Robert D. Combes

/Tag:Robert D. Combes

Editorial: Missing, Presumed Killed in Action (or the Report that Never Was)

Robert D. Combes

The Home Office Inspectorate’s Report, which stems from concerns raised from the undercover BUAV investigation at Imperial College London, has so far not been published. This current lack of transparency by the UK Government is completely unacceptable.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Comment – Four papers on the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines

Michael Balls and Robert D. Combes
Angela Auletta
John E. Doe, Richard W. Lewis and Philip A. Botham
Barry Phillips


This post combines four papers:
The OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines: A Challenge to the Sincerity of Commitment to the Three Rs by Michael Balls and Robert D. Combes
An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made Concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines by Angela Auletta
Comments on A Scientific and Animal Welfare Assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the Safety Testing of Chemicals Under the European Union REACH System by John E. Doe, Richard W. Lewis and Philip A. Botham
OECD Test Guidelines are Tools, not Blueprints, for Chemical Safety Assessment by Barry Phillips

You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

The Three Rs — Opportunities for Improving Animal Welfare and the Quality of Scientific Research

Robert D. Combes and Michael Balls

In 2013, an undercover investigation by the BUAV raised serious concerns about the use, treatment and care of laboratory animals involved in regulated procedures at Imperial College, London. This led to an inquiry, set up by the college, which found deficiencies in the local ethical review process and a general lack of focus on the implementation of the Three Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction). The Three Rs concept is the foundation of UK and EU legislation, but surveys of the published literature show that lack of its adoption is widespread. In spite of numerous guidelines, publications and publicity material extolling the benefits of the Three Rs to both animals and science, as well as substantial advances in the development, validation, and deployment of mechanistically-based non-animal methods, many scientists prefer to use traditional animal-based approaches. In addition, such scientists tend to pay less attention than they should to strategic planning, experimental design and the choice of appropriate statistical procedures. They are often unaware of the existence of replacement test methods to address all or some of their objectives, and are reluctant to develop and use new replacement methods. We explore some possible reasons for these shortcomings. We summarise the welfare and scientific effects of each of the Three Rs, and argue that: a) there is an urgent need for evidence to be made readily accessible to prospective licensees, which directly demonstrates the beneficial effects on animal welfare of the implementation of the Three Rs, separately and in combination, and the direct link this has with the quality of the scientific data obtained; b) a detailed systematic review of this evidence should be undertaken to augment the inadequate content of the prescribed Module 5 licensee training offered currently in the UK; c) such training (including that suggested in new EU-wide proposals) should be much more comprehensive, with stronger emphasis on the Three Rs, all parts of the syllabus should be fully examined, and there should be no exemptions from Module 5 training; and d) as the responsible Government department in the UK, the Home Office should take measures to tighten up its guidance for local ethical review, and its system of inspection of designated establishments, to obviate the justification for future undercover investigations.

This article is currently only available in full to paid subscribers. Click here to subscribe, or you will need to log in/register to buy and download this article

Applying the Three Rs to Animal Experimentation and Animal Testing: Are We Merely Drifting or Lying at Anchor?

Michael Balls and Robert Combes

This issue of ATLA (34 [1], 2006) contains a number of very important items, which can be seen as encouraging or discouraging, depending on one’s hopes and ambitions with respect to alternatives.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.