A Word from OLAW

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, a graduate student under duress from his mentor performs an unapproved procedure on a rat. Subsequently, the student reports the noncompliance anonymously to the IACUC. Then, the mentor, assuming the student was the whistleblower, retaliates. During its investigation of the unapproved activity, the IACUC uncovers the mentor’s reprisal and must decide a course of action.

The PHS Policy requires the IACUC as an agent of the institution to review concerns involving the care and use of animals at the institution¹. Although the PHS Policy does not have explicit whistleblower protections, OLAW expects institutions to vigorously enforce both institutional and state protections for individuals who come forward with valid concerns regarding research animal welfare and research integrity as mandated by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals². OLAW disagrees with the IACUC chair’s interpretation of the Guide’s requirements for reporting animal welfare concerns. Protection from reprisals should be afforded to any person reporting a concern whether identified or anonymous. When anonymous complaints are made to the IACUC, it is important to have a feedback mechanism to inform the complainant of the outcome. This may prevent those reporting anonymously who may feel the concerns have not been acknowledged from reporting to oversight agencies or other outside parties.

While OLAW is not tasked specifically in the PHS Policy with determining if retaliation has occurred, it takes allegations of retaliation seriously and in such cases carefully monitors institutional animal care and use programs for compliance with PHS Policy and the Guide, particularly regarding reporting policies related to animal welfare concerns^1–4. OLAW considers whistleblower protections imperative to ensure effective institutional oversight. A whistleblower may be the only individual willing or able to provide information about an animal welfare issue even at institutions with effective reporting structures for animal welfare concerns.

Whistleblowers should use the institution’s internal reporting structure to report animal welfare concerns but may also call OLAW to either make a report or receive anonymous consultation. Once an incident has been reported to the IACUC and the institution has verified that a noncompliance has occurred, an authorized individual at the institution must contact OLAW promptly with a preliminary report³. If reprisals are reported to OLAW’s Division of Compliance Oversight, the institution will be asked to reaffirm their reporting policy for animal welfare concerns and clearly state that the policy complies with the institution’s Animal Welfare Assurance with OLAW and the Guide.⁵ It is important to note that the source of a whistleblower complaint to OLAW is not releasable under the federal Freedom of Information Act^3,6.