland violating the PHS Policy by informing OLAW as she did? How would you have approached this situation?
References
Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986, revised 2015).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silverman, J. Who should decide when and how to contact OLAW?. Lab Anim 45, 423 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1137
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.1137
