This is not an uncommon scenario and, as with any real-life situation involving multiple parties, the decision as to what to do next is a complicated one. Here we have a highly trained, highly experienced physician who has worked with many different species, including humans. To the lab, therefore, he was a logical choice to add to the research team when they needed a cardiac surgeon, and the IACUC of Great Eastern University (GEU) amenably approved this modification. After all, he was “only” needed to ligate a few cardiac arteries in some mice. However, it turned out that despite his vast training in other species, the surgeon did not have experience with the proposed survival procedure in the species in question, and the first five animals died soon after surgery.

The question posed in this scenario is, quite appropriately, “what should the IACUC do next,” rather than “who is to blame.” It does no good (especially for the animals) to squabble over who intentionally or unintentionally misled whom; instead, this can be used as an opportunity for collaboration between the IACUC, the veterinary staff, and the lab. The most immediate concern is the welfare of the animals, so the veterinarians did the right thing in provisionally preventing the surgeon from performing surgeries on mice. It should now be made clear to both him and the PI (if it has not already) that surgeries cannot proceed until the IACUC and veterinarians are satisfied that, indeed, the “skills needed to perform” them have been “perfected.”

Given their mandated role to consider the “adequacy of training and experience of personnel in the procedures used”1,2,3, the IACUC then needs to clearly assess the surgeon’s background with mouse cardiac surgery. This may require IACUC-specific training (e.g., mouse handling and aseptic technique modules in CITI or the AALAS Learning Library) but should also include a request for the surgeon’s own reported background with this and similar work. Most importantly, perhaps, the IACUC should require that a veterinarian either oversee the next set of surgeries on a limited number of animals (preferred) or receive a report from the PI after these procedures are performed.

Once the IACUC is satisfied that these surgical procedures can be performed appropriately, some form of post-approval monitoring would be prudent, either as a formal follow-up a few weeks/months later or as part of the next round of semiannual inspections. Either way, the IACUC should also consider how information regarding training/experience is initially acquired and assessed by the Committee and whether further clarification on animal use protocol applications is necessary. These steps should help to ensure the welfare of the animals while fostering meaningful collaboration between the IACUC and the research community in order to create a positive and safe working environment for all.