Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Academic misconduct

Lab Animal volume 39, pages 233–234 (2010)Cite this article

We congratulate Great Eastern University on its surgical training program. The fact that this case is an exception to an otherwise flawless record is a testament to the quality of the training that its faculty and staff receive.

There are two main issues in Girard's case: workload and academic (dis)honesty. There is no excuse for taking shortcuts because of other lab work; it is incumbent upon Girard, as a postdoctoral fellow, to discuss her workload with the Principal Investigator (PI) and to determine what measures could be taken to prioritize or even reassign some of her duties to allow her adequate time to carry out the surgical procedures in accordance with the protocol and Great Eastern's accepted aseptic surgery standards. The PI, who presumably signed some form of an assurance statement attesting to the training, competence and performance of individuals who carry out animal activities on his or her protocol, also bears responsibility to mentor and oversee the activities of everyone who is assigned animal activities under his or her protocol and to assist the graduate and postdoctoral trainees in becoming responsible PIs themselves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals – Frequently Asked Questions. Applicability of the PHS Policy, Question A-1. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2006; revised 2010). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/faqs.htm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dempsey is Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research Compliance and University Attending Veterinarian at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.,

    Stephen M Dempsey

  2. Lassiter is Regulatory Compliance Administrator at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.,

    Judith R Lassiter

Authors
  1. Stephen M Dempsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith R Lassiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dempsey, S., Lassiter, J. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Academic misconduct. Lab Anim 39, 233–234 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0810-233b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0810-233b

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing