There are so many issues with this scenario and the resident’s actions, however, the key question is: should this issue be reported to OLAW and the USDA? Since “the PHS Policy and the Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) do not distinguish between animals owned by the institution and privately owned animals,”1 we can assume that cats being used for research purposes are covered under both USDA and OLAW requirements. The original protocol uses privately owned veterinary patients, which normally require consent from the owners. In this case, no consent was obtained for the abandoned cat and it was used without the knowledge of the PI, Attending Veterinarian, or IACUC.

The Animal Welfare Act section § 2158 states that a licensed research facility should hold the cat for a period of at least 5 days in case the original owner returns.2

The cat was procured surreptitiously, brought into the animal facility, and housed inappropriately in a cat carrier, which provides significantly less space than the USDA regulations or The Guide state, and treated.3,4 The approved protocol did not include using atenolol in conjunction with the new drug. If we assume that the university’s assurance covers all research animals regardless of funding, then the IACUC must report to OLAW any serious non-compliances.5

The institution should keep in mind that the OLAW and the USDA have a Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to share information reported to them regarding animal welfare concerns;6 therefore, even if the institution reported the non-compliances to OLAW only, it can be presumed that the USDA would also be informed.

As for the resident, the IACUC’s authority is to suspend an activity if warranted, not specific personnel; however, they bear responsibility for assuring that those working with animals are properly trained. The IACUC, during the special meeting, may choose to suspend the PI’s protocol because of the non-compliances; this suspension would be reported to both OLAW and the USDA.7 Clearly the IACUC must discuss the actions of the resident, aside from the PI’s protocol non-compliances. Were the resident’s actions deliberate or just ignorant? Although the IACUC’s authority does not cover HR issues, nor can they terminate someone, the IACUC can require that the resident not perform any more animal activities until the IACUC deems that the resident is proficient in animal welfare legislation and guidances, in the ethics of animal use, in the use of the three R’s, and any other trainings the institution requires. Perhaps this resident should consider another line of research not involving animals.