Ethics of Research involving animals
Developments in policy and public opinion
The principle of humane experimental technique: the Three Rs
2.14 Throughout the first half of the 20th century, the use of animals in biological and medical research increased greatly under the regulatory licensing system, despite continuing protests. Although active opposition to animal research was at a relatively low level between the 1920s and 1960s, changes in the way animals were treated, and increased understanding of the capacity of animals to suffer pain and distress led to the first radical scientific reassessment of the 1876 Act.
2.15 Two pioneers of laboratory animal welfare were the UK scientists Professor William Russell and Rex Burch. In 1958, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), an organisation committed to advancing animal welfare in research through support for studies on humane techniques (see Box 2.3), awarded fellowships to Russell and Burch to study ethical aspects of animal research. Their seminal book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, published the following year, defined the principle of the Three Rs (Refinement, Reduction and Replacement of animal experiments) as the basis for more humane experimental practices (see Box 2.2). The concept initially attracted little attention. It was not until 1978 when Professor David Smythe (then Chairman of the Research Defence Society, RDS; see Box 2.4) published the book Alternatives to Animal Experiments, that scientists started to become more aware of the Three Rs. Since the mid-1980s, knowledge about the concept has increased among scientists, and it has since been accepted in many parts of the world. While many stakeholders would argue that each of the Three Rs is equally important, there are also organisations dedicated specifically to the Replacement approach (see Box 2.4 and Chapter 11).
| Box 2.2: The Three Rs
The Three Rs are discussed in more detail in Chapters 11 and 12. We reproduce here the definitions as presented by Russell and Burch in 1959:* Refinement: Any decrease in the incidence of severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals which are used. Reduction: The reduction in the number of animals used to obtain information of given amount and precision. Replacement: The substitution of conscious living higher animals with insentient material. |
| Box 2.3: Humane research trusts Dr Hadwen Trust Established in 1970, the Dr Hadwen Trust is a medical research charity that funds the development of alternatives to replace animal experiments in biomedical research and testing. The Trust aims to contribute to the replacement of animals while furthering research into major health problems such as cancer, heart disease, meningitis and Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers sponsored by the Trust do not conduct research on animals or animal tissues. Humane Research Trust The Humane Research Trust is a fund-raising charity supporting medical research into human disease without the use of animals or animal tissue. It aims to eliminate the need for animals in the medical sciences. Established in the late 1960s the Trust works with scientists, funding a wide range of projects at UK hospitals and universities. The Trust also funds lectureships and studentships and hosts scientific conferences. |
2.16 In the latter half of the 20th century, the study of animal welfare and animal behaviour became increasingly established as scientific disciplines. A number of animal-welfare organisations, especially the UFAW, the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) and the RSPCA (see Box 2.4), contributed to this development. They established working relationships with organisations emerging within the scientific community which had a specific interest in laboratory animal welfare including the Laboratory Animals Science Association (LASA), the Institute of Animal Technology (IAT) and the Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association (LAVA; see Box 2.4). All of these groups contributed to the developing legislation. In the European Union (EU), the establishment of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM; see Box 2.4) was a significant step towards achieving the promotion of the Three Rs across Member States.
| Box 2.4: Campaigning and stakeholder organisations focusing on scientific and ethical issues raised by animal research
Animal-welfare organisations UFAW is an independent animal-welfare organisation that was founded in 1926 by Major Charles Hume, based on his belief that ‘animal problems must be tackled on a scientific basis, with a maximum of sympathy but a minimum of sentimentality’. UFAW has since played a major role in improving conditions for animals. The organisation focuses on promoting scientific knowledge and expertise to improve the welfare of pets, zoo animals and laboratory animals, as well as in agriculture. UFAW funds research, holds symposia, gives advice to the Government and others, and produces publications on animal welfare, including the journal Animal Welfare and the UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals. Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) FRAME was founded in 1969 to promote the Three Rs and to raise awareness about alternative methods. FRAME also publishes the peer-reviewed scientific journal ATLA (Alternatives to Laboratory Animals). The Fund takes the view that the current scale of animal research is unacceptable, while recognising that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not a feasible option. Its long-term aim is to replace the use of laboratory animals through the development, validation and acceptance of alternative methods. In1983, FRAME joined with the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation (CRAE) to advise the Government on what would become the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (A(SP)A). In 1991, the FRAME Alternatives Laboratory (FAL) was opened at the University of Nottingham Medical School. |
next page
Footnotes
21 The Commission was established in response to renewed public concern about animal research that had arisen, at least partly, from
a trial of Stephen Coleridge, Secretary of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (see Box 2.4). In 1903, he had quoted from the book
The Shambles of Science at a public meeting. The book was published by two antivivisectionists and described their experiences as
medical students in London. Coleridge was successfully sued for defamation by a scientist, but the evidence revealed at the trial and
the subsequent popularity of the book from which Coleridge had quoted led to an increase in sensitivity about animal research. A
statue of a small brown dog was subsequently erected in Battersea Park, London in 1906. The inscription read: ‘In memory of the
brown terrier dog done to death in the laboratories of University College in February 1903 after having endured vivisection
extending over more than two months and having been handed over from one vivisector to another till death came to his release.
Also in memory of the 232 dogs vivisected in the same place during the year 1902. Men and women of England: How long shall
these things be?’ The statue became the symbol of the controversy surrounding vivisection and attracted a series of demonstrations
and counter demonstrations. In 1907, some hundred medical students tried to destroy the statue, but were prevented by local
residents and the police. Considering the controversy afresh from first principles, the Commission concurred with the findings of the
first Commission and saw no need for any major revisions to the statutory framework. A number of administrative changes were
suggested, such as an increase in staff of the inspectorate and refinement of methods of handling animals. See Radford M (2001)
Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p71–2.
22 See Hopley E (1998) Campaigning against Cruelty – The hundred year history of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
(London: BUAV).