IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0022478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey of Canadian Animal-Based Researchers' Views on the Three Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Fenwick
  • Peter Danielson
  • Gilly Griffin

Abstract

The ‘Three Rs’ tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of ‘principal investigators’ and ‘other researchers’ (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered “assistance” to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Fenwick & Peter Danielson & Gilly Griffin, 2011. "Survey of Canadian Animal-Based Researchers' Views on the Three Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022478
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022478
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022478&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0022478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Kilkenny & Nick Parsons & Ed Kadyszewski & Michael F W Festing & Innes C Cuthill & Derek Fry & Jane Hutton & Douglas G Altman, 2009. "Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-11, November.
    2. Roberto Caminiti, 2009. "Replacement of animals in research will never be possible," Nature, Nature, vol. 457(7226), pages 147-147, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Konrad Neumann & Ulrike Grittner & Sophie K Piper & Andre Rex & Oscar Florez-Vargas & George Karystianis & Alice Schneider & Ian Wellwood & Bob Siegerink & John P A Ioannidis & Jonathan Kimmelman & Ul, 2017. "Increasing efficiency of preclinical research by group sequential designs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    4. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    5. Rebecca Tuvel, 2015. "Against the Use of Knowledge Gained from Animal Experimentation," Societies, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Chunyan Cai & Jin Piao & Jing Ning & Xuelin Huang, 2018. "Efficient Two-Stage Designs and Proper Inference for Animal Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 217-232, April.
    7. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    9. Carlijn R Hooijmans & Rob B M de Vries & Maroeska M Rovers & Hein G Gooszen & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2012. "The Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Experimental Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Stanley E Lazic & Johannes Fuss & Peter Gass, 2014. "Quantifying the Behavioural Relevance of Hippocampal Neurogenesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.