Who has the authority to determine if a deficiency identified during an IACUC evaluation is significant or minor?

The determination of whether a deficiency identified during an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) evaluation is significant or minor is typically made by both the IACUC and the Institutional Official (IO) together. This collaborative approach takes advantage of the expertise and perspectives of both parties. The IACUC possesses a deep understanding of the animal care and use protocols, ethical considerations, and regulatory requirements, while the IO has a broader institutional perspective and administrative authority.

This collaborative decision-making is crucial because it ensures that both the scientific validity of the research and the welfare of the animals are upheld. For instance, a minor deficiency might not pose a significant risk to animal welfare or the integrity of the research, whereas a significant deficiency might warrant more immediate action, such as changes to a protocol or additional training for staff.

The other choices do not adequately represent the collaborative nature of the determination process in an IACUC context. The veterinarian's role, while essential, usually focuses more on animal health and welfare rather than on determining the significance of deficiencies as this responsibility is shared with the IACUC and IO. Similarly, having only one party, whether the IACUC or the IO alone, evaluate the significance of deficiencies would not capture the comprehensive perspective required for