Editorial: Make every animal experiment count

How should researchers design and write up their work to avoid needless and unethical waste of live animals? Guidelines published this week will make the task a lot easier.

The 20-point checklist is the handiwork of the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). It follows a survey last year that highlighted the difficulties involved in judging the scientific worth of many animal studies because of missing details (PLoS ONE, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007824).

The survey of 271 UK and US studies found, for example, that only 59 per cent included the aim of the research and 4 per cent failed to report how many animals were used.


“Without this fundamental information, results have limited value for advancing science, and risk wasting money and using animals unnecessarily,” says Vicky Robinson, chief executive of the NC3Rs (see editorial comment).

The ARRIVE guidelines (PLoS Biology, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.10000412.t002) include the need to specify the numbers of animals used and welfare details.

Supporters of animal research fear that the failure to design, conduct, report and review experiments correctly risks giving ammunition to those who oppose any use of laboratory animals.

Animal welfare organisations have welcomed the guidelines, but cautioned that they should remind scientists to replace animals in experiments as well as reduce the number used. “They should not be seen as a means to perpetuate the use of animals in research,” says Kailah Eglington, chief executive of the Dr Hadwen Trust, an organisation in the UK that develops alternatives to animal testing.

Malcolm Macleod of the University of Edinburgh, UK, said that although the guidelines address the validity of individual experiments, they will do nothing to prevent animals being wasted in experiments that are not published because the results are negative.