John Brown's research involved the study of lymph node activity as it related to inhaled allergens. He was specifically looking at macrophage-lymphocyte interactions. His standard procedure was to inject radiolabeled lymphocytes into a dog, expose the animal to various allergens, and then surgically remove one of the mandibular lymph nodes. Almost invariably, the dog would recover without incident. Dogs, with their relatively large lymph nodes, made an ideal model for Brown. Because the surgery was relatively easy, had never caused any adverse aftereffects, and did not invade a body cavity, the Great Eastern University IACUC did not classify it as a major surgical procedure. Brown would perform this procedure twice on any one dog, and then arrange for the dog's adoption.

Hearing about Brown's use of dogs, Steven Johnson, also of Great Eastern, approached Brown and asked him if he could have some of the dogs for his own studies after Brown was finished with them. Johnson's research also required two recovery surgical procedures. Both involved the removal of part of the pinna (ear), and of course, had IACUC approval. Brown was not enthused about this idea, so he asked the Attending Veterinarian (AV) for an opinion. The AV felt that the dogs had gone through enough, even though the surgeries were not considered “major” under existing regulations and guidelines. Johnson was not upset, and he offered to see that the dogs were put up for adoption after his study was completed. Even though the dogs would undergo a total of four surgical procedures, none of them was truly major, and if past history was any guideline, they would all recover without incident. Why, said Johnson, should you have to use more dogs than necessary?

To reach a final decision, Brown and Johnson agreed to present their arguments to the IACUC. How do you think the IACUC should resolve this problem?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Ask for Clarification

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Battle of the “Rs”—Reduction versus Refinement?