Replacement, Reducement, Refinament

5/27/2018 Replacement, Reducement, Refinament

1/6

Replacement Reduction and Refinementul Flecknell

Comparative Biology Centre, Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newc Presentation at a symposium Use of animals in research: a science-society controversy? hon March 12 in D-Mainz. This presentation will also be published in an ALTEX-book in print

SummaryIn 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch published ThePrinciples of Humane Experimental Technique . Theyproposedthat if animals were to be used in experiments, every effortshould be made to Replace them with non-sentient alternatives,to Reduce to a minimum the number of animals used, and toRejine experiments which used animals so that they caused theminimum pain and distress. These guiding principles, the3Rs of animal research, were initially given little attention.Gradually, how ever; they have become established as essentialconsiderations when animals are used in research. They haveinfiuenced new legislation aimed at controlling the use of

ZusammenfaRefine/Verm1959 verffThe Princschlugen voMglichkeittiven zu erseund die ESchmerzenDiesen LeitForschung,Nach und


2/6

MAINZER VORSYMPOSIUM

Russell and Burch's 3Rs provide a means to improve animalwelfare. It has also been recognised that adoption of the 3Rscan improve the quality of science. Appropriately designedexperiments that minimise variation, provide standardisedoptimum conditions of animal care and minimise unnecessarystress or pain, often yield better, more reliable data.Despite the progress made as a result of attention to theseprinciples, several major problems have been identified. WhenReplacing animals with alternative methods, it has often provendifficult to formally validate the alternative. This has proven aparticular problem in regulatory toxicology, especially whencombined with the labyrinthine processes ofthe various regula-tory authorities.

wenige wSchmerzeversuchsgaller TieMglichkfalls erkasteigerndie Varidingungeund LeidergebnissTrotz derPrinzips


3/6

_____ ~~----------------------------------------------~--A-IN-Z-E-R-V--O-R-SY-M--PO_SJ~~ IntroductionThe use of animals m biomedical re-search continues to be a cause of consid-erable public concern. Until recently, thescientific community has failed to treatthis concern seriously and the result, inmany countries, was the development ofgroups that were prepared to use extrememeasures to try to prevent the use ofanimals in research. Results of publicopinion polls indicate that the majority ofthe population would support some use

thesia. It is important to note, hthat many still accepted the vDescartes, who considered animcapable of experiencing pain.philosophers, such as Bedisagreed with this, providinggenerations of animal welfare otions with a memorable quotationquestion is not, can they reason?they talk? But, can they(Bentham, 1789). Bentham s utphilosophy sought to minimiseand included harm to animalsconcern. Subsequently numerou


4/6

_11_A_I_N_Z_E_R_V_O_R_S_Y_M_P_O_S_IU_M

now realistic prospects for a further clearreplacement of animals with in vitroalternatives in this area.

The principle of Reduction wouldappear less contentious, but its applicationhas highlighted the difficulties of provid-ing appropriate expert statistical advice,especially in academic research facili-ties. Analyses of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals have repeat-edly demonstrated the poor design ofsome of these studies (Festing, 1994). Insome papers, too large a group size was

has also reduced the variabilsearch data obtained from ouranimals, leading to smaller grbeing required to demonstrate bly significant differences betperimental groups. The methodachieve this standardisation hquestioned however, specificallthe standards result in improvanimal welfare. One area ofconcern is the apparent barrenment of many laboratory animThis has led to numerous at


5/6

_____ ~~------------------------------------------------~-A-I-N-Z-E-R-V-O--R-SY-J~~rats following abdominal surgery, but itis hoped to develop similar systems forother procedures and for other species. Inother areas, we have made even lessprogress and considerable work is neededto evaluate the signi cance of a widerange of apparent re nements. In theinterim, we can only fall back on ourprinciple of analogy, but should recog-nise its limitations and seek to progressbeyond this stage.

5 Conclusions

M. Balls, A.-M. van ZellM. Halder (eds.), Progress induction, Refinement and Replaof Animal Experiments (1251Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bentham, J. (1789). An introduthe Principles of Morals andtion. J. H. Bums and H. L.(eds.) 1983. London: Methuen.Brom, F. A. (2002) Science andDifferent Bioethical Apprtowards Animal ExperimenALTEX 19,78-82.Festing, M. F. W. (1994). Reduc


6/6

_~_A_I_N_Z_E_R_V_O_R_S_Y_M_P_O_S_IU_M

Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L.(1959). The Principles 0 HumaneExperimental Technique. London:Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Smyth, D. (1978). Alternatives to AnimalExperiments. London: Scolar Press.

Stauffacher, M. (2000). Refinement inrabbit housing and husbandry. InM. Balls, A.-M. van Zeller and M.Halder (eds.), Progress in the Reduc-tion, Refinement and Replacement 0 Animal Experiments Elsevier (1269-1280). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Wood, G. N. , Molony, V awood-Walker, S. M. (1991).local anaesthesia and innaloxone on the changes inand plasma concentrations oproduced by castrationdocking with tight rubberyoung lambs. Research inScience 51,193-199.

Zutphen, L. F. M. van (2002). Uimals in Research: A SciencControversy? The Europeantive. ALTEX 19, in preparatio

Documents

Replacement, Reducement, Refinament