Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol Review
  • Published:

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Shared responsibility for identifying discrepancies

Lab Animal volume 44, pages 379–380 (2015)Cite this article

Principle VI of the US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training1 states that animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the procedure. The Great Eastern University IACUC created a policy on humane endpoints to provide clear guidance to researchers in accordance with this principle. However, evidently the IACUC reviewers missed a discrepancy between the guidance set forth in their policy and the endpoints described in Markowski's protocol. This scenario appears to originate from two different intrepretations of how pain and distress should be scored to determine humane endpoints in mice. For the purpose of our response, we assume that Great Eastern Unversity is assured by the PHS or accreddited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International.

We give credit to the veterinary care component of Great Eastern Unversity's Animal Cause and Use Program for alerting the IACUC of the discrepancy. Still, a strong and effective post-approval monitoring (PAM) program should have detected this discrepancy much sooner, if Markowski was conducting the approved animal research during the first six months of the study. It is not clear when, in the experiment, Markowski began using the mice and why it took six months to realize that humane endpoints were not clearly defined.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

References

  1. Interagency Research Animal Committee, US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1985).

  2. Institute of Laboratory Animal Research, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hutteman is Compliance Analyst/Trainer, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, and,

    Erin Hutteman

  2. Castaneda is Veterinarian & Facility Director, Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, CA.,

    Julian Castaneda

Authors
  1. Erin Hutteman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Castaneda
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hutteman, E., Castaneda, J. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Shared responsibility for identifying discrepancies. Lab Anim 44, 379–380 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.861

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.861

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing