Rethinking the Three Rs: Growing Momentum Toward a New Gold Standard in Australian Research.

Recent years have seen increasing recognition of the scientific, economic and ethical benefits of the use of non-animal models in advancing preclinical research, giving reason to rethink the application and framework of the Three Rs. However, to benefit from the economic advantages of shifting to such alternative methods, and to realise Australia's drug development potential, legislative reform is essential. Such reform should be responsive to international regulations that encourage the use of animal-free methods, and be coupled with a corresponding re-evaluation of current Three Rs frameworks and principles. If these supportive changes, and the recommendations from the 2023 Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Futures Non-animal models report, are implemented concurrently - with government support paramount- then a new gold standard for scientific research in Australia could be created in which the use of non-animal models and animal-free methods is the default.

[Current regulations in the Animal Welfare Act and the significance for animal research]. / Aktuelle Regelungen im Tierschutzgesetz und Bedeutung für die tierexperimentelle Forschung.

Due to the legal implantation of the 3R principle, the number of laboratory animals decreased significantly over the past 10 years. In this article, the historical development of animal experiments over the last decade will be presented in the context of the current regulations of the Animal Welfare Act. It points out bureaucratic obstacles to the approval of animal experiments, which jeopardize Germany as a research location for both academia and industry. The article presents constructive proposals for solutions. This should be done in accordance with the DFG recommendation to ensure efficient biomedical research while maintaining the highest animal welfare standards.

Have the non-technical summaries of animal experiments in Europe improved? An update

Following a review of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific pur­poses in the European Union (EU), non-technical project summaries (NTS) of all approved projects must be published in a central database using a standard template. Our initial review of the NTS reported in ALTEX in 2018 had found the NTS to be deficient in their accessibility and quality, notably the "adverse effects" section where the harms to the animals are meant to be described. Here we repeat our review to see if these legislative changes have improved the accessibility and quality of the NTS. As before, we focused on the NTS from the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany; even though the UK has left the EU, it is using the same template. We found significant improvement in the reporting of five of the six elements we identified as essential to the "predicted harms" section. However, there was no significant improvement in the reporting of adverse effects. Only 41% of German NTS and 48% of UK NTS are fully reporting this important element of the "predicted harms" section. In our view, researchers need support in describing the impact of their research on the animals and to assist here we include a checklist for competent authorities and a list of suggested terminology for standard administration and sampling procedures. Unless the NTS improve further, their utility as a tool for sharing of good practices in the 3Rs or to support evidence-based policy­making will remain limited.

All countries of the European Union (EU) are required to publish "non-technical summaries" (NTS) of research projects that use animals. To improve transparency, the public must have access to NTS and understand their content. Our previous review found that the information provided in the NTS was lacking in many cases. This is preventing a full understanding of what animals experience during experiments. In particular, NTS often failed to fully describe what procedures the animals would be subjected to, how often they would take place, how long they would last, and the harm they would cause. Here we repeat our review to see if recent legislative changes, including the requirement for NTS to be published in a central database using a standard template, have made a difference. While there has been some improvement in reporting, many NTS still fail to adequately describe the harm that animals will experience.

NIH can't deny chimps sanctuary retirement.

Agency violated federal law when it prevented former lab primates from entering Chimp Haven, federal judge rules.

Preclinical screening for antidepressant activity - shifting focus away from the Forced Swim Test to the use of translational biomarkers.

Depression is the world's predominant mental health problem and a leading cause of disability. Neuropharmacological research has not yet advanced treatments to sufficiently meet clinical need, largely due to the failure of animal models to predict clinical efficacy. The forced swim test (FST) has been extensively used in the field of antidepressant research but has been under scrutiny due to its perceived severity to animals. Any use of animals in experiments and testing must have a scientific or regulatory purpose and researchers need to ensure that there is no scientifically valid alternative. However, regulatory requirements have been incorrectly cited as a reason to support the use of the FST. More research is required on tests that do not involve stressing animals as replacements for the FST. Non-behavioural neurochemical measures might provide a means to advance neuropharmacological developments while reducing animal suffering. For example, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) may be promising.

Ethical publication of research on genetics and genomics of biological material: guidelines and recommendations.

Forensic Science International: Genetics and Forensic Science International: Reports communicate research on a variety of biological materials using genetics and genomic methods. Numerous guidelines have been produced to secure standardization and quality of results of scientific investigations. Yet, no specific guidelines have been produced for the ethical acquisition of such data. These guidelines summarize universally adopted principles for conducting ethical research on biological materials, and provide details of the general procedures for conducting ethical research on materials of human, animal, plant and environmental origin. Finally, the minimal ethics requirements for submission of research material are presented.

A Belmont Report for Animals?

Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry.

The Animal Study Registry (ASR; www.animalstudyregistry.org) was launched in January 2019 for preregistration of animal studies in order to increase transparency and reproducibility of bioscience research and to promote animal welfare. The registry is free of charge and is designed for exploratory and confirmatory studies within applied science as well as basic and preclinical research. The registration form helps scientists plan their study thoroughly by asking detailed questions concerning study design, methods, and statistics. With registration, the study automatically receives a digital object identifier (DOI) that marks it as intellectual property of the researcher. To accommodate the researchers concerns about theft of ideas, users can restrict the visibility of their registered studies for up to 5 years. The full content of the study becomes publicly accessible at the end of the embargo period. Because the platform is embedded in the infrastructure of the German Federal Government, continuity and data security are provided. By registering a study in the ASR, researchers can show their commitment to transparency and data quality to reviewers and editors, to third-party donors, and to the general public.

Disaster Planning and Research Continuity in Responsible Animal Research.

Disaster preparedness for research facilities can be a daunting task. The purpose of this review is to introduce basic preparedness concepts and terminology so that facilities may begin to develop customized plans for their specific needs. Regulatory requirements are reviewed and an overview of the Incident Command System, National Preparedness System Planning Frameworks, and fundamental terms is provided. Important concepts for successful planning are then explored. Good planning involves fostering a culture of preparedness, resilience, and understanding the interactions and partnerships with other groups that are essential for core functions and incident response. Methods to gain institutional support and set up an advisory committee are examined in detail. Next, the steps to develop and carry out a plan are outlined. Risk assessments using an all hazards approach and tools such as risk indices and risk matrices are explained, and tips to design and test plans, train personnel, and evaluate improvement are discussed. Finally, special challenges unique to animal research facilities are considered along with ways to address them. Examples and information are drawn from a wide variety of organizations both to underscore themes common to all preparedness plans and to introduce new concepts that may be adapted for use in research institutions.

Laboratory Guidelines for Animal Care.

Animal research is a controversial subject because of the ethical and moral implications of using unwilling research subjects in potentially painful or distressful procedures usually ending in euthanasia. As such, it must be conducted in a compassionate and responsible manner geared toward maximizing the animals' quality of life prior to and during experimentation. Because of its contentious nature, the conduct of animal research is highly regulated at the federal, state, city, and institutional levels. It is essential that researchers acquire a thorough knowledge of the procedures to be conducted as well as a working knowledge of the regulations. This will maximize humane care of research animals and prevent potentially negative or detrimental interactions with groups opposed to using animals in biomedical research. Perhaps the best way to attain these goals is to avoid inadvertent instances of noncompliance with their research protocol or applicable regulations. Regulatory noncompliance can also have serious negative consequences on investigators' research careers ranging from temporary suspension of their protocols to loss of funding and revocation of principal investigator status and associated privileges. To minimize such adverse outcomes, it is advised that researchers build positive and collaborative relationships with key institutional players such as the veterinary staff, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and top administrators. Guidance is provided regarding the appropriate handling of regulatory noncompliance.

Nordic symposium on "toxicology and pharmacology without animal experiments-Will it be possible in the next 10 years?"

Toxicological and pharmacological information from human cells and tissues provides knowledge readily applicable to human safety assessment and to the efficacy assessment of pharmaceuticals. The 3R principle in animal studies includes the use of human material in the R of Replacement. The Reduction and Refinement Rs are related to animal use. Knowledge of the 3Rs and successful 3R methods are a prerequisite for the Reduction of animal experiments in the future. More collaboration among researchers using experimental animals and those working in vitro is necessary with mutual respect. The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals have included the animal-free part of the 3Rs in guidances for the development and reporting of Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs), which is to be part of the Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). The 3R centres established to help fulfil the Directive 2010/63/EU play an important role to promote the 3Rs and in the development of animal-free toxicology. Research centres in each Nordic country are founded upon solid research activities in cell and organ toxicity, including major EU programmes to promote 3Rs and implementation of good practices and methods broadly in all stakeholders of industry, regulators and academia. In the light of this, the Nordic Symposium on Toxicology and Pharmacology without Animal Experiments addressed more adopted/modified test guidelines or new test guidelines for new end-points, or hazard challenges, new in vitro 3D models, speeding up transfer of knowledge from research to regulation to understand AOP and towards IATA.

Animal Models in Forensic Science Research: Justified Use or Ethical Exploitation?

A moral dilemma exists in biomedical research relating to the use of animal or human tissue when conducting scientific research. In human ethics, researchers need to justify why the use of humans is necessary should suitable models exist. Conversely, in animal ethics, a researcher must justify why research cannot be carried out on suitable alternatives. In the case of medical procedures or therapeutics testing, the use of animal models is often justified. However, in forensic research, the justification may be less evident, particularly when research involves the infliction of trauma on living animals. To determine how the forensic science community is dealing with this dilemma, a review of literature within major forensic science journals was conducted. The frequency and trends of the use of animals in forensic science research was investigated for the period 1 January 2012-31 December 2016. The review revealed 204 original articles utilizing 5050 animals in various forms as analogues for human tissue. The most common specimens utilized were various species of rats (35.3%), pigs (29.3%), mice (17.7%), and rabbits (8.2%) although different specimens were favored in different study themes. The majority of studies (58%) were conducted on post-mortem specimens. It is, however, evident that more needs to be done to uphold the basic ethical principles of reduction, refinement and replacement in the use of animals for research purposes.