The NC3Rs gateway: Accelerating scientific discoveries with new 3Rs models and technologies

Sert, Nathalie Percie du; Robinson, Vicky

doi:10.12688/f1000research.14964.1

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 1 , 9 – 11 So, why is there so little progress in advancing the 3Rs? 12 How do we explain the high prevalence of risks of bias 13 and poor reproducibility in animal research? 14 And why do so many scientists resist adoption of refinements of experimental procedures (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limited progress in advancing the 3Rs is commonly explained by a lack of dedicated funding, 12 while poor scientific validity and the ‘reproducibility crisis’ are mainly attributed to perverse incentives promoting sloppy science. 21 However, many scientists are concerned that policies promoting scientific rigour may stifle creativity, thereby compromising scientific progress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research

Eggel

Würbel

2020

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm–benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (sentient) animals and harm imposed on them are necessary for achieving the study’s aims. The 3Rs (Replace, Reduce and Refine) provide a guiding principle for evaluating whether the use of animals, their number and the harm imposed on them are necessary. A similar guiding principle for evaluating whether a study protocol is scientifically suitable has recently been proposed: the 3Vs principle referring to the three main aspects of scientific validity in animal research (construct, internal and external validity). Here, we analyse the internal consistency and compatibility of these two principles, address conflicts within and between the 3Rs and 3Vs principles and discuss their implications for project evaluation. We show that a few conflicts and trade-offs exist, but that these can be resolved either by appropriate study designs or by ethical deliberation in the HBA. In combination, the 3Vs, 3Rs and the HBA thus offer a coherent framework for a logically structured evaluation procedure to decide about the legitimacy of animal research projects.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research

Eggel

Würbel

2020

Lab Anim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None of the listed models fulfills all of the previously mentioned criteria for an optimal in vivo model, which underscores the importance of special organizations dealing with refinement and reduction of in vivo models [51]. To completely replace in vivo models by in vitro models, further research is necessary.…”

Section: Does a Universal In Vivo Model For Hts Research Already Exist?mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vivo Models for Hypertrophic Scars—A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgroundand Objectives: Hypertrophic scars following surgeries or burns present a serious concern for many patients because these scars not only lead to an aesthetical but also to a functional and psychological burden. Treatment of hypertrophic scars is challenging because despite various treatment options, a low level of evidence hinders preference of any specific treatment plan. To properly identify new therapeutic approaches, the use of in vivo models remains indispensable. A gold standard for hypertrophic scars has not been established to date. This review aims at giving a comprehensive overview of the available in vivo models. Materials and Methods: PubMed and CINAHL were queried for currently existing models. Results: Models with mice, rats, rabbits, pigs, guinea pigs and dogs are used in hypertrophic scar research. Rodent models provide the advantage of ready availability and low costs, but the number of scars per animal is limited due to their relatively small body surface, leading to a high number of test animals which should be avoided according to the 3Rs. Multiple scars per animal can be created in the guinea pig and rabbit ear model; but like other rodent models, these models exhibit low transferability to human conditions. Pig models show a good transferability, but are cost-intensive and require adequate housing facilities. Further, it is not clear if a currently available pig model can deliver clinical and histological features of human hypertrophic scars concurrently. Conclusions: None of the analyzed animal models can be clearly recommended as a standard model in hypertrophic scar research because the particular research question must be considered to elect a suitable model.

show abstract

How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved

Sena

Currie

2019

Anim. welf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harm-benefit analysis (HBA) underpins the ethical framework of the regulation of animal experiments. This process involves a qualitative, and generally subjective, assessment of the potential benefits weighed against likely harms to be caused to animals. However, there is scope to prospectively quantify this process. A systematic and empirical assessment of historical data can give insights into why benefits are not realised and the magnitude of harm that animals experience. There is substantial scholarly evidence that risks to the 3Vs, the three core aspects of experimental validity in animal experiments (internal, external and construct validity) and low statistical power are limiting the reliability and reproducibility of research. Assessment of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) is embedded in HBA and specifically seeks to minimise harm to the animals. However, no formal structure is in place to assess the likelihood of benefit, and we champion the 3Vs as a scale with which this may be achieved. Ethical approval procedures that consider the 3Vs and 3Rs using meta-research may be an approach to facilitate HBA. In ethical considerations related to animal research, there are value judgements that are integral to HBA, which cannot be measured directly. However, a quantitative and systematic approach is likely to be of added value. The perspective and examples described in this paper relate to laboratory animal research, but the approaches may lend themselves to different settings involving animals to ensure that decision-making and changes introduced, for example, to improve animal welfare, are evidence-based.

show abstract

The NC3Rs gateway: Accelerating scientific discoveries with new 3Rs models and technologies

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research

Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research

In Vivo Models for Hypertrophic Scars—A Systematic Review

How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About