Aren the 3Rs (“Reduce, Refine and Replace”) the best way to phase out animal research?
Promoters of the 3R’s (“Reduce, Refine and Replace”) view it that animal experiments are a necessary evil if we want to cure human disease. They also assume that animal experiments are scienticically valid and will lead to cures and treatments for human disease. This doesn’t work in practice because if a procedure isn’t applicable to humans refining or reducing it is still unacceptable. The 3Rs deflect attention and debate away from the issue of the scientific validity of animal research. It gives the impression that it is concerned for the welfare of lab animals and avoid the debate on the justification of using another species to model human disease.
[back to top] Promoters of the 3R’s (“Reduce, Refine and Replace”) view it that animal experiments are a necessary evil if we want to cure human disease. They also assume that animal experiments are scienticically valid and will lead to cures and treatments for human disease. This doesn’t work in practice because if a procedure isn’t applicable to humans refining or reducing it is still unacceptable. The 3Rs deflect attention and debate away from the issue of the scientific validity of animal research. It gives the impression that it is concerned for the welfare of lab animals and avoid the debate on the justification of using another species to model human disease. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments? [back to top] Alternative methods are already replacing animal experiments and have already saved countless lives. For example, cell cultures have replaced the use of monkeys in polio vaccine production. Pregnancy tests are now conducted in test-tubes instead of in rabbi
