When Is an Alternative Not an Alternative? Supporting Progress for Absolute Replacement of Animals in Science

Abstract

Despite a great deal of talk about "alternatives" to animal testing, and "replac­ ing" animal use, there are no clearly agreed upon definitions for these terms. This has led to extensive numbers of animals used and accepted as "alterna­ tives"-including zebrafish, invertebrates, animal tissues, embryos, sera, and animals' eyes-despite the obvious fact that they will suffer and/or be killed for these methods. Instead, there is a confusing array of reference to live ani­ mals, vertebrates, and mammals being termed as "less sentient" or "conscious" species. Much of the discussion on alternatives is still based around Russell and Burch's (1959) 3Rs; although few, if any, of the definitions currently in use match their original writings, which were designed to be a foundation for fu­ ture discussions. In the European Union (Eu), Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes defines its aim as represent­ ing "an important step towards achieving the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes, as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so" (European Parliament, 2010, Recital 10 ). Al­ though this is a progressive step forward compared to previous legislation, use of the word live is often overlooked, as are so many other obstacles to a true end to all animal use in laboratory research. Talk of "replacing animal testing" and "alternatives" comes with little discussion about what those phrases actually mean; while researchers continue to use animal sera, tissues, and live animals that are perceived as less sentient. This chapter addresses some of the areas in which animals are still used within "alternatives" -based research and calls on animal welfare and in vitro or­ ganizations to lead the debate and encourage absolute replacement of animal