Search

It has been 65 years since the publication of Russell and Burch's "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique," which established the '3Rs'--refinement, reduction, and replacement--as the key principles applicable to decision making about, and the use of, non-human animals in laboratory settings. The 3Rs are universally accepted by responsible scientists throughout the world and form the basis for many national legal and regulatory systems governing animal use in laboratories. This Article will discuss broadly how the 3Rs have evolved over the past seven decades since the publication of Russell and Burch's seminal work, and examine the 3Rs in light of the needs of the biomedical research challenges today and into the future. The Article also evaluates recent critiques of the 3Rs and assesses whether such critiques are warranted considering current research practices and societal concerns. To make the 3Rs maximally useful for the 21st century and beyond, additional principles should be added that take into consideration (1) the need to strengthen reproducibility and predictivity of animal-based research; (2) the recognition that animals are sentient beings whose basic needs must be met; and (3) the importance of a harm-benefit evaluation that addresses the benefits, risks, and harms to humans as well as animals. The 3Rs must evolve in these ways so that science can continue to develop, and laboratory animal use can be reduced or replaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that applies the one health approach to show and address the issue of housing instability in Baltimore, Maryland, and extends the public health concept by connecting animal welfare and human health. It examines the hypothesis that people living in low income and vulnerable communities, who are at a high risk for housing loss through eviction, seek to surrender their pets before being evicted. It describes strategies to alleviate financial stress related to pets.

Animal models are currently the "gold standard" in biomedical research. However, new approaches that do not involve the use of nonhuman animals are evolving to address the public health and medical challenges for which animal models are less well suited. These alternatives represent important advancements and are being recognized as significant advances. There is a clear societal need to encourage such efforts, and there is widespread support to move away from animal-based research by the American public. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds the majority of biomedical research in the United States and should be a key player in developing new methods. There have been numerous bills introduced before the United States Congress that seek to change the way that NIH allocates its resources, with an emphasis on increasing funding for alternatives. To date, none of these bills have advanced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. This Article examines how NIH could utilize the policy options available under its current laws and regulations to move toward a research environment that puts greater value on alternatives and, at the same time, moves away from animal models as the gold standard. The major advantages of this approach are that it can be implemented without changing current laws and regulations, is relatively straightforward, and can be executed relatively quickly. If adopted, these policy options have the potential to create a much-needed paradigm shift that will improve scientific research while responding to the societal desire to use fewer animals in the biomedical arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists are usually good at teaching, sometimes even to lay audiences. But communicating with journalists, activists, or policymakers can be a different story - hesitancy to make mistakes as well as the temptation to disproportionally promote one's own case come into play. The multitude of social media and other web-based outlets has diversified and accelerated the communication of science. Real-time reactions, sharing of data, tools and results, increasing invitation of personal opinion, demand for transparency, political correctness, and loss of trust in experts are challenges to researchers in general. The field of alternatives to animal testing is more political and important to lay audiences than many others, so its scientists must be especially aware of these challenges. Public engagement offers the opportunity to form community and create wide support for non-animal research and its implementation. This requires scientists to step out of the ivory tower of higher education and engage with diverse interest groups by outreach activities, interviews, and press releases, etc. by employing tailored communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]