Main

This case is a series of mishandlings on the part of the IACUC, which led to this unpleasant situation.

Beginning with the first mistake, before the meeting, the IACUC chairman should have conducted a more thorough investigation of the allegations against Dr Macdonald. There is a big difference between starting an experiment without approval and adding extra animals to a previously approved protocol. The first scenario is very serious. How could a scientist start a project without any approval? This kind of investigation should include the necessary assistance to understand exactly what happened. In a few words, the IACUC chairman should explore, in depth, the case before inviting the scientist to explain. Of course, in either case there is no excuse for Macdonald. However, what the subcommittee should investigate and clarify is if Macdonald ignored the IACUC intentionally or if he didn’t understand committee procedures.

The second mistake was that Macdonald wasn’t informed beforehand about the composition of the subcommittee. Macdonald’s reaction to the presence of attorney Kleiner was reasonable. He saw a lawyer as a member of the subcommittee; it doesn’t matter if he is a voting or non-voting member. So, it is normal for Macdonald to consider himself an “accused person”. The IACUC sent the wrong message. In addition, the explanations provided from the IACUC chairman are far from reality. Given that Kleiner is the school’s attorney and Macdonald has to explain his actions, which violated school policy, it is clear there is a serious conflict and that Kleiner can’t represent both parties. Under these circumstances, it is logical for Macdonald to ask for his own lawyer and he has the right to do so. This complicated situation could have been avoided if Kleiner had a permanent position as a layperson on the IACUC and Macdonald been informed.

Now, the Chairman of the IACUC has two choices: either to allow Macdonald to have his own legal representative or to proceed without the participation of attorney Kleiner. The first option gives the impression that the IACUC is a court. This is not desirable for the role as well as the reputation of the IACUC. The second choice seems preferable; however, there is a serious risk of devaluing the role of Kleiner within the subcommittee and of course the committee itself. Thus, despite the potential negative effects, the first option looks more appropriate. Macdonald should be allowed representation by his own lawyer.

The important issues/messages, which are raised from this case, are related to the IACUC’s role and policies and how these are communicated to the scientific community. Is the IACUC a court for those breaking the law? Is the IACUC a regulatory, surveillance, and advisory body aiming to guarantee the proper care and use of animals as well as execution of good science? Is the composition of the IACUC known to the scientific community? These are some of the questions, which must be answered if we want to guarantee the reliability and the transparency of the IACUC.