Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement
The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investiga...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22478-e22478 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e22478 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e22478 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Fenwick, Nicole Danielson, Peter Griffin, Gilly |
| description | The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0022478 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1308028627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A476882270</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c06541601a44403a8a678896cf52b950</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A476882270</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-b082c4d72dc2ca773ad78eed726d241b99a633ef40912966b4d8513c754070a23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk11r1EAUhoMotlb_gWhAsAjuOl-ZmXghlMWPhUKhrd4OJ5PJZpZsZjuTrPbfO-mmZSO9kFwkOfO878k5OSdJXmM0x1TgT2vX-xaa-da1Zo4QIUzIJ8kxzimZcYLo04Pno-RFCGuEMio5f54cESwzkRN5nNir3u_MbeqqdAEtlBbaFFq7gWZWQDBl6k0w4HVtfDhNd9b8Dqlr06426XXtjUkvw-fIbBvQZmPa7mN8KXvdWTf4DPLKtncnL5NnFTTBvBrvJ8nPb1-vFz9m5xffl4uz85nmOe5mBZJEs1KQUhMNQlAohTQmBnhJGC7yHDilpmIoxyTnvGClzDDVImNIICD0JHm79902LqixS0FhiiQikhMRieWeKB2s1dbHav2tcmDVXcD5lQLfWd0YpRHPGOYIA2MMUZDAhZQ511VGijxD0evLmK0vNqbUsVAPzcR0etLaWq3cTlGcCcoGg9PRwLub3oRObWzQpmmgNa4PSkomGcuyobB3_5CPFzdSK4jfb9vKxbR68FRnTHApCRFD1vkjVLxKs7E6TlRlY3wi-DARRKYzf7oV9CGo5dXl_7MXv6bs-wO2NtB0dXBNPwxQmIJsD2rvQohj9dBjjNSwEPfdUMNCqHEhouzN4f95EN1vAP0LE8oEFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1308028627</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Fenwick, Nicole ; Danielson, Peter ; Griffin, Gilly</creator><contributor>Chapouthier, Georges</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fenwick, Nicole ; Danielson, Peter ; Griffin, Gilly ; Chapouthier, Georges</creatorcontrib><description>The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022478</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21857928</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adaptive technology ; Adult ; Agriculture ; Animal Experimentation - ethics ; Animal Experimentation - standards ; Animal Testing Alternatives - ethics ; Animal Testing Alternatives - standards ; Animal welfare ; Animals ; Biology ; Biomedical Research - ethics ; Biomedical Research - standards ; Canada ; Councils ; Ethics ; Experimental design ; Female ; Fishes ; Handicapped assistance devices ; Humans ; International policy ; Internet ; Laboratory animals ; Male ; Medicine ; Middle Aged ; Pain ; Public Policy ; Qualitative research ; Reduction ; Research Personnel - classification ; Research Personnel - standards ; Research Personnel - statistics & numerical data ; Researchers ; Science ; Science Policy ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Veterinary Science ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22478-e22478</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2011 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2011 Fenwick et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Fenwick et al. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-b082c4d72dc2ca773ad78eed726d241b99a633ef40912966b4d8513c754070a23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-b082c4d72dc2ca773ad78eed726d241b99a633ef40912966b4d8513c754070a23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157340/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157340/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23865,27923,27924,53790,53792,79371,79372</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857928$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Chapouthier, Georges</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fenwick, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Danielson, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffin, Gilly</creatorcontrib><title>Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.</description><subject>Adaptive technology</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal Experimentation - ethics</subject><subject>Animal Experimentation - standards</subject><subject>Animal Testing Alternatives - ethics</subject><subject>Animal Testing Alternatives - standards</subject><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - ethics</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - standards</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Councils</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Experimental design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fishes</subject><subject>Handicapped assistance devices</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>International policy</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Laboratory animals</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Research Personnel - classification</subject><subject>Research Personnel - standards</subject><subject>Research Personnel - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Veterinary Science</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk11r1EAUhoMotlb_gWhAsAjuOl-ZmXghlMWPhUKhrd4OJ5PJZpZsZjuTrPbfO-mmZSO9kFwkOfO878k5OSdJXmM0x1TgT2vX-xaa-da1Zo4QIUzIJ8kxzimZcYLo04Pno-RFCGuEMio5f54cESwzkRN5nNir3u_MbeqqdAEtlBbaFFq7gWZWQDBl6k0w4HVtfDhNd9b8Dqlr06426XXtjUkvw-fIbBvQZmPa7mN8KXvdWTf4DPLKtncnL5NnFTTBvBrvJ8nPb1-vFz9m5xffl4uz85nmOe5mBZJEs1KQUhMNQlAohTQmBnhJGC7yHDilpmIoxyTnvGClzDDVImNIICD0JHm79902LqixS0FhiiQikhMRieWeKB2s1dbHav2tcmDVXcD5lQLfWd0YpRHPGOYIA2MMUZDAhZQ511VGijxD0evLmK0vNqbUsVAPzcR0etLaWq3cTlGcCcoGg9PRwLub3oRObWzQpmmgNa4PSkomGcuyobB3_5CPFzdSK4jfb9vKxbR68FRnTHApCRFD1vkjVLxKs7E6TlRlY3wi-DARRKYzf7oV9CGo5dXl_7MXv6bs-wO2NtB0dXBNPwxQmIJsD2rvQohj9dBjjNSwEPfdUMNCqHEhouzN4f95EN1vAP0LE8oEFg</recordid><startdate>20110817</startdate><enddate>20110817</enddate><creator>Fenwick, Nicole</creator><creator>Danielson, Peter</creator><creator>Griffin, Gilly</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110817</creationdate><title>Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement</title><author>Fenwick, Nicole ; Danielson, Peter ; Griffin, Gilly</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-b082c4d72dc2ca773ad78eed726d241b99a633ef40912966b4d8513c754070a23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Adaptive technology</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal Experimentation - ethics</topic><topic>Animal Experimentation - standards</topic><topic>Animal Testing Alternatives - ethics</topic><topic>Animal Testing Alternatives - standards</topic><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - ethics</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - standards</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Councils</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Experimental design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fishes</topic><topic>Handicapped assistance devices</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>International policy</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Laboratory animals</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Research Personnel - classification</topic><topic>Research Personnel - standards</topic><topic>Research Personnel - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Veterinary Science</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fenwick, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Danielson, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffin, Gilly</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fenwick, Nicole</au><au>Danielson, Peter</au><au>Griffin, Gilly</au><au>Chapouthier, Georges</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2011-08-17</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e22478</spage><epage>e22478</epage><pages>e22478-e22478</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>21857928</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0022478</doi><tpages>e22478</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22478-e22478 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1308028627 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adaptive technology Adult Agriculture Animal Experimentation - ethics Animal Experimentation - standards Animal Testing Alternatives - ethics Animal Testing Alternatives - standards Animal welfare Animals Biology Biomedical Research - ethics Biomedical Research - standards Canada Councils Ethics Experimental design Female Fishes Handicapped assistance devices Humans International policy Internet Laboratory animals Male Medicine Middle Aged Pain Public Policy Qualitative research Reduction Research Personnel - classification Research Personnel - standards Research Personnel - statistics & numerical data Researchers Science Science Policy Statistical analysis Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Veterinary Science Young Adult |
| title | Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T14%3A50%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Survey%20of%20Canadian%20animal-based%20researchers'%20views%20on%20the%20Three%20Rs:%20replacement,%20reduction%20and%20refinement&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Fenwick,%20Nicole&rft.date=2011-08-17&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e22478&rft.epage=e22478&rft.pages=e22478-e22478&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0022478&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA476882270%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1308028627&rft_id=info:pmid/21857928&rft_galeid=A476882270&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c06541601a44403a8a678896cf52b950&rfr_iscdi=true |