By SHANNON O. WELLS

A draft update on Human Cadavers and Recognizable Human Body Parts policy at Pitt seeks to enhance the existing policy by requiring authorization for all uses of human cadavers and recognizable body parts, including if the scope of a project changes.

Brittany Conner, policy specialist in the Office of Policy and Management, explained to the Senate Research Committee at its May 16 meeting that while the Committee for Oversight of Research and Clinical Training Involving Decedents (CORID) and Office for Oversight of Anatomic Specimens (OOAS) are already responsible for providing an “ethical view of projects using human cadavers and recognizable human body parts,” the office also is responsible for ensuring compliance with federal and state law and ensuring logistics are feasible at the institution.

“These provisions in this policy, when it comes down to the operational pieces, are not new,” Conner explained. “It’s really just documenting what we’re already doing.”

The policy was first formulated in 2023 following an abuse-of-corpse case against two former Pitt students who were charged in late 2022 based on an incident in the Victoria Hall anatomy lab. 

Stating that the University is “committed to the ethical use of human cadavers and recognizable human body parts,” a policy was developed to:

• Demonstrate appropriate treatment of and respect for the cadavers and body parts and for those who donate them.

• Enable faculty, staff and students to employ them within appropriate and approved activities.

• Promote transparency regarding Pitt’s use of cadavers and recognizable human body parts

• Recognize the profound contributions that donors have made to the University’s mission.

• Ensure that all practices related to Pitt’s acquisition, management, use, and disposal of human cadavers and recognizable human body parts comply with relevant regulations and reflect best practices.

The policy applies to any use including, but not limited to, the “observation, management, tracking, storage, and disposition of human cadavers and recognizable human body parts in University spaces.” It does not apply to human remains “managed or procured by the Department of Anthropology or biobanks.”

During the May 16 meeting, committee members recommended edits to the draft policy, including new language to clarify repercussions for policy noncompliance, before voting to approve it. The policy will go before Faculty Assembly this fall for another discussion and vote.

The policy states that if you have a cadaver for a specific project involving, for example, the heart, “but you want to work on something with the liver, you would have to go through a secondary request,” Conner said. “That’s so the University has a good understanding of what’s being used and why it’s being used.”

Also, all human cadaver-related projects must undergo reauthorization every year. “That’s so the University can keep a really good list of all the projects and make sure that we’re held accountable to knowing what is happening at the University.”

The policy also addresses rules regarding human cadaver management.

“A lot of these provisions point to the court and OOAS. They’re not necessarily giving specific rules, other than … you cannot traffic human cadavers and recognizable human body parts, and this is important because OOAS and CORID were benchmarking this work.

“The rules around human cadavers and recognizable human body parts have evolved rapidly over the past 10 years,” she explained. “Best practices are often updating, even monthly at times, so it’s really hard to put in a policy and then not have to change the policy frequently. To keep the policy quite evergreen, we make OOAS and the CORID responsible for ensuring that the management is up to best practices.
“(They) have to make sure that our practices are aligned with current best practice, but we don’t necessarily need that in the policy and keep us tied to a practice that may end up being aged out,” she added.

Regarding access to laboratories as it relates to human cadavers and body parts, the policy creates provisions for those responsible for training or managing the human cadavers to require training managed by CORID and OOAS.

Those just visiting a lab must have a signed agreement indicating they understand the lab’s rules and must be supervised by someone who has completed training with the CORID and OOAS.

“That way, we still have an opportunity for education,” Conner said, “but we still have on the book that somebody is trained and supervising that person, who is present.”

A discussion involving the Department of Anthropology led the policy committee to change the term “specimens” to “recognizable human body parts.” Jennifer Mueller, director of Undergraduate Studies in the department, engaged in earlier research at Howard University where the terminology was changed.

“She suggested that we change our name,” Conner said. “The term ‘specimen’ has been conflated with derogatory uses in the past, and it does have a well-defined and proper medical use. This policy is a public-facing document, and we wanted to emphasize that the University views these human remains as human and dignified and not just as a tool for research.”

Regarding “legacy collections” of human cadavers and body parts, a “very vast audit” was conducted of all human remains stored on campus.

“We recognize there’s a lot of legacy collections at the University,” she said, referring to collections of human remains Pitt has had for years including prior to the policy’s creation. “To understand that this policy would be to welcome in these legacy collections to these procedures, we gave them one year to comply.”

Conner said she and a colleague are engaging with various stakeholders to “ensure this policy is well socialized” and ensure that those who do hold legacy collections know they need to register them.  

Melanie Scott, vice chair for research in the Department of Surgery, praised the draft policy, but said she thought it needed clarification regarding repercussions for not adhering to its provisions.

The policy’s “Noncompliance” section says that use of human cadavers and/or recognizable human body parts in violation of the policy may “result in disciplinary action consistent with University Policy, Staff Handbook, Faculty Handbook, Student Code of Conduct, or Collective Bargaining Agreement.”

“I don’t think we want to explicitly say, ‘Here’s the outcome of that,’” Conner said. “Because in other policies, unless it’s required by federal regulation, we’re not putting necessarily the outcome and the investigatory parts, but we want to recognize that CORID and OOAS do have responsibility and (are) consulting.”

Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu.

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Twitter and Facebook.