The Brazilian legal framework on the scientific use of animals

Brazil has an exceptionally dynamic research sector in Latin America in health, biotechnology, and pharmacology, backed by defined government policies on science and technology and a health research agenda focusing on important neglected diseases: malaria, leishmaniasis, Chagas disease, turberculosis, leprosy, and dengue. The Brazilian health research policy promotes partnerships and networks among scientists in academic institutions in both wealthy industrialized and disease-endemic countries, and in these efforts the government's guidelines for animal use in biomedical research are considered fundamental to guarantee both animal welfare and the quality of research. Given international discussions of animal experimentation regulations and guidelines, in this article we describe current Brazilian legislation governing the use of animals in scientific investigations. We conclude that, despite advances in the implementation of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement), the new regulatory framework does not sufficiently incorporate ethical considerations, lacking explicit reference to the 3Rs as well as measures for their full application. The more humane use of animals in research will depend on the approach adopted by Brazil's National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation to promote the 3Rs and to improve internal regulations as well as data collection and analysis in research institutions. In Brazil as elsewhere, one of the greatest challenges to policymakers is to harmonize the myriad and intertwined legal provisions without hindering biomedical research.     

重视和加强中国实验动物的研究

当前,实验动物对生物学和医学的重要性凸显.我国的实验动物组织机构和法规条例建设逐步完善,但与国际水准相比仍有差距.因此,应当重视和加强我国实验动物的研究,如实验动物标准化,野生动物实验动物化,动物福利,3Rs技术以及实验动物的产业化,以推动我国生命科学的整体发展.     

Discussion for animal experiments in space: ethical standard and responsibility of researchers for space experiments using laboratory animals.

International efforts to standardize regulations and study designs and to promote the principles of Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement (the 3 Rs) have reduced and refined animal use. In NASA ARC and KSC, researchers are responsible only for activities related directly to the conduct of their animal experiments. The IACUC plays an important role in conformity with NIH policies. Even if researchers design protocols of the space life science in Japan, the animal experiments should be carried out under the global harmonized conditions in accordance with NIH/NASA policies, guides and rules. It is important that researchers himself must look forward the ethical animal experiment.     

Training strategies for research investigators and technicians

Training programs for research personnel are discussed as a key resource that must be part of an effective animal care and use program. Because of the legal responsibility to ensure that research staff are qualified to use animals, many institutions have justified the necessity for a training coordinator and/or trainers for their animal care and use programs. Effective training programs for research personnel must meet the needs of the client base (research scientists and staff) so that they are relevant, practical, and timely. To meet these objectives, it is useful to involve the scientific staff in the analysis of their learning needs. To meet a performance standard necessary for quality research, a large percentage of the institutional staff must participate in the training program. Often it is the principal investigators who set the tone for their staff members regarding the importance of receiving training. Garnering support from this client base will create a culture that encourages training and engenders a positive attitude about humane animal care and use. One effective approach is to incorporate nonanimal models as alternatives to live animals to teach humane handling techniques and methods, thereby contributing to refinement, reduction, and replacement (the 3Rs). Also discussed are the necessity of timely feedback from clients, documentation of personnel training for regulatory purposes, and the collection of training metrics, which assists in providing justification for the granting of additional fiscal support for the program. Finally, the compliance procedures and opportunities for essential refresher training are discussed and related to high performance standards, humane animal use, and quality research, all of which contribute to the 3Rs.     

Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation

The Three Rs are the main principles used by Animal Ethics Committees in the governance of animal experimentation, but they appear not to cover some ethical issues that arise today. These include: a) claims that certain species should be exempted on principle from harmful research; b) increased emphasis on enhancing quality of life of research animals; c) research involving genetically modified (GM) animals; and d) animals bred as models of disease. In some cases, the Three Rs can be extended to cover these developments. The burgeoning use of GM animals in science calls for new forms of reduction through improved genetic modification technology, plus continued attention to alternative approaches and cost-benefit analyses that include the large numbers of animals involved indirectly. The adoption of more expanded definitions of refinement that go beyond minimising distress will capture concerns for enhancing the quality of life of animals through improved husbandry and handling. Targeting refinement to the unpredictable effects of gene modification may be difficult; in these cases, careful attention to monitoring and endpoints are the obvious options. Refinement can also include sharing data about the welfare impacts of gene modifications, and modelling earlier stages of disease, in order to reduce the potential suffering caused to disease models. Other issues may require a move beyond the Three Rs. Certain levels of harm, or numbers and use of certain species, may be unacceptable, regardless of potential benefits. This can be addressed by supplementing the utilitarian basis of the Three Rs with principles based on deontological and relational ethics. The Three Rs remain very useful, but they require thoughtful interpretation and expansion in order for Animal Ethics Committees to address the full range of issues in animal-based research.     

Establishing a culture of care, conscience, and responsibility: addressing the improvement of scientific discovery and animal welfare through science-based performance standards

Science-based performance standards offer a viable means of reducing regulatory burden while ensuring that research animal welfare and high-quality research data are realized. Unlike rigid regulations, science-based performance standards evolve as new information becomes available, thereby allowing new discoveries to be implemented in a timely manner and in a way that more effectively benefits the animals and the science. The implementation of performance standards requires a well-coordinated institutional team composed of the administration, research staff, the institutional animal care and use committee, professional and technical animal care personnel, occupational health and safety staff, and physical plant staff. This animal program team is best supported in an institutional environment that reflects a culture of care, compliance, and responsibility. In such a culture, the professional judgment exercised by the team is well grounded in meeting the diverse needs of the program's customers, who include the animals, the researchers, and research stakeholders such as the public. The institutional culture of care, compliance, and responsibility fosters workplace integrity, an ethics-based decision-making paradigm, sound understanding of institutional expectations through good communication and clear lines of authority, the hiring and retention of trained and well-qualified individuals, and a system for continuous development and improvement of the program.     

Avoiding an overzealous approach: a perspective on regulatory burden

The authors discuss the impact of regulatory burden on the research enterprise, with emphasis on animal care and use programs. They identify three sources of regulatory burden: specific requirements in law and regulation, interpretive requirements or "guidance" by regulatory agencies, and self-imposed regulatory burden resulting from institutional interpretations. Attempting to minimize the risks of noncompliance through the overzealous application of "requirements" does not necessarily benefit the animals. Balancing risks associated with animal research and burden in a successful program requires clear and consistent communication among all stakeholders--the institutional leadership, institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC), attending veterinarian and staff, and scientists. An evaluation tool is provided for institutions to assess their approach to required and voluntary activities in their animal care program. Drawing on the knowledge and experience gained in a combined 40 years of serving on, managing, training, and evaluating animal care programs, the authors conclude that institutions must thoughtfully balance their research and compliance needs to successfully maintain their institutional goals. They stress that a culture of compliance based on knowledge of the regulations, dedication to quality animal care, reasoned use of science-based performance standards, and the judicious application of professional judgment is the foundation for facilitation of research in the context of animal welfare and regulatory compliance.     

Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation

The concept of vulnerability is deployed in bioethics to, amongst other things, identify and remedy harms to participants in research, yet although nonhuman animals in experimentation seem intuitively to be vulnerable, this concept and its attendant protections are rarely applied to research animals. I want to argue, however, that this concept is applicable to nonhuman animals and that a new taxonomy of vulnerability developed in the context of human bioethics can be applied to research animals. This taxonomy does useful explanatory work, helping to pinpoint the limitations of the 3Rs/welfare approach currently adopted in the context of animal experimentation. On this account, the 3Rs/welfare approach fails to deliver for nonhuman animals in experimentation because it effectively addresses only one element of their vulnerability (inherent) and paradoxically through the institution of Animal Ethics Committees intended to protect experimental animals in fact generates new vulnerabilities that exacerbate their already precarious situation.     

Individual and collective responsibility to enhance regulatory compliance of the Three Rs

Investigators planning to use animals in their research and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) members who review the research protocols must take personal responsibility for ensuring that they have the skills and knowledge to perform their duties, applying the Three Rs principles of Russell and Burch. The two Korean laws introduced in 2008 and 2009 regulating animal use for scientific purposes in line with the Three Rs principles have been revised a total of 11 times over the last 6 years. Both regulatory agencies, e.g., the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, provide regular training based on the legal requirements. Based on the amended Animal Welfare Act, the IACUC appointment framework has been upgraded: appointments are now for two-year terms and require a qualified training certificate issued by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency since 2012. The authors reviewed the current curricular programs and types of training conducted by the two governing agencies through Internet searches. Our Internet survey results suggest that: a) diversity should be provided in training curricula, based on the roles, backgrounds and needs of the individual trainees; b) proper and continued educational programs should be provided, based on trainees’ experiences; and c) active encouragement by government authorities can improve the quality of training curricula. [BMB Reports 2014; 47(4): 179-183]     

Is a compromise possible in Russia between animal advocates and researchers who use animals in harmful experiments?

The current situation relating to the use of laboratory animals in Russia, which is primarily characterised by the complete absence of legislation for their protection, is examined and discussed. This lack of regulation causes well-founded protests by animal protection organisations and a number of reputable politicians. It also has a negative influence on the quality of medical and biological research results that are obtained through the use of experimental animals in Russia. The opinion is expressed that the Russian scientific community should be able to build upon the experience of other countries - in particular, members of the European Union, where there is an effective system of self-control over the ethical and legislative regulation of animal-based research. It is suggested that, in Russia, the basic animal protection principles of the Three Rs should be introduced, when the decision on whether to finance scientific projects involving the use of animals is being made.     

Guidance on the severity classification of scientific procedures involving fish: report of a Working Group appointed by the Norwegian Consensus-Platform for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal experiments (Norecopa)

The severity classification of procedures using animals is an important tool to help focus the implementation of refinement and to assist in reporting the application of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). The recently revised Directive that regulates animal research and testing within the European Union requires Member States to ensure that all procedures are classified as 'non-recovery', 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe', using assignment criteria set out by the European Commission (EC). However, these are focused upon terrestrial species, so are of limited relevance to fish users. A Working Group set up by the Norwegian Consensus-Platform for the 3Rs (Norecopa) has produced guidance on the classification of severity in scientific procedures involving fish, including examples of 'subthreshold', 'mild', 'moderate', 'severe' and 'upper threshold' procedures. The aims are to complement the EC guidelines and help to ensure that suffering in fish is effectively predicted and minimized. Norecopa has established a website (www.norecopa.no/categories) where more information on severity classification for procedures using fish, including field research, will be made available.     

Survey of Canadian animal-based researchers' views on the Three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement

The 'Three Rs' tenet (replacement, reduction, refinement) is a widely accepted cornerstone of Canadian and international policies on animal-based science. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) initiated this web-based survey to obtain greater understanding of 'principal investigators' and 'other researchers' (i.e. graduate students, post-doctoral researchers etc.) views on the Three Rs, and to identify obstacles and opportunities for continued implementation of the Three Rs in Canada. Responses from 414 participants indicate that researchers currently do not view the goal of replacement as achievable. Researchers prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data is obtained rather than using the minimum and potentially waste those animals if a problem occurs during the study. Many feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible and have concerns that further reduction may compromise research. Most participants were ambivalent about re-use, but expressed concern that the practice could compromise experimental outcomes. In considering refinement, many researchers feel there are situations where animals should not receive pain relieving drugs because it may compromise scientific outcomes, although there was strong support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies, which were viewed as useful for both animal welfare and experimental design. Participants were not opposed to being offered "assistance" to implement the Three Rs, so long as the input is provided in a collegial manner, and from individuals who are perceived as experts. It may be useful for animal use policymakers to consider what steps are needed to make replacement a more feasible goal. In addition, initiatives that offer researchers greater practical and logistical support with Three Rs implementation may be useful. Encouragement and financial support for Three Rs initiatives may result in valuable contributions to Three Rs knowledge and improve welfare for animals used in science.     

Iacuc review of genetic engineering

IACUC approval of research using genetically engineered animals must balance research needs with humane treatment of the animals, safety of animals and personnel, and compliance with regulations.     

Future activities: ECVAM and the quality control of biologicals

ECVAM's activities in the field of biologicals have contributed in many ways to the successful incorporation of Three Rs methods, as summarised elsewhere in these proceedings. The progress achieved is impressive, but large numbers of animals are still needed in order to meet the requirements stipulated by various regulations. ECVAM's activities in this area should therefore be continued and extended. Besides the well-established organisation of ECVAM workshops and contributions to conferences, further prevalidation and validation studies should be funded. In addition, studies on refinement, and training courses on validated and well-established Three Rs methods, could be initiated. There is a need for more communication and information exchange, especially between regulators and industry concerning the Three Rs. ECVAM could provide a suitable forum for such activities. An ECVAM Biologicals Task Force should be established in order to define a list of priorities.     

Estimates and implications of the costs of compliance with biosafety regulations in developing countries

Estimating the cost of compliance with biosafety regulations is important as it helps developers focus their investments in producer development. We provide estimates for the cost of compliance for a set of technologies in Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries. These costs vary from US $100,000 to 1.7 million. These are estimates of regulatory costs and do not include product development or deployment costs. Cost estimates need to be compared with potential gains when the technology is introduced in these countries and the gains in knowledge accumulate during the biosafety assessment process. Although the cost of compliance is important, time delays and uncertainty are even more important and may have an adverse impact on innovations reaching farmers.     

Searching and review on the Three Rs information in Korea: time for quality assessment and continued education

Scientists planning research that involves the use of animals are required by international and/or national law to examine the possibilities for the implementation of Replacement, Reduction and/or Refinement (the Three Rs principles of Russell and Burch) in experiments for research, testing, and education. There are two Korean laws legislating humane use of animals and ethical review prior to animal experiments. This report reviews current practice of the literature search by the researchers and protocol review by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees on the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement alternatives in Korea. The promotion and protection of the laboratory animals are one of the core competencies of investigators exploring the ethical conduct of research and good science. [BMB Reports 2013; 46(7): 335-337]     

A guide to risk assessment in animal care and use programs: the metaphor of the 3-legged stool

A high-quality contemporary animal care and use program (ACUP) is a multifaceted dynamic system with three distinct organizational entities--the institutional official (IO), attending veterinarian (AV), and institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC)--each of whose authorities and responsibilities are mandated by a complex set of laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines. The 3-legged stool is presented here as a metaphor for the properly constituted and functioning ACUP, with the legs of the stool representing the IO, AV, and IACUC: when one component is weakened, the stool remains standing but tilts--the ACUP remains in compliance with animal welfare standards but is at risk of failure. Mechanisms for assessing an ACUP's strengths and weaknesses include both external evaluators, such as the US Department of Agriculture, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, and Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, and internal evaluators, such as the IACUC, AV, and IO. However, each of these evaluators primarily assesses whether aspects of the ACUP are in compliance with current standards; they do not necessarily cite weaknesses in a compliant program. This article stresses the need for ACUPs to undertake a self-assessment of risk and outlines a number of ways programs can recognize their risks, with examples for each of the three components, which are characterized as either "weak" or "overzealous" in meeting their mandates. I caution against the use of a legacy of compliance as the sole means for evaluating an ACUP's strength, and instead promote the value of rigorous risk assessment/mitigation to ensure that a program is both strong and resilient.     

Animal welfare and the refinement of neuroscience research methods--a case study of Huntington's disease models

The use of animals in biomedical and other research presents an ethical dilemma: we do not want to lose scientific benefits, nor do we want to cause laboratory animals to suffer. Scientists often refer to the potential human benefits of animal models to justify their use. However, even if this is accepted, it still needs to be argued that the same benefits could not have been achieved with a mitigated impact on animal welfare. Reducing the adverse effects of scientific protocols ('refinement') is therefore crucial in animal-based research. It is especially important that researchers share knowledge on how to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. We have previously demonstrated that even in studies in which animal use leads to spontaneous death, scientists often fail to report measures to minimize animal distress (Olsson et al. 2007). In this paper, we present the full results of a case study examining reports, published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2004, of experiments employing animal models to study the neurodegenerative disorder Huntington's disease. In 51 references, experiments in which animals were expected to develop motor deficits so severe that they would have difficulty eating and drinking normally were conducted, yet only three references were made to housing adaptation to facilitate food and water intake. Experiments including end-stages of the disease were reported in 14 papers, yet of these only six referred to the euthanasia of moribund animals. If the reference in scientific publications reflects the actual application of refinement, researchers do not follow the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) principle. While in some cases, it is clear that less-than-optimal techniques were used, we recognize that scientists may apply refinement without referring to it; however, if they do not include such information in publications, it suggests they find it less relevant. Journal publishing policy could play an important role: first, in ensuring that referees seriously consider whether submitted studies were indeed carried out with the smallest achievable negative impact on the animals and, secondly, in encouraging scientists to share refinements through the inclusion of a 3Rs section in papers publishing the results of animal-based research.     

Sentience and sensation

When animals are used in a biomedical research activity that may result in more than mild or momentary pain or distress, humanity, federal regulations and common sense direct us to use the least sentient species that can fulfill the aims of the research. The use of a less-sentient species is in line with the concept of Replacement, one of the well-known 3Rs of laboratory animal use. But what is a less-sentient species? Is a chimpanzee less sentient than a human; is a dog less sentient than a chimpanzee; and is a mouse less sentient than a dog? Does 'less sentient' imply that a species is less able to experience pain, is less intelligent or has less self-awareness? This essay will explore some of the relationships between sentience, pain and vertebrate phylogeny.