Harm-Benefit Analysis May Not Be the Best Approach to Ensure Minimal Harms and Maximal Benefits of Animal Research-Alternatives Should Be Explored

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.

Fit for Purpose Assessment: A New Direction for IACUCs

The organization and function of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is the key component of government regulation and oversight of necessary scientific research using live animals and of AAALAC - International accreditation of animal care and use programs in the United States. The regulations, roles, and responsibilities of IACUCs have evolved since their inception 35 years ago from a limited focus on animal welfare and specific animal procedures to embracing scientific quality, data reproducibility and translation, and animal welfare as inextricably interdependent and critical components of generation of new scientific knowledge and medical treatments. A current challenge for IACUCs is in evaluating whether benefits to be derived (eg, new knowledge or treatments) justify any unavoidable pain, stress, or injury associated with proposed research protocols, because the former are long-term and at best speculative outcomes, whereas the latter are immediate and tangible for the study animals. Scientific consensus is that research most likely to generate significant new knowledge and medical treatments is that conducted to high scientific, technical, and quality standards and reported with full transparency to facilitate reproducibility. As an alternative to current benefits evaluations included in risk benefit and harm benefit constructs, the authors propose that IACUCs assess the proposed research for scientific quality and alignment of study elements with the study purpose (e.g., Fit for Purpose [FfP]), including justifications for study design components, selection of primary endpoints and technologies, rationale for data and statistical analyses, and research communication plans. Fit for Purpose endpoints are objective, immediate, and impactful as are the potential risks for study animals, and at the same time they are the best predictors for achievement of longer-term benefits. We propose that IACUCs and any revision of The ILAR Guide consider FfP concepts in place of traditional benefits assessment to accelerate the generation of new knowledge and treatments benefiting medical and veterinary patients and the environment through better science and animal welfare rather than to continue to rely on speculative future outcomes.