Moroski seems to lack a clear understanding of the IACUC's authority and operational guidelines.

The IACUC derives its authority from the law; the Committee is mandated by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which requires the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization to appoint the IACUC. Once appointed, the IACUC reports to a senior administrator known as the Institutional Official. The IACUC's authority to review and approve protocols is independent of the IO or CEO, neither of whom may overrule an IACUC decision to withhold approval of a protocol1. Further, only the IACUC (not the IO or the Dean) can review, approve, request modifications to, or withhold approval for animal protocols.

If an investigator attempts to use the Dean's opinion as pressure to approve his procedure, the IACUC must respond with professionalism and ask him to provide all the information necessary to fairly evaluate the protocol (in this case, the use of animals in surgical training).

Moroski needs to understand the IACUC's review process. The logical order is to present the documentation to the IACUC and then allow the investigators to defend their proposal. The members of the IACUC should not start to evaluate the suitability of a protocol with the Dean or with any other external person. Once the protocol has been approved or rejected, it is the responsibility of each member of the IACUC to accept the decision of the majority.

In the particular case of animal use for surgery training, the IACUC must review in detail the species to be used, the training of the personnel, the facility requirements, the post-surgical requirements, and the personnel health and safety needs. In addition, the IACUC needs to consider alternative methods.

In summary, it is necessary to inform the investigators about the IACUC's authority and to tell the members of the organization about the operational guidelines of the IACUC. Ultimately, the IACUC must be impervious to external pressure to guarantee that the decisions it makes are ethical and fair.