Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:32:50.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interplay between replacement, reduction and refinement: considerations where the Three Rs interact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MJ de Boo ,
AE Rennie ,
HM Buchanan-Smith  and
CFM Hendriksen
MJ de Boo*
Affiliation:
Cambridge E–learning Institute (CEI), 1A Brookside, Orwell SG8 5TQ, UK
AE Rennie
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK
HM Buchanan-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK
CFM Hendriksen
Affiliation:
Netherlands Vaccine Institute, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9–11, Postbus 457, 3720 AL Bilthoven, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Cambridge E–learning Institute (CEI), 1A Brookside, Orwell SG8 5TQ, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Russell and Burch's Three Rs principle of replacement, reduction and refinement offers a useful concept for the scientific and ethical evaluation of the use of animals in scientific procedures. Replacement, reduction and refinement are often considered separately, but when applied, one of the Three Rs may have a positive or negative effect on one or both of the other Rs. This paper explores the interplay between the Three Rs and provides examples where the Three Rs have a positive interaction and where they are in conflict with each other. For example, all Three Rs positively interact in the use of cell cultures, but validation studies of replacement techniques may initially increase the numbers of animals used; therefore replacement and reduction are in conflict. Several models of cost-benefit analyses, used by animal ethics committees to justify or reject animal experimentation, contain elements such as quality and significance of the research, the credibility of the research group and the discomfort caused to the animals. Although these models consider the Three Rs, each R is considered independently of the others. Consequently, moral dilemmas may arise when reviewing proposals in which the Three Rs conflict. Currently there is no legal guidance relating to the prioritisation of the Three Rs, but guidance is required to facilitate their use. For example, does a significant reduction in animal numbers justify increased individual suffering? Moral justifications deserve more attention when considering the Three Rs in general, and when considering the application of one or more Rs to a procedure, to a protocol, or to the wider research programme.

Keywords

alternativesanimal welfareinterplayreductionrefinementreplacement
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 327 - 332
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 2004 Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 7th Edition. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/ea16.pdf (accessed 20 September 2005)Google Scholar
Balls, M, Goldberg, AM, Fentem, JH, Broadhead, CL, Burch, RL, Festing, MFW, Frazier, JM, Hendriksen, CFM, Jennings, M, van der Kamp, MDO, Morton, DB, Rowan, AN, Russell, C, Russell, WMS, Spielmann, H, Stephens, ML, Stokes, WS, Straughan, DW, Yager, JD, Zurlo, J and van Zutphen, BFM 1995 The Three Rs: the way forward. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 23: 838–866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, P 1986 When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 20 February: 30-32Google Scholar
Bayne, K 2002 Development of the human-research animal bond and its impact on animal well-being. Institute of Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43: 4–9Google ScholarPubMed
Brockway, BP, Hassler, CR and Hicks, N 1993 Minimizing Stress During Physiological Monitoring. SCAW: Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Buchanan-Smith, HM, Rennie, AE, Vitale, A, Pollo, S, Prescott, MJ and Morton, DB 2005 Harmonising the definition of refinement. Animal Welfare 14: 379–384Google Scholar
Chang, FT and Hart, LA 2002 Human-animal bonds in the laboratory: how animal behavior affects the perspective of care-givers. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43: 10–18Google Scholar
Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdf (accessed 20 September 2005)Google Scholar
de Cock Buning, T and Theune, EP 1994 A comparison of three models for ethical evaluation of proposed animal experiments. Animal Welfare 3: 107–128Google ScholarPubMed
Dolan, K 1999 Ethics, Animals and Science. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Einstein, R, Rowan, C, Billing, R and Lavidis, N 2000 The use of telemetry to refine experimental technique. In: Balls, M, van Zeller, AM and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 1187–1197. Elsevier: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2002 The Welfare of Non-Human Primates used in Research. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Commission http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out83_en.pdf (accessed 20 September 2005)Google Scholar
European Commission 2005 Future European Union Research Policy. http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/future/index_en.cfm (accessed 20 September 2005)Google Scholar
Festing, MF and Altman, DG 2002 Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43(4): 244–258Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Schnell, CR and Anzenberger, G 2002 Behavioral and cardiophysiological responses of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) to social and environmental changes. Primates 3: 201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gstraunthaler, G 2003 Alternatives to the use of fetal bovine serum: serum-free cell culture. Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten 20: 275–281Google Scholar
Hau, J 1999 Humane endpoints and the importance of training. In: Hendriksen, CFM and Morton, DB (eds) Humane Endpoints in Animals Experiments for Biomedical Research pp 71–74. The Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hendriksen, CFM, van der Gun, JW, Marsman, FR and Kreeftenberg, JG 1987 The effects of reductions in the numbers of animals used for the potency assay of the diphtheria and tetanus components of adsorbed vaccines by the methods of the European pharmacopoeia. Journal of Biological Standardization 15(4): 353–362Google ScholarPubMed
Hennessy, MB 1984 Presence of companion moderates arousal of monkeys with restricted social experience. Physiology & Behaviour 33: 693–698CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Home Office 2000 Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jochems, CEA, van der Valk, JBF, Stafleu, FR and Baumans, V 2002 The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem? ATLA 30: 219–227Google ScholarPubMed
Laule, G 1999 Training laboratory animals. In: Poole, T (ed) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals pp 21–27. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB, Hawkins, P, Bevan, R, Heath, K, Kirkwood, J, Pearce, P, Scott, L, Whelan, G and Webb, A 2003 Refinements in telemetry procedures. Laboratory Animals 37: 261–299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prescott, MJ and Buchanan-Smith, HM 2003 Training non-human primates using positive reinforcement techniques: Guest editor's introduction. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V, Liss, C and Stevens, C 1995 Restraint methods of laboratory non-human primates: a critical review. Animal Welfare 4: 221–238Google Scholar
Richmond, J 1998 Criteria for humane endpoints. In: Hendriksen CFM and Morton DB (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference pp 26-32. Zeist, The Netherlands. The Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Schnell, CR and Gerber, P 1997 Training and remote monitoring of cardiovascular parameters in non-human primates. Primate Report 49: 61–70Google Scholar
Scott, L 1990 Training non-human primates: meeting their behavioural needs. In: UFAW (ed) Animal Training: A Review and Commentary pp 129–133. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Smaje, LH, Smith, JA, Combes, RD, Ewbank, R, Gregory, JE, Jennings, M, Moore, GJ and Morton, DB 1998 Advancing refinement of laboratory animal use. Laboratory Animals 32: 137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J and Jennings, M 2003 A Resource Book for Lay Members of Local Ethical Review Processes. Royal Society for the Protection of Animals: Horsham, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
Smith, TE, McGreer-Whitworth, B and French, JA 1998 Close proximity of the heterosexual partner reduces the physiological and behavioral consequences of novel-cage housing in black tufted-ear marmosets (Callithrix kuhli). Hormones and Behavior 34: 211–222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Cauteren, H 1996 Implementation and impact of the ICH safety guidelines. In: D'Arcy, PF and Harron, DWG (eds) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Harmonisation pp 213–220. Queens University Press: Belfast, UKGoogle Scholar
van der Valk, J, Mellor, D, Brands, R, Fischer, R, Gruber, F, Gstraunthaler, G, Hellebrekers, L, Hyllner, J, Jonker, FH, Prieto, P, Thalen, M and Baumans, V 2004 The humane collection of fetal bovine serum and possibilities for serum-free cell and tissue culture. Toxicology In Vitro 18: 1–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed