Three Rs (animal research)

In 1954, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) decided to sponsor systematic research on the progress of humane techniques in the laboratory.

[2] In October of that year, William Russell, described as a brilliant young zoologist who happened to be also a psychologist and a classical scholar, and Rex Burch, a microbiologist, were appointed to inaugurate a systematic study of laboratory techniques in their ethical aspects.

[1] This non-sentient material included higher plants, microorganisms, and the more degenerate metazoan endoparasites which, they argued, had nervous and sensory systems that were almost atrophied.

They acknowledged that the arbitrary exclusion of invertebrates meant that in several contexts, these species could be considered as possible replacements for vertebrate subjects; they termed this "comparative substitution".

These organoids are grown in vitro and mimic the structure and function of different organs such as the brain, liver, lung, kidney, and intestine.

With the advent, development and availability of computers since the original 3Rs, large data-sets can be used in statistical analysis, thereby reducing the numbers of animals used.

It is at this point that refinement starts, and its object is simply to reduce to an absolute minimum the amount of distress imposed on those animals that are still used.

A newer definition is now commonly accepted: "any approach which avoids or minimises the actual or potential pain, distress and other adverse effects experienced at any time during the life of the animals involved, and which enhances their wellbeing.

Some have criticized the Three Rs for what they call "ambiguities" and tensions in the understanding and implementation of different prongs of the approach –Refinement, Reduction and Replacement.

The researchers continued,[24]That the 3Rs or any of the 3Rs' components—Replace, Reduce, or Refine—were not mentioned in any of the... studies suggests that prolonged mouse pain researchers may be unaware of or indifferent to the 3Rs framework and that this aspect is not considered relevant in the peer review process of manuscripts for scientific journals... [T]he growing proportion of the number of studies...in this paper suggests that adherence to guidelines and/or animal use committee requirements is not translating into significant progress from a reduction or replacement perspective.Following a review of the quality of experimental design in published journal articles,[25] including the use of the 3Rs, it was found that the use and reporting of these principles was sporadic.

The ARRIVE guidelines present a 20-point list of items which must be reported in publications which have used animals in scientific research, including sample size calculations, explicit descriptions of the environmental enrichment employed and welfare-related assessments made during the study.

The United Kingdom's Home Office led the Inter-Departmental Group on Reduction, Refinement and Replacement, which aims to improve the application of the 3Rs and promote research into alternatives, reducing the need for toxicity testing through better sharing of data, and encouraging the validation and acceptance of alternatives.The Group reported to Ministers that there was support for a body which would act as a means to better publicise and coordinate what is already done by way of research into the 3Rs.

The Directive introduced a new level of transparency to help progress towards eventually replacing animal use in science and was instrumental in accelerating the concrete application of the 3Rs and the establishment of institutions and centres dedicated to dissemination, education and research based on the Principles across Europe.

To date there are such centres in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Span, Sweden and Switzerland.