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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eggel, Matthias, Würbel, Hanno
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