The Three Rs
Naturewatch visits new centre for alternatives research
The new National Centre for the 3Rs is an exciting opportunity for real progress to be made in promoting and developing alternatives to animals in research – but there are concerns about whether enough effort is being made to benchmark their progress. That was the conclusion reached by Richard Tweedy and John Ruane, Naturewatch’s director, after their visit on November 10.
We met with the centre’s Chief Executive, Vicky Robinson and two of the others who work there, Mark Prescott and Laura Playle. Both Dr. Robinson and Dr. Prescott have worked for several years at the RSPCA. Dr. Playle’s background is with the predecessor organisation, CBPAR (the Centre for Best Practice in Animal Research) where she specialised in the welfare implications for mice that have been genetically modified. All three therefore have credible backgrounds in animal welfare and their genuine concern for the animals was clear from conversation.
|
While the exact remit of the NC3Rs has yet to be finalised, parts of it are already clear. They see their role as going beyond that of providing an administration centre for channelling funds into 3Rs research. For example, they recognise that there are a number of blockages to the practical implemetation of alternatives. When a candidate procedure becomes available, it needs to be officially validated – for example by the organisation set up by the European Union, ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods). However, there is then often reluctance by international organisations to implement such procedures within official test guidelines. The NC3Rs will therefore look to work with a wide range of stakeholders - validators and regulators as well as industry and academia - to find ways to make the process of full implementation quicker and more effective. |  Naturewatch's Richard Tweedy with Dr. Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive of the NC3Rs |
As an example, we referred to a research program of Duke University in North Carolina which is showing the potential of nematode worms for replacing rats and mice in significant numbers of toxicology experiments. Dr. Robinson assured us that, if these procedures turned out to be viable, the NC3Rs would be able to respond rapidly by putting pressure on validators and regulators to ensure that use of the worms would be implemented speedily.
One of the major justifications of alternatives research which includes refinement and reduction is that this is the most effective way to improve the welfare of animals living in laboratories today. Thus, a significant refinement could, according to Dr. Robinson, 'improve the life of every laboratory mouse in the UK' whereas a replacement procedure might affect only a small number.
Dr. Robinson did point out that much of the effectiveness of the NC3Rs would be unquantifiable, for example through discussions at early stages in the funding and application process, and that headline figures of animals used in experiments would often not reveal the true story. We pointed out that they cannot afford to ignore headline figures: they serve as indicators by which the public will recognise the effectiveness of the centre, whether they like it or not.
This is an area where they need to think carefully about how to benchmark their progress. The extent of the opposition to the centre has surprised them, so there is a danger of their reacting defensively to this. Instead, it is vital that they face up to the hostile climate in which they find themselves and demonstrate with transparency and clarity the progress they make. They cannot avoid the use which will be made of headline figures such as numbers of animals used and numbers of primates, but if they consider that their main accomplishments may be in other areas they need to establish benchmarks by which these might be seen to be achieved.
We suggested one example which could serve as a possible benchmark. Rats used in toxicology tend to be kept in barren, wire-bottomed cages, on the basis that chemicals in nesting material or chewing blocks might compromise the test results – despite the fact that acute boredom, stress and anxiety induced by their environment might distort the results even further. The number of rats kept in such cages would be a measure of progress: if in five years this were to be down close to zero, the centre could consider this a significant accomplishment. They need to establish, and publish, a set of benchmarks like this to ensure that what they achieve is transparent and communicated effectively.
We also talked about the use of primates in research but lack of time meant that we were not able to come to a satisfactory conclusion. We started by stating that it is widely acknowledged that there is likely to be an increase in the use of primates in future years because of significant pressures from academia and industry. This is most clearly stated in the recent APC report on primate use (chapter 4); and there will be pressure from the Human Genome Project to understand the 10-15% of genes that are not found in mice and are unique to primates. There appeared to be some reluctance to admit this, which left us with the feeling that the Centre is rather less independent of political control than it should be. They did emphasise, however, that the existence of such pressure does not necessarily mean that more primates will be allowed to be used. Indeed, the Centre's board will be holding a workshop on primate research in February to focus on these issues. While this is encouraging, there will be no substitute for the actual number of primates that are used going down.
Overall we were favourably impressed with the Centre and we believe that it will have a major impact on alternatives research. However, suitable benchmarks must be established to demonstrate real progress beyond that provided by headline figures.