Regarding IACUC review outcomes, which statement is TRUE?

The statement that these terms mistakenly imply that IACUC approval for an animal activity has been given, and that work may proceed as soon as formal notification has been given in writing, is correct. This distinction is crucial in understanding the role of the IACUC and the process of obtaining approval for animal research.

In IACUC terminology, various outcomes are specified following a review process, including terms such as "approved," "modifications required," or "not approved." It is important to note that even if an IACUC indicates that modifications are required, the research cannot commence until the IACUC formally approves the submission after the necessary changes have been made and reviewed. The misunderstanding may arise from interpreting language indicating that the research can start prior to full approval.

Understanding this nuance is essential for researchers who must adhere to ethical guidelines and regulatory standards regarding animal welfare before initiating their studies. Therefore, any implication that approval is granted to begin work without written notification is a misinterpretation of the review process, which underscores the importance of stringent compliance with IACUC protocols.

The other options discuss specific review types or imply interchangeable terminology, which can lead to confusion about the proper processes and definitions established by regulatory bodies like USDA and OLAW. However,