LAUSR

Professor Harry Harrison had been a major federal grant recipient for research on neurofibrillary tangles in the mouse brain, but his federal funding had disappeared years ago and the little research he continued to do was supported by private funding from a longtime friend of his. Harrison continued to publish review articles but none of his own research had been published for many years. Nevertheless, he continued to submit IACUC protocols for pilot studies using genetically modified mouse strains. Harrison followed his protocols to the letter. After years of approving Harrison’s studies, Dr. Larry Covelli, the chairman of the Great Eastern University IACUC, politely suggested to Harrison that he should either expand his pilot studies into publishable research or stop performing them, as they appeared to be a waste of space, money, and animal lives. But, Harrison contended that his research was important and he politely thanked the chairman for his opinion, adding that he would be continuing his studies that focused on the role of tau proteins and neurofibrillary pathology. Covelli then met with Harrison’s department chair but the latter supported Harrison. Covelli’s next stop was the institutional official, but that conversation was fruitless. Likewise, when Covelli discussed the matter with the attending veterinarian and the IACUC vice-chair, no helpful suggestions arose other than to bring the issue to the full committee. Covelli did just that but the only recommendations were to allow Harrison to continue his studies or for the IACUC to simply refuse to approve Harrison’s protocols. What do you think? Should (and can) the IACUC refuse to approve further animal studies by Harrison, is he entitled as a faculty member to continue his apparently non-publishable research, or are there other paths to be considered? ❐