Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Chair should be a voting member

The consulting veterinarian is technically correct in that neither the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals¹ nor the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals² requires that the IACUC Chair be a voting member of the IACUC. The Animal Welfare Act and Regulations³ do require that the committee include the Chair, but that requirement would not be applicable unless the research program expanded to include USDA-covered species in addition to the “common laboratory mice” that it currently uses. In any case, the role of the IACUC Chair is vitally important to the success of the committee. The respect of the research community for the Chair, and the IACUC, could be severely diminished if the Chair is not a voting member and does not have a voice in committee decisions.

The IACUC Chair is the spokesperson of the IACUC to the Institutional Official (IO) and the research community. The committee members are generally shielded from public view, whereas the Chair is the visible representative. Since the dean would not be a member, she would not review protocols, determine policies, implement regulations or ensure humane animal care and use, but as Chair, she would need to defend all of the IACUC's decisions to the appropriate stakeholders. That puts the dean into a situation where she, as the leader, would take full responsibility for the IACUC's decisions without having a role in the decision-making process. Her credibility and leadership could be severely damaged in that type of politically precarious position.

The Chair is also responsible for supporting the IACUC members and communicating their needs to the IO. Without serving as a voting member, the dean would not have a clear understanding of the needs of the committee. Serving on an IACUC and bearing the full weight of the responsibility to both the animals and the researchers are necessary to completely understand the challenge of balancing the critical needs of both. Since the dean would not have that responsibility, she might have a difficult time accurately communicating the IACUC's needs to the upper administration and could lose the respect of the IACUC members. To make matters worse, the IACUC was properly constituted only by the dean pressuring some to serve. With the dean being appointed the Chair without taking on the duties and responsibilities of the voting members, her authority with those on the committee is tenuous at best.

If the dean is truly interested in understanding how an IACUC functions and is looking for future PHS funding opportunities for Pleasant Gorge College, she should serve as a voting member of the IACUC and as the IACUC Chair.

Return to Protocol Review