Bergman's primary consideration is keeping with the dictums of the 3Rs. Although ethical in spirit, the logistics of having two protocols attached to one animal creates an untenable management situation. According to an OLAW brochure for NIH grantees, “the use of animals must be congruent with the description in a competing grant application1.” With two separate protocols, the proverbial left hand may be oblivious to the deeds of the right. It is possible that either protocol might add procedures that would be unacceptable from an animal welfare standpoint, such as survival surgery, without the knowledge of the other party. Alterations in one research project could also negate the data collection of the other party—if new chemicals were added for example. In principle, one would hope that collaborators would communicate, but there is no way under this paradigm to ensure that communication.

It could also be quite difficult to fairly recharge each respective NIH grant depending on the nature of the study. If, for example, Bergman needed blood from one rabbit per week, but Wycroft had 50 in-house rabbits, what would be the recharge rate for NIH?

Thus it would seem that there are really two reasonable ways for these researchers to use the same animals. One way is to create a singular protocol together after having received approval from NIH for the procedural changes. The reluctance of both researchers to proceed in this fashion indicates that this option may not be workable. Another possibility that I believe to be better suited to this situation is for the animals that are remaining from Wycroft's project to be transferred to Bergman (presuming that the research constraints allow this to occur, which might not be the case if rabbits are sacrificed for tissue harvest in Wycroft's study, for example). This would also allow Bergman to transfer other rabbits from other researchers' studies should they become available, again fulfilling the dictums of the 3Rs.