There are two issues at work in this scenario from Great Eastern University. The first is alternate members, and the second is their use in designated-member review. Let's address the alternate member issue first. It appears that the alternate members have been properly appointed by the Institutional Official to serve as alternates for specific members. Mr. Covelli, the IACUC chair, has suggested using the alternate member in place of a specifically designated member. Great Eastern has two alternates for every member. Mr. Covelli must take great care to not appoint both of the alternates at the same time for meeting attendance or for protocol review, thereby giving one regular member two votes. He must take care not to assign an alternate to protocol review if the regular member is available1. I was not able to find any indication that an alternate member may not do a designated review, but it is stated that an alternate may not do the review if the regular member is available. By designating two alternates for each member, the chair is able to assign a designated reviewer to each protocol. It is preferable for someone who is an expert in the field to do the protocol review in the absence of the regular member.

Now we need to address the issue of designated review. Here, I believe Mr. Covelli has overstepped his boundaries and is treading on illegal ground. In order to satisfy the minimum regulatory requirements of both OLAW and PHS, it is required that “all IACUC members be given a list of protocols to be reviewed and access to the necessary information on the protocol to be reviewed”2. Part of the information conveyed to the committee is name of the individual who has been assigned to do the designated review. If any of the members feels that the protocol should go before the full committee, then its review must be deferred until the next properly convened meeting of a quorum3. By predetermining that all protocols submitted in July and August would go to designated review, the IACUC Chair has circumvented the committee and their right to call for full review.

It is difficult to find people to serve on the myriad committees in a university setting, but we must take care not to violate the regulations or to bend them for our convenience. In my opinion, as long as Mr. Covelli allows for all voting members to have their right to call for a full review of all protocols, and is not giving multiple votes to any one member, he can assign alternate members to complete designated reviews of protocols.

Return to Protocol Review