Russell and Burch's The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique was first published in 1959. A Special Edition containing the original text was reissued in 1992, after its ideas had gained widespread interest in the scientific community. In the Principles, Russell and Burch proposed a new applied science that would improve the treatment of laboratory animals while advancing the quality of science in studies that use animals. They introduced and defined the terms replacement, reduction, and refinement, which subsequently have become known as 'alternatives' or 'alternative methods' for minimizing the potential for animal pain and distress in biomedical research. Here we describe and explain the original definitions of the 3Rs in the Principles, examine how current definitions differ among themselves and from Russell and Burch's definitions, and suggest relevant considerations for evaluating all definitions of the 3Rs.

The industry involved with using animals as an essential part of research has supported the theory and philosophy of the 3Rs for years. However, both the culture and approach surrounding the 3Rs is evolving rapidly, and many institutions are attempting to surpass the regulations and guidelines to implement the 3Rs for improved science and animal welfare. Regulatory documents and guidelines such as the Animal Welfare Act, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the US Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training clearly outline how the IACUC should address the 3Rs, but there are many additional paradigms and resources that an institution can use to promote the 3Rs creatively. We review the legal mandates and guidelines that institutions must or should follow, and we present some creative approaches toward their compliance, including the creation of full-time dedicated 3Rs roles as well as temporary 3Rs-focused positions such as visiting scientist and postdoctoral fellowships and internships. We also discuss how to creatively achieve 3Rs progress through internal committees and working groups, involvement in 3Rs consortia, recognizing 3Rs advances through awards programs, and creating 3Rs volunteer opportunities. Adherence to regulations and guidelines creates a solid foundation for good animal care and science, and creative 3Rs approaches enable the growth of a robust animal welfare culture that enhances the potential for 3Rs benefits to animals and science.

Traditional pharmacokinetic analysis in nonclinical studies is based on the concentration of a test compound in plasma and requires approximately 100 to 200 μL blood collected per time point. However, the total blood volume of mice limits the number of samples that can be collected from an individual animal—often to a single collection per mouse—thus necessitating dosing multiple mice to generate a pharmacokinetic profile in a sparse-sampling design. Compared with traditional methods, dried blood spot (DBS) analysis requires smaller volumes of blood (15 to 20 μL), thus supporting serial blood sampling and the generation of a complete pharmacokinetic profile from a single mouse. Here we compare plasma-derived data with DBS-derived data, explain how to adopt DBS sampling to support discovery mouse studies, and describe how to generate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from a single mouse. Executing novel study designs that use DBS enhances the ability to identify and streamline better drug candidates during drug discovery. Implementing DBS sampling can reduce the number of mice needed in a drug discovery program. In addition, the simplicity of DBS sampling and the smaller numbers of mice needed translate to decreased study costs. Overall, DBS sampling is consistent with 3Rs principles by achieving reductions in the number of animals used, decreased restraint-associated stress, improved data quality, direct comparison of interanimal variability, and the generation of multiple endpoints from a single study.

Minimizing the number of animals in regulatory toxicity studies while achieving study objectives to support the development of future medicines contributes to good scientific and ethical practices. Recent advances in technology have enabled the development of miniaturized blood sampling methods (including microsampling and dried blood spots) applicable to toxicokinetic determinations of small-molecule drugs. Implementation of miniaturized blood sampling methods in the context of biotherapeutic drugs is desirable because a limitation to this type of medicine remains the total blood volume needed from a single animal to support toxicokinetic determinations of several analytes (parent drug, metabolites[s], antidrug antibodies, and so forth). We describe here the technical details, applicability, and relevance of new miniaturized blood sampling procedures in mice and nonhuman primates in the context of the toxicologic evaluation of biotherapeutic drugs consisting of antibody–drug conjugates developed for oncology indications. These examples illustrate how these techniques can benefit the reduction of animal usage in mouse toxicity studies by decreasing the number of animals dedicated to toxicokinetic determinations and the refinement of practices in nonhuman primate toxicity studies by decreasing the blood volume repeatedly drawn for toxicokinetic determinations.

In 1959, Russell and Burch published The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which included concrete advice on factors that they considered would govern progress in the implementation of these principles (enunciated as the 3Rs [Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement in animal-based studies]). One challenge to the implementation of the 3Rs was identified as information retrieval. Here, we further explore this challenge—the need for 'research on research'—and the role that systematic reviews and reporting guidelines can play in implementation of the 3Rs. First, we examine the 2-fold nature of the challenge of information retrieval: 1) the identification of relevant publications spread throughout a large population of nonrelevant publications and 2) the incomplete reporting of relevant details within those publications. Second, we evaluate how systematic reviews and reporting guidelines can be used generally to address this challenge. Third, we assess the explicit reporting of the 3Rs in a cohort of preclinical animal systematic reviews. Our results show that Reduction methods are the most commonly reported by authors of systematic reviews but that, in general, reporting on how findings relate to the 3Rs is limited at best. Although systematic reviews are excellent tools for resolving the challenge of information retrieval, their utility for making progress in implementation of the 3Rs may be limited unless authors improve their reporting of these principles.

Cancer risk assessment of new pharmaceuticals is crucial to protect public health. However, clinical trials lack the duration needed to clearly detect drug-related tumor emergence, and biomarkers suggestive of increased cancer risk from a drug typically are not measured in clinical trials. Therefore, the carcinogenic potential of a new pharmaceutical is extrapolated predominately based on 2-y bioassays in rats and mice. A key drawback to this practice is that the results are frequently positive for tumors and can be irrelevant to human cancer risk for reasons such as dose, mode of action, and species specificity. Alternative approaches typically strive to reduce, refine, and replace rodents in carcinogenicity assessments by leveraging findings in short-term studies, both in silico and in vivo, to predict the likely tumor outcome in rodents or, more broadly, to identify a cancer risk to patients. Given the complexities of carcinogenesis and the perceived impracticality of assessing risk in the course of clinical trials, studies conducted in animals will likely remain the standard by which potential cancer risks are characterized for new pharmaceuticals in the immediate foreseeable future. However, a weight-of-evidence evaluation based on short-term toxicologic, in silico, and pharmacologic data is a promising approach to identify with reasonable certainty those pharmaceuticals that present a likely cancer risk in humans and, conversely, those that do not present a human cancer risk.

In 2000, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) was congressionally established, with representatives from Federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicologic and safety testing information. For over 15 y, ICCVAM and the National Toxicology Program's Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) have worked together to promote the development, validation, and regulatory acceptance of test methods that replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals in regulatory testing. In 2013, both NICEATM and ICCVAM underwent major changes to their operating paradigms, to increase the speed and efficiency of regulatory approval and industry adoption of 3Rs testing methods within the United States and internationally. Accordingly, increased emphasis has been placed on international activities, primarily through interaction with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and participation in the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods. In addition, ICCVAM has committed to increasing public awareness of and transparency about federal agencies' 3R activities and to fostering interactions with stakeholders. Finally, although it continues to support ICCVAM, NICEATM's work now includes validation support for Tox21, a collaboration aimed at identifying in vitro methods and computational approaches for testing chemicals to better understand and predict hazards to humans and the environment. The combination of more efficient operating paradigms, increased international collaboration, improved communication and interaction with stakeholders, and active participation in Tox21 likely will substantially increase the number of 3Rs methods developed and used in the United States and internationally.

Practical implementation of the 3Rs at national and regional levels around the world requires long-term commitment, backing, and coordinated efforts by international associations for laboratory animal medicine and science, including the International Association of Colleges of Laboratory Animal Medicine (IACLAM) and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS). Together these organizations support the efforts of regional organization and communities of laboratory animal science professionals as well as the development of local associations and professional colleges that promote the training and continuing education of research facility personnel and veterinary specialists. The recent formation of a World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Collaborating Center for Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare emphasizes the need for research into initiatives promoting laboratory animal welfare, particularly in emerging economies and regions with nascent associations of laboratory animal science.

Increasingly, scientific collaborations and contracts cross country borders. The need for assurance that the quality of animal welfare and the caliber of animal research conducted are equivalent among research partners around the globe is of concern to the scientific and laboratory animal medicine communities, the general public, and other key stakeholders. Therefore, global harmonization of animal care and use standards and practices, with the welfare of the animals as a cornerstone, is essential. In the evolving global landscape of enhanced attention to animal welfare, a widely accepted path to achieving this goal is the successful integration of the 3Rs in animal care and use programs. Currently, awareness of the 3Rs, their implementation, and the resulting animal care and use standards and practices vary across countries. This variability has direct effects on the animals used in research and potentially the data generated and may also have secondary effects on the country's ability to be viewed as a global research partner. Here we review the status of implementation of the 3Rs worldwide and focus on 3 countries–Brazil, China and India–with increasing economic influence and an increasing footprint in the biomedical research enterprise.

Animal research together with other investigational methods (computer modeling, in vitro tests, etc) remains an indispensable part of the pharmaceutical research and development process. The European pharmaceutical industry recognizes the responsibilities inherent in animal research and is committed to applying and enhancing 3Rs principles. New nonsentient, ex vivo, and in vitro methods are developed every day and contribute to reducing and, in some instances, replacing in vivo studies. Their utility is however limited by the extent of our current knowledge and understanding of complex biological systems. Until validated alternative ways to model these complex interactions become available, animals remain indispensable in research and safety testing. In the interim, scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results, refine experimental techniques to enhance animal welfare, and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. As research goals foster increasing cross-sector and international collaboration, momentum is growing to enhance and coordinate scientific innovation globally—beyond a single company, stakeholder group, sector, region, or country. The implementation of 3Rs strategies can be viewed as an integral part of this continuously evolving science, demonstrating the link between science and welfare, benefiting both the development of new medicines and animal welfare. This goal is one of the key objectives of the Research and Animal Welfare working group of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) is an independent scientific organization that is based in the United Kingdom, which was set up by the government to lead the discovery and application of new technologies and approaches that minimize the use of animals in research and improve animal welfare. The NC3Rs uses a range of strategies to improve and advance science through application of the 3Rs. These include funding basic research, open innovation (CRACK IT), and programs run by inhouse scientists. We present several case studies from the NC3Rs portfolio, featuring asthma research, the use of nonhuman primates in monoclonal antibody development, and CRACK IT. Finally, we anticipate the future, as we use our experience to move into new research fields and expand toward international collaboration. Here we highlight how equipping scientists with relevant and emerging 3Rs tools can help overcome the challenges and limitations of the use of animals in research to the benefit of the whole bioscience community.

Here in we introduce the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) and its activities, which are focused on international cooperation toward alternative methods. The EPAA is one of the leading organizations in Europe for the promotion of alternative approaches to animal testing. Its innovative public–private partnership structure enables a consensus-driven dialogue across 7 industry sectors to facilitate interaction between regulators and regulated stakeholders. Through a brief description of EPAA's activities and organizational structure, we first articulate the value of this collaboration; we then focus on 2 key projects driven by EPAA. The first project aims to address research gaps on stem cells for safety testing, whereas the second project strives for an approach toward demonstration of consistency in vaccine batch release testing. We highlight the growing need for harmonization of international acceptance and implementation of alternative approaches and for increased international collaboration to foster progress on nonanimal alternatives.

Interest in applying 21st-century toxicity testing tools for safety assessment of industrial chemicals is growing. Whereas conventional toxicology uses mainly animal-based, descriptive methods, a paradigm shift is emerging in which computational approaches, systems biology, high-throughput in vitro toxicity assays, and high-throughput exposure assessments are beginning to be applied to mechanism-based risk assessments in a time- and resource-efficient fashion. Here we describe recent advances in predictive safety assessment, with a focus on their strategic application to meet the changing demands of the chemical industry and its stakeholders. The opportunities to apply these new approaches is extensive and include screening of new chemicals, informing the design of safer and more sustainable chemical alternatives, filling information gaps on data-poor chemicals already in commerce, strengthening read-across methodology for categories of chemicals sharing similar modes of action, and optimizing the design of reduced-risk product formulations. Finally, we discuss how these predictive approaches dovetail with in vivo integrated testing strategies within repeated-dose regulatory toxicity studies, which are in line with 3Rs principles to refine, reduce, and replace animal testing. Strategic application of these tools is the foundation for informed and efficient safety assessment testing strategies that can be applied at all stages of the product-development process.

Members of the research community aim to both produce high-quality research and ensure that harm is minimized in animals. The primary means of ensuring these goals are both met is the 3Rs framework of replacement, reduction, and refinement. However, some approaches to the 3Rs may result in a 'check box mentality' in which IACUC members, researchers, administrators, and caretakers check off a list of tasks to evaluate a protocol. We provide reasons for thinking that the 3Rs approach could be enhanced with more explicit discussion of the ethical assumptions used to arrive at an approved research protocol during IACUC review. Here we suggest that the notion of moral considerability, and all of the related issues it gives rise to, should be incorporated into IACUC discussions of 3Rs deliberations during protocol review to ensure that animal wellbeing is enhanced within the constraints of scientific investigation.