Despite the relative youth of formal post-approval monitoring (PAM), the foundational concepts of IACUC oversight of all animal activities at an institution have a long history and developed culture. The lack of history and developed culture with formal PAM can create issues within animal research programs. There is a distinct culture in regulatory compliance that is necessary to have an effective program, and in this particular area of compliance, that is to balance concerns for animal welfare with facilitation of scientific research. The inherent conflict in that balance presents a great challenge to PAM staff.

In this case, Gold has recently been hired into a PAM program, bringing with him substantial technical experience in animal care and use. Although his background provides excellent qualifications for the position, effective PAM requires more than technical expertise. Crucial to this effectiveness is to have 'permission to advise' from researchers. This 'permission' is developed through the establishment of relationships and can be based on prior history with personnel in an office or program that conveys that permission to all members of the department or through the development of personal relationships between PAM staff and researchers.

Based on his experience and training, Gold is confident in his recommendations to postdoctoral scholar White and has every intent of being helpful and not obstructive. But Gold is new in his position and lacks an established relationship with researchers. In addition, the PAM program for which he works may or may not have a history of a client-friendly culture, which affects the reception of his recommendations. Although a researcher's reaction to a recommendation from a PAM monitor does not determine its validity, there are problems with Gold's recommendation beyond his lack of 'permission to advise'.

Gold's recommendation is based on his training in surgical research. Although he is correct that draping can facilitate aseptic technique, there is no indication that Gold's recommendation would provide benefit to the animals. In fact, based on some of White's responses, draping might have a negative effect on animal welfare.

White appears to be following the letter and intent of both the regulations and his reviewed, approved IACUC protocol (which should have been developed in conjunction with the veterinarian). In that regard, there is no basis for requiring him to change his procedures. White's other responses, though common, are not adequate reasons for a refusal to improve his procedures. Furthermore, his responses reflect flawed logic and a lack of understanding of animal research and the role of PAM.

Finally, Gold's position does not enable him to autonomously change what the IACUC has approved but rather to assist in balancing animal welfare concerns with facilitation of scientific research. In this case, Gold has created an adversarial rather than collegial situation without demonstrated or suggested concern for animal welfare and has lost an opportunity to develop that 'permission to advise' with White. Given that White is in compliance with his IACUC protocol and animal research regulations and that there appear to be no animal welfare concerns, Gold should learn from this standoff and move on.

Return to Protocol Review