Once again summer vacations and professional meetings took their toll on the number of members present for a Great Eastern University IACUC meeting. However, unlike past years, the Committee believed it was now prepared to deal with the situation. As soon as Helen Trotta, the IACUC secretary, discovered that two of the three scientists on the IACUC would not be present at the upcoming meeting, she called Dr. Tommy Hendricks. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had appointed Hendricks, also a scientist, as the alternate for any of the scientific members of the Committee. He was available for the meeting, and all went smoothly.

The evening after the meeting, Trotta casually mentioned the day's events to her husband, George. To her surprise, George, an IACUC administrator at another university, questioned the legitimacy of what had transpired. He was of the opinion that an alternate member could only serve on behalf of one specifically named regular IACUC member, and also had to have the same designation as the regular member. He said that Hendricks, as a scientist, could only serve as an alternate for one specifically named scientist. “I don't think so,” said Helen. “As far as I know, a person can be appointed as an alternate for one, two, three, or any other number of people, as long as that alternate has the same designation as the absent member. We named Hendricks, who's a scientist, as an alternate for any scientist on the committee. He didn't vote twice, George, he only voted once, so as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem.” “Well, there's no problem until you get caught” said her husband. “If I were you I'd think twice about this.”

What is the correct answer to the disagreement between Helen and George Trotta?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Call the Florist, George

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: By George, He's Got It!

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Word from OLAW and USDA