Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The concept of the Three Rs - Replacement, Reduction and Refinement –
has gained wide acceptance as a guiding principle for responsible and
humane use of animals for biomedical research and testing. As descriped in
the article by Geoff Watts the EU-Directive on the protection of animals
used for scientific purposes is presently under revision and the political
ambition is to reduce the numbers of animals used. In the Directive
proposal preamble the Commission claims that ‘The most pragmatic approach
to reducing experiments on animals is through the introduction of
alternative methods’. The Commission cites a report on chemical testing,
and they emphasise REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals) and ECVAM (European Centre for Validation of
Alternative Methods) as key activities. The Commission proposes to
establish reference laboratories for alternatives in each member state.
It is a laudable ambition to actively stimulate the implementation of the
Three Rs. Although we are daily professionally involved with fulfilling
the 3 R’s, we find, however, that the Commission’s focus in this matter is
way off centre, and facts and statistics on animal use documents this
statement.
In the most recent statistics published (2005) 12.1 million laboratory
animals were reported used in the EU. 33 % were used for fundamental
research, which typically uses a variety of models with only limited
repetitions. 31 % were used for product research and development, which
only to a limited extent use standard models. Consequently, the focus on
‘alternatives’ and ‘replacement’ is almost exclusively applicable for
those animals used for regulatory testing i.e. 23.3 % of the animals.
ECVAM has since 1991 validated 25 alternative methods, of which none were
within fundamental research or product research and development.
It thus seems as if the aim, arguments and initiatives of the Directive
proposal are focused on a minor fraction of European animal research and
toxicity testing. Even if the 10 alternatives validated by ECVAM for
various irritation and sensibilisation tests were to replace all animals
used for these purposes, they would only account for 1.4 % of the total
number of animals reported used, although the tests represent 40 % of
ECVAM’s total validation history.
The scientific community has for years successfully been reducing the
number of animals in projects and initiatives like peer review processes
have significantly refined animal conditions. If the EU would actively
stimulate initiatives leading to accelerated Refinement and Reduction, we
are confident that this would be met with general acceptance by the
scientific community.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
02 July 2009
Axel K Hansen
Professor in laboratory animal science and welfare
Jann Hau, Thomas C. Krohn
Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C
The proposal for a revised EU directive for animal experimentation may be out of focus
The concept of the Three Rs - Replacement, Reduction and Refinement –
has gained wide acceptance as a guiding principle for responsible and
humane use of animals for biomedical research and testing. As descriped in
the article by Geoff Watts the EU-Directive on the protection of animals
used for scientific purposes is presently under revision and the political
ambition is to reduce the numbers of animals used. In the Directive
proposal preamble the Commission claims that ‘The most pragmatic approach
to reducing experiments on animals is through the introduction of
alternative methods’. The Commission cites a report on chemical testing,
and they emphasise REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals) and ECVAM (European Centre for Validation of
Alternative Methods) as key activities. The Commission proposes to
establish reference laboratories for alternatives in each member state.
It is a laudable ambition to actively stimulate the implementation of the
Three Rs. Although we are daily professionally involved with fulfilling
the 3 R’s, we find, however, that the Commission’s focus in this matter is
way off centre, and facts and statistics on animal use documents this
statement.
In the most recent statistics published (2005) 12.1 million laboratory
animals were reported used in the EU. 33 % were used for fundamental
research, which typically uses a variety of models with only limited
repetitions. 31 % were used for product research and development, which
only to a limited extent use standard models. Consequently, the focus on
‘alternatives’ and ‘replacement’ is almost exclusively applicable for
those animals used for regulatory testing i.e. 23.3 % of the animals.
ECVAM has since 1991 validated 25 alternative methods, of which none were
within fundamental research or product research and development.
It thus seems as if the aim, arguments and initiatives of the Directive
proposal are focused on a minor fraction of European animal research and
toxicity testing. Even if the 10 alternatives validated by ECVAM for
various irritation and sensibilisation tests were to replace all animals
used for these purposes, they would only account for 1.4 % of the total
number of animals reported used, although the tests represent 40 % of
ECVAM’s total validation history.
The scientific community has for years successfully been reducing the
number of animals in projects and initiatives like peer review processes
have significantly refined animal conditions. If the EU would actively
stimulate initiatives leading to accelerated Refinement and Reduction, we
are confident that this would be met with general acceptance by the
scientific community.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests