Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Make the AV part of the plan

Terrasi's complaints are a case of too little too late. While venting to McGee may help her to feel better, it does nothing to address her true concern about the well-being of the animals.

The regulations are very clear that minimizing pain is imperative in animal research. The Animal Welfare Act stipulates that we must “ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic or tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia¹.” It further specifies that “in any practice which could cause pain to animals ... a doctor of veterinary medicine is consulted in the planning of such procedures ... for the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics ... [and] that the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall continue for only the necessary period of time¹”.

Great Eastern is clearly not taking a team approach to optimizing animal care while preserving the research goals. During the development phase of the protocol, there is a need for more involvement by all parties (PI, IACUC, and veterinarians). While the veterinarian is the trained advisor to the IACUC in assessing the need for analgesia, the IACUC does make the final decision. However, it is still the institutional veterinarian who has the legal responsibility for veterinary issues and who must have the support of the IACUC to make veterinary medical decisions.

Once the protocol is approved (even over Terrasi's objections), it may be difficult to negotiate for a change until the renewal is due. The investment in the development phase of the protocol will facilitate the review process.

Clearly the bigger problem here is not whether or not this particular procedure induces pain but in the perception of Terrasi and McGee that the veterinary staff will be blamed for anything that goes wrong as well as being voted down in IACUC decisions.

Her IACUC must give Terrasi support to fulfill her duties of providing adequate medical care, and should initiate the necessary fence mending through educational avenues. Terrasi, in her comments to McGee about how they usually agree, shows she is taking this as a personal rather than a professional issue. This is not about agreeing with a colleague, it is about what is mandated by regulations and veterinary ethics.

There is no mention that analgesia will interfere with the science, and there is no mention of a narrative from the PI requesting an exception to the regulations. There seem to be only conflicting opinions about whether the animals will feel pain from this procedure. This may be a case where a veterinary consultation with the PI will bring about a meeting of the minds and an agreed plan for analgesia can be determined.

Terrasi's comments about postsurgical monitoring on her campus make it clear that personnel need additional training in postoperative observation skills. Perhaps this is an example of a project in which a pilot study would be appropriate with close veterinary monitoring of the postsurgical animals to both assess pain levels in the animals and train the research team in monitoring these same skills before the full protocol reaches the IACUC for approval.

Return to Protocol Review