Everybody at the school knew Ike, and everybody knew Ike's favorite expression: “if I did things your way, we would both be wrong.” When Ike became a member of the IACUC, his penchant for doing things his way created a significant problem for the committee.

Isaiah Meriwether Clay—Ike—was one of three designated member reviewers of a protocol that proposed two survival surgical procedures on the same animal. Two of the reviewers believed that the second surgery was an important aspect of the study. Ike wholeheartedly disagreed, and because the reviewers could not resolve their differences, the protocol was referred to full committee review. At the full committee review, Ike vociferously argued his case, but the committee sided with the Principal Investigator and the other two reviewers, voting to allow both survival surgical procedures. However, there were still some non-surgical aspects of the protocol that required additional consideration, and the committee voted to send the protocol back to designated member review to tie up the loose ends and secure final approval of the study. The vote to allow both surgeries did not sit well with Ike, and throughout the remainder of the meeting, he pondered his options. Then, in a flash of self-congratulatory brilliance, it came to him. He could still get his way.... or so he thought.

When the same three designated reviewers reviewed the protocol again to request the minor modifications needed to secure final approval, Ike simply refused to agree with the need for the two survival surgeries.

“Ike, you're out of line. The full committee already voted to allow both surgeries,” was the quick and expected response from the other reviewers.

“That means nothing now,” Ike replied. “We have to reopen the entire discussion about surgery because if I were to agree with you that the second surgery was needed, we would both be wrong.”

Ike may not be a team player, but he never claimed to be one. Is Ike overstepping federal regulations by ignoring the committee's vote, or is he within his rights as a designated reviewer to restart the discussion about the two surgeries?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Not very expedient

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Within his rights

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Two back doors?