A moral dilemma exists in biomedical research relating to the use of animal or human tissue when conducting scientific research. In human ethics, researchers need to justify why the use of humans is necessary should suitable models exist. Conversely, in animal ethics, a researcher must justify why research cannot be carried out on suitable alternatives. In the case of medical procedures or therapeutics testing, the use of animal models is often justified. However, in forensic research, the justification may be less (...) evident, particularly when research involves the infliction of trauma on living animals. To determine how the forensic science community is dealing with this dilemma, a review of literature within major forensic science journals was conducted. The frequency and trends of the use of animals in forensic science research was investigated for the period 1 January 2012–31 December 2016. The review revealed 204 original articles utilizing 5050 animals in various forms as analogues for human tissue. The most common specimens utilized were various species of rats, pigs, mice, and rabbits although different specimens were favored in different study themes. The majority of studies were conducted on post-mortem specimens. It is, however, evident that more needs to be done to uphold the basic ethical principles of reduction, refinement and replacement in the use of animals for research purposes. (shrink)

The first “R” from animal research ethics prescribes the replacement of animal experiments with animal-free alternatives. However, the question of when an animal-free method qualifies as an alternative to animal experiments remains unresolved.Drawing lessons from another debate in which the word “alternative” is central, the ethical debate on alternatives to germline genome editing, this paper develops a general account of when something qualifies as an alternative to something. It proposes three ethically significant conditions that technique, method, or approach X must (...) meet to qualify as an alternative to Y: (1) X must address the same problem as Y, under an appropriate description of that problem; (2) X must have a reasonable chance of success, compared to Y, in solving the problem; and (3) X must not be ethically unacceptable as a solution. If X meets all these conditions, its relative advantages and disadvantages determine whether it is preferable, indifferent, or dispreferable as an alternative to Y.This account is then applied to the question of whether animal-free research methods qualify as alternatives to animal research. Doing so breaks down the debate around this question into more focused (ethical and other) issues and illustrates the potential of the account. (shrink)

The use of animals in experiments and research remains highly contentious. Laboratory animal research governance provides guidance and regulatory frameworks to oversee the use and welfare of laboratory animals and relies heavily on the replacement, reduction, and refinement principles to demonstrate responsibility. However, the application of the 3Rs is criticized for being too narrow in focus and closing down societal concerns and political questions about the purpose of animal laboratory research. These critiques challenge the legitimacy of responsibility in laboratory animal (...) research governance and call for new approaches. With the advent of the "Responsible Research and Innovation" agenda, we investigate whether the notion of responsibility in the controversial area of animal research governance could be enhanced by examining the 3Rs through RRI. Our analysis reveals RRI has the potential to helpfully augment the 3Rs in three key ways: recognizing the need to include a broader range of experts and publics in animal research governance; emphasizing the importance for animal research scientists of taking societal, and not just role, responsibilities into account; and acknowledging the political questions animal research raises. (shrink)