The impact of the introduction of the ethical review process for research using animals in the UK: Attitudes to alternatives among those working withexperimental animals

A postal questionnaire survey was carried out in late 1999 of those involve d in working under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, namely the Certificate Holders, Project Licence Holders, Personal Licence Holders, Na med Veterinary Surgeons, and Named Animal Care and Welfare Officers. The ai m of the survey was to elicit views on the effectiveness of the introductio n of the Ethical Review Process (ERP), introduced in April 1999. This repor t covers issues related to the use of alternatives, which were incorporated into the questionnaires. The number of returned questionnaires (45% of 163 6 questionnaires) was sufficient for a meaningful analysis to be made of at titudes to the use of alternatives. In response to questions about the reas on for the use of alternatives, more than 80% answered that alternatives sh ould be used on moral or ethical grounds. Only about 50% of Certificate Hol ders and Licence Holders answered that alternatives were used because of le gal requirements. Most respondents believed that replacement alternatives d id not provide scientific information of equivalent value to that obtained from animal experiments. However, the majority also believed that it was po ssible to carry out valid scientific experiments by using replacement alter natives. The majority of Named Animal Care and Welfare Officers believed th at the ERP had improved many aspects of refinement alternatives. In particu lar the "culture of care" had improved. Most establishments had a formal me chanism for discussing alternatives, although it was noteworthy that relati vely few Personal Licence Holders believed this to be the case. In general, the majority of those working under the 1986 Act and most establishments s eem to have a positive approach to the use of alternatives.