Accessing Information on the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experiments

Langley, Gill; Broadhead, Caren; Bottrill, Krys; Combes, Robert; Ewbank, Roger; Hawkins, Penny; Hubrecht, Robert; Jennings, Maggy; Newman, Carol; Rowe, Sally; Southee, J. A.; Todd, M.; Ward, Les

doi:10.1177/026119299902700208

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 3R Research Centre combines, in an on-site service, a thorough discussion of the potential use of Three Rs methods in specific research, a comprehensive search of the literature, and other information sources, including the laboratory animal science network. Thus it has the potential to effectively improve implementation of the Three Rs and the quality of animal research, as was previously recommended by Langley et al (27) in 1999.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The Central Animal Laboratory was chosen by the majority as The search for and implementation of the Three Rs the place from which information should be made available. This may be explained by the fact that, in order to determine where in a study protocol alternatives might exist, and how an adequate Three Rs search strategy could be built, in addition to knowledge on search strategies, specialist knowledge and expertise on laboratory animal science and Three R methods are required (27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey among scientists into the current practice of searching for Replacement, Reduction and Refinement (Three Rs) alternatives, highlights the gap between the statutory required need to apply the Three Rs concept whenever possible and the lack of criteria for searching for Three Rs alternatives. A questionnaire was distributed to 342 scientists (Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations [FELASA] Category C and B individuals), of which 67 responded. These scientists are customers of the Central Animal Laboratory of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. The results indicate that there is room for improvement in searching effectively for the Three Rs: skills in searching biomedical databases for Three Rs alternatives are limited, knowledge of specialised Three Rs databases is very limited, and satisfaction on the availability and accessibility of Three Rs information is low. None of the respondents allocate budget for a specific Three Rs alternatives search, although 50% do spend, on average, two hours engaged in this search for each application to their animal ethics committees. The majority of the respondents expressed the wish that the search for alternatives could be easier and less time consuming, and prefer to achieve this through the service offered by specialists at the Central Animal Laboratory. On the basis of the results from the questionnaire, the 3R Research Centre was established, with the aim of providing services and support for bio-medical scientists, to improve the search for, and subsequent implementation of, the Three Rs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main topics being discussed by this working group are: a) logistical and legal issues; b) how to overcome confidentiality problems; c) possibilities for compensating companies; d) the concept of the honest broker; and e) the need for a central reference point and database (17,18).…”

Section: Working Group On Data Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Third FRAME Toxicity Committee: Working toward Greater Implementation of Alternatives in Toxicity Testing

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments; http://www.frame.org.uk) is a scientific charity, which has, for over 30 years, been advocating and conducting its own research on the application of the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to animal experimentation. FRAME develops and validates scientifically based replacement alternative methods to facilitate their acceptance by scientists and regulators. As part of these activities, FRAME established a FRAME Toxicity Committee in 1979, and a report of its work was published in 1982, and discussed in the proceedings of a subsequent meeting, published in 1983. A Second Toxicity Committee formed in 1988, reported its work in 1990, which was discussed in the proceedings of a subsequent conference, published in 1991. The work of these committees was extremely successful and influential in laying the foundation for later activities in alternatives research. A Third FRAME Toxicity Committee was formed in 1999, since much progress had been achieved in the previous decade, especially with regard to the successful validation of several non-animal replacement methods and the start of their regulatory acceptance. Moreover, some new test methods are on the point of being validated, and many new techniques and discoveries are impacting on toxicity testing. Also, interest in reduction and refinement in toxicology has increased. However, there is considerable scope and need for the further implementation of the Three Rs in toxicity testing, especially due to recent plans for the large-scale testing of high-production volume, hormonally-active and existing chemicals, and the increasing use of transgenic animal models. The new committee comprises 18 experts from industry, academia, animal welfare, legislative and regulatory bodies, with one observer from the UK Government Home Office. The main objective is to review progress made in the application of the Three Rs in the development and safety evaluation of medicines, biologicals, cosmetics, agrochemicals and other products, as well as industrial chemicals, and to make recommendations as a basis for further sensible progress according to sound scientific and ethical criteria. The main committee is to be augmented by several working parties that will focus on specific scientific issues: 1) targeted risk assessment versus hazard identification; 2) data sharing; 3) endocrine disruption; and 4) carcinogenicity testing. The Committee is also to publish a status report on the current situation regarding alternatives in toxicity testing, based on the recommendations of the Second Toxicity Committee, and will organise a conference to discuss its overall conclusions and recommendations.

show abstract

“…Workshop 27 discussed the issue of sharing proprietary information and made several suggestions as to how this could be facilitated (27). This was subsequently discussed at another workshop organised by Focus on Alternatives, a group of animal welfare organisations in the UK (70), and is an issue that is being discussed by a recently reformed Third FRAME Toxicity Committee. Also, plans are being made to establish an international initiative to generate a database of toxicity information, with a chemical structure-searching facility.…”

Section: An Ecvam Workhop That Has Led To Several Related Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ECVAM Workshops: A Critical Assessment of their Impact on the Development, Validation and Acceptance of Alternative Methods

Combes

2002

Altern Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ECVAM initiated its workshop programme in 1994, to enable it to become well informed about the state of the art of non-animal test development and validation, and about the possible incorporation of alternatives into regulatory requirements for safety testing. Fifty-one such workshops had been held on specific topics, up to 2002. In these workshops, the current status of in vitro tests and their potential uses were reviewed and recommendations were made as to the best ways forward to progress and enhance the use of in vitro methods. Reports for 46 of these workshops have been published in ATLA. Most of the workshops focused on in vitro replacement methods, although an increasing number have dealt with reduction and refinement. The recommendations in the ECVAM workshops have been progressed further by: a) the formation of ECVAM task forces; b) the organisation of further workshops; c) the activities of scientific committees; d) the provision of earmarked research funding; and e) the conduct of validation studies. Examples of each of these activities are discussed. Some individual workshops are covered in more detail, and several recommendations that have so far not been acted on are also considered. The workshops and their reports have had a substantial effect on the development and implementation of alternative methods, and have been a major factor in contributing to the success of the first nine years of ECVAM's existence. It is strongly recommended that ECVAM continues to organise workshops and to publish their findings, and suggestions are made for topics for future workshops.

show abstract

Accessing Information on the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experiments

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

Assessing the Search for and Implementation of the Three Rs: A Survey among Scientists

The Third FRAME Toxicity Committee: Working toward Greater Implementation of Alternatives in Toxicity Testing

The ECVAM Workshops: A Critical Assessment of their Impact on the Development, Validation and Acceptance of Alternative Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About