 Get involved in raising |
The Three Rs
Should the 3Rs be promoted as a way of improving animal welfare?
[Printable version of this page]
Naturewatch believes that the 3Rs are vital for bringing about change in the way animals are used in experiments. It is important to face up to political and scientific realities, which is why we prefer a strategy that is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Political realities
There has been next to no progress on animal experimentation since the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Until the mid-1990s this was perhaps not too disturbing as the numbers of animals being used was dropping continuously but since then it has levelled out and in the last year has begun to climb again. Indeed it is likely that there will be steady increases in the forseeable future, especially in genetic modification, which continues to grow rapidly, and in primate use, for which there are greater demands from the scientific community.
We believe it is vitally important to seek to work within the democratic system. To do so effectively we need to recognise that there are only a small minority of MPs who are committed supporters of animal welfare, but there are a large number who may be won over. This is reflected in the numbers who sign up to animal welfare Early Day Motions: while there is a core of about 50-100 who will sign without much prompting and 30-50 who never will (either because they dislike Early Day Motions in general or are unenthusiastic about animal welfare), there are about 300 floating MPs who can be won over. These floaters do not believe in animal rights but do care, to varying degrees, about animal welfare; they may be uncomfortable with the use of animals in experiments but equally feel uneasy about signing up to an outright ban.
A widely held view is one that was expressed by the recent House of Lords committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, that "it is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering." Effective campaigning needs to recognise that: this is a perspective that one can work with, and seek to win over, rather than to oppose.
Scientific realites
A framework such as that provided by the 3Rs enables animal experiments to be scaled back in ways that are perceived not to compromise the science - this is a major concern for legislators who are not part of the animal welfare core. It is a mistake to argue, as is often done, that no useful information comes from animal experiments. For example, a mouse has eyes and ears, a stomach and intestines - and its DNA is about 85% the same as for humans. An absolutist view is therefore rather too easy to argue against. However, one can easily argue that the accuracy of animal experiments is much too much of a lottery, as there are well-known examples of drugs that were fatal to humans despite there being no indications from the animal experiments (e.g. Rezulin) and others which proved to be successful in humans despite negative test results (e.g. Serevent). It is also being increasingly recognised that adverse reactions to drugs are a major cause of death every year.
The 3Rs - a valid framework?
The 3Rs are vitally important because there is no likelihood that animal experiments will be ended in the near future. Too many MPs (and others like the recent House of Lords committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures) believe that they produce useful science despite having ethical reservations. Refining animal procedures and reducing the numbers used thus ensures that the quality of science is perceived to be maintained.
This is not to say that a 3Rs approach is without problems. As Professor Michael Balls, the recently retired head of ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) stated in 2002, "while there is much superficial political, administrative and scientific support for the Three Rs, this rarely leads to genuine commitment and backing when needed". Exactly so - which is why Naturewatch supports the National Centre for the 3Rs while acknowledging that it needs to produce tangible results to be fully credible.
