The educational attainment literature has brought back interest in early American primary schools, and much current research views those schools as superior to their European peers in the education offered to youth. Its emphasis, though, on using school enrollment as the prime indicator of attainment conflicts with the revisionist view of a previous generation of historians who argued that education in the heavily rural and agricultural society of the time should be considered as a process of social reproduction delivered by households, with schools being peripheral for most youth. This article, relying on evidence from statutes, indentures, and a 1798 New York State school survey, finds increased resort to primary schooling over the eighteenth century, attributable not to American exceptionalism but to a transatlantic movement away from scribal-dominated literacy and numeracy toward common use of a standardized written vernacular and “arithmetic by pen.” However, the dependence of households on child labor meant that the Three Rs did not get distributed in either an egalitarian or compact fashion. Small doses spread over a number of years—educational sprawl—best describes the system, and it lasted through much of the nineteenth century.

This paper highlights the essential need for appropriate statistical design and randomisation in laboratory animal studies. Using an example of a 21 day weight gain study in mice, we show that without the use of an appropriate statistical design and randomisation, incorrect conclusions may have been drawn. We used an experimental design that allowed comparisons to be made between five treatments that were free from systematic error. Two alternative designs that are practically attractive, yet had no statistical basis, are also described in this paper and the potentially incorrect conclusions highlighted. The use of appropriate statistical design is ethical because it results in clear, unambiguous conclusions. Conclusions that may be biased or ambiguous will require verification by further research and this, in the long term, is contrary to the reduction element of the Three Rs.

In many countries scientists planning research that may involve the use of animals are required by law to examine the possibilities for replacement, reduction or refinement (the Three Rs) of these experiments. In addition to the large number of literature databases, there are now many specialist databases specifically addressing the Three Rs. Information centres, with a mandate to assist scientists and lay people locate information on the Three Rs, have also been established. Email discussion lists and their archives constitute another, although less quality-controlled, source of information. Furthermore, guidelines for the care and use of animals in research have been produced both by regulatory bodies and scientific organisations. The growth of the internet has put an enormous amount of data into the public domain, and the problems of accessing relevant information are discussed. Suggestions are also given for search strategies when using these information sources.

Russell and Burch's Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) remain the cornerstone for principles guiding humane experimental research. However, the concept of refinement has evolved considerably since its first inception and there have been numerous interpretations, some of which are regressive from the original definition. In this paper we examine the interpretations of refinement, and propose a harmonised progressive definition that is in line with changes in animal ethics and animal welfare science. Our definition should be applied to all aspects of refinement: those related to housing, husbandry and care, techniques used in scientific procedures, periprocedural care, health and welfare monitoring, and experimental design. We argue not only that the concept should include the avoidance or minimisation of adverse effects experienced at any time during the life of an animal destined for use in a laboratory, but also that it should be applied to the founder animals. Furthermore, we take a proactive stance and argue that refinement should include enhancing well-being through environmental enrichment. The acceptance and application of this new definition by legislative authorities and in guidelines would represent a significant step forward for animal welfare.

The implantation of new biomedical devices into living animals without any previous toxicity or biocompatibility evaluation is possible under current legislation. The HET–CAM (Hen Egg Test–Chorionallantoic Membrane) test offers a partially immunodeficient, borderline in vitro/in vivo test system that allows the simulation of transplantation experiments to obtain biocompatibility data prior to animal testing. A collagen type I/III scaffold, designed for tissue regeneration, was tested for angiogenetic properties and biocompatibility patterns. A significant angiogenetic stimulus caused by the collagen scaffold material was observed. Altering biocompatibility patterns by incubation with the potentially hazardous chemicals acridine orange and ethidium bromide led to severe vessel thrombosis and a foreign body tissue response. CAM testing of biomaterials and tissue engineered products allows selection of the most suitable biomaterial and the elimination of unsuitable materials from animal experiments, leading to a refinement of testing procedures and a reduction in the number of animals required for biocompatibility testing.

While it has the potential to deliver important human benefits, animal-based pain research raises ethical questions, because it involves inducing pain in sentient beings. Ethical decision-making, connected with this variety of research, requires informed harm-benefit analysis, and the aim of this paper is to provide information for such an analysis. We present an overview of the different models and their consequences for animal welfare, showing that, of the many animal models available, most have a considerable welfare impact on the animal. While the usual approach to pain control through administration of analgesic substances is usually unsuitable in pain research, refinement remains an option, both within the experimental protocol and in general husbandry and handling. Drawing on the overview, we develop a discussion of the ethical acceptability of animal-based pain research against the background of the kinds of harm done to the animals involved, the potential for refinement, and the expected benefits of the research.

Severity classification systems (ie pain scales, categories of invasiveness, degrees of severity etc) are used to classify the adverse effects experienced by animals used for scientific purposes. Currently, eleven countries use severity classification systems. These systems have developed in various ways, depending on each country's process for overseeing the use of animals in science, as well as the particular aspects emphasised by those individuals who have championed their implementation. Severity classification serves four main purposes: as a tool to assist animal ethics committees in ethical review; education of animal users about concepts for humane animal experimentation; provision of data to inform the public about scientific animal use; and provision of data to inform national policies. At a time when the newly accepted European Union Directive will make the reporting of severity data mandatory, we review the characteristics of international severity classification systems and how they have evolved; analyse the effectiveness of some systems; and identify emerging challenges for severity classification.

In recent decades there have been great shifts in attitudes to animals and regarding the extent of our responsibilities for wildlife welfare. The world is changing rapidly and we are feeling our way with some of these issues (for a recent review, see Fraser 2010).