While the two issues are thematically linked to personnel safety and that they were near misses, there is also a clear distinction. Dr. Virale’s issue involved active animal use on a study while Dr. Ipotesi’s did not. In the first case, Dr. Virale’s technician, Li Wang housed animals treated with a hazard in an area not meant to house them. Failure to comply with the requisite containment could constitute a protocol deviation1,2 and may have resulted in the group incurring the IACUC’s ire. Although the impact from this non-compliance was very low, a root-cause analysis of the issue is necessary to uncover potential programmatic issues. Several questions come to mind: how were the containment requirements communicated to the PI and team? Were the PI and his team trained in those containment requirements? If Li Wang was trained in the correct procedures at the new institution but failed to follow them, it can be addressed with retraining and possible meaningful sanctions. However, if gaps were identified in the established processes that may have resulted in the non-compliance, that could constitute a programmatic weakness and must be corrected promptly.
I agree with the corrective plan which involved retraining Li Wang but find the month-long suspension excessive and unproductive and liken it to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This mandate of the IACUC could not only cause serious harm/delay to the research that was being conducted but could also result in animals potentially going to waste, which is inconsistent with the 3Rs3. The IACUC’s decision in the Virale issue accomplished the desired outcome (retraining) but the suspension did not accomplish any meaningful outcome.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution