The 3Rs Alone Will Not Reduce Total Animal Experimentation Numbers: A Fundamental Misunderstanding in Need of Correction
In: Journal of Applied Animal Ethics ResearchSearch for other papers by Nico D. Müller in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Government authorities often view the 3Rs of “replace, reduce, refine” popularized by Russell and Burch as both a regulatory principle and a governance principle aimed at reducing the total amount of animal distress in science. They thus expect that the 3Rs should, in time, result in changes in total animal experimentation numbers. Communications by Swiss authorities provide stark examples of this expectation. But the 3Rs do not aim at affecting animal experimentation at the level of total numbers; rather, they focus on study design in the individual case. While the underlying philosophy of the 3Rs indeed included a principle of seeking feasible overall reforms, this notion is completely absent in the 3Rs framework itself. Authorities need to stop treating the 3Rs as a means to reduce total distress and should instead invest resources into developing feasible and effective strategies for transformative governance in animal research.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
3RCC. n.d. ‘Vision and Mission’. Website of the Swiss 3RCC. n.d. https://swiss3rcc.org/vision-and-mission.
-
Avelino, Flor, Julia M. Wittmayer, Bonno Pel, Paul Weaver, Adina Dumitru, Alex Haxeltine, René Kemp, et al.2019. ‘Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)Empowerment’. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 145: 196–206.
-
Balls, Michael. 2020. ‘It’s Time to Reconsider The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique’. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 48 (1): 40–46.
-
Balls, Michael, and John Parascandola. 2019. ‘The Emergence and Early Fate of the Three Rs Concept’. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 47 (5–6): 214–220.
-
Bayne, Kathryn, Gudde S. Ramachandra, Ekaterina A. Rivera, and Jianfei Wang. 2015. ‘The Evolution of Animal Welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India’. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 54 (2): 181–191.
-
Bentz, Julia, Karen O’Brien, and Morgan Scoville-Simonds. 2022. ‘Beyond “Blah Blah Blah”: Exploring the “How” of Transformation’. Sustainability Science 17: 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01123-0.
-
Blattner, Charlotte. 2019. ‘Rethinking the 3Rs: From Whitewashing to Rights’. In Animal Experimentation: Working towards a Paradigm Change, edited by Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne, 168–193. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
-
Bolliger, Gieri. 2016. ‘Legal Protection of Animal Dignity in Switzerland: Status Quo and Future Perspectives’. Animal Law 22: 311–395.
-
Braams, Rik B., Joeri H. Wesseling, Albert J. Meijer, and Marko P. Hekkert. 2021. ‘Legitimizing Transformative Government: Aligning Essential Government Tasks from Transition Literature with Normative Arguments about Legitimacy from Public Administration Traditions’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 39: 191–205.
-
Braun, Bruce. 2015. ‘Futures: Imagining Socioecological Transformation: An Introduction’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (2): 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.1000893.
-
Burch, Rex L. 2009. ‘The Progress of Humane Experimental Technique since 1959: A Personal View’. ATLA 37: 269–275.
-
Chaffin, Brian C., Ahjond S. Garmestani, Lance H. Gunderson, Melinda Harm Benson, David G. Angeler, Craig Anthony Arnold, Barbara Cosens, Robin K. Craig, J.B. Ruhl, and Craig R. Allen. 2016. ‘Transformative Environmental Governance’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41: 399–423.
-
Confederation. 1991. ‘Tierschutzgesetz (TSchG): Änderung Vom 22. März 1991’. Report on the amendment of the Animal Welfare Act of 22. March 1991 10051763. Swiss Confederation. https://www.amtsdruckschriften.bar.admin.ch/detailView.do?id=10051763#1.
-
Eggel, Matthias, and Hanno Würbel. 2020. ‘Internal Consistency and Compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs Principles for Project Evaluation of Animal Research’. Laboratory Animals 55 (3): 233–242.
-
Federal Council. 2015. ‘Zukunft Der Stiftung Forschung 3R Und Alternativmethoden Für Tierversuche’. Bericht des Bundesrates in Erfüllung des Postulats 12.3660 der Kommission für Wissenschaft, Bildung und Kultur NR vom 17. August 2012. Bern: Federal Council.
-
Federal Council. 2021. ‘Nationales Forschungsprogramm Zu Den Themen Tiere, Forschung Und Gesellschaft Lanciert’. Medienmitteilung. Bern: Kommunikationsdienst GS-WBF. https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-82212.html.
-
FFSVO. 2018. ‘3R Kompetenzzentrum Schweiz’. Website of the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office. 3R Kompetenzzentrum Schweiz. 6 December 2018. https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/de/home/tiere/tierversuche/3r-prinzipien/3rcc.html.
-
FFSVO. 2022. ‘3R-Replace, Reduce, Refine – Tierversuche Ersetzen, Reduzieren, Verbessern’. 3R-Replace, Reduce, Refine – Tierversuche Ersetzen, Reduzieren, Verbessern. 23 September 2022. https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/de/home/tiere/tierversuche/3r-prinzipien.html.
-
Follath, F. 1988. ‘Alternatives to Animal Experimentation’. Experientia 44 (10): 805–908.
-
Hubrecht, Robert C., and Elizabeth Carter. 2019. ‘The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change’. Animals 9 (754).
-
Hume, Charles W. 1956. The Status of Animals in the Christian Religion. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
-
Hume, Charles W. 1962. Man and Beast. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
-
Kemp, René, Johan Schot, and Remco Hoogma. 2007. ‘Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10 (2): 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
-
Kennel, Regula, and Ingrid Kohler. 2014. ‘25 Jahre Für Die Versuchstiere: Stiftung Forschung 3R’. FFSVO report. Bern: Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office.
-
Köhler, Jonathan, Frank W. Geels, Florian Kern, Jochen Markard, Elsie Onsongo, Anna J. Wieczorek, Floortje Alkemade, et al.2019. ‘An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32.
-
Lane-Petter, William. 1961. Provision of Laboratory Animals for Research: A Practical Guide. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
-
Lohse, Simon. 2021. ‘Scientific Inertia in Animal-Based Research in Biomedicine’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 89: 41–51.
-
Loorbach, Derk. 2010. ‘Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework’. Governance 23 (1): 161–183.
-
MacAskill, William. 2015. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference. New York: Gotham Books.
-
Marshall, Lindsay J., Helder Constantino, and Troy Seidle. 2022. ‘Phase-in to Phase-out – Targeted, Inclusive Strategies Are Needed to Enable Full Replacement of Animal Use in the European Union’. Animals 12: 863.
-
Neuhaus, Winfried, Birgit Reininger-Gutmann, Beate Rinner, Roberto Plasenzotti, Doris Wilflingseder, Joery De Kock, Tamara Vanhaecke, et al.2022. ‘The Rise of Three Rs Centres and Platforms in Europe*’. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 50 (2): 90–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929221099165.
-
Olsson, I. Anna S., Nuno H. Franco, Daniel M. Weary, and Peter Sandøe. 2012. ‘The 3Rs Principle: Mind the Ethical Gap!’ ALTEX Proceedings: Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Montreal 2011, 333–336.
-
Ormandy, Elisabeth H., Catherine A. Schuppli, and Daniel M. Weary. 2009. ‘Worldwide Trends in the Use of Animals in Research: The Contribution of Genetically-Modified Animal Models’. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 37: 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290903700109.
-
Patterson, James, Karsten Schulz, Joost Vervoort, Sandra van der Hel, Oscar Widerberg, Carolina Adler, Margot Hurlbert, Karen Anderton, Mahendra Sethi, and Aliyu Barau. 2017. ‘Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations towards Sustainability’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
-
Richmond, Jon. 2000. ‘The Three Rs: A Journey or a Destination?’ ATLA 28 (6): 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290002800608.
-
Rodriguez Perez, Christian, Kirsten Persson, Rosa M. Cajiga Morales, Bernice S. Elger, and David M. Shaw. 2023. ‘Russell and Burch’s 3Rs Then and Now: The Case of Switzerland’. ALTEX 40. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2303061.
-
Russell, W.M.S., and R.L. Burch. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.
-
Schot, Johan, and Frank W. Geels. 2008. ‘Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
-
Singer, Peter. 2015. The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
-
SNSF. 2021. ‘National Research Programme NRP 79 “Advancing 3R-Animals, Research and Society”’. Call document. Swiss National Science Foundation. https://www.snf.ch/media/en/ZESE1xNiClRrtHN2/nrp79-ausschreibung-en.pdf.
-
Stiftung Forschung 3R. 2011. ‘Stiftungsurkunde’. Stiftungsurkunde. 28 September 2011. https://www.forschung3r.ch/de/information/stiftungsurkunde.html.
-
UFAW. 1952. ‘The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare’. Pamphlet. London: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
-
Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J., Jona Razzaque, Pamela McElwee, Esther Turnhout, Eszter Kelemen, Graciela M. Rusch, Alvaro Fernández-Llamazares, et al.2021. ‘Transformative Governance of Biodiversity: Insights for Sustainable Development’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53: 20–28.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 724 | 724 | 37 |
| Full Text Views | 25 | 25 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 68 | 2 |
The 3Rs Alone Will Not Reduce Total Animal Experimentation Numbers: A Fundamental Misunderstanding in Need of Correction
In: Journal of Applied Animal Ethics ResearchSearch for other papers by Nico D. Müller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Government authorities often view the 3Rs of “replace, reduce, refine” popularized by Russell and Burch as both a regulatory principle and a governance principle aimed at reducing the total amount of animal distress in science. They thus expect that the 3Rs should, in time, result in changes in total animal experimentation numbers. Communications by Swiss authorities provide stark examples of this expectation. But the 3Rs do not aim at affecting animal experimentation at the level of total numbers; rather, they focus on study design in the individual case. While the underlying philosophy of the 3Rs indeed included a principle of seeking feasible overall reforms, this notion is completely absent in the 3Rs framework itself. Authorities need to stop treating the 3Rs as a means to reduce total distress and should instead invest resources into developing feasible and effective strategies for transformative governance in animal research.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 724 | 724 | 37 |
| Full Text Views | 25 | 25 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 68 | 2 |