Views on the 3Rs, Survey Report - 2008

According to these survey results, there is a generally strong understanding of the definitions of the 3Rs, although there is some confusion over the definition of refinement, with 52% of scientists incorrectly defining it as improving experiments to yield better data. Additionally, 29% of respondents incorrectly defined "replacement" as "Replacing ‘higher’ mammals with ‘lower’ mammals."

Correct definitions of replacement identified by respondents:

• Replacing animals with in vitro techniques (83%)
• Redesigning experiments in order to avoid the use of animals (80%)
• Replacing animals with computer modeling techniques (72%)
• Replacing vertebrates with invertebrates (24%)

Concerning implementation and the perceived impact on research, most scientists (82%) felt that the implementation of the 3Rs would not be detrimental to the quality of their results, but a strong majority (73%) also believes that the complete replacement of animals in research and testing will never be achieved.

In terms of relevance, 43% consider all three Rs to be equally relevant to their work. Of the remaining respondents, replacement was considered more relevant by 5%. Regarding overall impact, some scientists consider the Ethical Review Process (ERP) helpful in replacing (31%), reducing (42%), or refining (46%) the use of animals in research.

Respondents indicated that they have developed techniques according to the 3Rs including ones that reduce (34%) or refine (30%) the use of animals. A lack of scientific or technological innovation is considered the main obstacle to implementing the 3Rs by about one-third of scientists. Three-fourths (77%) of scientists who design experiments indicate that nothing would allow them to address their research objectives without the use of animals, but 20% believe that alternatives would achieve research objectives without the use of animals.