Which of the following statements about IACUC suspensions of animal activities is false?

The statement regarding the chairperson or another IACUC member being able to suspend an animal activity on behalf of the IACUC is misleading in context. While it is true that IACUC members can take actions to address immediate animal welfare concerns, the formal authority to suspend an activity typically rests with a consensus or vote of the entire IACUC. This ensures that suspensions are based on collective agreement rather than individual judgment, reflecting the committee's unified stance on matters of animal welfare.

The other statements reflect established procedures and responsibilities within the IACUC framework. When an activity is suspended, the IACUC is indeed required to report this to the Institutional Official (IO), who then has a responsibility to inform relevant regulatory agencies, ensuring that there is transparency and accountability in the process. Furthermore, suspensions must be voted upon by a majority within a quorum at a convened meeting to ensure that there is proper oversight. The role of the institutional official in this context is also defined; while they may have the authority to suspend activities independently, it is generally understood that such actions should occur with the support of the IACUC to maintain the principles of oversight and collaboration in animal welfare.