Assessing the Search for Information on Three Rs Methods, and their Subsequent Implementation: A National Survey among Scientists in the Netherlands

Luijk, Judith van; Cuijpers, Yvonne; Vaart, L. van der; Leenaars, Marlies; Ritskes‐Hoitinga, Merel

doi:10.1177/026119291103900505

Cited by 16 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the survey by van Luijk et al., 12 scientific researchers consider AWOs and colleague researchers to be the most important sources for obtaining 3R information. In consequence, AWOs should acquaint themselves with 3R information sources and advise researchers on where to find relevant 3R information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to answer these questions, a survey was designed and sent out to all AWOs in The Netherlands. Similar surveys were sent out to scientists who were involved in animal-based research 12 and members of AECs (unpublished observations).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, it is widely recognised that implementation of the principles can enhance scientific quality. [41][42][43][44]45 The following are examples of questions that will need to be addressed:…”

Section: Factors To Be Evaluated In Project Authorisation and Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the Care and Welfare of Cephalopods in Research –A consensus based on an initiative by CephRes, FELASA and the Boyd Group

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is the result of an international initiative and is a first attempt to develop guidelines for the care and welfare of cephalopods (i.e. nautilus, cuttlefish, squid and octopus) following the inclusion of this Class of ∼700 known living invertebrate species in Directive 2010/63/EU. It aims to provide information for investigators, animal care committees, facility managers and animal care staff which will assist in improving both the care given to cephalopods, and the manner in which experimental procedures are carried out. Topics covered include: implications of the Directive for cephalopod research; project application requirements and the authorisation process; the application of the 3Rs principles; the need for harm-benefit assessment and severity classification. Guidelines and species-specific requirements are provided on: i. supply, capture and transport; ii. environmental characteristics and design of facilities (e.g. water quality control, lighting requirements, vibration/noise sensitivity); iii. accommodation and care (including tank design), animal handling, feeding and environmental enrichment; iv. assessment of health and welfare (e.g. monitoring biomarkers, physical and behavioural signs); v. approaches to severity assessment; vi. disease (causes, prevention and treatment); vii. scientific procedures, general anaesthesia and analgesia, methods of humane killing and confirmation of death. Sections covering risk assessment for operators and education and training requirements for carers, researchers and veterinarians are also included. Detailed aspects of care and welfare requirements for the main laboratory species currently used are summarised in Appendices. Knowledge gaps are highlighted to prompt research to enhance the evidence base for future revision of these guidelines.

show abstract

“…While virtually everybody will agree on the importance of the 3Rs, the implementation has turned out to be quite a challenge and is considered not effective enough [5]. Questionnaires sent out to researchers and animal welfare officers on the implementation of the 3Rs indicated that the importance of the 3Rs is acknowledged, but at the same time, it is indicated that already existing 3Rs possibilities have probably not been found and thus not implemented [6,7]. Legislation in Europe requires that existing 3R possibilities must be implemented (EU Directive 2010/63EU), so strictly speaking, not implementing already existing 3R possibilities would be illegal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can Systematic Reviews Teach Us More about the Implementation of the 3Rs and Animal Welfare?

Ritskes‐Hoitinga

Luijk

2019

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the introduction of the systematic review methodology in animal-based research and the added value of this methodology in relation to the 3Rs and beyond. The 3Rs refer to Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animal studies. A systematic review (SR) is defined as a literature review focused on a single question that tries to identify, appraise, select, and synthesise all high-quality research evidence relevant to that question. Examples are given on how SRs lead to the implementation of the 3Rs and better science. Additionally, a broader context is given regarding societal, political, and scientific developments. Various examples of systematic reviews are given to illustrate the current situation regarding reporting, quality, and translatability of animal-based research. Furthermore, initiatives that have emerged to move further towards more responsible and sustainable research is of benefit for both animals and humans.

show abstract

Assessing the Search for Information on Three Rs Methods, and their Subsequent Implementation: A National Survey among Scientists in the Netherlands

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

Guidelines for the Care and Welfare of Cephalopods in Research –A consensus based on an initiative by CephRes, FELASA and the Boyd Group

How Can Systematic Reviews Teach Us More about the Implementation of the 3Rs and Animal Welfare?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About