The request for additional information justifying the use of cervical dislocation is appropriate. The 2000 AVMA Panel on Euthanasia addresses the use of cervical dislocation in research settings, saying it “should be used only when scientifically justified by the user and approved by the [IACUC]1.” The definition of what specifically constitutes scientific justification is not identified in the report. However, the Great Eastern IACUC has developed its own standards for scientific justification, and these standards are entirely reasonable and consistent with the federal regulations.

Glancey states that the use of anesthetics “can interfere with neuronal ion channels he studied”. This statement does not provide scientific justification in the form of evidence, documentation, or scientific reasoning. If these facts are already “well established”, as Glancey states, then it should not be difficult for him to provide the justification needed through references or his own data. Other unanswered questions include whether the study of the ion channels is an essential aspect of his research and whether all types of anesthetics, sedatives, or tranquilizers, including chemical or inhalant methods, have this effect. If indeed there are no other approved methods available, then the IACUC has a recognized process to make an exception and allow a physical method of euthanasia.

In its review of research, it is the responsibility of the IACUCs to ensure as much as possible the avoidance or minimization of pain and distress experienced by the animals. The incorrect performance of cervical dislocation has great potential to cause pain and distress, especially in an unanesthetized animal. Questions regarding the technician's ability to perform cervical dislocation include what species is being used, the technician's experience with that species, and the number of years that the technician has been successfully performing this technique. Glancey could also have his technician demonstrate his or her proficiency to a member of the animal compliance or animal care staff.

The Great Eastern IACUC obviously takes its responsibility toward animal welfare seriously, even though its members may disagree on specific issues. If the IACUC has required a certain degree of assurance and documentation from investigators when reviewing protocols, then they should apply these expectations as consistently as possible. This can reduce frustration on the part of the PIs and even facilitate the approval process. Perhaps as a new investigator, Glancy is unfamiliar with the standards of the Great Eastern IACUC. Although each protocol must be reviewed on its own merits, the IACUC may be able to communicate its general expectations through new investigator training or continuing education, or on a website for the investigators.

Return to Protocol Review