Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:34:08.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ethics of the Three Rs principle: a reconsideration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

JMG Vorstenbosch
JMG Vorstenbosch*
Affiliation:
Ethics Institute, University of Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS De Uithof/Utrecht
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the past decades the Three Rs concept, famously launched by Russell and Burch in their 1959 book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, has gained a prominent place in the landscape of societal and ethical concern about animal use. Important scientific and institutional initiatives have been taken in order to promote replacement, reduction and refinement. It appears, however, that conceptual and ethical thinking about the presuppositions and changing contexts of the Three Rs concept has lagged behind the scientific and practical efforts. In this paper, first, I argue that there is a threefold argument to make for the need to reconsider the moral basis of the Three Rs concept. Second, I outline a number of standard assumptions of the traditional approach to the Three Rs and question the tenability of these assumptions. Third, I propose some elements of a new framework for the Three Rs principle and connect this to a number of developments in science and society. I conclude with four remarks on the future of the ethics of the Three Rs principle.

Keywords

animal welfareethical committeesethicshumanenessThree Rs principlevalues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 339 - 345
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Beck, U 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P 1992 The Animals Issue. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R 1962 Silent Spring. Crest Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Cranor, CF 1990 Some moral issues in risk assessment. Ethics 101: 123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt HT Jr and Kaplan A (eds) 1987 Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Feenberg, A 1995 Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R 1980 Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J 1991 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press: Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Jensen, KK 1996 The trade off between animal welfare and human interests. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A — Animal Science 27, Suppl: 104-108Google Scholar
Joles, JA and Vorstenbosch, JMG 1999 Scientific progress versus reduction of animal experiments: weighing human and animal interests. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 55: 206–208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaFollette, H and Shanks, N 1996 Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Latour, B 1987 Science in Action. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Leahy, M 1994 Against Liberation. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Machamer P, Pera M and Baltas A (eds) 2000 Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB, Hawkins, P, Becan, R, Heath, K, Kirkwood, J, Pearce, P, Scott, L, Whelan, G and Webb, A 2003 Refinement in telemetry procedures. Seventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement, Part A. Laboratory Animals 37: 261–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musschenga, AW 2002 Naturalness: beyond animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, DG 1992 Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regan, T 1984 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Rutgers, L and Heeger, R 1999 Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In: Dol, M, Fentener van Vlissingen, M, Kasanmoentalib, S, Visser, T and Zwart, H (eds) Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Nature: Beyond Animal Welfare pp 41–53. Van Gorcum: Assen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Singer P (ed) 1985 In Defence of Animals. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Smith JA and Boyd KM (eds) 1991 Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Smythe, D 1978 Alternatives to Animal Experiments. Scolar Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, FR, Grommers, FJ and Vorstenbosch, J 1996 Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Animal Welfare 5: 225–234Google Scholar
Stafleu, FR, Vorstenbosch, J, Tramper, R and Joles, J 1999 The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: a proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals 33: 295–303CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, PW 1986 Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
Tenner, E 1996 Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. Alfred Knopf: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Vorstenbosch, J 1993 The concept of integrity. Its significance for the ethical discussion on biotechnology and animals. Livestock Production Science 36: 109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorstenbosch, J 2000 The constitution of institutional animal care and use committees: a principled approach. In: Balls, M, Zeller, A-M and Halder, M (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 1519–1552. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Warren, MA 1997 Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar