是时候重新审视 "三R "了,让它们更适合 21 世纪的需要

Jarrod Bailey
{"title":"是时候重新审视 \"三R \"了,让它们更适合 21 世纪的需要","authors":"Jarrod Bailey","doi":"10.1177/02611929241241187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Three Rs have become widely accepted and pursued, and are now the go-to framework that encourages the humane use of animals in science, where no other option is believed to exist. However, many people, including scientists, harbour varying degrees of concern about the value and impact of the Three Rs. This ranges from a continued adherence to the Three Rs principles in the belief that they have performed well, through a belief that there should be more emphasis (or indeed a sole focus) on replacement, to a view that the principles have hindered, rather than helped, a critical approach to animal research that should have resulted in replacement to a much greater extent. This critical review asks questions of the Three Rs and their implementation, and provides an overview of the current situation surrounding animal use in biomedical science (chiefly in research). It makes a case that it is time to move away from the Three Rs and that, while this happens, the principles need to be made more robust and enforced more efficiently. To expedite a shift from animal use in science, toward a much greater and quicker adoption of human-specific New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), some argue for a straightforward focus on the best available science.","PeriodicalId":7703,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives to Laboratory Animals","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"It’s Time to Review the Three Rs, to Make them More Fit for Purpose in the 21st Century\",\"authors\":\"Jarrod Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02611929241241187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Three Rs have become widely accepted and pursued, and are now the go-to framework that encourages the humane use of animals in science, where no other option is believed to exist. However, many people, including scientists, harbour varying degrees of concern about the value and impact of the Three Rs. This ranges from a continued adherence to the Three Rs principles in the belief that they have performed well, through a belief that there should be more emphasis (or indeed a sole focus) on replacement, to a view that the principles have hindered, rather than helped, a critical approach to animal research that should have resulted in replacement to a much greater extent. This critical review asks questions of the Three Rs and their implementation, and provides an overview of the current situation surrounding animal use in biomedical science (chiefly in research). It makes a case that it is time to move away from the Three Rs and that, while this happens, the principles need to be made more robust and enforced more efficiently. To expedite a shift from animal use in science, toward a much greater and quicker adoption of human-specific New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), some argue for a straightforward focus on the best available science.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternatives to Laboratory Animals\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternatives to Laboratory Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929241241187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives to Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929241241187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

三R "原则已被广泛接受和奉行,目前已成为鼓励在科学领域人道使用动物的首选框架,因为人们认为不存在其他选择。然而,包括科学家在内的许多人对 "三R "原则的价值和影响持有不同程度的担忧,其中包括继续坚持 "三R "原则,认为它们已经取得了良好的效果;认为应该更加强调(或只关注)替代性;以及认为这些原则阻碍而非帮助了动物研究的批判性方法,而这种方法本应在更大程度上实现替代性。这篇批判性评论对 "三R "原则及其实施提出了问题,并概述了生物医学科学(主要是研究)中动物使用的现状。它提出的理由是,现在是摒弃 "三原则 "的时候了,在摒弃的同时,需要使这些原则更加有力,执行起来更加有效。为了加快从科学中使用动物转向更多、更快地采用针对人类的新方法(NAMs),一些人主张直接关注现有的最佳科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
It’s Time to Review the Three Rs, to Make them More Fit for Purpose in the 21st Century
The Three Rs have become widely accepted and pursued, and are now the go-to framework that encourages the humane use of animals in science, where no other option is believed to exist. However, many people, including scientists, harbour varying degrees of concern about the value and impact of the Three Rs. This ranges from a continued adherence to the Three Rs principles in the belief that they have performed well, through a belief that there should be more emphasis (or indeed a sole focus) on replacement, to a view that the principles have hindered, rather than helped, a critical approach to animal research that should have resulted in replacement to a much greater extent. This critical review asks questions of the Three Rs and their implementation, and provides an overview of the current situation surrounding animal use in biomedical science (chiefly in research). It makes a case that it is time to move away from the Three Rs and that, while this happens, the principles need to be made more robust and enforced more efficiently. To expedite a shift from animal use in science, toward a much greater and quicker adoption of human-specific New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), some argue for a straightforward focus on the best available science.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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