Although the IACUC is not meant to hinder research, its members have to work within the spirit and the letter of the law. As it stands, the training and feasibility protocol wouldn't make it through a USDA inspection. The protocol attracts abuse of the IACUC review system because it blankets a limitless number of vaguely described procedures. IACUC members cannot scrutinize procedures and justifications for the use of animals without the details.

The Great Eastern IACUC should listen to the new AV. His discomfort with starting projects for investigators without prior Committee discussion proves his worth. In their eagerness to approve procedures quickly, the Committee members have become unwittingly distracted from their mission. The purpose of the AWARs and standards is to establish a framework of accountability and protect the welfare of animals. To tamper with these expectations is to run the risk of losing the privilege of conducting animal research in the future. If Committee members allow themselves to cut corners in this review process, there is obvious potential for unnecessary animal pain and distress, not to mention a ruined career, damaged reputation for the university, or insult to a global research community already under fire from animal activists. This isn't just about the animals—it's about demonstrating research integrity to a watchful public and business world.

Let's start by separating 'training protocols' from 'feasibility studies'. Let the AV be the PI on training protocols that cover species-specific handling, injections, surgery, and anesthesia. It should be easy to manage the number of animals used for each purpose. Great Eastern can probably borrow training protocols through the LAWTE listserv (http://www.lawte.org) and adapt these as their own. The Committee should also critique the entire training program and reinforce the concept that compliance and noncompliance both have consequences that affect more than the animals.

A feasibility study is altogether different. The IACUC should buffer the AV from spontaneous requests from investigators to try new procedures. The experimental rat surgery requires a separate protocol. The Committee members can't ascertain potential pain and distress without first reviewing a plan. Aminit may be the one best qualified to perform and evaluate the new surgery, but the work should wait until the protocol is approved, regardless of who is listed as the PI.

I don't think the frog anesthetic study qualifies as a feasibility study. It should be a separate protocol with standard justifications—why a new anesthetic is needed, whether a comparison has already been done, which new anesthetics will be compared with standard ones. If the Committee approves the study, Aminit should be the one to determine the 'best' anesthetic.

The Great Eastern IACUC can eliminate this ambiguity with a little work. They can't continue to imply an accepted leniency to investigators and students through the current training and feasibility protocol and must take a stand for uniform review of all procedures.