Both the Chair (Covelli) and the IACUC were caught unprepared. This situation may have been avoided by having a cohesive Animal Care Program supported by IACUC policies and procedures. The principal investigator (PI) was given adequate warnings that her protocol was expiring, but the Chair and IACUC didn't know what to do if the warnings went unheeded. When people don't know what to do, particularly in high-pressure situations, they may improvise in ways that are counterproductive.
Other than sending the warning letters, the uninformed IACUC seems to have taken no initial actions. Covelli's initial action of granting 30 days to submit a protocol application was acceptable; however, additional actions should have been taken at that time, such as securing the animals, notifying the Grants Office and setting up weekly reminders to the PI. Because a renewal protocol was never submitted, one wonders whether Linder, acting in bad faith, might have just finished off the week's work she needed to do after the expiration of her protocol. This argues that animals on holding protocols should be secured or at least closely monitored. In addition, the IACUC should have been notified at the point of expiration that the PI was no longer authorized to use the animals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
