Philosophy of AR > Animal Testing Index > Anti-vivisection Index

The 3 R's are:
1. refine existing tests by minimizing animal distress.

2. reduce animal usage.

3. replace whole animal tests.

One organization has been set up to promote these goals:
The Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing
A quote from their mission page: "CAAT recognizes that non-whole animal (alternative) methods act in concert with whole animal and clinical studies to:
1. Advance science.
2. Develop new products and drugs.
3. Prevent, treat and cure disease."

I have another example. Being involved in the ethical aspects of animal experiments, there is one semantic trick that really bothers me - no, it makes me mad. Since William Russel och Rex Burch published The principles of humane experimental technique (1959), 'the three R' (Refine, Reduce, Replace) have been increasingly popular with animal experimentors. The concept had a renaissance in the 1980's, and now the label 'alternative' is very often used as soon as one of the R's in 'Refine, Reduce, Replace' apply. (Obviously, if you replace an animal experiment with a non-animal alternative, the 'Refine' and 'Reduce' become irrelevant.) How about that for an example of Newspeak? The 'alternatives' to animal experiments are not experiments without animals, but experiments on animals that are 'less' painful ('refined') and involve 'fewer' animals ('reduced'). Using the same logic: the 'alternative' to driving a car is not biking, swimming, or whatever, but driving your car a bit slower. The problem is that this disgusting way of using the word 'alternative' is now happily used by politicians and research institutions world-wide, who maintain they they are developing 'alternatives', that they already use 'alternatives', and that they need more money for their 'alternative' experiments, animal-friendly as they are.