Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society

The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.

Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine

Despite aspirations to substitute animal experimentation with alternative methods and recent progress in the area of non-animal approaches, such as organoïds and organ(s)-on-a-chip technologies, there is no extensive replacement of animal-based research in biomedicine. In this paper, I will analyse this state of affairs with reference to key institutional and socio-epistemic barriers for the development and use of non-animal approaches in the context of biomedical research in Europe. I will argue that there exist several factors that inhibit change in this context. In particular, there is what I call "scientific inertia", i.e. a certain degree of conservatism in scientific practice regarding the development and use of non-animal approaches to replace animal experimentation. This type of inertia is facilitated by socio-epistemic characteristics of animal-based research in the life sciences and is a key factor in understanding the status quo in biomedical research. The underlying reasons for scientific inertia have not received sufficient attention in the literature to date because the phenomenon transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in the study of animal experimentation. This paper addresses this issue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding of scientific inertia by using a methodology that looks at the interplay of institutional, epistemic, and regulatory aspects of animal-based research.

Locating the 'culture wars' in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

The increasingly global scope of biomedical research and testing using animals is generating disagreement over the best way to regulate laboratory animal science and care. Despite many common aims, the practices through which political and epistemic authority are allocated in the regulations around animal research varies internationally, coming together in what can be identified as different national constitutions. Tensions between these periodically erupt within the laboratory animal research community as a 'cultural war' between those favouring centralised control and those advocating local flexibility. Drawing on long-term engagement with key events and actors in these policy debates, I propose these national differences in the constitution of animal research can be understood through the intersection of two key variables: i) the location of institutional responsibility to permit research projects and ii) the distribution of epistemic authority to shape research practices. These variables are used to explain the development of different policy frameworks in the UK, Europe, and the USA, and identify where there is convergence and divergence in practice. Concluding, I suggest the way these approaches are combined and enacted in different countries reflects different national civic epistemologies, which are coming into conflict in the increasingly global networks of laboratory animal science.

Animal Welfare Standards and International Collaborations

Globalization of the biomedical research enterprise is occurring at an accelerating pace. Increasingly, scientific collaborations and contracts cross national borders. Assurance that the caliber of animal research and animal welfare are consistent among countries and that such animal use is done in a humane and conscientious manner is of significant concern to the scientific community, the general public, and other stakeholders. Bridging these international collaborations is a clear scientific imperative for statistical validity of the data and reproducibility of results to ensure the animal use is both meaningful and impactful. One way to mitigate the potential confounding effects that the welfare of the animals may have on the research data is to harmonize animal care and use practices and procedures worldwide. By harmonizing the care and use of animals, using high standards that are internationally accepted, research animal welfare and high-quality science will be achieved.

Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3Rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector

The biomedical industry relies on the skills of animal technologists (ATs) to put laboratory animal welfare into practice. This is the first study to explore how this is achieved in relation to their participation in implementing refinement and reduction, two of the three key guiding ethical principles--the "3Rs"--of what is deemed to be humane animal experimentation. The interpretative approach contributes to emerging work within the social sciences and humanities exploring care and ethics in practice. Based on qualitative analysis of participant observation within animal research facilities in UK universities, in-depth interviews with ATs, facility managers, and other stakeholders, and analysis of regulatory guidelines, we draw a contrast between the minimum required of ATs by law and how their care work not only meets but often exceeds these requirements. We outline how ATs constitute a key source of innovation and insight into the refinement of animal care and the reduction of animal use, hitherto not formally acknowledged. Exploring AT care work as an example of ethics in practice makes an original contribution to broader debates within health care and animal welfare about how technology, regulation, and behavior can foster and sustain a "culture of care".

Innovative in cellulo method as an alternative to in vivo neurovirulence test for the characterization and quality control of human live Yellow Fever virus vaccines: A pilot study

Live attenuated vaccines have proved to be mostly valuable in the prevention of infectious diseases in humans, especially in developing countries. The safety and potency of vaccine, and the consistency of vaccine batch-to-batch manufacturing, must be proven before being administrated to humans. For now, the tests used to control vaccine safety largely involve animal testing. For live viral vaccines, regulations require suppliers to demonstrate the absence of neurovirulence in animals, principally in non-human primates and mice. In a search to reduce the use of animals and embracing the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement in the use of laboratory animals), we developed a new Blood-Brain Barrier Minibrain (BBB-Minibrain) in cellulo device to evaluate the neuroinvasiveness/neurovirulence of live Yellow Fever virus (YFV) vaccines. A pilot study was performed using the features of two distinct YFV strains, with the ultimate goal of proposing a companion test to characterize YFV neurovirulence. Here, we demonstrate that the BBB-Minibrain model is a promising alternative to consider for future replacement of YFV vaccine in vivo neurovirulence testing (see graphical abstract).