How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research.

Recently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible, there has been a push by the non-scientific community and politicians for a rapid transition to animal-free innovations. Although there are benefits for both animal welfare and researchers, advances on alternative methods have not progressed enough to be able to replace animal research in the foreseeable future. This trend has led first and foremost to a substantial increase in the administrative burden and hurdles required to make timely advances in research and treatments for human and animal diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic clearly highlights how much we actually rely on animal research. COVID-19 affects several organs and systems, and the various animal-free alternatives currently available do not come close to this complexity. In this Essay, we therefore argue that the use of animals is essential for the advancement of human and veterinary health.

Evaluating the ethical acceptability of animal research.

The ethical acceptability of animal research is typically evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Legislation such as Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes provides guidance for ethical evaluation of animal use proposals but does not dictate the outcome, leaving this determination to the ethical review committees of individual institutions. The authors assess different ethics models and how these are reflected in the guidelines of Directive 2010/63/EU. They also describe a matrix for carrying out harm-benefit analyses of animal use proposals, which they identified by examining the practices of three ethical review committees in the Netherlands. Finally, they discuss how this matrix can be applied by ethical review committees at other institutions.

Factors stimulating or obstructing the implementation of the 3Rs in the regulatory process.

Approximately 30% of animal use within the European Union (EU) is done to meet regulatory requirements. The tests are often repetitive in nature and may cause severe suffering, due to the procedures used and to rigidly predefined end points. In addition, product evaluation procedures often take long and are very expensive. Over the last decades the heavy reliance on animal experimentation in this area has met serious objections, both ethical and economical in nature. This study describes obstacles and opportunities to implement the 3Rs in regulatory animal testing. The findings are based primarily on interviews with legislators, regulators, industry, science and animal welfare organisations and reflect shared perceptions of these respondents. In order to increase the application of the 3Rs in regulatory testing a number of technical, political and social obstacles must be overcome. This study offers insight into the persistent character of regulatory animal testing and can function as a starting point for further discussion on how to tackle these problems. To this end, several recommendations are made ranging from strategic test approaches and data sharing to strengthening the policy network and improving communication between 3Rs experts and regulators. The study is an initiative of the national project group "Regulatory Animal Testing", which consists of a group of Dutch experts on animal testing working for a variety of organisations in the field.1 They felt the need for cooperation to initiate a discussion at relevant levels and to identify possible solutions in order to implement the objectives of the three R's in testing for regulatory purposes without loss of scrutiny in safety and/or efficacy evaluation needed for product release.