Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T04:17:35.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Three Rs: past, present and future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

WMS Russell
WMS Russell*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 218, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“Our story must begin with Charles Hume, for the whole of this grand enterprise began as a twinkle in his eye, which often twinkled” (Russell 1995). Fifty-one years ago, in 1954, besides important achievements in other fields of animal welfare, Hume and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) had brought out the first edition of The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, edited by Alastair Worden (Worden 1947), who was already preparing a greatly enlarged second edition with William Lane-Petter (Worden & Lane-Petter 1957). Hume had already contributed to the first edition of the Handbook an article on statistical analysis, which is clearly relevant to actual experimentation (Hume 1947); he now had the brilliant and totally original idea of starting a general study of humane technique in actual experimentation. The late Rex Burch and I were appointed to undertake this project; the moment Rex walked into my office I knew that here was not only the perfect colleague but also a lifelong friend, and I sadly miss him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 279 - 286
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 2000a Professor of alternatives appointed at the NCA. NCA Newsletter 9: 7Google Scholar
Anon 2000b ESF Statement on the Use of Animals in Research. European Science Foundation: Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
Anon 2000c The three Rs declaration of Bologna. In: Balls M, van Zeller A-M and Halder ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation p 15. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Anon 2005 Dutch Government touts genomics for reducing animal use. Lab Animal Europe 5(2): 4Google Scholar
Balls M (ed) 2002 Alternatives to Animal Experiments: Progress made and Challenges Ahead. ATLA 30, Suppl 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balls M (ed) 2003 Biostatistical Methods and the Development, Validation and the Application of In Vitro Toxicity tests. ATLA 31, Suppl 1Google Scholar
Balls, M and Combes, RD 2004 The UK national centre for the three Rs: pathway to progress or mere fig leaf? ATLA 32: 61–64Google ScholarPubMed
Balls M, Festing MFW and Vaughan S (eds) 2004a Reducing the Use of Experimental Animals where No Replacement is Yet Available. ATLA 32, Suppl 2Google Scholar
Balls M, Firmani D and Rowan A (eds) 2004b The Three Rs at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. ATLA 32, Suppl 1Google Scholar
Balls, M, Goldberg, AM, Fentem, JH, Broadhead, CL, Burch, RL, Festing, MFW, Frazier, JM, Hendriksen, CFM, Jennings, M, van der Kamp, MDO, Morton, DB, Rowan, AN, Russell, C, Russell, WMS, Spielmann, H, Stephens, ML, Stokes, WS, Straughan, DW, Yager, JB, Zurlo, J and van Zutphen, LFM 1995 The three Rs: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 11. ATLA 23: 838–866Google ScholarPubMed
Balls M, van Zeller A-M and Halder ME (eds) 2000 Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Bhogal, N, Grindon, G, Combes, R and Balls, M 2005 Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends in Biotechnology 23: 299–307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chance, MRA 1957 The contribution of environment to uniformity: variance control, refinement in pharmacology. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 59–73Google Scholar
Chance, MRA and Russell, WMS 1997 The benefits of giving experimental animals the best possible environment. In: Reinhardt, V (ed) Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 8th Edition pp 12–14. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdf (accessed 4 October 2005)Google Scholar
Croft, PG 1957a The criteria for a humane technique. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 19–22Google Scholar
Croft, PG 1957b Aspects of anaesthesia. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 75–77Google Scholar
Emmens, CW 1948 Principles of Biological Assay. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Evers, S and Gray, CP 2001 Application of proteome analysis to drug development and toxicology. In: Pennington, SR and Dunn, MJ (eds) Proteomics pp 225–236. BIOS Scientific Publishers: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1993 International Index of Laboratory Animals, 6th Edition pp 238. Michael FW Festing, PO Box 301, Leicester LE1 7RE, UKGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1994a Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experiments. Lab Animal 28: 212–221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, MFW 1994b Are animals experiments well designed? In: Bunyan J (ed) Welfare and Science pp 32–36. Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1995a Reduction of animal use and experimental design. In: Goldberg, AM, van Zutphen, LFM and Principe, ML (eds) The World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing pp 43–49. Mary Ann Liebert: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1995b Use of a multi-strain assay could improve the MTP carcinogenesis bioassay programme. Environmental Health Perspectives 103: 44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1996 Are animal experiments in toxicological research the right size? In: Morgan BJT and Williams DA (eds) Statistics in Toxicology pp 3–11. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 2000 Reduction, model development and efficient experimental design. In: Balls, M, van, Zeller A-M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 721–727. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 2003 Laboratory animal genetics and genetic quality control. In: Hau, J and van Hoosier, GL (eds) Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, 2nd Edition pp 173–203. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW and Lovell, DP 1996 Reducing the use of laboratory animals in toxicological research and testing by better experimental design. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 58: 127–140Google Scholar
Festing, MFW and Weigler, BJ 2003 Experimental design and statistical analysis. In: Hau, J and van Hoosier, GL (eds) Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science pp 327–350. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW, Kondo, K, Loosli, R, Polly, SM and Speigel, A 1972 International standardised nomenclature for outbred stocks of laboratory animals. ICLA Bulletin 30: 4–17Google Scholar
Festing, MFW, Overend, P, Gaines Das, R, Cortina Borja, M and Berdoy, M 2002 The Design of Animal Experiments. The Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R 1942 The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Flecknell, PA 1987 Laboratory Animal Anaesthesia. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, AM 2004 Animals and alternatives: societal expectations and scientific need. ATLA 32: 545–551Google ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, AM, van Zutphen, LFM and Principe, ML 1995 The World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing. Mary Ann Liebert: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
He ZM (ed) 2004 Alternate Methods to Animal Experiment (in Chinese). Beijing Academic Publications: Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, J 1971 Alternatives. In: Godlovitch, S, Godlovitch, R and Harris, J (eds) Animals, Men and Morals. Gollancz: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Henriksen CFM and Morton DB (eds) 1999 Humane Endpoints in Animal Experiments for Biomedical Research. The Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hume, CW 1947 A conspectus of the elements of statistical analysis. In: Worden, AN (ed) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 1st Edition pp 283–352. Baillière Tindall and Cox: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hume, CW 1957a The strategy and tactics of experimentation. The Lancet 23 November 1957: 1049–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, CW 1957b The strategy and tactics of experimentation. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 49–50Google Scholar
Lane-Petter, W and Bloom, JL 1957 Control of genetic variation. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 51–57Google Scholar
Morton, DB 1990 Adverse effects in animals and their relevance to refining scientific procedures. ATLA 18: 29–39Google Scholar
Morton, DB 1992 A fair press for animals. New Scientist 134: 28–30Google ScholarPubMed
Morton, DB 1995 The post-operative care of small experimental animals and the assessment of pain by score sheets. In: Johnston, ME (ed) Proceedings of Animal in Science Conference: Perspectives on Their Use, Care and Welfare pp 82–87. Monash University: Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 1997 A scheme for the recognition and assessment of adverse effects. In: van Zutphen, LFM and Balls, M (eds) Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics pp 235–241. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 1998a The use of score sheets in the implementation of humane endpoints. Proceedings of the Joint ANZCCART/NAEAC Conference on Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 75-82. 19–20 September 1997. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 1998b The importance of non-statistical design in refining animal experimentation. ANZCCART News 11(2): 12Google Scholar
Morton, DB 1999 Humane endpoints in animal experimentation for biomedical research: ethical, legal and practical aspects. In: Hendriksen, CFM and Morton, DB (eds) Humane Endpoints in Animal Experimentation for Biomedical Research pp 5–12. The Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 2000 A systematic approach for establishing humane endpoints. ILAR Journal 41(2): 80–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, DC and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB and Hau, J 2003 Welfare assessment and humane endpoints. In: Hau, J and van Hoosier, GL (eds) Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, 2nd Edition pp 457–486. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB and Townsend, P 1995 Dealing with adverse effects and suffering during animal research. In: Tuffery, AA (ed) Laboratory Animals — An Introduction for Experimenters pp 215–231. John Wiley: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB, Hawkins, P, Bevan, R, Heath, K, Kirkwood, J, Pearce, P, Scott, L, Whelan, G and Webb, A 2003 Refinements in telemetry procedures. Laboratory Animals 37: 261–299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, DB, Jennings, M, Batchelor, GR, Bell, D, Birke, L, Davies, K, Eveleigh, JR, Gunn, D, Heath, M, Howard, B, Koder, P, Phillips, J, Poole, T, Sainsbury, AW, Sales, GD, Smith, DJA, Stauffacher, M and Turner, RJ 1993 Refinements in rabbit husbandry. Laboratory Animals 27: 301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, LU and Murillo, G 2000 Promotion of alternative methods in Latin America and the Caribbean: challenges and hopes. In: Balls, M, van, Zeller A-M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 1395–1400. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Poole TB (ed) 1999 The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 7th Edition. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt V (ed) 1997 Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 7th Edition. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V 1999 Pair-housing overcomes self-biting behaviour in macaques. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 38: 4Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V 2003 Working with rather than against macaques during blood collection. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 189–197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V 2004 Common husbandry-related variables in bio-medical research with animals. Laboratory Animals 38: 213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Cowley, D 1990 Training stumptailed monkeys to cooperate during in-home cage treatment. Laboratory Primate Newsletter 29: 9–10Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Cowley, D 1992 In-homecage blood collection from conscious stumptailed macaques. Animal Welfare 1: 249–255Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 1991 Impact of a privacy panel on the behaviour of caged female rhesus monkeys living in pairs. Journal of Experimental Animal Science 34: 55–58Google ScholarPubMed
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 2001a Legal space requirement stipulations for animals in the laboratory. Are they adequate? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A 2001b Environmental Enrichment for Caged Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta) — Photographic Documentation and Literature Review, 2nd Edition. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt V and Reinhardt A (eds) 2002 Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 9th Edition. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V and Rossell, M 2001 Self-biting in caged macaques: cause, effect and treatment. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, C 2002 Annual Meeting: Welfare and Science. Research Defence Society News, January: 8-9Google Scholar
Rowan, AN 1984 Of Mice, Models and Men. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Rowan, AN 1994 Looking back 33 years to Russell and Burch: the development of the concept of the Three Rs (alternatives). In: Reinhardt, CA (ed) Alternatives to Animal Testing: New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress pp 1–11. VCH: Weinheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS 1955 A research on the history and progress of humane experimental techniques. UFAW Courier 11: 16–20Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 1957 The increase of humanity in experimentation: replacement, reduction and refinement. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 23–25Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 1959 On comfort and comfort activities in animals. UFAW Courier 16: 14–26Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 1995 Speech at the Awards Luncheon. In: Goldberg, AM, van Zutphen, LFM and Principe, ML (eds) The World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing pp 71–80. Mary Ann Liebert: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS 1997 Shooting the clock. Science and Animal Care 8(3): 1–2 and insetGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS 1999 Reduction and refinement in biomedical experiments. Research Defence Society News, January: 12-13Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 2002 The ill-effects of uncomfortable quarters. In: Reinhardt, V and Reinhardt, A (eds) Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals, 9th Edition pp 1–5. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS 2003 Alternatives to animal experiments: progress made and challenges ahead. ATLA 31: 216–218Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 2004a The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists. ATLA 32: 119–120Google Scholar
Russell, WMS 2004b Nine glorious years. In: Balls M, Firmani D and Rowan AN (eds) The Three Rs at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. ATLA 32, Suppl 1A: 3-10Google Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Sanders, FK 1957 Tissue cultures as substitutes for experimental animals. Laboratory Animals Bureau, Collected Papers 6: 35–43Google Scholar
Schena, N 2003 Microarray Analysis. John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Smyth, DH 1978 Alternatives to Animal Experiments. Scolar Press in association with the Research Defence Society: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Spielmann, H 2002 A chair on alternatives? ALTEX 19: 69–73Google ScholarPubMed
Stephens, ML, Goldberg, AM and Rowan, AN 2001 The first forty years of the alternatives approach: refining, reducing and replacing the use of laboratory animals. In: Salem, DJ and Rowan, AN (eds) The State of the Animals 2001 pp 121–135. Humane Society Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Stoughton, RB and Friend, SH 2005 How molecular profiling could revolutionise drug discovery. Drug Discovery 4: 345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Valk, J 2004 Editorial. Netherlands Centre Alternatives 17: 1Google Scholar
van Zutphen, LFM 1991 Education and animal experimentation. In: Hendriksen, CFM and Koëter, HBWM (eds) Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. Present Possibilities and Future Prospects pp 119–125. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
van Zutphen LFM and Balls M (eds) 1997 Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
van Zutphen, LFM and van der Valk, J 1995 Education and training: a basis for the introduction of the Three Rs alternatives into animal research. ATLA 23: 123–127Google ScholarPubMed
van Zutphen LFM, Baumans V and Beynen AC (eds) 1993 Principles of Laboratory Animal Science. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Worden AN (ed) 1947 The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 1st Edition. Baillière Tindall and Cox: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Worden AN and Lane-Petter W (eds) 1957 The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 2nd Edition. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar