This was one of those times when Ken Bailey, the IACUC director at Great Eastern University, just wanted to put his hands to his face, cover his eyes, and say “you can't possibly be serious.” But Dr. Seana Mann, the USDA veterinary medical officer, was totally serious. During a routine facility inspection Mann reviewed many IACUC-approved protocols, but only one was of concern to her. In that study dogs were placed under deep terminal anesthesia and the thorax was opened by a sternotomy. The investigator then placed electrical recording and pulsing leads on different parts of the heart and when that part of the study was completed, the heart was removed for histologic examination.

Mann's concern was that the protocol had no literature or related search for alternatives to the sternotomy. Confused, Bailey asked Mann if she meant that there should be a literature search for alternatives to using a live animal, but Mann replied that such a search was done. She said there should have been a search for an alternative less painful method of entering the thorax to perform the study. “Why does that matter?” said Bailey. “This was an acute procedure performed under general anesthesia. The dog never regained consciousness. What difference does it make if the heart was visualized by a sternotomy, laparoscopy, spreading the ribs or some other means? It was a terminal procedure.”

Nevertheless, Great Eastern was issued a citation for a violation of the Animal Welfare Act regulations. Do you think the university should appeal the citation or teach investigators and protocol reviewers to include a literature search to help determine whether or not a terminal procedure performed under general anesthesia could be performed in a manner that would cause less pain or distress had it been a nonterminal procedure?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Training and education

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Gotcha!

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: The spirit of the law