Alternatives to animal testing

Animal testing
Main articles
Animal testing Alternatives to animal testing Animal testing regulations History of animal testing History of model organisms IACUC Laboratory animal sources Pain and suffering in laboratory animals Testing cosmetics on animals Toxicology testing Vivisection
Testing on
Invertebrates Frogs Primates Rabbits Rodents
Issues
Medical research Animal rights Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International primate trade
Cases
Brown Dog affair Cambridge University primates Pit of despair Silver Spring monkeys UCR 1985 laboratory raid Unnecessary Fuss
Companies
Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories Covance, Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny, Shamrock Farm
Groups/campaigns
AALAS AAAS ALF Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group Cruelty Free International Dr. Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society New England Anti-Vivisection Society PETA Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK campaign SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research
Writers/activists
Tipu Aziz Michael Balls Neal D. Barnard Colin Blakemore Simon Festing Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak Syed Ziaur Rahman
Categories
Animal testing Animal rights Animal welfare
v t e

Alternatives to animal testing are the development and implementation of test methods that avoid the use of live animals. There is widespread agreement that a reduction in the number of animals used and the refinement of testing to reduce suffering should be important goals for the industries involved.^[1] Two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation; however, some claim they are not true alternatives because simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cell cultures often require animal derived products, such as serum or cells. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems.^[2]

Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects.^[3] While microdosing produces important information about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, it does not reveal information about toxicity or toxicology.^[4] Furthermore, it was observed by the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments that despite the use of microdosing, "animal studies will still be required".^[5]

Guiding principles for more ethical use of animals in testing are the Three Rs (3Rs) first described by Russell and Burch in 1959.^[6] These principles are now followed in many testing establishments worldwide.

1. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
2. Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
3. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering, or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals used.