First and foremost, the attending veterinarian or another veterinarian should examine the mice as soon as possible to determine if the clinical signs are severe enough to warrant euthanasia. Euthanizing animals unnecessarily could negatively affect Markowski's research by reducing the number of animals and, thereby, the study's strength. This should not be considered based only on two inconsistent statements in the protocol. Second, the IACUC should require that Markowski write a protocol amendment to remove the conflicting statement and submit the amendment to the IACUC for approval. Finally, the veterinary technician should be appointed as a member of the IACUC, because it is obvious that the technician is the only person who thoroughly read the protocol.
The presence of inconsistent statements is a common problem in protocols, especially in this age of cut-and-paste editing. Principal investigators are often quite busy and want their protocol to be approved quickly so they can get to their important research. IACUC members have full-time jobs in addition to their committee responsibilities. Protocol reviewers are often familiar with the research process, but that familiarity might cause them to make assumptions about what is being done without critically reading what was actually written in the protocol.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution