The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by Animal Ethics Committee members
The interpretation and application of the Three Rs by Animal Ethics Committee members
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/026119290503300511
复制
发表时间：
2005-10-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Fraser, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schuppli, CA;Fraser, D
3R是动物伦理委员会（AEC）审查动物使用协议的基础，但很少有研究探讨AEC如何实际解释和实施3R。通过对加拿大四所大学的28名AECs成员进行深入的开放式访谈，探讨了这一主题。在描述方案审查时，AEC成员很少提到3R，但大多数报告应用了基本概念的某些方面。评论指出了可能妨碍充分实施“三个R”的若干因素：对三R的理解不全面（特别是细化），相信研究人员自己实施替代和减少，一些成员认为授权机构审查涵盖了3R，关注样本量而不是实验设计以实现减少，关注程序造成的伤害，排除住房和畜牧业，在关键问题上缺乏共识，特别是动物疼痛和痛苦的性质和道德意义，以及AEC是否应该最大限度地减少对动物的整体伤害。该研究报告提出了更一致地适用“三个R”的方法，向非洲经委会提供关于“三个R”的最新信息和获得统计专门知识的机会，就有分歧的问题建立共识，以及就“三个R”的范围和执行进行培训。
The Three Rs form the basis of review of animal-use protocols by Animal Ethics Committees (AECs), but little research has examined how AECs actually interpret and implement the Three Rs. This topic was explored through in-depth, open-ended interviews with 28 members of AECs at four Canadian universities. In describing protocol review, AEC members rarely mentioned the Three Rs, but most reported applying some aspects of the basic concepts. Comments identified several factors that could impede full application of the Three Rs: incomplete understanding of the Three Rs (especially Refinement), trust that researchers implement Replacement and Reduction themselves, belief by some members that granting agency review covers the Three Rs, focus on sample size rather than experimental design to achieve Reduction, focus on harm caused by procedures to the exclusion of housing and husbandry, and lack of consensus on key issues, notably on the nature and moral significance of animal pain and suffering, and on whether AECs should minimise overall harm to animals. The study suggests ways to achieve more consistent application of the Three Rs, by providing AECs with up-to-date information on the Three Rs and with access to statistical expertise, by consensus-building on divisive issues, and by training on the scope and implementation of the Three Rs.