TY - JOUR
T1 - The Three Rs of Animal Research
T2 - What they Mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why
AU - Curzer, Howard J.
AU - Perry, Gad
AU - Wallace, Mark C.
AU - Perry, Dan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
PY - 2016/4/1
Y1 - 2016/4/1
N2 - The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is entrusted with assessing the ethics of proposed projects prior to approval of animal research. The role of the IACUC is detailed in legislation and binding rules, which are in turn inspired by the Three Rs: the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. However, these principles are poorly defined. Although this provides the IACUC leeway in assessing a proposed project, it also affords little guidance. Our goal is to provide procedural and philosophical clarity to the IACUC without mandating a particular outcome. To do this, we analyze the underlying logic of the Three Rs and conclude that the Three Rs accord animals moral standing, though not necessarily “rights” in the philosophical sense. We suggest that the Rs are hierarchical, such that Replacement, which can totally eliminate harm, should be considered prior to Reduction, which decreases the number of animals harmed, with Refinement being considered last. We also identify the need for a hitherto implicit fourth R: Reject, which allows the IACUC to refuse permission for a project which does not promise sufficient benefit to offset the pain and distress likely to be caused by the proposed research.
AB - The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is entrusted with assessing the ethics of proposed projects prior to approval of animal research. The role of the IACUC is detailed in legislation and binding rules, which are in turn inspired by the Three Rs: the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. However, these principles are poorly defined. Although this provides the IACUC leeway in assessing a proposed project, it also affords little guidance. Our goal is to provide procedural and philosophical clarity to the IACUC without mandating a particular outcome. To do this, we analyze the underlying logic of the Three Rs and conclude that the Three Rs accord animals moral standing, though not necessarily “rights” in the philosophical sense. We suggest that the Rs are hierarchical, such that Replacement, which can totally eliminate harm, should be considered prior to Reduction, which decreases the number of animals harmed, with Refinement being considered last. We also identify the need for a hitherto implicit fourth R: Reject, which allows the IACUC to refuse permission for a project which does not promise sufficient benefit to offset the pain and distress likely to be caused by the proposed research.
KW - Ecology
KW - Philosophy
KW - Policy
KW - Research ethics
KW - Wildlife science
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930255107&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8
DO - 10.1007/s11948-015-9659-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 26026966
AN - SCOPUS:84930255107
VL - 22
SP - 549
EP - 565
JO - Science and Engineering Ethics
JF - Science and Engineering Ethics
SN - 1353-3452
IS - 2
ER -