Although we at CSU Long Beach are a relatively small-time operation (no cats, dogs, ags, or primates) and over half of our protocols are in field studies (porpoise, sharks, desert species, shore birds, etc.) we have the usual array of concerns.  Our "open" meetings are held in a small room with no SRO.  We invite PIs to attend, and they do.  As mentioned by someone, this facilitates the process to our mutual benefit.  However, (the reason for this message) we do excuse the PI from the meeting before a vote is taken.  We believe that in the confined environment of the
campus, independence of judgement is more assured in this way than otherwise.

Incidently, we have allowed faculty members to bring advanced graduate students (MA level) with them to the meetings.

An added note:  we have had a PETA member on our IACUC.  He was our "house ethicist" and comported himself wonderfully.  I would not venture this direction again without a great deal of background investigation, however.

Jim Brett

William Campbell wrote:

> RESADM-ers--
>
> I have a different perspective on this issue--I think IRB meetings (and IACUC meetings, for that matter) should be open by default, closed only in cases where there is compelling reason to do so.
>
> Full disclosure: UW-River Falls, where I staff both the IRB and IACUC, is a relatively small, primarily undergraduate, regional comprehensive--no med school, no clinical trials, no primates.  But we do have an ag school, so our IACUC has some real issues to grapple with.
>
> Our IRB always invites the PI to attend the meeting where we will discuss his/her protocol.  We've found that hastens the procedures considerably; we can ask questions and check assumptions on the spot; frequently we can suggest modifications which the PI agrees to on the spot.  If PI weren't there, we'd have to do all that later without the possibility of a dialogue.  No one else has ever been interested in attending, but I doubt that we would exclude anyone.  And if anyone came with an objection to the protocol under consideration, I suspect we would want to hear it.
>
> The purpose of IRB's and IACUC's, after all, is to make sure that humane and responsible procedures are being followed by having a group of responsible folks other than the PI review them.  Seems to me that keeping it all behind closed doors defeats the purpose somewhat.
>
> Granted, there are certainly instances where the reasons to close a meeting are compelling--industrial secrets, maintaining the integrity of a broadbased or campus-wide procedure which requires deception, preserving anonymity of medical records, etc.  But those should be the exception rather than the rule.
>
> Regards, Bill
>
> Bill Campbell
> Director, Grants & Research
> University of Wisconsin-River Falls
>
> ======================================================================
>  Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>  via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
> ======================================================================

--
James R. Brett, Ph.D., Director
Office of University Research
California State University, Long Beach
562-985-4833   fax 985-8665
http://www.ur.csulb.edu/main.htm

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================