Group Summary_WK4

Group Summary Week 4  Case study 6.1 The animals mentioned in the case study will not be used for research but will still need to be approved by the IACUC. The IACUC is required for evaluation of any research procedures including housing, care and treatment of animals. The protocol must be submitted to the IACUC for review to ensure that the research is going in accordance with policies and rules. The AWA and The Guide are both requirements mandated by IACUC’s. The Guide ensures that animals do not undergo protocols or procedures that put them under high pain or extreme distress. Because the animals mentioned will undergo euthanizing, it is necessary to follow the policies of AWA and PHS. These policies state that members involved in animal care and handling are required to have proper training. This can help avoid laboratory animals from suffering by amateur scientists who lack the right skills and knowledge. These policies also reinforce the appropriate methods of use of anesthetics. Also, one must keep in mind that the NIH refuses to provide funding for a research protocol that did not go through a reviewal and approval process.  Case study 6.2 In this situation, Dr. Speigel’s carelessness and disregard has put not only his research and Coastal Medical College at risk but also the possibility of getting approved by research committees such as the IACUC. Dr. Speigel must first approach Janie about her intentions and understand from her whether she is actually working “undercover” or not. But since the case study mentions that complaints have been made about petty violations in his lab, Dr. Speigel is at fault here. He has compromised the integrity of his work which could lead to his research shutting down. Dr. Speigel must now work on regaining the order which was clearly lost in his research protocols and reinforce appropriate methods in his lab. If Janie is indeed working undercover and that makes Dr. Speigel uncomfortable, he should take the decision of letting her go from her job at the lab.  Case Study 6.4 This particular case study asks the reader to place themselves in the shoes of a graduate student who is working with their professor to resolve some issues on a research project that he/she is working on. The proposed solution to the encountered problem is suggested by the professor, but it involves the surgical manipulations that are not protocol for the IACUC. Knowing that the solution is not protocol, you the graduate student believe that submitting an amended protocol before starting the studies and is the right thing to do and asks your professor about your thoughts. The professor replies that he does not wish ‘”to go through the trouble” stating his reason as “the technique may not be useful”. The suggestion is to try a few experiments and if they look like they are going to work then submit an amended protocol at that time. What do you do ? I want to submit the amended protocol, my guiding professor does not. I, in the shoes of the graduate student, feel that legally and morally it is my responsibility to conduct a scientific research project that follows the IACUC guidelines as close as I can. I think that it is important to make clear that I still respect the opinion and thoughts of my guiding professor. In a way, the professor does make a valid point by stating that his suggested solution to the research project may be futile, and if that is the case, the extra time that it would take to submit the amended protocol would be wasted. In the same vain, I would also argue with the professor that that is part of the beauty of science; the time, the efforts, and the success is what makes it worth doing and arguably the reason why we both (myself the student and the professor) decided on this career path. I would stand firm in my conviction I believe that I personally would seek the counsel of another professor that I trust to look for guidance on the situation. I also believe that in addition to looking for additional counsel, I would pray Proverbs 3:6 which states, “In all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” and ask the Lord to direct my steps so I know what my next move should be.  Case Study 6.7 In this particular case study, the reader is member of the IACUC and receives submitted protocol from an investigator who plans to do CFA injections in the footpads of mice. Recently though, the IACUC has denied research that involves CFA injections because of the pain and irritations that it causes mice. The IACUC has denied the investigators permission to use CFA. The investigator has reached out to the IACUC to appeal the

decision claiming that the she came from an institution that allows the use of CFA and she maintains that she must continue use of CFA to make comparisons between her old and new studies. How would you respond? In this particular case, as a member of the IACUC, I would not allow the scientist to continue the use of CFA at this new institution. I believe that although the investigator made a convincing case, I would not waiver in my convictions nor bend to rules of the IACUC. In the text Macrina states, “This is unfortunate, but it is nonetheless the responsibility of the committee to ensure that all animal welfare concerns are satisfied.” Recognizing that this is indeed my own opinion and decision, I think I would honestly consult other members of the IACUC and see if they were in agreement with me and/if there was something we could do to appeal to both parties. I think it is important that the IACUC stands firm in their decisions.  Case Study 6.9 Is Dr. Featherstone’s solution legal? Is it ethical? Why or why not? Dr. Louis comes to you for advice. Does he have any obligation to report this information to the IACUC? Dr. Emanuel Louis should not have approved of Dr.Carley Featherstone’s study, but rather consulted the legal and ethical issues of the monoclonal antibody production through his IACUC team first or have them re- evaluate the approved protocol. In other words, as a member of IACUC, Dr.Emanuel Louis is obligated to report the new information to the committee. If circumventing IACUC roles in research policy compliance is approved, what would be the point of the existence of IACUC if Dr.Carley Featherstone’s modification of her study is allowed to move forward in the IACUC approval process? Alternatively stated, IACUC should close the loopholes where certain components of the study can be manipulated to evade monitoring and approval process. Who knows if the (or any IACUC) approved protocol components such as the mouse ascites method of monoclonal immunoglobulin production was obtained with methodologies not equivalent to but inferior and in violation to the minimum standards set forth by IACUC/Animal Welfare Act/ and the US Public Health Service in the ethical and legal protection of research animals. Further, Dr. Emanuel Louis may pursue an investigation of the commercial source of the monoclonal antibody producer to ensure that they (IACUC and others) will be forewarned of future issues. Lastly, IACUC is responsible for many things in research involving animals including approval of research protocols.  Case Study 6.10 What do you do now? Do you continue performing surgery and infusions on the rats, knowing that more rats may be harmed? Do you stop the experiment and inform the IACUC, which risks earning the disfavor of Tom, with whom you have to work? How would you explain each course of action to the IACUC? As a graduate I would follow the protocol of terminating the study and possibly euthanizing the paralyzed rats. The surgery and infusion should cease immediately considering the animals might be suffering and in pain. Tom’s opinion and dissertation is irrelevant here. A major point I learned in over a decade of working in the healthcare field is the concept that the welfare and interests of the patient is the priority. Although this is not a human being, the animal subjects have the right and to be protected by ethical scientists including the graduate student. The IACUC must be notified and the experiment terminated. I would explain the course of action to the IACUC based on the documentation and the protocol they approved that I followed at the onset of the experiment. To explain the course of action I took, (and since the lab director is out of town) I would first mention my attempt to ask for Tom’s opinion as a senior graduate student. Since I doubt Tom’s ethical stance, I would explain the expeditious need to euthanize the rats to ensure that they don’t suffer further  Is social drinking different from drinking coffee? The Bible has some very strong views on intoxicating drink. How that applies to social drinking is what happens when a casual drink becomes a state of drunkenness which the Bible absolutely condemns it. There are numerous scriptures that promote abstaining from intoxicating drink (Prov. 20:1 and Lev. 10:9). However, throughout the scriptures you also find tolerance for nonintoxicating drinks with meals (1 Tim. 3:3). I take this to mean that drinking isn’t a problem until you partake to the point of getting drunk. What does this mean for social drinking and coffee as both are social interactions and some could say that coffee is just as addictive and costly. I think the main issue between social alcoholic drinking and coffee drinking is the manner in which it can alter your function and