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: Appropriate reactivation process

Lab Animal volume 41, pages 250–251 (2012)Cite this article

All research activities must conform to the statutes of the Animal Welfare Act1 and the guidelines of the Public Health Service as issued in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals2. For an approved protocol to be suspended, an investigator must have violated the regulations in these documents by making significant changes to the IACUC-approved protocol. The IACUC Guidebook3 states that “significant changes to an IACUC-approved protocol must be reviewed and approved before they occur (PHS Policy IV.C.1; and AWR §2.31[d][1]).” Perhaps Redmond had made significant changes to his IACUC-approved protocol that warranted its suspension, since he had received IACUC-imposed sanctions twice previously for protocol noncompliance incidents without suspension of the protocol.

Redmond must now officially submit any significant protocol changes that he had made to the IACUC for review (by the full committee or by a designated member) and approval before he continues his research. Since Redmond developed a plan that he thought would meet the demands of the IACUC and submitted it to the IACUC office, it is appropriate for the committee to expedite the review process. In my opinion, it was with this in mind that Covelli developed his plan to review Redmond's plan, send it to the IACUC members by e-mail if it seemed adequate and, if there were no questions or dissents, approve the reactivation of the protocol.

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

Access options

References

  1. Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations. 9 CFR Ch.1 §2.31[d][1].

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

  3. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook 2nd edn. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, 2002).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Datiri is Research Associate Professor & Assistant Director of Animal Care, Comparative Medicine Resource Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Nursing & Allied Health, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL.,

    Benjamin C. Datiri

Authors
  1. Benjamin C. Datiri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Datiri, B. Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Appropriate reactivation process. Lab Anim 41, 250–251 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0912-250b

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0912-250b

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