Information: Needs for the Future

Bottrill, Krys

doi:10.1177/026119290203002s24

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To facilitate the retrieval of information regarding the possibilities for implementing the 3Rs in a specific research field/study, a lot of effort has been put into the development of specific 3R databases 2,3 and of guidelines on how to search for 3R information. [4][5][6][7] An earlier survey by Leenaars et al revealed that, despite all these developments, there is still much room for improvement in the way scientists currently retrieve information about the 3Rs (from databases). 8 From this survey, it was concluded that searching for the 3Rs is not considered to be an integral part of the research process (and thus is not funded), knowledge of 3R databases is minimal, and search skills in general are limited.…”

mentioning

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

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

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most frequently used databases, PubMed (Medline) and ISI Web of Science, are not very well indexed for conducting Three Rs searches (8). PubMed has a Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus term 'Animal Use Alternatives', which results in only about 1700 hits from the multimillion record database, and is therefore quite useless.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most scientists receive, as part of their education, basic training in how to search in bibliographical databases such as PubMed (Medline) and ISI Web of Science. These databases are not particularly well equipped for conducting Three Rs searches (8). Furthermore, Three Rs information is spread widely over a large number of databases and websites (9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

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

“…The members of the SG also suggested that a database for alternative methods (applying to all the Three Rs) should be established at the European level. However, several very useful databases and sources of information on alternatives already exist (67)(68)(69)(70)(71). For example, the following databases are useful starting points for accessing the literature on alternatives.…”

Section: The View Of the Sgmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comments on the Sub-group Reports of the EU Technical Expert Working Group on the Revision ofDirective 86/609/EECon the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

Combes

Balls

2007

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical analysis is presented of the reports produced by four Technical Expert Working Group Sub-groups (SGs) on Ethical Review, Cost–Benefit, Authorisation and Scope, which were published on the EC website (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/ia_info_en.htm), as part of the European Commission (EC)'s review of EU Directive 86/609 EEC. This is in addition to our official response to the internet consultation questionnaire, submitted to the Commission on behalf of FRAME. Whilst the respective SG reports were extensive and detailed, we have identified several shortcomings, and in particular, a frequent lack of consensus among the SG members, resulting in a lack of clear guidance for the EC on what the revised Directive should contain, with reference to a number of crucial issues. Such indecisiveness could lead to wide discrepancies in the approaches of the EC, the European Parliament and the EU Member States concerning many issues of importance to animal welfare and the implementation of alternatives to animal experiments. These concerns range from logistical issues, such as requirements for named officers in authorised establishments, and the recording and publishing of statistics on animal use, to ethical and scientific problems, including the use of non-human primates, local ethical review, and education and training on the essential link between the Three Rs concept and best scientific practice. In each case, the basis for our concerns is explained, and suggestions for improvements to be incorporated into the revised Directive are made, in the hope that the harmonisation of approaches to laboratory animal experimentation and the use of alternative methods in the Member States can be maximised.

show abstract

Information: Needs for the Future

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 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

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

Comments on the Sub-group Reports of the EU Technical Expert Working Group on the Revision ofDirective 86/609/EECon the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About