How Should the 3 R's Be Revised and Why?

Q2 Social Sciences
Rebecca Critser, Paul Locke
{"title":"How Should the 3 <i>R</i>'s Be Revised and Why?","authors":"Rebecca Critser, Paul Locke","doi":"10.1001/amajethics.2024.724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique established what many know today as the \"3 R's\"-refinement, reduction, and replacement-when it was published in 1959. Since their formulation, these principles have guided decision-making for many about nonhuman animal subjects' uses in laboratory-based research. Discussion about how to amend or replace the 3 R's is ongoing, driven mainly by philosophical ethics approaches to nonhuman animal rights and by scientific advancement. This article explores merits and drawbacks of possible updates to and interpretations of the 3 R's.</p>","PeriodicalId":38034,"journal":{"name":"AMA journal of ethics","volume":"26 9","pages":"E724-729"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMA journal of ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2024.724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique established what many know today as the "3 R's"-refinement, reduction, and replacement-when it was published in 1959. Since their formulation, these principles have guided decision-making for many about nonhuman animal subjects' uses in laboratory-based research. Discussion about how to amend or replace the 3 R's is ongoing, driven mainly by philosophical ethics approaches to nonhuman animal rights and by scientific advancement. This article explores merits and drawbacks of possible updates to and interpretations of the 3 R's.

如何修订 3 R 标准?
1959 年出版的《人道实验技术原则》确立了今天许多人所熟知的 "3R "原则--提纯、减量和替代。自制定以来,这些原则一直指导着许多人关于在实验室研究中使用非人类动物实验对象的决策。关于如何修改或取代 3 R 原则的讨论一直在进行,主要是受非人类动物权利的哲学伦理学方法和科学进步的推动。本文探讨了对 3 R 的可能更新和解释的优点和缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AMA journal of ethics
AMA journal of ethics Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based and audio CME, visuals, and more. Since its inception as an editorially-independent journal, we promote ethics inquiry as a public good.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信