protocol review What’s in store for a whistleblower? oshua Richmond knew that the Distressed by the impending loss of his Is Richmond both a whistleblower and procedure he performed on a rat job and possibly revealing himself as the the target of a reprisal even though he Jwas not approved by Great Eastern letter writer, Richmond began reading. The denied writing the letter? Is there a conflict University’s IACUC. He had reminded school’s IACUC policy manual stated that between the OLAW statement which Dr. Paul Levine, his graduate studies the identity of a whistleblower would remain assigns responsibility against reprisals to the mentor, that they needed IACUC approval confidential if that was the preference institution or state, and the Guide, which before initiating the procedure, but Levine of the whistleblower, but the policy said is incorporated into the PHS Policy3,4 and became irate, as he often did, and told nothing about protection from reprisals. appears to expect an institution to provide him to do what he was told to do or find Nevertheless, he was somewhat heartened protection from reprisals? Should Richmond another lab to work in. That was not to find that the Guide for the Care and tell the whole truth and look for another a desired option for Richmond, so he Use of Laboratory Animals stated that lab? How should the IACUC deal with performed the procedure. “The process [of reporting concerns] these issues? ❐ Still bothered by the incident after a few should include a mechanism for anonymity, months had passed, Richmond wrote an compliance with applicable whistleblower Jerald Silverman ✉ anonymous letter to the IACUC, relating the policies, nondiscrimination against the University of Massachusetts Medical School, noncompliance. When the IACUC began its concerned/reporting party, and protection Worcester, MA, USA. investigation, the rat was long gone. When from reprisals.”1 Richmond told the IACUC ✉e-mail: [email protected] confronted with the accusation, Levine that Levine obviously imposed a reprisal denied the claim and demanded to know against him, but the IACUC chair opined Published online: 27 May 2020 who his accuser was because the university’s that the Guide was only referring to https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-020-0551-z bylaws specified that a faculty member reprisals against a known whistleblower. accused of wrongdoing had a right to know The IACUC chair was also concerned References 1. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care his or her accuser. Richmond denied writing with the comment in the Guide about and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edn. (National Academy the letter but eventually admitted that he protection from reprisals because a Press, Washington, DC. 2011). performed the procedure. Levine did not document from the federal Office of 2. Ofce of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health. Reporting Noncompliance. https://olaw.nih.gov/guidance/ think Richmond was the whistleblower, Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), stated reporting-noncompliance.htm assuming that would be too obvious; that “OLAW may withhold identifying 3. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and Use of however, because Richmond was the only information to protect whistleblowers, Laboratory Animals. (US Department of Health and Human person working for him, he told Richmond but protection from reprisal for Services, Washington, DC. 1986, amended 2002). 4. Ofce of Laboratory Animal Welfare, National Institutes of Health. to find another mentor, as he was no longer whistleblowers must be addressed at the What Investigators Need to Know About the Use of Animals. welcome in his laboratory. institutional and/or state level.”2 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/InvestigatorsNeed2Know.pdf Protect the gatekeeper his scenario investigates to GEU’s IACUC reporting the allegation; he every effort should be made to keep it whistleblower protection for reporting then later denied doing so when confronted. that way. The regulatory agencies seem to Tnoncompliance issues in an animal Richmond likely denied writing the letter want whistleblower protection, and the research setting. Here, Richmond is an in order to keep his job, but, as no one else research institution should have a policy institutional laboratory employee that was involved with the procedure, he had to or Standard Operating Procedure in place performed an animal research procedure leave the lab once Levine knew that no one to protect whistleblowers; otherwise, without Great Eastern University’s else could have reported the noncompliance. whistleblowers may not come forward (GEU) Institutional Animal Care and Therefore, Richmond appeared to be a due to fear of retaliation. Use Committee’s (IACUC) approval, as whistleblower and a target of reprisal. Ultimately, Richmond shouldn’t have instructed by his mentor Dr. Levine. As As Richmond was let go from Levine’s conducted the animal procedure in the first “conducting research animal activity lab, there seems to be a conflict with the place. He should tell the whole truth and without the IACUCs approval is a serious Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare look for another lab to work in. There will noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act (OLAW) and the Guide’s statements that be other labs in which to seek employment, and Regulations,”1 Richmond never should whistleblowers should be protected from and hopefully they’ll be fully compliant. The have performed the procedure without retaliation by the state or institution. OLAW IACUC meanwhile has the responsibility IACUC approval in the first place, but he assigns responsibility against reprisals to investigate any animal concerns raised risked losing his job with Levine’s lab if he to the institution or state, and the Guide by whistleblowers. Institutional and refused to conduct the experiment. expects an institution to provide protection IACUC contact information should be After some time passed, and in good from reprisals2,3. If individuals report posted throughout all research facilities faith, Richmond anonymously sent a letter allegations of wrongdoing anonymously, so anyone that has questions or concerns LAB ANIMAL | VOL 49 | JUNE 2020 | 153–155 | www.nature.com/laban 153 protocol review can report them. Contact information Research employee protections matter Published online: 27 May 2020 should include the IACUC Chair Person, and should be established. Any individual https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-020-0554-9 Attending Veterinarian, other institutional working in these environments and witness veterinarians, and animal care managers wrongdoing should be willing to come References and supervisors. Any allegations of forward without fear of retaliation. The 1. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter a – animal-related wrongdoing made whistleblower is the gatekeeper in the Animal Welfare: Part 2 regulations (§2.31). 2. Public Health Service. Policy on Humane Care and anonymously should be kept that way as workplace and should be protected. ❐ Use of Laboratory Animals. (US Department of Health best as possible. The research institution and and Human Services, Washington, DC. 1986, amended IACUC should have a plan in place to shield Jefrey Etue ✉ 2002). 3. Ofce of Laboratory Animal Welfare. What Investigators whistleblowers that in good faith come University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Need to Know About the Use of Animals. https://grants.nih.gov/ forward with concerns. ✉e-mail: [email protected] grants/olaw/Investigatorsneed2Know.pdf The problem with a murky whistleblower policy hile OLAW cannot guarantee refine OLAW’s expectations, stating “The If the IACUC does not already have one, protection from reprisals, OLAW process should include a mechanism for a written policy on how non-compliances Wdoes refer to the Guide 1(p. 24), anonymity, compliance with applicable are dealt with would be advantageous. which states that “mechanisms for reporting whistleblower policies, nondiscrimination The IACUC should also consult with their concerns should be posted in prominent against the concerned/reporting party, and legal department to revise the university’s locations in the facility and on applicable protection from reprisals.” We assume that bylaws, as they are in direct conflict with institutional website(s) with instructions on Great Eastern University has an Assurance a federal mandate. On a slightly separate how to report the concern and to whom. on file with OLAW. Because of this, they note, the PI needs to be trained from Multiple points of contact, including senior are bound by the principles in the Guide, Human Resources on appropriate employee management, the IO, IACUC Chair, and AV, and therefore, should have “protection termination practices. ❐ are recommended.” from reprisals” documented in their Richmond did the right thing by whistleblower policy. Christine Boehm1 ✉ and Kristina Pugh2 reporting the noncompliance to the IACUC. The IACUC needs to revisit their policy 1Texas Tech University Health Science Center at El Levine is using ‘guilt by association’ to on whistleblowers to include protection Paso, El Paso, TX, USA. 2William Beaumont Army punish Richmond, as only Levine and from reprisals and ensure it is consistent Medical Center, El Paso, TX, USA. Richmond knew about the noncompliance. with the rest of OLAW and the Guide’s ✉e-mail: [email protected] Richmond told the whole truth when he recommendations. To protect anonymous admitted to performing the procedure. reporters, outlining examples of reprisal, Published online: 27 May 2020 There is nothing inherently wrong with such as termination of employment of lab https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-020-0552-y anonymity, so admitting that he reported the members without adequate justification, noncompliance is not necessary. Richmond will help avoid similar situations in References 1. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care has seen his employer’s true colors. We the future. The investigation into and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition (National Academies would encourage him to find a lab that is non-compliance in Levine’s studies should Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 2011).