The Three Rs of Animal Research: What they Mean for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and Why |
| |
Authors: | Howard J. Curzer Gad Perry Mark C. Wallace Dan Perry |
| |
Affiliation: | 1.Department of Philosophy,Texas Tech University,Lubbock,USA;2.Department of Natural Resources Management, International Center for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies,Texas Tech University,Lubbock,USA;3.Department of Natural Resources Management,Texas Tech University,Lubbock,USA;4.Porter School of Environmental Studies,Tel Aviv University,Tel Aviv,Israel;5.Arava Institute for Environmental Studies,Ketura,Israel |
| |
Abstract: | 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. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|