Rethinking the 3Rs: From Whitewashing to Rights

Abstract

Few other issues have prompted as many legislators to adopt legal instruction on the “proper” use of non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals) in medical and scientific research. Today, the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals in scientific procedures) are globally accepted by a vast majority of states (Blattner, 2014); and prominent international organizations, such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2018, Article 7(8)(3)) and the Council of Europe (Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, 1986, Articles 6(2), 7 and 8). Widespread acceptance of the 3Rs is a notable achievement, since animal law is a relatively young field of law, and attitudes about the human-animal relationship diverge sharply across societies.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.