The Three Rs Of Animal Testing: A More Humane Approach To Animal Experimentation

By Benjamin Elisha Sawe on January 27 2020 in Feature

Scientist doing animal experiment in lab with rabbit.
Scientist doing animal experiment in lab with rabbit.

The use of animals for research purposes including drug testing and experiments has long been a controversial subject that has raised concerns about the welfare of animals, the significant harm that might be inflicted on them and whether the justification for such harm is acceptable. The Three Rs of animal testing refers to the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement, a set of guidelines on the more humane use of animals in testing and research. The Three Rs were originally proposed by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) scholars, Russell and Burch in 1959 in the Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Today the concepts of replacement, reduction, and refinement are used as guiding principles for humane science. The principles of the Three Rs are increasingly viewed as an integral part of mainstream scientific practice. There is growing recognition that the application of the principles while designing and conducting scientific research can not only address animal welfare but also the quality of science. The Three Rs are currently included in international legislation on the development of pharmaceuticals meant for human use.

Early Literature On Animal Welfare

Some of the principles highlighted in the Three Rs had been mentioned by several other authors prior to the publication of the Principles of Humane Experimental Technique in 1959. For example, some of the principles are mentioned in Marshal Hall’s essay (A Critical and Experimental Essay on the Circulation of the Blood. Especially as observed in the Minute and Capillary Vessels of the Batrachia and of the Fishes), published in 1831 and in his paper on Experiments on Physiology as a Question of Medical Ethics published in 1847. In his papers, Marshal Hall describes five principles that cover much of the Three Rs and the need for necessary ethical justification. In 1871, organizations such as the British Medical Association and the General Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science also adopted principles aimed at reducing harm, which included the avoidance of unnecessary repetition of experiments, the use of anesthesia, and that painful research should be conducted by skilled personnel in laboratories under proper regulations.

The Genesis Of The Three Rs

The Three Rs on animal testing were formulated by Russell and Burch while working for UFAW, an organization founded by Major Charles Hume in 1926. He enlisted academics and professionals in the care of animals with the aim of shedding light on matters of animal welfare. The organization placed emphasis on the husbandry of animals (during, supply, and use), and the experimental procedures used on the animals. The organization's non-confrontational approach and cooperation with the scientific community allowed it to publish the first UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals in 1947. The handbook was instrumental in improving the welfare of animals used for research and the reliability of results obtained from them. At the time experiments were conducted that caused extreme suffering to research animals. Hume and other biological scientists were particularly alarmed by severe and fatal trauma experiments in the US and Canada done on rats and dogs. According to a letter published in The Lancet in August 1949, the experiments involved the infliction of multiple contusions to the legs of dogs and the study of repeated falls on un-anesthetized rats. In 1954, the organization appointed Dr. William Russell and Mr. Rex Burch to conduct research on humane methods in biological research. According to Russell, the Three Rs of animal testing were established in the course of the research

Impact Of Russell’s And Burch’s Work

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique provided firm foundations for the need to change the handling of animals and the use of animals for research. The book explained the ethical concern for animal welfare in research, including the possibility that some animal species could be conscious. It also explained how affective states are linked to the endocrine and neurological system and the effects of changes in physiology that are caused by stress. The book also established how harm to animals should be graded and gave examples of how the use of replacement, reduction, and refinement could minimize harm to animals. Russell and Burch showed that the use of humane methods was compatible with the objectives of research including the improvement of data from experiments.

Replacement

Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal use methods in the attainment of a similar level of results. Some of the practical alternatives that follow the replacement guidelines include the use of cell cultures, in vitro models, and imaging and computer models. The extraction of insulin from bacterial cultures is among the most popular examples of replacement.

Reduction

Reduction refers to the utilization of better statistical analysis and quality study design that requires the use of the least number of animals in order to obtain maximum information. Poor experimental design and inappropriate statistical analysis of experimental results can lead to inefficient use of animals and scientific resources in toxicological research. Experts believe that an understanding of statistics and experimental design is necessary.

Refinement

The refinement of animal procedures refers to the improvement of scientific techniques that minimize pain and suffering over the lifetime of the animals. Refinement of techniques helps mitigate conditions that cause hormonal imbalance such as stress and discomfort, which could lead to fluctuations in the test results. For example, a study on genetically modified mice for Huntington’s disease showed remarkable fluctuations in results when mice were provided with comfortable and near-natural environments compared to the caged barren.

Positive Interaction Between The Three Rs

 There are numerous instances where the application of one of the Three R’s can have a positive impact on one or both of the other 2Rs. For example, the substitution of animals with higher neurophysiological sensitivity with metazoan parasites or invertebrates is a positive replacement strategy that could also be considered a refinement strategy due to the use of animals with a “lower suffering capacity.” Similarly, the adoption of testing of substance on cells in culture, as opposed to living animals, is a replacement strategy that could also be considered both a reduction and refinement strategy as it reduces the number of animals used and minimizes the harm experienced by those animals.

Conflicts Between The Three Rs

There are also instances where the application of one of the Rs can have a negative influence on the application of one or both of the other Rs. When such conflicts arise researchers and ethical review committees evaluate the impact of one of the Rs and make difficult decisions in the prioritization of each of the Rs.

Conflict Between Reduction And Refinement

There are numerous circumstances where a conflict between reduction and refinement could occur. For example, the use of implanted telemetry devices enables researchers to collect data remotely from undisturbed animals. The technique is considered an important refinement method of data collection as it moves away from taking regular blood samples and the use of permanent catheters. The method could also lead to the reduction of animals needed and an increase in the quality of data obtained. The implantation of the telemetry device, however, requires extensive surgery that could be associated with considerable postoperative pain. The size of the transmitter could also cause a significant amount of physiological stress, particularly in small animals. Consequently, the technique could have a negative impact on refinement.

Conflicts Between Replacement And Reduction

The development of non-animal (replacement) methods, which needs to be compared to the In vivo model or other traditional experiment methods often results in an increase in the number of animals used in the short-term. 

Prioritization Of Replacement, Reduction, And Refinement

Since there are both positive and negative interactions between the three Rs, guidelines on prioritization are required. In some national guidelines, refinement is given priority over reduction. The reasoning behind the guideline is that the experience of an individual animal is paramount to the number of animals, and the additional suffering of one animal in exchange for a reduction in the total number is unacceptable. However, when a considerable reduction in the number of animals can be achieved by minor additional stress or discomfort, then perhaps reduction could be more acceptable. Suitable guidelines should be developed by the international community to help navigate ethical dilemmas as a result of conflicts between the principles. In the absence of legal guidance, researchers must draw their own conclusions on the relative impact of the harms and benefits of such conflicting techniques. Such dilemmas should be addressed on a case by case basis depending on the nature of the experiment and the level of animal suffering.

Scientific And Ethical Justification And Implementation

Today legislation in the United States and Europe requires that all proposed use of animals in research should be subject to review to determine the use is scientifically and ethically justifiable. Such laws recognize Russell and Burch’s concept and also place moral and legal obligations on all stakeholders to replace, reduce, and refine laboratory animal tests whenever possible. The successful implementation of the Three Rs depends on the training of those involved in testing and research and a team approach that encourages the sharing of information and collaboration within and between organizations. Training should provide information that allows scientists to conduct animal procedures that uphold high standards of science and animal welfare, following proper evaluation of the scientific and ethical considerations on the use of research animals. 

More in Feature