Dr. Charlotta Jones studied the activation of rabbit spinal neurons by magnetic fields. Jones’ latest IACUC protocol went through an uneventful pre-review by a laboratory animal veterinarian and now was undergoing designated member review by two scientists on the committee. One of the two had general familiarity with the technique used by Jones and knew that there were publications which questioned the reproducibility of that technique. As part of his written review he asked that Jones comment on the published critiques to assure the committee that animals were not being “inappropriately used.” Jones took that request as an affront to her ability as a scientist and refused to comment on the critiques.

To avoid a personal argument with Jones, the reviewer called for full committee review and the IACUC invited Jones to the meeting. After the reviewer provided the background for his concerns and responded to a few questions, Jones entered the room, was introduced to the committee, and briefly described her research goals and methods. When the chairman asked about the publications critiquing the reproducibility of her work, Jones replied that her previous publications had undergone peer review from respected journals, and that she was the recipient of peer reviewed federal funding for her research. She added that everybody in the room knew that in the past few years there have been many articles citing difficulties in reproducing the published findings of scientists in many fields of research and she did not see her studies as being immune from that problem. In her own case, she said, part of the problem may arise from some journals limiting the amount of technical details allowed in the Materials and Methods section of her publications, but the techniques she used were the same ones used by other researchers in her field. When a committee member suggested that Jones perform some pilot studies to help validate the reproducibility of her methods, Jones reminded the committee that three years earlier it had previously asked for, received, reviewed, and approved the findings from her pilot studies and to repeat them again would be a waste of time and animals. The chairman thanked Jones for her participation and told her that she would be informed of the IACUC’s decision.

During the subsequent discussion of the protocol, it became obvious that the scientists on the IACUC, who composed the majority of the committee’s voting members, were in favor of approving Jones’ protocol as submitted, largely because they felt that her federal funding provided strong evidence for the quality and importance of her research. The other members of the committee seemed likely to follow the lead of the scientists. Would you also follow the scientists? If not, what would be your concerns?