The 3 R's Of Animal Testing

There are many incentives to move away from vivo testing. One of the main motivations to use alternative methods is ethical: toxicity tests in all fields are associated with high levels of suffering (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). Not only are there ethical drives, but there are also scientific drives to ultimately eliminate animal testing (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). One scientific drive is the question that must be answered: is it acceptable for a human being to be exposed to it, not just a rat or a mouse (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8)? Regulatory reasons also play a part in the push to employ alternative methods; companies must consider eliminating animal testing for legal reasons, such as bans on animal testing in the cosmetic
industry (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). A fourth type of incentive to use alternative method are the business motivations (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). One reason for companies to try to eliminate animal testing is because traditional methods are resource intensive, especially considering the housing and staffing costs involved (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). By reducing the number of animal tests carried out, companies can reduce their expenses (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). British scientists W.M.S.
Russell and R. Burch introduced the 3 R's of animal testing in their book Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Zurlo 31-34). The 3 R's of animal testing are the reduction, refinement, and replacement of the use of animal testing and research (Zurlo 31-34). Russell and Burch sat that "the threefold division is useful as a means of bringing order into the subject (of eliminating animal testing) (Russell and Burch n. pag.). Burden states that "The increasing pressure to reduce the use of animals for scientific purposes, in alignment with the principles of the 3 R's, means that the use of non-animal approaches is no longer just a desire, but a
necessity. Replacement is the substitution of conscious, living animals (Russell and Burch n. pag.). A replacement alternative allows for tests to occur without the use of whole animals (Zurlo 31-34). Reduction refers to the reduction in the number of animals used to obtain and gather information (Russell and Burch n. pag.). A reduction alternative also utilizes fewer animals in an experiment, procedure, or test to achieve results that are comparable to those produced with traditional methods (Zurlo 31-34). There are efforts to ensure that new alternative methods provide adequate results and data, from both scientific and regulatory viewpoints (Burden, Sewell and Chapman 1-8). A Refinement is any decrease in the occurrence or severity of inhumane experiments and procedures applied to animals (Russell and Burch n. pag.). A refinement alternative improves the well-being and health of an experiment animal by reducing the distress they experience as a result of the test or procedure (Zurlo 31-34). There are areas and instances of overlap between the three categories (Russell and Burch n. pag.). The opposing viewpoint may claim that there are too many barriers that must be overcome to replace animal testing.
While it is true that there are barriers yet to be overcome, the work needed to overcome these barriers is not an incredible nor an impossible amount. One of the most obvious types of barriers that must be overcome is scientific barriers; that is, more research is needed to ensure the reliability of alternative methods (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). Although they do exist, these barriers can be overcome with time and more research (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). Some of the barriers that must be overcome also have to do with the regulatory nature of toxicity tests (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). Decision makers working for regulatory bodies must decide whether the toxicity of a chemical has been adequately tested in accordance with legislative requirements through various tests (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman 1-8). These regulatory barriers can be overcome with a more streamlined approach to researching and advancing alternative methods. Using the 3 R's of animal testing, alternative methods can be used to eliminate animal testing fully. Although barriers that need to be overcome to fully integrate alternative animal tests exist, they can be overcome. With today's modern methods and the resources, unnecessary animal testing can become a thing of the past. (Burden, Sewell, and Chapman
1-8).