Cargando…
Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research
Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm–benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (senti...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8182293/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33215575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023677220968583 |
_version_ | 1783704179076759552 |
---|---|
author | Eggel, Matthias Würbel, Hanno |
author_facet | Eggel, Matthias Würbel, Hanno |
author_sort | Eggel, Matthias |
collection | PubMed |
description | Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm–benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (sentient) animals and harm imposed on them are necessary for achieving the study’s aims. The 3Rs (Replace, Reduce and Refine) provide a guiding principle for evaluating whether the use of animals, their number and the harm imposed on them are necessary. A similar guiding principle for evaluating whether a study protocol is scientifically suitable has recently been proposed: the 3Vs principle referring to the three main aspects of scientific validity in animal research (construct, internal and external validity). Here, we analyse the internal consistency and compatibility of these two principles, address conflicts within and between the 3Rs and 3Vs principles and discuss their implications for project evaluation. We show that a few conflicts and trade-offs exist, but that these can be resolved either by appropriate study designs or by ethical deliberation in the HBA. In combination, the 3Vs, 3Rs and the HBA thus offer a coherent framework for a logically structured evaluation procedure to decide about the legitimacy of animal research projects. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8182293 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81822932021-06-21 Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research Eggel, Matthias Würbel, Hanno Lab Anim Review Articles Using animals for research raises ethical concerns that are addressed in project evaluation by weighing expected harm to animals against expected benefit to society. A harm–benefit analysis (HBA) relies on two preconditions: (a) the study protocol is scientifically suitable and (b) the use of (sentient) animals and harm imposed on them are necessary for achieving the study’s aims. The 3Rs (Replace, Reduce and Refine) provide a guiding principle for evaluating whether the use of animals, their number and the harm imposed on them are necessary. A similar guiding principle for evaluating whether a study protocol is scientifically suitable has recently been proposed: the 3Vs principle referring to the three main aspects of scientific validity in animal research (construct, internal and external validity). Here, we analyse the internal consistency and compatibility of these two principles, address conflicts within and between the 3Rs and 3Vs principles and discuss their implications for project evaluation. We show that a few conflicts and trade-offs exist, but that these can be resolved either by appropriate study designs or by ethical deliberation in the HBA. In combination, the 3Vs, 3Rs and the HBA thus offer a coherent framework for a logically structured evaluation procedure to decide about the legitimacy of animal research projects. SAGE Publications 2020-11-20 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8182293/ /pubmed/33215575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023677220968583 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Review Articles Eggel, Matthias Würbel, Hanno Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title | Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title_full | Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title_fullStr | Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title_full_unstemmed | Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title_short | Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
title_sort | internal consistency and compatibility of the 3rs and 3vs
principles for project evaluation of animal research |
topic | Review Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8182293/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33215575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023677220968583 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eggelmatthias internalconsistencyandcompatibilityofthe3rsand3vsprinciplesforprojectevaluationofanimalresearch AT wurbelhanno internalconsistencyandcompatibilityofthe3rsand3vsprinciplesforprojectevaluationofanimalresearch |