What happens if designated reviewers have differing opinions on modifications required for approval?

If designated reviewers have differing opinions on modifications required for approval, the correct process is to escalate the matter to a full committee review. This ensures that all concerns and perspectives are thoroughly considered by a larger group, which can lead to a more balanced and informed decision regarding the animal research protocol.

This approach is important in IACUC procedures as it promotes transparency, accountability, and collaborative decision-making, ensuring that all views are taken seriously and that the final outcome reflects a comprehensive evaluation of the protocol. Relying solely on a smaller group of reviewers without full committee input could overlook critical aspects of animal welfare or regulatory compliance.

While it may seem practical for reviewers to reach an agreement before proceeding, or to take a vote among themselves, these methods could undermine the comprehensive nature of oversight that IACUC committees are mandated to uphold. Similarly, noting minority opinions without further consideration does not align with the ethical standards and responsibilities of IACUCs, as it may disregard important concerns raised by individuals involved in the review process.