3-Ethical issues, harm-benefit assessment and humane endpoints

Each research project has its own set of ethical challenges, but the following general questions should be raised for all projects:

1. Have national or local research ethics committees already produced statements relevant to the research being planned?
2. Have the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) been addressed, and will any advances in this area be mentioned in publications of the study (remembering that many databases only index the title and abstract of papers)? Which non-animal alternatives have been considered but rejected?
3. Have the Three S's (Good Science, Good Sense and Good Sensibilities) been addressed?
4. Does the proposed study have a clear rationale and scientific relevance, and what will be the next step if the hypothesis is supported or rejected?
5. Have the experiments been carried out before, and is any repetition justifiable?
6. What approaches to reduce distress have been considered?

‘Choosing the right animal for the right reason’ (Harry Rowsell).
The large increase in use of genetically altered lines has created increasing concern about the suitability of these animals as models of human conditions. This, and the high level of attrition in animal research, is discussed in a paper by Joseph Garner (2014): The Significance of Meaning: Why Do Over 90% of Behavioral Neuroscience Results Fail to Translate to Humans, and What Can We Do to Fix It?

Ethics are also discussed in a separate section of this website. 

This section will be used to publish resources for fish researchers and animal care staff.

The RSPCA arranged a meeting on 23 February 2021 entitled Focus on Fish, which contained several relevant presentations. There was a session on Fish Welfare, including incorporating refining procedures in general, ‘severe’ procedures, and refining DNA sampling. A second meeting was arranged on 29 February 2024, covering guidance for monitoring welfare, anaesthesia, application of the 3Rs, environmental enrichment and husbandry issues.

Appendix 1 (pages 43-47) of the FELASA/ECLAM/ESLAV Working Group report on severity classification (Smith et al., 2018) contains a worked example, including a score sheet, of how these principles could be applied to the bioconcentration flow-through fish test used to determine the ecotoxicity of a substance.

Hawkins et al. (2011): Guidance on the severity classification of scientific procedures involving fish

Flueck-Giraud et al. (2023): An adaptable, user-friendly score sheet to monitor welfare in experimental fish.

This page was updated on 03 July 2024