Reviewing Current Guidance for the 'R' of Replacement and Rethinking it with the 'Replacement Checklist'.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Juliet P Dukes, Amy Beale, Celean Camp
{"title":"Reviewing Current Guidance for the 'R' of Replacement and Rethinking it with the 'Replacement Checklist'.","authors":"Juliet P Dukes, Amy Beale, Celean Camp","doi":"10.1177/02611929251319265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research involving the use of animals follows the Three Rs principles of <i>replacement</i>, <i>reduction</i> and <i>refinement</i>. Based on the principle of <i>replacement</i>, UK and EU legislation requires that technologies or alternative approaches directly replacing or avoiding the use of animals in experiments must be used wherever scientifically possible. However, <i>replacement</i> is often not thoroughly considered, and failures in the existing system of checks and balances are widespread. Existing guidance and advice on searching for and identifying alternative approaches and replacement techniques is confusing and misleading, and this contributes to the lack of knowledge and confidence in addressing <i>replacement</i> and the structural and procedural barriers around it. In this paper, we propose simple improvements to existing processes and a basic practical checklist, to help researchers identify and assess scientifically satisfactory replacement approaches. This tool will also support members of funding review panels, Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs), Animal Welfare Bodies (AWBs), Animal Ethics Committees, and those editing and reviewing scientific journals in their scrutiny of applications, applicants and publications - particularly with regard to the use of alternative approaches and how these potential approaches were explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":55577,"journal":{"name":"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals","volume":" ","pages":"72-83"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929251319265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research involving the use of animals follows the Three Rs principles of replacement, reduction and refinement. Based on the principle of replacement, UK and EU legislation requires that technologies or alternative approaches directly replacing or avoiding the use of animals in experiments must be used wherever scientifically possible. However, replacement is often not thoroughly considered, and failures in the existing system of checks and balances are widespread. Existing guidance and advice on searching for and identifying alternative approaches and replacement techniques is confusing and misleading, and this contributes to the lack of knowledge and confidence in addressing replacement and the structural and procedural barriers around it. In this paper, we propose simple improvements to existing processes and a basic practical checklist, to help researchers identify and assess scientifically satisfactory replacement approaches. This tool will also support members of funding review panels, Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs), Animal Welfare Bodies (AWBs), Animal Ethics Committees, and those editing and reviewing scientific journals in their scrutiny of applications, applicants and publications - particularly with regard to the use of alternative approaches and how these potential approaches were explored.

回顾现行的“R”替换指南,并用“替换清单”重新思考。
涉及动物使用的研究遵循3r原则:替代(replacement)、减少(reduction)和改进(refine)。基于替代原则,英国和欧盟立法要求,在科学可行的情况下,必须使用直接替代或避免在实验中使用动物的技术或替代方法。然而,更替问题往往没有得到充分考虑,而且现有的制衡制度普遍存在失灵。关于寻找和确定替代方法和替代技术的现有指导和建议令人困惑和误导,这导致在解决替代问题及其周围的结构和程序障碍方面缺乏知识和信心。在本文中,我们提出了对现有流程的简单改进和基本实用清单,以帮助研究人员识别和评估科学满意的替代方法。该工具还将支持资助审查小组、动物福利和伦理审查机构(AWERBs)、动物福利机构(AWBs)、动物伦理委员会的成员,以及科学期刊编辑和审查人员对申请、申请人和出版物的审查,特别是关于使用替代方法以及如何探索这些潜在方法的问题。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
60
审稿时长
>18 weeks
期刊介绍: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA) is a peer-reviewed journal, intended to cover all aspects of the development, validation, implementation and use of alternatives to laboratory animals in biomedical research and toxicity testing. In addition to the replacement of animals, it also covers work that aims to reduce the number of animals used and refine the in vivo experiments that are still carried out.
×
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