Combes Robert D, Balls Michael
Independent Consultant, Norwich, UK.
c/o FRAME, Russell and Burch House, Nottingham, UK.
Altern Lab Anim. 2014 Sep;42(4):245-59. doi: 10.1177/026119291404200406.
In 2013, an undercover investigation by the BUAV raised serious concerns about the use, treatment and care of laboratory animals involved in regulated procedures at Imperial College, London. This led to an inquiry, set up by the college, which found deficiencies in the local ethical review process and a general lack of focus on the implementation of the Three Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction). The Three Rs concept is the foundation of UK and EU legislation, but surveys of the published literature show that lack of its adoption is widespread. In spite of numerous guidelines, publications and publicity material extolling the benefits of the Three Rs to both animals and science, as well as substantial advances in the development, validation, and deployment of mechanistically-based non-animal methods, many scientists prefer to use traditional animal-based approaches. In addition, such scientists tend to pay less attention than they should to strategic planning, experimental design and the choice of appropriate statistical procedures. They are often unaware of the existence of replacement test methods to address all or some of their objectives, and are reluctant to develop and use new replacement methods. We explore some possible reasons for these shortcomings. We summarise the welfare and scientific effects of each of the Three Rs, and argue that: a) there is an urgent need for evidence to be made readily accessible to prospective licensees, which directly demonstrates the beneficial effects on animal welfare of the implementation of the Three Rs, separately and in combination, and the direct link this has with the quality of the scientific data obtained; b) a detailed systematic review of this evidence should be undertaken to augment the inadequate content of the prescribed Module 5 licensee training offered currently in the UK; c) such training (including that suggested in new EU-wide proposals) should be much more comprehensive, with stronger emphasis on the Three Rs, all parts of the syllabus should be fully examined, and there should be no exemptions from Module 5 training; and d) as the responsible Government department in the UK, the Home Office should take measures to tighten up its guidance for local ethical review, and its system of inspection of designated establishments, to obviate the justification for future undercover investigations.
2013年，英国废除动物实验联盟（BUAV）开展的一项秘密调查引发了人们对伦敦帝国理工学院涉及管制程序的实验动物的使用、治疗和护理的严重关切。这导致该学院发起了一项调查，调查发现当地伦理审查过程存在缺陷，并且普遍缺乏对“3R原则”（替代、优化和减少）实施情况的关注。“3R原则”是英国和欧盟立法的基础，但对已发表文献的调查表明，该原则未得到广泛采用。尽管有大量指南、出版物和宣传材料颂扬“3R原则”对动物和科学的益处，以及基于机制的非动物方法在开发、验证和应用方面取得了重大进展，但许多科学家仍倾向于使用传统的基于动物的方法。此外，这类科学家往往对战略规划、实验设计和适当统计程序的选择缺乏应有的关注。他们常常不知道存在能够实现其全部或部分目标的替代测试方法，并且不愿意开发和使用新的替代方法。我们探究了造成这些缺陷的一些可能原因。我们总结了“3R原则”各自的福利和科学影响，并认为：a）迫切需要向前瞻性的许可证持有者提供易于获取的证据，直接证明单独和综合实施“3R原则”对动物福利的有益影响，以及这与所获得科学数据质量的直接联系；b）应对这些证据进行详细的系统综述，以补充目前英国规定的第5模块许可证持有者培训中不足的内容；c）此类培训（包括新的全欧盟范围内提议中建议的培训）应更加全面，更加强调“3R原则”，应对教学大纲的所有部分进行全面审查，并且第5模块培训不应有豁免情况；d）作为英国的责任政府部门，内政部应采取措施加强其对当地伦理审查的指导以及对指定机构的检查制度，以避免未来进行秘密调查的理由。
