Title: The Three Rs of Animal Research
Author: Matthew Wroblewski and Tristan McIntosh
Description: Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee denies the approval of a study involving animal experimentation on the grounds that alternative methods are available.
Keyword(s): Animal Subjects Research, Three Rs of Animal Research
Based On: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/sya-iccvam/index.cfm
Case: Dr. Harper and Dr. Jesse are designing a study to evaluate the level of eye irritability caused by Chemical X in mice and rabbits. The proposed protocol includes 3 experimental groups, 10 mice and 5 rabbits per group, exposed to varying levels of Chemical X daily for a period of 3 months. Dr. Jesse explains to Dr. Harper: “Toxicological tests using a test tube approach have recently proven successful in similar studies. Therefore, we may not need to use animal subjects in this study.” Dr. Harper dismisses Dr. Jesse’s suggestion on the grounds that, in her experience, scholarly journals tend to place higher value on results derived from animal experimentation compared to in vitro methods performed without a living organism. Dr. Jesse stops advocating for the in vitro approach because Dr. Harper is a more senior researcher. Dr. Jesse writes up the study protocol and submits it for review to the IACUC at their institution. Much to Dr. Jesse’s chagrin, IACUC outright denies the protocol citing myriad studies that use alternative methods to animal experimentation (e.g., in vitro) and are similar in nature to the submitted study.
- What are the ethical issues in this case?
- How are the three Rs of animal research relevant to this case?
- What could Dr. Harper and Dr. Jesse have done differently?