自从罗素和伯奇引入并定义了3R以来,即,替换,reduction,以及在研究中使用动物的细化,1959年,出现了不同的定义,并在指导方针和政策中得到了实施。瑞士以拥有一些关于使用动物的限制性最强的立法而闻名,其中还定义和实施了3R。据我们所知,瑞士动物福利法案中使用的3R的目的和定义,动物保护条例和动物实验条例从未与罗素和伯奇的原始目的和定义进行比较。在本文中,我们有两个目的进行比较:揭示与原始目的和定义的伦理相关的偏离,并对瑞士现行3R法律进行道德评估。在这样做的时候,我们首先揭露目的的相似性。然后,我们确定了一个与瑞士法律中替换的原始定义有风险的背离,这表明对物种的关注有问题。最后,我们解决瑞士法律未能以最有效的方式应用3R的问题。关于最后一点,我们讨论解决3R冲突的必要性,3R的应用时机,有问题的优先次序和便利性选择,以及使用罗素和伯奇的遇险总和概念更有效地应用3R的解决方案。
Since Russell and Burch introduced and defined the
3Rs, i.e., the replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal use in research, in 1959, different definitions have emerged and been implemented in guidelines and policies. Switzerland is known for having some of the most restrictive legislation regarding the use of animals, in which the
3Rs are also defined and implemented. To our knowledge, the purpose and definitions of the
3Rs used in the Swiss Animal Welfare Act, Animal Protection Ordinance, and Animal Experimentation Ordinance have never been compared with Russell and Burch’s original purpose and definitions. In this paper we make this comparison with two aims: to reveal ethically relevant departures from the original purpose and definitions, and to provide an ethical evaluation of the current Swiss law regarding the 3Rs. In doing so, we first expose the similarity of purposes. We then identify one risky departure from the original definition of replacement in Swiss law, which shows a problematic focus on species. Finally, we address Swiss law’s failure to apply the
3Rs in the most effective way. With respect to this last point, we discuss the need for 3R conflict resolution, the timing of application of the 3Rs, problematic prioritizations and choices of convenience as well as a solution to apply the
3Rs more effectively using Russell and Burch’s concept of total sum of distress.