Alternatives to animal testing are the development and implementation of test methods that avoid the use of live animals.
There is widespread agreement that a reduction in the number of animals used and the refinement of testing to reduce suffering should be important goals for the industries involved. Two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation. However, some claim they are not true alternatives because simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cell cultures often require animal derived products, such as serum or cells. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems.
Other alternatives include the use of humans for skin irritancy tests and donated human blood for pyrogenicity studies. Another alternative is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects. While microdosing produces important information about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics it does not reveal information about toxicity or toxicology. Furthermore, it was noted by the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments that despite the use of microdosing, "animal studies will still be required".
Guiding principles for more ethical use of animals in testing are the Three Rs (3Rs) first described by Russell and Burch in 1959. These principles are now followed in many testing establishments worldwide.
Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering, or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals used.
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. This approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environments or habitats. Experimental research with animals is usually conducted in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to the industry.
Alternatives to animal testing are the development and implementation of test methods that avoid the use of live animals. There is widespread agreement that a reduction in the number of animals used and the refinement of testing to reduce suffering should be important goals for the industries involved. Two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation.
Le but du cours est de familiariser l'étudiant-e aux notions de base du droit et de l'éthique applicables à la recherche en STV et à son transfert en applications, et de lui fournir les éléments essen
Theoretical introduction to the ethics and principles of animal experimentation in the context of the animal models (laboratory mouse, laboratory, rat, zebrafish) used at EPFL.
Delves into the Swiss legal framework for animal experimentation, covering constitutional provisions, ethical evaluation, 3Rs principles, licensing procedures, roles and responsibilities, and global challenges.