Title | Protocol Deviation #2: I Should Have Spoken Up |
Long Title |
Protocol Deviation #2: I Should Have Spoken Up |
Contributor/Contact | John Banja, PhD? (jbanja@emory.edu) |
Contributor Details |
John Banja, PhD? Director, Section on Ethics in Research Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 |
CTSA | Emory |
Case Study Provided |
Some years ago when I was an undergraduate, I worked in a mouse lab. The euthanasia protocol was to place the mouse in a carbon dioxide chamber for five minutes and then take blood and organ samples. But the technician I worked with told me when I started that the mice usually died before the five minutes were up. His method was to remove the mouse after about three minutes and poke it to see if it would respond. When it didn’t, he’d start extracting blood. Unfortunately, the fifth or so mouse we did wake up when we inserted the needle and started screaming. The tech immediately broke its neck and no one other than me knew about it. And that was the last time we euthanized a mouse for only three minutes. However, at our next lab meeting, the PI scolded us for a recent and very disturbing occurrence. A few days before the meeting, one of the graduate students had found a mouse alive in the refrigerator where the mouse carcasses were stored. The PI told us that this was a huge problem requiring a number of experiments to be redone; that an investigation should be conducted; and that the individual who was responsible for this should either come forward or be identified. I always wondered if my lab tech was the guilty party. But at least five other persons in the lab could have done it too. In any event, an investigation was never conducted. I was never asked if I knew anything. And I never came forward to say what I knew. My feelings at the time were that if the tech lost his job, he would be broke and I knew he already had financial difficulties. I also thought he had learned his lesson. But even now, years later, I still feel guilty over not having said anything. I often wonder what I would have done if I was directly asked about what I knew. Was I right to protect the technician? In fact, and as I learned later, had certain people in research administration or leadership found out about any of this, my PI could have been in serious trouble for not reporting the incident. |
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics |
Variations in lab practices—legitimate and illegitimate variations, Scientific methodology issues including research design_objectivity and bias |
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics |
Scientific responsibilities of the mentor, Responsibilities of trainees within the mentor–trainee relationship |
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics | No publication practices and responsible authorship topics |
Peer Review Topics | No peer review topics |
Collaborative Science Topics | No collaborative science topics |
Research Misconduct Topics |
Significance of misconduct, Factors that contribute to scientific misconduct, Other serious deviations from scientific best practices, Responding to observed misconduct |
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics | |
Human Subjects | No human subjects |
Citation | |
URL | http://www.actsi.org/areas/erks/ethics/index.html |
RCR Keyword | Lab Partners, Students |
Other RCR Keywords | Animal Welfare; Blood and Organ Samples; Broke its Neck; Carbon Dioxide Chamber; Euthanasia Protocol; Financial Difficulties; Graduate Students; Investigation; Mouse Lab; PI; Reporting the Incident; Technician; Undergraduate |
Type of Case | |
Source for Topic Areas | Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70. |
References | |
Other |