Solving the Mystery of Myelodysplasia

The author reviews key research on the biology underlying treatment response in myelodysplasia, including a new study inPLoS Medicine

Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials

Every institution that is involved in research with animals is expected to have in place policies and procedures for the management of allegations of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. We present here a model set of recommendations for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials to ensure appropriate consideration of allegations of noncompliance with federal Animal Welfare Act regulations that carry a significant risk or specific threat to animal welfare. This guidance has 3 overarching aims: 1) protecting the welfare of research animals; 2) according fair treatment and due process to an individual accused of noncompliance; and 3) ensuring compliance with federal regulations. Through this guidance, the present work seeks to advance the cause of scientific integrity, animal welfare, and the public trust while recognizing and supporting the critical importance of animal research for the betterment of the health of both humans and animals.â Hansen, B. C., Gografe, S., Pritt, S., Jen, K.â L. C., McWhirter, C. A., Barman, S. M., Comuzzie, A., Greene, M., McNulty, J. A., Michele, D. E., Moaddab, N., Nelson, R. J., Norris, K., Uray, K. D., Banks, R., Westlund, K. N., Yates, B. J., Silverman, J., Hansen, K. D., Redman, B. Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials. FASEB J. 31, 4216â 4225 (2017). www.fasebj.orgPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154293/1/fsb2fj201601250r.pd

A COVID clash: How to proceed when IACUCs and IBCs disagree

Mayfield proposed to perform his mouse experiments at the ABSL-3 level and keep the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus under BSL-3 conditions. But although Mayfield had proper past experience working under BSL-3 and ABSL-3 conditions, Great Eastern did not have BSL-3 or ABSL-3 facilities. Mayfield was well aware of this problem and with the knowledge of the school’s IACUC and Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) chairpersons, he had submitted IACUC and IBC applications to a nearby contract research organization (CRO) that had the needed biocontainment facilities and would allow Mayfield to use those facilities. Both of those applications had been approved by the CRO and now, following Great Eastern policy, the same approved applications were submitted for concurrence by the IBC and IACUC of Great Eastern University. The IACUC voted to agree with the CRO’s approval, but the IBC did not, citing inadequate containment if a mouse were to escape from its cage while at the CRO. The result was a de facto halt to the planned experiments