Manual Contents / LAS Homecage
XII. Alternatives to Animal Research
Faculty who use animals in teaching and research have an obligation to do so in a humane manner. An important aspect of humane animal research is the use of procedures that avoid or minimize pain and distress. The concept of alternatives today is often discussed in the context of "the 3 R's" of Russell and Burch". In their 1959 book, Russell and Burch outlined the ideas of replacement of animals with non-animal methods or with animals lower on the phylogenetic scale, the reduction in the number of animals used to the smallest number necessary to obtain the information needed, and refinement of procedures to minimize pain and distress.
The concept of the "3-R's" has been incorporated into a number of guidelines and regulations that affect animal research. These include the "Guide"; the Animal Welfare Act and regulations; the guidelines of funding agencies, and regulatory and accrediting organizations; and the Rutgers University Animal Welfare Policy. Specifically, the Animal Welfare Act regulations require that for any "procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals", the Rutgers Animal Care and Facilities Committee (ACFC) "... shall determine that… (ii) The principal investigator has considered alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals, and has provided a written narrative description of the methods and sources ... used to determine that alternatives were not available". USDA has issued a written policy ("Policy 12") that clarifies what consititutes, in the eyes of USDA, a suitable documentation of an alternatives search.
Good researchers, and most researchers are good researchers, make use of "alternatives" whenever they are available. The "3-R's" make sense, not only from a humane standpoint, but from the standpoint of good science, fundable science and publishable science. An active, successsful researcher is likely to be aware of most alternatives or new techniques being used by those in his or her area of research. Animal rights activists of course, would argue with this. They assume that most research is unnecessary; a waste of time, money, and animals; that most research is duplicative of work already done; and that most research causes pain and distress. If one does not want to accuse the authors of the Animal Welfare Act and its regulations (ultimately, the United States Congress) of accepting the animal rights view wholeheartedly, perhaps the nicest thing that can be said is that they have taken on the role of devil's advocate. USDA, in its interpretation of the regulations, puts the burden of proof on the investigator to show that there are no alternatives to the proposed procedures. An underlying assumption is that through the magic of moden information technology, searching a database (or two, or three) with a few magic keywords will undoubtedly reveal that there is no need to do the proposed animal research. In fact, while such a search may reveal an "alternative" on rare occasions, most of the time a search will return the literature that the researcher is already familiar with.
Ideally, researchers, the ACFC and regulators would all accept that researchers want to meet the spirit of the law, that they will embrace the goal of minimizing pain and distress because "it is the right thing to do". The reality today is that it is not sufficient for the committee to assume that researchers have considered alternatives. The committee must demand of faculty that they comply with the letter of the law as interpreted by USDA. This is an emerging issue that USDA is focusing on. Investigators can expect USDA inspectors and AAALAC site visitors to closely scrutinize approved protocols to see how they have addressed alternatives. The ACFC in turn, will be reviewing protocol applications closely to assure that they meet the requirements of "Policy 12".
Laboratory Animal Services and the Animal Care and Facilities Committee encourage faculty to use alternatives to minimize pain and distress whenever possible. We want to help faculty comply with the law. At the same time, we want to make the protocol review process as painless as possible. The LAS HomeCage provides
The ACFC addresses the requirement for considering alternatives in the Animal Use Protocol Form.
AWIC Alternatives Page, includes "The Alternatives Concept", an article by Andrew Rowan; and links to databases
AWIC Alternatives Pamphlet, includes Databases for Searching for Alternatives, Selected Alternatives Keywords, AWIC Tips for Searching for Alternatives
The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, full text of the classic 1959 book by Russell and Burch that first outlined the concepts of reduction, refinement and reduction in humane animal researchW.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch