This is very much a personal interpretation of the Three Rs and the efforts by scientists connected with the more humane use of animals. It is intended to illustrate that scientists are given a job to do and, if it involves animals, they have little choice but to use them. It is also intended to illustrate that so many of those so involved are the very people who have made gigantic efforts in finding ways of replacing, reducing and/or refining techniques which require animals.
WordenA.N. (1947). The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, 368 pp. London, UK: Bailliere, Tindall & Cox.
2.
RussellW.M.S. & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen. Facsimile edition (1992). Potters Bar, Herts., UK: UFAW.
3.
RussellW.M.S. (1995). Speech at the Awards Luncheon. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology and Life Sciences, Vol. 11, The World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing (ed. GoldbergA.M. & van ZutphenL.F.M.), pp. 71–80. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
4.
RussellW.M.S. (1995). The development of the Three Rs concept. ATLA23, 298–304.
5.
RussellW.M.S. (1957). The increase of humanity in experimentation: replacement, reduction and refinement. Collected Papers of the Laboratory Animals Bureau6, 23–25.
6.
SmythD.H. (1978). Alternatives to Animal Experiments, 218 pp. London, UK: Scolar Press, in association with the Research Defence Society.
7.
RowanA.N. (1994). Looking back 33 years to Russell and Burch: the development of the concept of the Three Rs (alternatives). In Alternatives to Animal Testing. New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress (ed. ReinhardtC.A.), pp. 1–11. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Publishers.
8.
Lane-PetterW. (1961). Provision of Laboratory Animals for Research: A Practical Guide, 147 pp. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
9.
PatonW. (1993). Man and Mouse: Animals in Medical Research, 288 pp. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Anon. (1969). The Use of Animals in Toxicological Studies (UFAW Symposium, 22 January 1969), 42 pp. Potters Bar, Herts., UK: UFAW.
11.
BallsM. & FentemJ.H. (1994). The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME): 23 years of campaigning for the Three Rs. In Alternatives to Animal Testing. New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress (ed. ReinhardtC.A.), pp. 45–55. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Publishers.
FlintO.P. (1989). Summary of Meeting. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 7, In Vitro Toxicology: New Directions (ed. GoldbergA.M. & PrincipeM.), pp. 367–368. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
14.
BallsM. & ClothierR. (1989). Validation of alternative toxicity test systems: lessons learned and to be learned. Molecular Toxicology1, 547–559.
15.
ClothierR. & BallsM. (1990). The validation of alternative toxicity tests: principles, practices and cases. Toxicology in Vitro4, 692–693.
16.
BlaauboerB.J. (1991). Alternative methods for toxicity testing: perspectives on validation in Europe. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 8, In Vitro Toxicology: Mechanisms and New Technology (ed. GoldbergA.M. & PrincipeM.), pp. 171–177. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
17.
FrazierJ.M. (1991). Update on validation: 1990. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 8, In Vitro Toxicology: Mechanisms and New Technology (ed. GoldbergA.M. & PrincipeM.), pp. 179–189. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
18.
GoldbergA.M., FrazierJ.M., BrusickD., Dick ensM., FlintO., GettingsS.D., HillR.N., LipnickR.L., RenskersK.J., BradlawJ.A., ScalaR.A., VeronesiB.A., GreenS., WilcoxN.L. & CurrenR.D. (1993). Framework for the validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests: report of the Validation and Technology Transfer Committee of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Journal of the American College of Toxicology12, 23–30.
19.
BallsM., BlaauboerB.J., FentemJ.H., BrunerL., CombesR.D., EkwallB., FielderR.J., GuillouzoA., LewisR.W., LovellD.P., ReinhardtC.A., RepettoG., SladowskiD., SpielmannH. & ZuccoF. (1995). Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 5. ATLA23, 129–147.
20.
GoldbergA.M. & FrazierJ.M. (1989). Alternatives to animals in toxicity testing. Scientific American261 (2), 24–30.
21.
FosseR.T. (1994). Computer-aided programs in biomedical education. In Alternatives to Animal Testing. New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress (ed. ReinhardtC.A.), pp. 107–117. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Publishers.
22.
VedaniA. (1994). Computer-aided drug design and the Three Rs. In Alternatives to Animal Testing. New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress (ed. ReinhardtC.A.), pp. 99–106. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Publishers.
23.
KrishnanK. & AndersenM.E. (1991). The role of physiological modelling in reducing animal use in toxicology research. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 8, In Vitro Toxicology: Mechanisms and New Technology (ed. GoldbergA.M. & PrincipeM.), pp. 113–133. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
FestingM.F.W. (1991). The reduction of animal use through genetic control of laboratory animals. In Replacement, Reduction and Refinement: Present Possibilities and Future Prospects (ed. HendriksenC.F.M. & KoeterH.B.W.M.), pp. 193–212. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
26.
Lane-PetterW. (1952). Uniformity in laboratory animals. Laboratory Practice1, 30–33.
27.
Lane-PetterW. (1953). Some behaviour problems in common laboratory animals. British Journal of Animal Behaviour1, 124–127.
28.
ChanceM.R.A. (1957). The contribution of environment to uniformity: variance control, refinement in pharmacology. Collected Papers of the Laboratory Animals Bureau6, 59–74.
29.
FoxM.W. (1986). Laboratory Animal Husbandry: Ethology, Welfare and Experimental Variables, 267 pp. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
BrockwayB.P., HasslerC.R. & HicksN. (1993). Minimizing stress during physiological monitoring. In Refinement and Reduction in Animal Testing (ed. NiemiS.M. & WillsonJ.E.), pp. 56–69. Bethesda, MD, USA: SCAW.
32.
ReeseE.P. (1991). The role of husbandry in promoting welfare of laboratory animals. In Replacement, Reduction and Refinement: Present Possibilities and Future Prospects (ed. HendriksenC.F.M. & KoeterH.B.W.M.), pp. 155–192. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
33.
Anon. (1987). The Use of Non-human Primates as Lab oratory Animals in Great Britain, 16 pp. Nottingham, UK: FRAME/CRAE.
34.
HampsonJ., SoutheeJ., HowellD. & BallsM. (1990). An RSPCA/FRAME survey on the use of non-human primates as laboratory animals in Great Britain 1984–1988. ATLA17, 335–400.
35.
Anon. (1991). Animal testing, consumers and the environment. FRAME News28, 20–21.
36.
PorrittJ. (1994). Facts of life. Bulletin of the Institute of Animal Technology30 (9), 19–21 (reprinted from BBC Wildlife Magazine).
