Assessing the application of the 3Rs: a survey among animal welfare officers in The Netherlands

Abstract

Implementation of the 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction) in animal studies is a legal requirement in many countries. In The Netherlands, animal welfare officers (AWOs) are appointed to monitor the welfare of laboratory animals. As part of this task, AWOs give advice to researchers and can therefore have an influential role in implementing 3R methods in research. A national survey was conducted to gain more insight into how Dutch AWOs obtain and apply 3R information in their daily work. Nearly half of the AWO population filled out the questionnaire (15/32; a response rate of 46.9%). Two-thirds of the respondents pointed out that finding 3R information is not an easy task and more than half of the respondents believed that information on possibilities to implement the 3Rs is regularly being missed. The respondents indicated that most 3R information is obtained directly from colleagues and other AWOs. Special online 3R databases are rarely used. All the responding AWOs feel that they contribute to Refinement (15/15), nearly one-third of the respondents feel they contribute to Reduction (4/15), and one AWO feels he/she contributes to Replacement (1/15). According to the respondents, better exchange of knowledge can contribute to more successful implementation of the 3Rs. How this knowledge exchange can best be established and facilitated needs further exploration. To this end, the authors make suggestions for a 3R-integrated evidence-based approach.

Refinement on the Way Towards Replacement: Are We Doing What We Can?

“…At the moment, 3Rs experts are divided into replacement experts, on the one hand, and refinement experts, on the other. Animal welfare bodies and national committees in the EU (Directive 2010/63/EU, Recital 48), for example, are supposed to advise scientists about the application of the 3Rs but seem to have little to no knowledge about available replacements and novel animal-free approaches to scientific questions (van Luijk et al, 2012;van Luijk et al, 2013). To achieve the ultimate goal in shifting the focus from refinement of animal use to replacement of animal use the animal research community needs to engage with replacement experts.…”

Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?

“…Current institutional ethics review processes have been criticised because they do not adequately ensure that animal research is valid or ethical. For example, they may not adequately assess the scientific validity of a project before giving approval [ 86 ] and many animal welfare officers at Australian and Dutch universities feel that 3Rs opportunities remain unused [ 87 , 88 ]. There are also anecdotal reports that rejection of projects at the ethics committee stage never or almost never happens [ 89 ].…”

Minimum Information about a Spinal Cord Injury Experiment: A Proposed Reporting Standard for Spinal Cord Injury Experiments

“…Moreover, as Minimum Information about a Spinal Cord Injury experiment (MIASCI) aims to reduce bias and thereby enhance the predictive value of experimental SCI modeling, the number of animals needed to verify or falsify a scientific hypothesis could be reduced. Such an effort is in line with the ''3R'' (Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction) initiative to increase animal welfare 34 and reduce waste in biomedical research. 35,36 To begin to address the problems outlined above, an international group of scientists studying SCI have worked collaboratively to develop a draft standard, termed MIASCI.…”