Survey of Canadian Animal-Based Researchers' Views on the Three Rs: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement
Author Information
Author(s): Fenwick Nicole, Danielson Peter, Griffin Gilly
Primary Institution: Canadian Council on Animal Care
Hypothesis
What are the views of Canadian animal-based researchers on the Three Rs and what obstacles and opportunities exist for their implementation?
Conclusion
Researchers generally do not view the goal of replacement as achievable and prefer to use enough animals to ensure quality data.
Supporting Evidence
- Participants expressed concerns that further reduction of animal numbers may compromise research quality.
- Many researchers feel that they already reduce animal numbers as much as possible.
- Support for the Three Rs strategy of conducting animal welfare-related pilot studies was strong among participants.
Takeaway
This study asked researchers how they feel about using animals in experiments and found that many think it's hard to replace animals with other methods.
Methodology
A web-based survey was conducted to gather views from Canadian animal-based researchers on the Three Rs.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to self-selection of participants and the nature of the survey questions.
Limitations
The response rate was low, and many participants expressed confusion over survey questions.
Participant Demographics
{"principal_investigators":{"count":298,"gender_distribution":{"female":30.9,"male":67.5},"age_distribution":{"19-29":1,"30-39":15.4,"40-49":34.9,"50-59":32.2,"60-above":15.8},"education":{"PhD":89.9,"Masters":3.7,"College/university":5.0}},"other_researchers":{"count":116,"gender_distribution":{"female":65.5,"male":33.6},"age_distribution":{"19-29":34.5,"30-39":32.8,"40-49":15.5,"50-59":15.5,"60-above":0.9},"education":{"PhD":39.7,"Masters":30.2,"College/university":30.2}}}
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website