This scenario nicely illustrates the conflicts that can occur both as a result of interpersonal friction and misunderstanding about the overall mission of the IACUC on the part of some faculty members. Covelli enters this scenario feeling irritated and frustrated even before Moroski mentions his proposal. This naturally makes Covelli less supportive of Moroski's proposal from the start.

Covelli finds himself in a difficult position. He does not want to put the item on the agenda because he does not feel the proposal should be approved, both for ethical reasons and because of the nature of his relationship with Moroski; he does the correct thing, however, by allowing the IACUC to review it. Although members of the IACUC are enthusiastic about the proposal, they should keep in mind one of the basic tenants of the IACUC—the 3 Rs (reduction, replacement, and refinement). All three elements must be addressed in protocol submissions to the IACUC.

The surgical program Moroski proposes fails to address any of the 3 Rs: his protocol would not limit the number of animals used, and in fact would be open-ended with regard to continued use of animals over the long term; he proposes using animals when the current program (which does not use animals) meets the needs of the residents; finally, the surgical course would increase the severity of pain and distress in research animals compared to the status quo.

Moroski states that the live-animal surgical component of the program would allow the length of the residency program to be reduced by one year and thus would “attract some of the best residents.” While it is important that every institution attract the best residents possible, the program itself should be strong enough to attract those residents and should not rely solely on a decreased length of residency as its main selling point. This is especially true as one weighs the benefits and the costs of live-animal surgical procedures that operate solely to reduce residency length without providing additional surgical expertise or refined surgical methods.

Covelli informed the IACUC that there was “no market research” on what other institutions were doing. It may have been helpful for Covelli to do some preliminarily benchmarking/market research to present to the IACUC even if the research consisted simply of posting queries on list servers and making other informal inquiries.

Finally, this scenario highlights the need for understanding between IACUC members and research faculty. Many animal-use decisions can have far-reaching effects on the institutions that make them. IACUC members should remain open-minded about the pressures and desires of faculty researchers, and researchers should appreciate the importance of the IACUC's independence from that research-oriented perspective so that decisions can be made on the basis of the most rational and ethical approach to animal use.