I have been lucky enough to see our Research Manager Dr Juliet Dukes, running replacement training with different research related audiences recently. The first was an online course for Early Career researchers, and the second was when Juliet presented at an annual RSPCA event for volunteer ‘lay members’ of Animal Welfare Ethical Review Bodies or AWERBs. Exploring and considering opportunities to avoid animal use in research is a legal requirement due to the inclusion of the 3Rs principles in law. Lay members may have little or no research background, so it is important they understand the requirements for researchers to explore replacement opportunities prior to animal use.  

Championing Replacement

At Replacing Animal Research we champion the replacement of ALL animals in research, not just the species protected by law. We use the legal requirement to implement Replacement to help us engage with researchers, AWERBs and the Government. In reality, however, the current legal definition of ‘Replacement’ does not encompass the replacement of ALL animals. My colleague Juliet touched on this in her previous blog ‘debugging our science’’ where she discusses ‘partial replacement’, one example of which is using an animal species not regulated by the law to replace the use of a protected species. In legislation ‘partial replacement’ counts as Replacement.  

Definitions of Replacement

In the original 3Rs principles first published in 1959, Replacement was defined as ‘the substitution for conscious living higher animals of insentient material.’ In other words replacing sentient animals with those considered less sentient, or other tissue, or non-animal methods. 

The legislation, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), defines replacement as ‘…wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy not entailing the use of protected animals must be used instead of a regulated procedure.’ This refers to the avoidance of regulated procedures on protected species, so for example replacing regulated procedures on mice (protected) with procedures on worms or moths (not protected) is replacement.  

Both definitions cover the need to replace some animals therefore, but not all. This does not feel like true ‘replacement’. 

The true spirit of Replacement

The UK Government regularly states that it supports the advancement of non-animal technologies and reducing reliance on animals. The current Labour Government has even committed to work towards the phasing out of animal testing.  

Meanwhile Replacement, as part of the 3Rs, is often used by Government to evidence an ongoing commitment to replacing the use of animals with ‘non-animal alternatives.’ To me however that means something that is completely ‘non-animal’, not replacement with an alternative animal not protected by ASPA. So even the definition of ‘animal’ and ‘non-animal’ can be unclear in science and policy. Yet outside of the research community, and for many within it too, animals are….. animals. All the species found in the animal kingdom, as we were taught in school.  

The world has moved on from 1986, and more so from 1959. It feels like it is time to update the legal definition of replacement to reflect a stronger ambition to fully replace animal use in science and be transparent about it. Let’s be clear on the difference between ‘partial replacement’ and replacement in legislation and in communications with the public and other stakeholders. Let’s make the replacement of any animal with a true non-animal alternative the primary aim for all, and where this is not possible partial replacement the next potential consideration.  

Let’s get everyone on the same page, because right now not all replacement is equal.