In conversations with my lovely colleagues Jessie (Policy Officer) and Juliet (Research Manager) over the past couple of weeks I have been reminded again of the paradox of replacement consideration in research.  

The Replacement Paradox

Whilst everyone agrees that if a scientist wants to use animals in research, they must consider opportunities to replace animal use first, the process for how and when to do this is more ambiguous… But it shouldn’t be. 

I taught Biology at GCSE and A-level, but I have never pursued a career in direct science or research. As such, working for a scientific charity and learning about the ins and outs of research funding and publication systems has been eye-opening (and at times puzzling). 

One of the things that struck me when I first came to work for Replacing Animal Research was that responsibilities to implement replacement were embedded in the animal research systems themselves, whether in 3Rs guidelines, experimental design tools and training or within the law. It seemed odd to me that replacement became a ‘thing’ once you were already planning to use animals in your research. I found it more perplexing when I realised that at this point scientists have normally been awarded funding for an animal research-based project. Looking at replacement begins to feel a bit like ‘closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.’   

Model choice first

This approach to replacement also seemed contradictory to my experience of teaching scientific skills in the classroom. In science education you have your scientific question, you choose the best model or equipment to answer the question, and off you go. I assumed that if there was a legal and ethical requirement to avoid animals, scientists would start by exploring non-animal options at the very start of the planning process before contemplating animal use.

That being said, in the beginning, I did not appreciate the challenges scientists can face if they try to go against the grain of replacing an established animal ‘model’ in a particular research field.  If animal research methods are embedded in a particular area, or within a particular lab, there can be a lack of support or funding for training and equipment to diversify into new non-animal methods, or replacing an animal may require an array of other methods and approaches.

In addition, there can be a lack of confidence from funders or publishers to support or promote an unproven, novel research model or approach. 

A multipronged approach

Now that I have been working for Replacing Animal Research for several years I can see that both things are needed:  

1. Replacement must absolutely be addressed by scientists in that first exploration of model choice 
2. Replacement must be thoroughly understood, explored and evidenced by those who go on to use animals 

In addition, replacement must be continually reviewed by those who are using animals.  

Through our work, we support all aspects of replacement, as well as trying to address some of the barriers faced when transitioning away from animal use.  A lot of our policy and training work revolves around the legal requirement to explore replacements and adhere to the 3Rs principles before scientists are granted a Project Licence for animal research. We are also working to ensure that non-animal methods in science and non-animal models are a higher priority across the board in strategy, funding, publishing, education, and training. 

In the next month, I will be involved in some career events at local schools linked to STEM and science. I am currently thinking about the key messages I would like to share with students about a career in scientific research and pathways to using replacements. I do know it is much harder to plot your direction and destination if you don’t understand the landscape, the opportunities, and the challenges you may face on the way.  

Do you have any advice you would like to share with students considering a STEM career?