Module 4: Case Analysis
Assignment
In 5-6 pages double spaced, make a well-reasoned ethical argument that answers the question at the end of the case. Your argument should be based on the responsibilities and privileges of the interested parties, “rules” (i.e., legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, etc.), and the likely consequences, or outcomes, of what you propose to do.
Your answer to the question (your analysis of the case) should contain no less than 5 separate and distinct references (e.g., short quotations or paraphrases) to course readings or media (citing Shamoo and Resnik multiple times, for example, only counts as one). You may cite lectures if and only if what is said in lecture is not also contained in the materials assigned for class. The goal here is to see a full integration of ideas, so ‘throwaway’ citations will not be counted.
When you draw on course materials, you need to cite them appropriately. Your essay should include in-text citations or footnotes and a bibliography or works cited list. You may use any major citation system you are comfortable with—MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. However, include page numbers in your in-text citations or footnotes. Although including page numbers in citations is unusual in scientific citation styles, citations to our text are not very illuminating without them. Other than adding page numbers, pick one system, know how to use it, and use it consistently.
You are NOT expected to do research beyond the readings and other materials assigned for class or presented in lecture or recitation. Citations to materials beyond course assignments are acceptable, if appropriately done, but do not count towards citing 5 course sources.
The Fine Print
Responses should be:
Submitted via Canvas
Approximately 1500 words
Use at least 5 distinct and separate citations from course materials
In a standard 10 or 12-point font
Set up with standard 1 to 1.25- inch margins
Case: Use of Animals[1]
Dr. Jasmine Tanaka and Dr. Ellen Schwartz, professors in a neurosciences department, both work on age-related neurodegenerative diseases using rodent models. Their work sometimes puts them in direct competition, and this creates intradepartmental tension that they typically handle in a civil and professional fashion. Presently, each has a single NIH grant, and both grants will have to be competitively renewed within the next 6 months.
Dr. Tanaka and her two postdocs are spending a week learning a new technique in a research institute overseas. The remaining members in Dr. Tanaka’s lab, an undergraduate student and a histology technician, do not work with animals. Thus, prior to her departure, Dr. Tanaka asked Dr. Schwartz to check a cohort of her rats every other day during her absence. Dr. Schwartz gladly accepts this responsibility, seizing the opportunity to be collegial.
The five animals to be monitored are part of an experiment that had been underway for 2 years. As per the protocol, at 2.5 years of age, the animals are to be anesthetized, perfused so as to fix brain tissue, and sacrificed, and brain tissue is to be recovered for structural and histochemical studies.
On her third visit to the vivarium to check on the rats, Dr. Schwartz is confronted with a disconcerting situation. She finds one of the rats dead in its cage. Two of the remaining four rats appear gravely ill and, in Dr. Schwartz’s view, close to death. She surmises that if they die, which would preclude the recovery of the fixed brain tissue, the remaining two rats are not likely to be a large enough sample size to provide meaningful data.
She immediately formulates a plan to recover useful tissue for the two dying rats. She will anesthetize them with isoflurane using an apparatus she has in her own lab. She is trained to do the fixative perfusion and surgery to recover the rats’ brains, thus saving the needed tissue from these valuable animals. She will then step up her monitoring of the remaining two animals to three times a day until Dr. Tanaka returns. If either of the remaining two animals becomes ill, she will repeat the brain tissue recovery plan with them.
As she mentally reviews her plan, she as some hesitation because her actions likely fall outside of Dr. Tanaka’s approved protocol (she is not listed as an investigator on the protocol). It’s the weekend, and she contemplates Dr. Tanaka’s long-term experiment, which would take more than 2 years to repeat. She wonders if she should risk the possibility that the veterinarian will effectively shut down the experiment. On the other hand, if she preemptively carries out her plan and it does succeed, she may find herself in deep trouble with the IACUC and even face sanctions. In addition, looming in the back of her mind, is the notion that if the animals are lost under any circumstances it may look to Dr. Tanaka like she passively sabotaged the experiment by inappropriate action or indecisiveness.
You happen to be passing by the animal rooms, and Dr. Schwartz asks for your counsel on what she should do. Are there other options she should consider? What do you recommend?
Please use 5 citiations from sources provided.
