You
are here: |
 |
Minimising the Harm Done to Animals
Used in Science - The 3Rs
Animal-based scientists are required by law to make sure that they
keep any pain, suffering or other harm they cause to the animals they use for
research , teaching and testing as low as possible. The 3Rs Principle is applied at the planning stages before any direct work
with animals begins. Its purpose is to help scientists to minimise the invasiveness,
unpleasantness or noxiousness of anything they do to animals. The Three
Rs Principle is a practical guide to scientists. It is designed to
ensure that:
- animals which might suffer are only used when
necessary (Replacement),
- that no more and no fewer animals are used
than are required to achieve the objectives of the work (Reduction), and
- that if any noxiousness is caused during the
work, it is kept as low as possible (Refinement).
Click on the following headings to find out more. Even more information
can be obtained within each section by clicking on highlighted words.
The 3Rs -
Replacement, Reduction & Refinement
Replacement means that animals should not be used at all if the same research,
teaching or testing aim can be achieved in other ways. The word "animal" refers
to those higher order animals that are capable of suffering
or feeling pain. So the first question scientists must ask themselves at the planning
stage of a study is "Do I need to use higher order
animals at all?" If the answer is "Yes"
then Reduction and Refinement must be applied.
Reduction means keeping the number of animals used to the minimum necessary
to achieve the research, teaching or testing purposes of the work. This avoids
using unnecessarily large numbers of animals. But it is equally important to avoid
using too few animals. If not enough animals are used it will not be possible
to interpret the results, and the animals used would have been wasted. So the
second question scientists must ask is "What is the
lowest number of animals needed for this work?"
Refinement refers to keeping any pain, suffering or other harm which may be
caused as low as possible for each and every animal used in the work. This means
that every aspect of the work must be reviewed carefully and great care taken
to minimise any noxious effects on the animals. Thus, the third question scientists
must ask is "How can I minimise the noxiousness of
every aspect of this work?" It is worth noting that many studies cause
very low or no pain, suffering or other harm to the animals involved, while others
do indeed have noxious effects.
Return
to section menu
Assessing the invasiveness, severity or noxiousness of a scientific
manipulation The invasiveness, severity or noxiousness of any proposed research,
teaching or testing procedure must be given very careful consideration during
the planning stages of the work, for two reasons.
First, it is necessary to
anticipate the extent of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that might
be caused to the animals by each part of the proposed procedure, in order to work
out the best ways to keep any noxiousness as low as possible using refinement
strategies.
Second, it is necessary to
balance the expected levels of noxiousness against the anticipated benefits of
the work in what is called a Harm-Benefit Analysis. The aim of this is to make sure that
any harm is the lowest that is practically feasible and that the benefits are
the greatest that can be reasonably achieved. The benefit must outweigh the harm
by the greatest feasible margin for the work to proceed. It is the responsibility
of both the animal-based scientists who prepare each research, teaching and testing
proposal and the Animal Ethics
Committee that reviews it to do harm-benefit analyses.
Noxiousness Scale
To help with this process various invasiveness, severity or noxiousness
scales have been developed world-wide. These help animal-based scientists
work out what the negative impact of a proposed procedure is likely to be on the
animals. While no such formal criteria exist in Australia, Animal Ethics Committees
usually classify animal experiments in a similar manner.
Note that the higher the noxiousness of a procedure, the greater
the anticipated benefits must be before it can be approved. For specific examples
at each level of noxiousness click on the relevant grade.
Grade O No
suffering or noxiousness.
Such procedures would not usually require justification
in terms of expected indirect or direct benefits to animals, people or both.
Grade A Little
suffering or noxiousness.
Such procedures would requirejustification regarding the expected indirect or direct
benefits to animals, people or both.
Grade B Moderate
suffering or noxiousness.
Such procedures would requiregood justification
regarding the expected direct benefits to animals, people or both.
Grade C Severe
suffering or noxiousness.
Such procedures would require strong justification
regarding the expected direct benefits to animals, people or both.
Grade X Very
severe suffering or noxiousness.
Such procedures would require the most exceptional
justification and would be permitted only very rarely.
Return
to section menu
How much suffering or noxiousness is caused by research, teaching and testing
procedures in New Zealand?
In New Zealand the vast majority of scientific procedures produce
little or no suffering or noxiousness. Nevertheless, a significant percentage
of procedures are given noxiousness ratings of "C"
or "X" despite careful application of the Three
Rs. Such work can only be undertaken if those doing it can provide strong justification for "C" rated procedures
and the most exceptional justification
for "X" rated procedures (see Balancing Harm and Benefit). A detailed breakdown of these
figures is available from the National
Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.
|
