Jim Panosky was sure that he was submitting the world's easiest-to-review IACUC protocol. All he was doing was breeding three different strains of readily available mice (BALB/c, C57BL/6, and FVB) and allowing them to live out their life span without research manipulations of any kind. Panosky planned to perform microscopic, biochemical, and genetic examinations of neural tissue from these animals. He was almost smirking as he filled out the IACUC form, knowing that he was finally submitting a foolproof protocol.

Needless to say, Panosky was wrong. To its credit, the Great Eastern University IACUC did a thorough review of the protocol and had a list of questions for Panosky, such as, “What will happen to an animal if it gets sick or injured?” and “How are you going to assure that you can find a dead animal before autolysis sets in and ruins the very tissues you having been waiting to collect for some 2 years?” There was one issue on which the IACUC itself could not agree. Great Eastern categorizes all animals on IACUC protocols into one of four groups (B, C, D, or E), corresponding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 'pain and distress' categories for research animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Of course, the Act does not cover the mice Panosky was using, but such a classification system is commonly used by universities around the country for a variety of IACUC purposes. Most members of the Committee believed that the mice should be placed in category C, indicating that they were to experience no pain or distress. Some believed they should be in category B, which is reserved for animals being housed, but on which no research is currently being performed. A smaller fraction believed that at least some, and perhaps most of the animals had to be in category E (pain or distress unalleviated by drugs), because they all would eventually die, and these members said it would be ludicrous to believe that all the mice would live and die free of disease, distress, or pain. They suggested that Panosky consider a more humane endpoint other than dying a 'natural' death. A few IACUC members rolled their eyes, wondering if their colleagues had finally gone too far.

The IACUC asked Panosky to meet with them to help resolve the conflict. He said that his research demanded that the animals live out their full lifetime, rather than euthanizing them earlier (even if they were ill), and he subsequently presented solid scientific documentation for that need. He was able to work with the Committee to resolve all of its other concerns.

Whether the animals involved were mice or monkeys, the Great Eastern IACUC still had to decide the appropriate 'pain or distress category' for animals living out their natural life, without any experimental or therapeutic interventions. If this was your IACUC, how would you resolve this problem?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: 100% E

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Natural ≠ pain-free