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: IACUC acted appropriately, but...

Lab Animal volume 39, pages 336–337 (2010)Cite this article

The Great Eastern University IACUC seems to have an established procedure for addressing expiring protocols, which is consistent with policies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). OLAW guidance states unequivocally that IACUCs do not have the authority to administratively extend approval beyond 3 years1. The IACUC sent Linder three notices of pending protocol expiration, but it is unclear how much advance notice she actually received. Submitting and obtaining approval of a renewal protocol well in advance is essential, because a protocol expires even if it is under review by the IACUC on the expiration date2.

Linder's statement that “[w]e're only talking about a week, maybe less, and you're making me jump through bureaucratic hoops and stop funded research?” suggests that her grant period may be ending very soon. Consequently, she doesn't see the need to renew her protocol. Nonetheless, NIH and OLAW policy is clear: “continuation of animal activities in the absence of valid approval is a serious and reportable violation of PHS [Public Health Service] Policy [Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals]”1. Therefore, Covelli, the IACUC Chair, is correct to state the IACUC must ensure that research manipulations stop and to point out that PHS funds may not be used in support of unauthorized activities2.

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. Protocol Review, Question D-2. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2006; revised 2010). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/faqs.htm#d2

  2. National Institute of Health Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration. Transcript of OLAW Online IACUC Staff Seminar: When Terms and Conditions Are Not Met. 4 December 2008. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/081204_seminar_transcript.pdf

  3. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals — Frequently Asked Questions. IACUC Composition, Functions and Authority, Question B-10. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2006; revised 2010). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/faqs.htm#b10

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Richerson is the Assistant Chief Veterinary Medical Officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development in Nashville, TN.,

    Joan T. Richerson

Authors
  1. Joan T. Richerson
    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

Richerson, J. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: IACUC acted appropriately, but.... Lab Anim 39, 336–337 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1110-336b

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1110-336b

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