The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientificinnovationsare needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate theimplementationof existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasingsocial awarenessof animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.

Euthanasia of pets has been described by veterinarians as “the best and the worst” of the profession. The most commonly mentioned ethical dilemmas veterinarians face in small animal practice are: limited treatment options due to financial constraints, euthanizing of healthy animals and owners wishing to continue treatment of terminally ill animals. The aim of the study was to gain insight into the attitudes of Austrian veterinarians towards euthanasia of small animals. This included assessing their agreement with euthanasia in exemplified case scenarios, potentially predicted by demographic variables (e.g. gender, age, working in small animal practice, employment, working in a team, numbers of performed euthanasia). Further describing the veterinarians’ agreement with a number of different normative and descriptive statements, including coping strategies. A questionnaire with nine euthanasia scenarios, 26 normative and descriptive statements, and demographic data were sent to all members of the Austrian Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons (n = 2478). In total, 486 veterinarians answered sufficiently completely to enable analyses. Responses were first explored descriptively before being formally analysed using linear regression and additive Bayesian networks – a multivariate regression methodology – in order to identify joint relationships between the demographic variables, the statements and each of the nine euthanasia scenarios. Mutual dependencies between the demographic variables were found, i.e. female compared to male veterinarians worked mostly in small animal practice, and working mostly in small animal practice was linked to performing more euthanasia per month. Gender and age were found to be associated with views on euthanasia: female veterinarians and veterinarians having worked for less years were more likely to disagree with euthanasia in at least some of the convenience euthanasia scenarios. The number of veterinarians working together was found to be the variable with the highest number of links to other variables, demographic as well as ethical statements. This highlights the role of a team potentially providing support in stressful situations. The results are useful for a better understanding of coping strategies for veterinarians with moral stress due to euthanasia of small animals.

Small veterinary practice is experiencing steady improvement in diagnostics and therapies which enable veterinarians to offer evermore advanced medical care for their patients. This focus group study of veterinarians (n = 32) examined the impact of these improvements and the potential challenges they introduce in small animal practice. It shows that while advanced diagnostics and therapies deliver benefits in patient care, they also add complexities to decision-making. Although the veterinarians participating in the study were aware of their duty to act in the best interests of the animal, their decisions were highly dependent on factors such as the client’s financial background and the emotional bond between client and animal, as well as the veterinarian’s place of work, and level and field of specialization, and certain economic aspects of the practice. The overall conclusion is that small animal veterinarians are increasingly torn between serving the best interests of the animal, medical feasibility and contextual factors related to the client, the veterinarian, and professional colleagues. Further, the findings suggest that services are not only oriented towards the provision of medical care in a strict medical sense. On top of this, veterinarians need to deal with various expectations and wishes of clients which influence their decision-making. As it will be shown, factors like the possibility of referring patients to specialist veterinarians or prompt diagnostic results influence their decision-making.

It is our concern that European Union Directive 2010/63/EU with its current project evaluation of animal research in the form of a harm–benefit analysis may lead to an erosion of the credibility of research. The HBA assesses whether the inflicted harm on animals is outweighed by potential prospective benefits. Recent literature on prospective benefit analysis prioritizes “societal benefits” that have a foreseeable, positive impact on humans, animals, or the environment over benefit in the form of knowledge. In this study, we will argue that whether practical benefits are realized is (a) impossible to predict and (b) exceeds the scope and responsibility of researchers. Furthermore, we believe that the emphasis on practical benefits has the drawback of driving researchers into speculation on the societal benefit of their research and, therefore, into promising too much, thereby leading to a loss of trust and credibility. Thus, the concepts of benefit and benefit assessment in the HBA require a re-evaluation in a spirit that embraces the value of knowledge in our society. The generation of scientific knowledge has been utilised to great benefit for humans, animals, and the environment. The HBA, as it currently stands, tends to turn this idea upside down and implies that research is of value only if the resulting findings bring about immediate societal benefit.

Housing and management conditions strongly influence the health, welfare and behaviour of horses. Consequently, objective and quantifiable comparisons between domestic environments and their influence on different equine demographics are needed to establish evidence-based criteria to assess and optimize horse welfare. Therefore, the present study aimed to measure and compare the time budgets (=percentage of time spent on specific activities) of horses with chronic orthopaedic disease and geriatric (≥20 years) horses living in different husbandry systems using an automated tracking device. Horses spent 42% (range 38.3–44.8%) of their day eating, 39% (range 36.87–44.9%) resting, and 19% (range 17–20.4%) in movement, demonstrating that geriatric horses and horses suffering from chronic orthopaedic disease can exhibit behaviour time budgets equivalent to healthy controls. Time budget analysis revealed significant differences between farms, turn-out conditions and time of day, and could identify potential areas for improvement. Horses living in open-air group housing on a paddock had a more uniform temporal distribution of feeding and movement activities with less pronounced peaks compared to horses living in more restricted husbandry systems.

Directive 2010/63/EU (henceforth “Directive”) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes mandates that every project proposal in EU member states involving procedures on living non-human vertebrates and cephalopods has to be approved in an review process, including a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA), to assess “whether the harm to the animals in terms of suffering, pain and distress is justified by the expected outcome taking into account ethical consideration and may ultimately benefit human beings, animals or the environment”. Despite the justifying relevance of “outcome” and “benefit”, it remains unclear how to understand these concepts. However, national authorities and applicants require a clear understanding of this to carry out a HBA. To analyze the underlying premises of the HBA and its consequences for the evaluation process, we introduce a heuristic to analyze the relation between “outcome”, “benefit” and “prospective benefit assessment”. We then apply the heuristic to all seven legitimate purposes for animal research stated in the Directive, namely basic research, translational or applied research, product safety, education and training, protection of the environment, preservation of species and forensic inquiries. As we show, regardless of which purpose is aimed for, applicants are hard-pressed to demonstrate tangible benefits in a prospective assessment. In the HBA, this becomes a problem since—as we argue—the only reasonable, expected and tangible outcome of research can ever be knowledge. The potential long-term benefits on the basis of gained knowledge are unforeseeable and impossible to predict. Research is bound to fall short of these proclaimed societal benefits and its credibility will suffer as long as research has to validate itself through short-term societal benefit. We propose to revise the ethical evaluation based on the HBA and we think it necessary to develop an alternative model for project evaluation that focuses on the value of knowledge as a scientific outcome as a necessary but not sufficient condition for societal benefit.