I'd say this (given the comments).

While I have not encountered such a situation, I'd suggest that because you are a Computer Science-trained person and not a trained biomedical researcher, the board did act very unreasonably by demanding that you, as such, and presumably with knowledge of your credentials if the institution is even half worth the salt of whatever accreditation it is supposed to have, undergo an even more technical and expertise-requiring, and thus introducing even worse possibilities for screwups, project of building your own bio-lab by yourself. Given that, I can absolutely understand and totally sympathize with (see my username tag) your plight. Personally I would not entrust that task to anyone but a real specialist in that area, i.e. a trained biomedical researcher. Using facilities is one thing. Creating a facility yourself is kind of like, to use a computer science-related analogy, amateurs writing their own crypto, I'd think.

That said, you cannot expect the journal to lower its standards. While the risk from this is no doubt very small, nonetheless the precautionary principle is always exercised, as the other answers have alluded. As I mentioned in another comment, one could imagine a situation in which one (not saying you do, so don't freak) had an undiagnosed bloodborne infection (many do not immediately produce symptoms, e.g. Hepatitis) and then inadvertently spread it to a lab assistant or other person who contacted the blood. The journals are right to be concerned with the improper procedure used just as you are to be annoyed with ham-handed management.

If the experiment is truly trivial, then I'd suggest that you should not necessarily be too shy about repeating it (plus you may discover that in the course of doing so you could do something even better with a second think-through). The real problem though is getting management to approve, and I'd suggest your focus really should be on finding out why they'd make that demand and to find an alternate solution that will provide the facilities and/or handling required without you having to be pushed even further beyond the limits of your expertise.

Moreover, I'd also wonder why you'd need to rush this paper. Is there something of significant negative consequentiality that will happen if you do not submit it "on time"? (e.g. if you fail to deliver by the "desired" time is it going to jeopardize your position, or something else that would seriously affect you and/or others under your trust?) If that is the case, then you might want to take that up in the disputes with management as well and tell them that you are seeking to humour their concern that the experiment be performed according to proper ethical protocol yet also that you have an important reason you need to get it done as soon as possible.

I'd say this (given the comments).

While I have not encountered such a situation, I'd suggest that because you are a Computer Science-trained person and not a trained biomedical researcher, the board did act very unreasonably by demanding that you, as such, and presumably with knowledge of your credentials if the institution is even half worth the salt of whatever accreditation it is supposed to have, undergo an even more technical and expertise-requiring, and thus introducing even worse possibilities for screwups, project of building your own bio-lab by yourself. Given that, I can absolutely understand and totally sympathize with (see my username tag) your plight. Personally I would not entrust that task to anyone but a real specialist in that area, i.e. a trained biomedical researcher. Using facilities is one thing. Creating a facility yourself is kind of like, to use a computer-related analogy, amateurs writing their own crypto, I'd think, and the actions of the board like that seeing you were not using proper encryption for secure communications and then demanding that as a response you should go and fashion your own ciphers and programs instead of trying to help you get properly-built stuff.

That said, you cannot expect the journal to lower its standards. While the risk from this is no doubt very small, nonetheless the precautionary principle is always exercised, as the other answers have alluded. As I mentioned in another comment, one could imagine a situation in which one (not saying you do, so don't freak) had an undiagnosed bloodborne infection (many do not immediately produce symptoms, e.g. Hepatitis) and then inadvertently spread it to a lab assistant or other person who contacted the blood. The journals are right to be concerned with the improper procedure used just as you are to be annoyed with ham-handed management.

If the experiment is truly trivial, then I'd suggest that you should not necessarily be too shy about repeating it (plus you may discover that in the course of doing so you could do something even better with a second think-through). The real problem though is getting management to approve, and I'd suggest your focus really should be on finding out why they'd make that demand and to find an alternate solution that will provide the facilities and/or handling required to meet the ethical guidelines correctly without you having to be pushed even further beyond the limits of your expertise.

Moreover, I'd also wonder why you'd need to rush this paper. Is there something of significant negative consequentiality that will happen if you do not submit it "on time"? (e.g. if you fail to deliver by the "desired" time is it going to jeopardize your position, or something else that would seriously affect you and/or others under your trust?) If that is the case, then you might want to take that up in the disputes with management as well and tell them that you are seeking to humour their concern that the experiment be performed according to proper ethical protocol yet also that you have an important reason you need to get it done as soon as possible.

I'd say this (given the comments).

While I have not encountered such a situation, I'd suggest that because you are a Computer Science-trained person and not a trained biomedical researcher, the board did act very unreasonably by demanding that you, as such, and presumably with knowledge of your credentials if the institution is even half worth the salt of whatever accreditation it is supposed to have, undergo an even more technical and expertise-requiring, and thus introducing even worse possibilities for screwups, project of building your own bio-lab by yourself. Given that, I can absolutely understand and totally sympathize with (see my username tag) your plight. Personally I would not entrust that task to anyone but a real specialist in that area. Using facilities is one thing. Creating a facility yourself is kind of like, to use a computer science-related analogy, amateurs writing their own crypto, I'd think.

That said, you cannot expect the journal to lower its standards. While the risk from this is no doubt very small, nonetheless the precautionary principle is always exercised, as the other answers have alluded. As I mentioned in another comment, one could imagine a situation in which one (not saying you do, so don't freak) had an undiagnosed bloodborne infection (many do not immediately produce symptoms, e.g. Hepatitis) and then inadvertently spread it to a lab assistant or other person who contacted the blood. The journals are right to be concerned with the improper procedure used just as you are to be annoyed with ham-handed management.

If the experiment is truly trivial, then I'd suggest that you should not necessarily be too shy about repeating it (plus you may discover that in the course of doing so you could do something even better with a second think-through). The real problem though is getting management to approve, and I'd suggest your focus really should be on finding out why they'd make that demand and to find an alternate solution that will provide the facilities and/or handling required without you having to be pushed even further beyond the limits of your expertise.

Moreover, I'd also wonder why you'd need to rush this paper. Is there something of significant negative consequentiality that will happen if you do not submit it "on time"? (e.g. if you fail to deliver by the "desired" time is it going to jeopardize your position, or something else that would seriously affect you and/or others under your trust?) If that is the case, then you might want to take that up in the disputes with management as well and tell them that you are seeking to humour their concern that the experiment be performed according to proper ethical protocol yet also that you have an important reason you need to get it done as soon as possible.

I'd say this (given the comments).

While I have not encountered such a situation, I'd suggest that because you are a Computer Science-trained person and not a trained biomedical researcher, the board did act very unreasonably by demanding that you, as such, and presumably with knowledge of your credentials if the institution is even half worth the salt of whatever accreditation it is supposed to have, undergo an even more technical and expertise-requiring, and thus introducing even worse possibilities for screwups, project of building your own bio-lab by yourself. Given that, I can absolutely understand and totally sympathize with (see my username tag) your plight. Personally I would not entrust that task to anyone but a real specialist in that area, i.e. a trained biomedical researcher. Using facilities is one thing. Creating a facility yourself is kind of like, to use a computer science-related analogy, amateurs writing their own crypto, I'd think.

That said, you cannot expect the journal to lower its standards. While the risk from this is no doubt very small, nonetheless the precautionary principle is always exercised, as the other answers have alluded. As I mentioned in another comment, one could imagine a situation in which one (not saying you do, so don't freak) had an undiagnosed bloodborne infection (many do not immediately produce symptoms, e.g. Hepatitis) and then inadvertently spread it to a lab assistant or other person who contacted the blood. The journals are right to be concerned with the improper procedure used just as you are to be annoyed with ham-handed management.

If the experiment is truly trivial, then I'd suggest that you should not necessarily be too shy about repeating it (plus you may discover that in the course of doing so you could do something even better with a second think-through). The real problem though is getting management to approve, and I'd suggest your focus really should be on finding out why they'd make that demand and to find an alternate solution that will provide the facilities and/or handling required without you having to be pushed even further beyond the limits of your expertise.

Moreover, I'd also wonder why you'd need to rush this paper. Is there something of significant negative consequentiality that will happen if you do not submit it "on time"? (e.g. if you fail to deliver by the "desired" time is it going to jeopardize your position, or something else that would seriously affect you and/or others under your trust?) If that is the case, then you might want to take that up in the disputes with management as well and tell them that you are seeking to humour their concern that the experiment be performed according to proper ethical protocol yet also that you have an important reason you need to get it done as soon as possible.