Suchergebnisse

The coincidence of anniversaries associated with the publication of William Russell and Rex Burch's The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, the founding of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), and the establishment of the collaboration between FRAME and the University of Nottingham, provides an opportunity to reflect on Russell and Burch's legacy and how it was carried forward by FRAME. The Principles, published in 1959, was the pioneering work in what later became the alternatives or Three Rs field of replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal use. Such was the book's initial and undeserved obscurity, however, that FRAME, following its founding in 1969, pioneered a similar approach independently of Russell and Burch's work. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was also an early champion of the alternatives framework, and through the establishment of the Russell and Burch Award, helped unite Russell and Burch with what had emerged as the alternatives community. Thanks largely to FRAME, Russell and Burch were able to participate in Three Rs activity before their deaths. They lived long enough to see their ideas take hold, but not long enough to see the emerging revolution currently under way in toxicity testing, toward the use of non-animal methods.

This review presents the results of an informal 1993 survey of the distribution of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the world's laboratories, and the types of research conducted on them. Based on the available information, there are over 2200 chimpanzees in.laboratories, most of which are located in several US facilities. Europe apparently has less than 200 chimpanzees housed in two facilities. Worldwide, an estimated 80% of the chimpanzees in laboratories are used in studies on AIDS and hepatitis. It is concluded that, if Europe terminated its use of chimpanzees in research, for either financial, moral or political reasons, the impact on experimental research would be relatively minor.

It is widely agreed, and often legally required, that distress and pain in research animals should be minimized--for the sake of animal welfare, ethical obligation, and public concern, as well as scientific quality. As testimony to the importance of distress and pain to stakeholders interested in research animals, many countries compile and publish annual statistics documenting overall patterns and trends on distress and pain in research animals. We argue for a holistic approach to minimizing research animal suffering, with all relevant parties sharing in this responsibility. Researchers, laboratory personnel, oversight committees, and facility administrators are central to day-to-day animal care. Oversight agencies are key to animal welfare enforcement and annual reporting. Funding agencies can be instrumental by supporting pain- and distress-related research. Professional organizations can support training and develop best practices. Journals can stipulate authors' adherence to ethical codes and inclusion of pain- and distress-related information in published articles. Legislators can pass or amend laws to strengthen legislative mandates. And animal protection organizations can apply outside pressure to decision-makers for positive changes. In our view, much more can and should be done to minimize research animal suffering; we make several recommendations to improve this situation.

Toxicity testing is a key part of the process of assessing the hazards, safety, or risk that chemicals and other substances pose to humans, animals, or the environment. Standardized methods for such testing, typically involving animals, began to emerge during the first half of the 20th century. In 1959, British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch proposed a framework for reducing, refining, or replacing animal use in toxicology and other forms of biomedical experimentation. This "3Rs" or "alternatives" approach emerged at a time of growing sensitivity to the use of animals in experimentation, and progress in its implementation has been spurred by a growing appreciation of the power of emerging science and technology and the limitations of animal-based approaches. The 3Rs approach, although slow to be embraced, increasingly become a framework for change in toxicity testing during the last quarter of the 20th century. These years saw measurable growth in research activity related to the 3Rs, along with the establishment of 3Rs-based organizations and centers, journals, websites, funding sources, and conferences. As the field matured, the principles for validating new and revised alternative tests were formulated and pioneered. The 3Rs framework reached a tipping point in 2007 with the emergence of a U.S. National Research Council report proposing a radically different, largely animal-free approach to toxicity testing, encapsulated in the phrase "21st Century Toxicology." This chapter reviews these developments, examines 3Rs trends in the toxicological literature, presents measures of the impact of 3Rs activity, and concludes with a summary of some of the remaining challenges to the development, validation, regulatory acceptance, and implementation of 3Rs methods.

Pain and distress are core issues in the field of animal experimentation and in the controversy that surrounds it. We sought to add to the empirical base of the literature on pain and distress by examining government data on experimental procedures that caused unrelieved pain and distress (UPAD) in animals. Of the species regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), most of the approximately 100,000 animals subjected to UP AD during the year analyzed (1992) were guinea pigs and hamsters. Most of these animals were used in industry laboratories for various testing procedures, primarily vaccine potency testing. We discuss the limitations of the USDA data and recommend changes to the current reporting system. By identifying experimental procedures that cause UPAD in large numbers of USDA-regulated animals, the present analysis can be viewed as a means of identifying priorities for research and development of alternatives methods (replacements, reductions, and refinements).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most commonly used agent for euthanasia of laboratory rodents, used on an estimated tens of millions of laboratory rodents per year worldwide, yet there is a growing body of evidence indicating that exposure to CO2 causes more than momentary pain and distress in these and other animals. We reviewed the available literature on the use of CO2 for euthanasia (as well as anaesthesia) and also informally canvassed laboratory animal personnel for their opinions regarding this topic. Our review addresses key issues such as CO2 flow rate and final concentration, presence of oxygen, and prefilled chambers (the animal is added to the chamber once a predetermined concentration and flow rate have been reached) versus gradual induction (the animal is put into an empty chamber and the gas agent(s) is gradually introduced at a fixed rate). Internationally, animal research standards specify that any procedure that would cause pain or distress in humans should be assumed to do so in nonhuman animals as well (Public Health Service 1986, US Department of Agriculture 1997, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2000). European Union guidelines, however, specify a certain threshold of pain or distress, such as 'skilled insertion of a hypodermic needle', as the starting point at which regulation of the use of animals in experimental or other scientific procedures begins (Biotechnology Regulatory Atlas n.d.). There is clear evidence in the human literature that CO2 exposure is painful and distressful, while the non-human literature is equivocal. However, the fact that a number of studies do conclude that CO2 causes pain and distress in animals indicates a need for careful reconsideration of its use. Finally, this review offers recommendations for alternatives to the use of CO2 as a euthanasia agent.

The concept of the Three Rs— reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use in biomedical experimentation—stems from a project launched in 1954 by a British organization, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW). UFAW commissioned William Russell and Rex Burch to analyze the status of humane experimental techniques involving animals. In 1959 these scientists published a book that set out the principles of the Three Rs, which came to be known as alternative methods. Initially, Russell and Burch's book was largely ignored, but their ideas were gradually picked up by the animal protection community in the 1960s and early '70s. In the '80s, spurred by public pressure, the alternatives approach was incorporated into national legislation throughout the developed countries and embraced by industry in Europe and America. Government centers devoted to the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods were established during the '90s. By 2000 the use of animals in research had fallen by up to fifty percent from its high in the 1970s.

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on "The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology," on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology.

The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) report on "Toxicity Testing in the 21st century" calls for a fundamental shift in the way that chemicals are tested for human health effects and evaluated in risk assessments. The new approach would move toward in vitro methods, typically using human cells in a high-throughput context. The in vitro methods would be designed to detect significant perturbations to "toxicity pathways," i.e., key biological pathways that, when sufficiently perturbed, lead to adverse health outcomes. To explore progress on the report's implementation, the Human Toxicology Project Consortium hosted a workshop on 9–10 November 2010 in Washington, DC. The Consortium is a coalition of several corporations, a research institute, and a non-governmental organization dedicated to accelerating the implementation of 21st-century Toxicology as aligned with the NRC vision. The goal of the workshop was to identify practical and scientific ways to accelerate implementation of the NRC vision. The workshop format consisted of plenary presentations, breakout group discussions, and concluding commentaries. The program faculty was drawn from industry, academia, government, and public interest organizations. Most presentations summarized ongoing efforts to modernize toxicology testing and approaches, each with some overlap with the NRC vision. In light of these efforts, the workshop identified recommendations for accelerating implementation of the NRC vision, including greater strategic coordination and planning across projects (facilitated by a steering group), the development of projects that test the proof of concept for implementation of the NRC vision, and greater outreach and communication across stakeholder communities.

Pain and distress are central topics in legislation, regulations, and standards regarding the use of animals in research. However, in practice, pain has received greatly increased attention in recent years, while attention to distress has lagged far behind, especially for distress that is not induced by pain. A contributing factor is that there is less information readily available on distress, including practical information on its recognition, assessment and alleviation. This chapter attempts to help fill that void by reversing the usual pattern and giving greater attention to distress than to pain. In addition, we also bypass the pain versus distress dichotomy by adopting a holistic treatment of adverse effects, i.e., not parsing distress and pain, by providing guidance on how to assess deviations from normality through tools such as score sheets. Our aim is to provide practical information to IACUCs, scientists, technicians and animal care personnel. We organize the chapter according to specific research areas and case studies. However, the principles and approaches are readily generalized to other research areas. CONTENTS Effect of surgical technical skill on pain and distress in animals - Alicia Karas, DVM Carbon dioxide euthanasia: example of aversion techniques - Matthew C. Leach, PhD The Refinement of Infectious Disease Research - Karl A. Andrutis DVM, MS, DACLAM Polyclonal antibody production - Kathleen Conlee, BS, MPA Animal models of human psychopathology: anxiety - John P. Gluck PhD Refinement In Toxicology Testing: A Workshop to Promote Current Advances and Disseminate Best Practices - Andrew N. Rowan, Martin L. Stephens, and Kathleen M. Conlee

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on "The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology," on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology.

This is the report of the eleventh of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which was established in 1991 by the European Commission. ECVAM's main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures which would enable it to become well-informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal test development and validation. and the potential for the possible incorporation of replacement alternative tests into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved by the organisation of ECVAM workshops on specific topics, at which small groups of invited experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward.