A mouse isn't a rat, but what's the big deal?

Suspending an IACUC-approved animal use activity is about the last thing a research institution wants to do. Consider the predicament that the Great Eastern University IACUC faced when Dr.

Janet Jenkins, the Attending Veterinarian (AV), suspended all animal use activity on an approved protocol of Dr. Roy Maslo. Jenkins had the IACUC's authority to suspend a protocol

temporarily, subject to review by a quorum of the full Committee. She alleged that Maslo used mice from his breeding colony, not purchased rats, to begin a new study. Jenkins saw

Maslo's technicians bringing mouse cages to a procedure room and preparing for a minor survival surgery. She asked them to wait until she clarified things, because she felt confident

that the protocol called for rats. She called Maslo and asked him if the study had been approved for mice, to which he responded affirmatively. Still not feeling quite assured, she went to

her office, reviewed the protocol, and found only rat studies described. She also called the IACUC office to see if there were any approved amendments that she may not have received, and was

told that there were none. By the time she returned, one procedure had been completed. Understandably upset, she informed the technicians and Maslo that any further activity on the protocol

was suspended until the issue was resolved. Jenkins informed the IACUC Chair, who in turned called an emergency meeting of the Committee. When Maslo addressed the Committee, he readily

admitted that an error had been made, but said he truly thought that mice were the approved species. In fact, he pointed out that he had initially written on his protocol that either mice or

rats would be used, but the Committee requested that he choose the most appropriate species. He chose rats because he thought the surgery might be slightly easier to perform on a larger

animal. However, when the time came to begin, he simply forgot about the rats and told his technicians to work with the mice because most of his other research involved mice and his

technicians were skilled in mouse surgery. After he left the room, the Committee deliberated and determined that, overall, no significant harm had been done. The research was still valid,

the surgery went well, all the correct drugs and surgical procedures were used, and Maslo had apologized for the oversight. The Committee voted to rescind Jenkins's temporary suspension

and allow Maslo's study to continue. He was told to submit an amendment immediately, changing the species of animal to be used, and otherwise to modify the protocol to accommodate the

use of mice. Because timing was not critical for the research, Maslo agreed to all conditions and demands. Dr. Lawrence Schiller, the Institutional Official (IO) and Vice President for

Research, was informed of the IACUC's decision. It was not clear whether he was unhappy with the decision, Maslo, or both, but he informed the IACUC that there were too many loose ends

and he was taking it upon himself to uphold the suspension until it was made clear to him why Maslo's technicians were apparently unaware of the information in the approved protocol,

why Maslo did not check the protocol himself after Jenkins raised a warning flag, and why the procedure had progressed contrary to the instructions of Jenkins. The IACUC Chair was in a

quandary. First, he was not sure whether Schiller had the authority to overrule the Committee's vote. Next, if Maslo was now suspended, did he have to notify OLAW, because none of the

suspensions emanated from an approved action of the IACUC? Finally, the IACUC, unlike Schiller, did not consider this a major infraction worthy of reporting to OLAW, independent of the

suspension question. Could Schiller suspend Maslo's study when the IACUC had voted otherwise? Did the IACUC have to inform OLAW? Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Lighten Up!

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Inappropriate IO Action Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Question of Authority Response to Protocol Review Scenario: A Word From OLAW and USDA

Authors * Jerald Silverman DVM View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE

THIS ARTICLE Silverman, J. A Mouse Isn't a Rat, But What's the Big Deal?. _Lab Anim_ 32, 17 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1003-17 Download citation * Issue Date: October

2003 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban1003-17 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is

not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative