medigraphic.com

2023, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2023; 18 (1)

Replacing ideas, reducing misconceptions and refining arguments: A reinterpretation of the 3Rs of animal experimentation

Cancino-Rodezno Á, Zapata CMA

Language: Spanish
References: 41
Page: 1-17
PDF size: 214.72 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Background. In the present work, a reinterpretation of the 3Rs (3Rs) proposed by William Russell and Rex Burch (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) will be carried out with the aim of broadening its scope and improving nonhuman animal experimentation practices.
Methodology/Approach. The meaning given by Russell and Burch to the 3Rs will be reviewed and the way in which each of them could be redefined or complemented in the light of current scientific practices, technical possibilities and bioethical knowledge related to the use of animals in research will be evaluated.
Results/Findings. The article will show that 1) not only animals should be replaced, but also the misconceptions we have, both about them and about the importance of bioethics education in scientific training, 2) that the reduction, in addition to the number of subjects used in each experiment, should serve to end unnecessary, repetitive and superfluous research, as well as some persistent misconceptions about the way science operates, and 3) that refinement should go beyond the experimental space to extend to the way we think about animal ethics in the research setting.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. The paper reports on the importance of incorporating contemporary bioethical knowledge into animal experimentation practices to enhance the reflexive and ethical character of science.


REFERENCES

  1. Archer, John.1979. “Suffer the children: The story of thalidomide.” JAMA 241, no.20: 2208-2209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1979.03290460068032

  2. Balcombe, Jonathan. 2000. The Use of Animals in Higher Education. Problems, Alternativesand Recommendations. Washington D. C.: Humane Society Press.

  3. Balcombe, Jonathan, Neal Barnard y Chad Sandusky. 2004. “Chad Sandusky Laboratoryroutines cause animal stress. Contemporary Topic American Associationfor Laboratory Animal Science.” Contemporary Topic American Association for LaboratoryAnimal Science 43, no. 6: 42-51.

  4. Barbosa, Iván. 2011. Estadística aplicada a la experimentación animal. Bahía Blanca: Ediuns.

  5. Baumans, V, P F Brain, H Brugere, P Clausing, T Jeneskog. y G Perretta. 1994.“Pain and distress in laboratory rodents and lagomorphs: Report of the Federationof European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) WorkingGroup on Pain and Distress accepted by the FELASA Board of ManagementNovember 1992.” Laboratory animals 28, no. 2: 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367794780745308

  6. Beauchamp, Tom y James Childress. 1999. Principios de Ética Biomédica. Barcelona: Masson.

  7. Bharadwaj, Kaushik, Tanmay Sarkar, Arabinda Ghosh, Debabrat Baishya, BijuliRabha, Manasa Panda, Bryan Nelson, et al. 2021. “Macrolactin A as a NovelInhibitory Agent for SARS-CoV-2. Mpro: Bioinformatics Approach.” AppliedBiochemistry and Biotechnology 193, no. 10: 3371-3394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-021-03608-7

  8. Cancino, Ángeles. 2016. “La enseñanza de la Bioética en Ciencia.” Revista digitaluniversitaria 17, no. 2.

  9. Deguchi, Sayaka, Ángel Serrano-Aroca, Murtaza Tambuwala, Bruce Uhal, AdamBrufsky y Kazuo Takayama. 2021. “SARS-CoV-2 research using human pluripotentstem cells and organoids.” Stem Cells Translational Medicine 10, no. 11:1491-1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.21-0183

  10. de Osorio, Afife Mrad. 2006. “Ética en la investigación con modelos animalesexperimentales. Alternativas y las 3 RS de Russell: Una responsabilidad y uncompromiso ético que nos compete a todos.” Revista Colombiana de Bioética 1,no. 1: 163-183.

  11. Evans, John Grimley y Peter Beck. 2002. “Informed consent in medical research.”Clinical Medicine 2, no. 3: 267-72. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.2-3-267

  12. Francione, Gary. 2000. Introducción a los derechos de los animales: ¿tu hijo o elperro? Madrid: Antartis.

  13. Fraumeni, Paul. 2020. “How does covid 19 invade our bodies so easily? U of TEngineering team uses “organ on a chip” model to find out.” University Of TorontoEngineering News. https://news.engineering.utoronto.ca/how-does-covid-19-invade-our-bodies-so-easily-u-of-t-engineering-team-uses-organ-on-a-chip-model-to-find-out/?fbclid=IwAR0hhEi2mhL6fGvvCOPNg-Fh3KvMN5dSIYz0ZUaqup0HTFA0o4VzgUf_K2W8&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=26b2063c-e3a0-43e7-8f9e-28dbe1cfabd1

  14. Góngora Medina, Manuel. 2010. “Reconocimiento y manejo del distress, sufrimientoy dolor en animales de laboratorio: una revisión.” Suma psicológica 17,no. 2: 195-200.

  15. Greek, Ray, Annalea Pippus y Lawrence A. Hansen. 2012. “The Nuremberg Codesubverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.” BMC MedicalEthics 13, no. 1: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-13-16

  16. Johnson, Robin, Thomas Prentice, Patrick Bridegam, Colin Young, Andrew Steelman,Thomas Welsh y Mary Meagher. 2006. “Social stress alters the severityand onset of the chronic phase of Theiler’s virus infection.” Journal of Neuroimmunology

  17. 175, no. 1-2: 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroim.2006.02.01417. Kirk, Robert. 2018. “Recovering The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique:The 3Rs and the Human Essence of Animal Research.” Science, Technology &Human Values 43, no. 4: 622-648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917726579

  18. Kitcher, Philip. 2011a. Science in a Democratic Society. Nueva York: Prometheus Book.

  19. Kitcher, Philip. 2001b. El avance de la ciencia. México: UNAM.

  20. Knight, Andrew. 2011. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Oxford: PalgraveMacMillan.

  21. Kotzwinkle, William. 2016. Doctor Rat. Barcelona: Navona.

  22. Ley de Protección a los Animales de la Ciudad de México. 2021. Ley de Proteccióna los Animales de la Ciudad de México. Ciudad de México. https://paot.org.mx/centro/leyes/df/pdf/2021/LEY_PROTEC_ANIMALES_27_05_2021.pdf

  23. López-Torres Hidalgo, Jesús. 2015. “Pagar por publicar en revistas científicas.”Revista Clínica de Medicina de Familia 8, no. 3: 179-181. https://doi.org/10.4321/S1699-695X2015000300001

  24. Low, Philip, Jaak Panksepp , Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen yChristof Koch. 2012. “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.” FrancisCrick memorial conference, Cambridge.

  25. Mallapaty, Smriti. 2021.”The mini lungs and other organoids helping to beat COVID.”Nature 593, no. 7860: 492-494. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01395-z

  26. Mather, Jennifer. 2001. “Animal suffering: An invertebrate perspective.” Journalof Applied Animal Welfare Science 4, no. 2: 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0402_9

  27. Mlinarić, Ana, Martina Horvat y Vesna Šupak Smolčić. 2017. “Dealing withthe positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negativeresults.” Biochemia Medica 27, no. 3: 447-452. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030201

  28. Mosterín, Jesús y Jorge Riechmann. 1995. Animales y ciudadanos. Madrid: Talasa.

  29. Munck, Allan, Paul M. Guyre y Nikki J. Holbrook. 1984. “Physiological functionsof glucocorticoids in stress and their relation to pharmacological actions.” EndocrineReviews 5, no. 1: 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv-5-1-25

  30. Nussbaum, Martha. 2007. Las fronteras de la justicia. Consideraciones sobre la exclusión.Barcelona, Paidós.

  31. Ortiz Millán, Gustavo. 2016. “Víctimas de la educación. La ética y el uso de animalesen la educación superior.” Revista de Educación Superior 45, no. 177: 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resu.2016.01.010

  32. Polanche, Ana y Claudia Esposito. 2021. “Experimentación animal, una prácticaextremadamente regulada e indispensable para el avance científico.” The Conversation.https://theconversation.com/experimentacion-animal-una-practica-extremadamente-regulada-e-indispensable-para-el-avance-cientifico-171266

  33. Rosado, Johannes. 1996. “La licitud ética de los experimentos en animales y ladiferencia animal/hombre.” Cuadernos de Bioética 4: 443-453.

  34. Russell, William y Rex Buch. 1959. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.London: Methuen & Co.

  35. Shrader-Frechette, Kristine. 1985. Risk Analysis Method. Dordrecht: Reidel PublishingCompany.

  36. Singer, Peter. 2018. Liberación animal. Barcelona: Taurus.

  37. Tannenbaum, Jerrold y B. Taylor Bennett. 2015. “Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then andnow: the need for clarity in definition and purpose.” Journal of the AmericanAssociation for Laboratory Animal Science 54, no. 2: 120-132.

  38. Taylor, Paul. 1981. “The ethics of respect for nature.” Environmental Ethics 3, no. 3:197-218. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19813321

  39. Téllez Ballesteros, Elizabeth Eugenia y Beatriz Vanda Cantón. 2021. “Las tres Cescomo ampliación de las tres Erres para una praxis en la investigación biomédica.”Revista de Bioética y Derecho, no. 51: 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2021.51.32556

  40. Téllez Ballesteros, Elizabeth, Aline Schunemann de Aluja, Beatriz Vanda Cantón yJorge Linares Salgado. 2014. “Argumentos con los que se intenta legitimar laenseñanza lesiva con animales en medicina veterinaria y zootecnia.” Dilemata15 (junio): 289-298.

  41. Zapata, Miguel. 2016. “Convertir la zoé en bíos: Democracia, representacióny animales.” Acta Sociológica, no. 71: 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acso.2016.07.001




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com