How Should the 3 R 's Be Revised and Why?
| Autor: | Critser R; Postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland., Locke P; Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | AMA journal of ethics [AMA J Ethics] 2024 Sep 01; Vol. 26 (9), pp. E724-729. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 01. |
| DOI: | 10.1001/amajethics.2024.724 |
| Abstrakt: | The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique established what many know today as the "3 R's"-refinement, reduction, and replacement-when it was published in 1959. Since their formulation, these principles have guided decision-making for many about nonhuman animal subjects' uses in laboratory-based research. Discussion about how to amend or replace the 3 R's is ongoing, driven mainly by philosophical ethics approaches to nonhuman animal rights and by scientific advancement. This article explores merits and drawbacks of possible updates to and interpretations of the 3 R's. (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|