Public Support For Research Depends On Humane Treatment Of Lab Animals

From left, Deborah Rudacille, Joanne Zurlo, and Alan M. Goldberg Independent surveys carried out over the past 15 years in the United States and Europe have consistently revealed that animal protection is no longer a fringe issue. However, relatively few in the widely defined animal-protection community identify themselves as "antivivisectionists." In fact, a majority of U.S. and European citizens support animal research-when they see evidence that researchers respect laboratory animals, take animal pain and distress into consideration, and alleviate both whenever possible. Clearly, the logical way to build public support for research is for scientists to illustrate by word and deed that they value the animals in their care, and recognize both the moral and the scientific rationale for humane care and treatment of laboratory animals. Attacks on animal protectionists do little to further the perception that researchers are responsible guardians of animal welfare. Instead, they reinforce a negative stereotype of scientists as individuals concerned solely with scientific challenges and unwilling to engage in serious ethical reflection and dialogue. Such stereotypes serve to alienate legislators and members of the public, who consequently feel that scientists do not understand their concerns and are therefore incapable of safeguarding animal well-being without stringent oversight and regulation. Those scientists who dismiss animal protection virtually ensure that research will become more expensive, more unpopular, and more difficult. There is, however, a middle ground, in which the need for animal research is acknowledged together with the recognition that animal welfare is a scientific, as well as a societal, consideration. Called the Three Rs, this approach emphasizes reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use whenever possible. It was initially described by two British scientists, William M.S. Russell and Rex Burch, in their 1959 book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (London, Methuen, 1959; reprinted in 1992 by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, Herts, U.K.). In this book, they point out that "if we are to use a criterion for choosing experiments to perform, the criterion of humanity is the best we could possibly invent." By "humanity," Russell and Burch meant optimum care of the animal. Laws requiring reduction, refinement, and replacement alternatives to animal use in science have been passed in the U.S. and Europe over the past decade. These laws place responsibility for the animals' well-being squarely in the hands of scientists and laboratory staff. A deeper understanding and more informed implementation of these principles is therefore not just ethically and scientifically correct, but also legislatively required (M. Balls, A.M. Goldberg, J.H. Fentem et al., Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 23:838-66, 1995). It is far easier to adopt one-dimensional slogans that reflect an all-or-nothing mentality than to address the complexity of the Three Rs approach. For that very reason, the principles of humane experimental technique pose an intellectual challenge, which scientists should embrace. The Three Rs offer an opportunity to enhance the scientific, economic, and ethical value of every experimental protocol. It is not enough that investigators know their treatment of laboratory animals is exemplary. They must be forthcoming in demonstrating to the public that they indeed care for these animals. They can do so by contributing articles and letters about laboratory experiences to the popular press. They can visit classrooms and talk to students not only about how animal research has benefited humankind, but also about how animal care and use are guided by the Three Rs. More scientists can attend meetings and participate in dialogues with the animal-protection community to focus not on the differences between the two groups, but on opportunities for collaborative efforts and shared concerns. These efforts will help to demonstrate that scientists do care for their animal subjects humanely, because it is scientifically expedient to do so, and because they possess high standards of ethics. These actions can reinforce the image of a caring researcher who still needs to use animals to advance biomedical research, but who uses the fewest number of animals necessary, treats them with the utmost care to ensure they are free of pain, and replaces them with non-animal methods wherever possible. As Dartmouth scientist Bill D. Roebuck noted in a recent article in the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing Newsletter (13[2]: 9, 1996), "one must always weigh tried and true procedures with newer ways of generating similar data. In comparison shopping between methods and experimental approaches, some new and better approaches may arise. More often, refinements of existing approaches will develop. The key point is that opportunities to enhance the scientific value of the experiment can be found in such a review process, while meeting the institutional and societal obligation." Acknowledgment of the principles of the Three Rs is not an apology for using animals, but a reassurance that as long as it remains necessary to do so, nonhuman research subjects will be treated humanely and respectfully. The public perception of science will be greatly enhanced if our colleagues accept the challenge brought on by the Three Rs and the benefits that accompany it. Joanne Zurlo, Alan M. Goldberg, and Deborah Rudacille are associate director, director, and research writer, respectively, at the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Public Support For Research Depends On Humane Treatment Of Lab Animals

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of