In response to the issues posed in this scenario, the National Institutes of Health - Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (NIH-OLAW) provides the following clarification:

In this scenario, the IACUC voted to permanently suspend a protocol because the investigator mistakenly began his research without waiting for receipt of an approval letter that was delayed by an IACUC office oversight. The investigator indicated it was not their intent to violate the IACUC policy and thought that a verbal approval was equivalent. At issue is the undue influence of a committee member with a conflict of interest that compelled the IACUC’s decision to suspend.

The PHS Policy and the AWARs state that no IACUC member “may participate in the IACUC review or approval of an activity in which that member has a conflicting interest (e.g., is personally involved in the activity) except to provide information requested by the IACUC”1,2. Conflict of interest must be mitigated by the IACUC Chair whenever a member’s personal biases may interfere with his or her impartial judgment, a member is involved in a competing research program, or access to funding or intellectual information may provide an unfair competitive advantage3. To address the current situation, the IACUC Chair at Great Eastern should consider convening an IACUC meeting and require the member with the conflict to recuse from the vote and any discussion, except to provide information requested by the IACUC. For the vote to be valid without the recused member, a quorum (>50% of the voting members) must be maintained1,3. OLAW would also encourage the IACUC to take corrective measures to reinforce clear communication with research staff and review the existing IACUC policies on member recusal and approval notification. In OLAW’s observations, when an IACUC has a mutually respectful relationship with investigators, the cooperative environment results in reduced noncompliance.