Unveiling IACUC members: Triumph for rule of law and animal welfare or a dangerous precedent? A closer look at P. Poe 5 et al. v University of Washington et al.

By Akosua Dufie and Jo Anderson | June 26th, 2025

Introduction

Animal research facilities subject to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Health Research Extension Act (HREA) are required to establish an “Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee” (IACUC). An IACUC is mandated to oversee some aspects of animal use in research to ensure humane care of research animals. It reviews and approves the use of and ensures humane care for research animals.

In September 2020, two animal rights activist groups, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN) submitted a request under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) for the release of the names of University of Washington IACUC members. The IACUC members sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the UW from releasing their personal information.

On April 10th, 2025, after years of hearings and appeals, the US District Court for the Western District denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction. Using a standard that came down from the Ninth Circuit, the District Court concluded among other things that: (1) plaintiffs failed to prove that they will “likely be substantially and irreparably harmed” by a disclosure. (2) the public interest in accountability “is not outweighed by plaintiffs’ personal privacy interest.” 

When the Ninth Circuit previously considered a US Constitutional privacy right that arose from the same records request, it determined that the disclosure sought would not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional right to informational privacy.

This case highlights the longstanding legal tension between institutions that supervise animal research and groups that oppose animal use in research. It also represents a clash of rights, the public’s right to know about publicly funded activities and the right of individuals to protect their privacy. These conflicts require striking a balance between transparency for the public and confidentiality for the IACUCs.

The question is, will this case advance transparency and accountability in animal research or will it negatively impact confidentiality and security within IACUC operations? 

This blog explores the possible legal and practical implications of this case for IACUCs across the country and proposes a strategy to ensure accountability while protecting IACUC members’ privacy and security. 

Close-up reading

The case history is very complex. It went through at least three key stages: 

In April 2024, plaintiffs were initially granted a preliminary injunction by the District Court which stopped the release of the information that PETA and NARN requested.

PETA and NARN then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the injunction and remanded to the District Court. Before the District Court could address this remand, the plaintiffs (the IACUC members) amended their complaint. The District Court considered the amended complaint and denied the preliminary injunction.

Why did the District Court change course? After an analysis of Washington state and federal law, the District Court determined that public interest weighed in favor of the claims that PETA and NARN made. The upshot is that the information requested is simply not protected because it is not “highly sensitive personal information.” The informational right to privacy includes information relating to “a person’s medical or sexual history or Social Security number”. However, it excludes basic “biographical data,” including “name, address, identification, place of birth, telephone number, occupation, sex, description, and legal aliases” as “highly sensitive personal information.”

The District Court expressly acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling had changed the standard it initially applied. There is every reason to believe that similar record requests will be treated the same way.

It is significant that the District Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to meet the new standard. Plaintiffs had made an earlier assertion of diminished future recruitment for IACUC. However, the plaintiff’s claim about the negative impacts of disclosure on IACUC functioning proved to be inaccurate. Prior evidence indicated that almost all the existing IACUC members remained at post despite the disclosure and about 20 new IACUC members were recruited.

Eventually, this case could shape the nature of oversight in animal research and define the boundaries between public interest and privacy protection. 

Triumph of rule of law/animal welfare

This outcome is considered a triumph for animal welfare and accountability because it establishes a firm precedent of the courts’ commitment to government transparency. Future cases are likely to follow this decision when balancing transparency against privacy in animal research. As succinctly captured by the Washington Supreme Court, “public employees are paid with public tax dollars and, by definition, are servants of and accountable to the public. The people have a right to know who their public employees are and when those employees are not performing their duties.” 

In a related case involving the same public records request —Sullivan v University of Washington—the Ninth Circuit ruled that disclosure of public records of an IACUC does not violate the right of expressive association under the First Amendment. However, it is noteworthy that courts have not always held for requesters of public records. In UC Davis v PETA, the California court denied PETA’s public record request. It held that releasing the requested unpublished data would not serve the public interest but would undermine academic freedom. 

Another likely ripple effect is that IACUCs will be compelled to disclose more information, more frequently, perhaps on a continuous basis. 

Also, animal welfare groups will now demand more accountability and push for the highest humane protocols.

Is this holding a dangerous precedent?

Blanket public access to information could potentially be used to harass or harm IACUC members. The fact that the IACUCs in this instance could not establish harm is not a guarantee that harm could not arise in the future. The court did not address the potential chilling effect on scientists not embarking on some studies or simply not publishing outcomes openly to avoid disclosing sensitive animal research data.

Admittedly, almost every job involves some level of risk: judges risk retaliation from litigants and ex-convicts, health workers risk infections, researchers risk exposure to toxins. Yet, given that membership on an IACUC is often voluntary, an exposure to high risk might be unjustified. This leaves the open question: How do we ensure that IACUCs are not abused by people who dislike their work? How much disclosure is too much disclosure?

Way forward

A nuanced, case-by-case approach is required to balance access to information and privacy demands in scientific research. A sweeping approach would be remiss.

Also, we must distinguish between what is public and what is private: personal identifying information unrelated to public duties, such as a home address, family members information does not serve the public interest. We must separate what must be of public interest from purely private information using the role of IACUCs as a guide. Courts must define the limits of permissible disclosure based on the facts of each case.

Lastly, stakeholders of animal research should consider both what the law permits and what will practically sustain the future of scientific research when developing disclosure protocols.

Conclusion

The paradox of protecting privacy and giving access to information reflects the longstanding tension between two competing bundles of rights. Both under international law and national law, courts have struggled to hold the balance using various benchmarks.

While the full effect of what approach a court will take in balancing of information priorities is not yet possible to evaluate, it offers a strong precedent favoring transparency. The decision can be viewed as supporting accountability— welcome news for those within the animal welfare space. But, more can be done to accommodate the security concerns raised by IACUCs. While privacy and transparency appear to be contradictory in this instance, their practical implementation are not mutually exclusive. With a careful balancing strategy, both needs can be accommodated and satisfied.

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.