This scenario has two issues that need to be addressed: the request from Church to forgo quarantine procedures and the attempt by the Institutional Official (IO) to inappropriately influence the IACUC.

Great Eastern University has a preventative medicine program that includes a quarantine period for incoming animals, suggesting that the University strives for separation of animals on the basis of health status. These actions are commendable as they assure the health of animals in the facility. Church is acquiring a number of transgenic rats from a colleague but does not want to follow the quarantine policy for these animals, offering three arguments to justify his unwillingness to comply with the quarantine.

First, he asserts that the sending institution is a highly regarded research university that is fully accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). But AAALAC accreditation does not guarantee that animals are pathogen-free. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide)1 explicitly warns that “subclinical microbial infections such as norovirus, parvovirus, and Helicobacter can occur in pathogen-free housed rodents if the microbial barrier is breached.” Regardless of the accreditation status of both institutions, precautions should be taken with animals that are transported from one institution to another in order to protect the health of the receiving institution's colony.

Second, Church points out that his experiments would be completed in less time than the quarantine period. But the time difference between the duration of Church's experiments and the duration of the quarantine period seems to be a matter of convenience rather than scientific necessity and should not be a consideration when making decisions about the handling of imported animals.

Finally, Church argues that per diem rates for the quarantine period are higher than the regular housing per diem rates, which constitutes a waste of research dollars. In my opinion, cost should not be considered as a justification for the removal of a quarantine period.

When these arguments fail to convince the IACUC to waive the quarantine period for his rats, Church complains to the IO, who tries to influence the IACUC to reverse its decision. The IO's behavior is inappropriate. The Guide1 states, “the IO is responsible for resource planning and ensuring the alignment of Program goals and quality of animal care and use with the institution's mission.” The IO should be reminded of the fact that a quality animal care and use program includes ensuring the health and safety of all the institution's animals. I would recommend that the IACUC and attending veterinarian meet directly with the IO to discuss why the quarantine procedures are in place and their importance for disease prevention within the animal facilities.

I think the IACUC and veterinarian should stick to their guns and require quarantine of the animals, because that is the right thing to do. Dealing with a bully in a higher position is never easy, but the IACUC should stand up for what is right.

Return to Protocol Review