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: Jumping the gun?

Lab Animal volume 45, pages 165–166 (2016)Cite this article

Dr. Jonas Gordon, the clinical veterinarian at Great Eastern University, was familiar with the rabbit in the scenario and quickly noticed a change in the rabbit's eating habits and bowel movements. A cursory physical examination and a radiograph led him to diagnose a gastric hairball (trichobezoar), at which point Dr. Gordon initiated proactive fluid therapy, even though the rabbit appeared not to need it. Later, Dr. Gordon contacted and convinced the reluctant investigator to let him “surgically remove the obstruction.” It appears that no alternative therapies were suggested. Celiotomy revealed no abnormalities, but an oral exam conducted by the technician determined that the problem was due to overgrown teeth. Subsequently, complications from the surgery resulted in loss of research data.

The whole scenario raises a number of issues directly related to Dr. Gordon's actions. First, Dr. Gordon carried out an incomplete physical examination, leading to a misdiagnosis and an unnecessary surgery. Second, Dr. Gordon had a laser-like focus on one possible problem without considering differential diagnoses. Third, Dr. Gordon initiated non-emergency fluid treatment without consulting the principal investigator. Fourth, Dr. Gordon gave the principal investigator only one option for treatment. And last, the surgery carried out by Dr. Gordon led to post-operative complications and unusable data. We are not told whether Dr. Gordon consulted with other veterinarians or the attending veterinarian for a second opinion.

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

Access options

References

  1. Animal Welfare Act regulations. CFR 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 2, Subpart C.

  2. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1986; amended 2002).

  3. Institute for 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. McWhorter is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Knapek is a Postdoctoral Fellow, Laboratory Animal Resources, Owiny is University Veterinarian, Laboratory Animal Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.,

    Katie J. Knapek,  Erin S. McWhorter &  James Owiny

Authors
  1. Katie J. Knapek
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin S. McWhorter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Owiny
    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

Knapek, K., McWhorter, E. & Owiny, J. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Jumping the gun?. Lab Anim 45, 165–166 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.999

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.999

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