Vol. 30.2

It has been 65 years since the publication of Russell and Burch’s “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique,” which established the ‘3Rs’—refinement, reduction, and replacement—as the key principles applicable to decision making about, and the use of, non-human animals in laboratory settings. The 3Rs are universally accepted by responsible scientists throughout the world and form the basis for many national legal and regulatory systems governing animal use in laboratories. This Article will discuss broadly how the 3Rs have evolved over the past seven decades since the publication of Russell and Burch’s seminal work, and examine the 3Rs in light of the needs of the biomedical research challenges today and into the future. The Article also evaluates recent critiques of the 3Rs and assesses whether such critiques are warranted considering current research practices and societal concerns. To make the 3Rs maximally useful for the 21st century and beyond, additional principles should be added that take into consideration (1) the need to strengthen reproducibility and predictivity of animal-based research; (2) the recognition that animals are sentient beings whose basic needs must be met; and (3) the importance of a harm-benefit evaluation that addresses the benefits, risks, and harms to humans as well as animals. The 3Rs must evolve in these ways so that science can continue to develop, and laboratory animal use can be reduced or replaced.

Maliat Chowdhury, Saving Species or Sacrificing Science?: Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Research and Conservation Through the Case of the Long-Tailed Macaque

For decades, long-tailed macaques have served an instrumental role in advancing biomedical research. However, due to the recent primate shortage in U.S. laboratories, these macaques have become coveted targets for poachers. In 2022, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) elevated the long-tailed macaque’s threat level from “Vulnerable” to “Endangered,” citing research-related capture as a critical factor contributing to their decline. Under this new status, long-tailed macaques are at risk of being categorized under Appendix I of CITES, a designation that will subject them to stricter trade regulations. Alarmed by the potential obstacles this reclassification may pose to scientific research, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) petitioned against the IUCN’s assessment of the long-tailed macaque status. Joining the ranks of horseshoe crabs and chimpanzees, the long-tailed macaque finds itself embroiled in an ethical dilemma only science can resolve. While sympathetic to the NABR’s concerns, this Article argues the true threat to scientific progress lies in the IUCN reverting the long-tailed macaque’s conservation status to Vulnerable. Presently listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), States are obligated to regulate the long-tail macaque’s trade within their jurisdictions. However, local laws often fall short in protecting these animals, particularly as human-macaque conflicts breed resentment toward the species. Capitalizing on the long-tailed macaques’ domestic vulnerability and premium international price tag, poachers have resorted to using falsified CITES permits to capture and sell wild macaques to research laboratories. In light of their rapid decline, this Article advocates for heightened protection under CITES for long-tailed macaques to incentivize stronger domestic and international regulations. Furthermore, by aligning the biomedical industry’s objectives with those of conservationists, this Article proposes legal strategies grounded in domestic and international law that the research sector can utilize to advance scienti!c progress while saving a species vital to its success. 

Sophia Pastorini, Neither Covered nor Excluded: Impacts of Speciesism on Aquatic Animal Experimentation under The Animal Welfare Act

Despite significant scientific evidence affirming their capacity for pain and pleasure, aquatic animals in laboratory settings receive limited federal protection. The Animal Welfare Act leaves aquatic animals entirely adrift; they are neither included in the list of protected animals nor explicitly excluded. They inhabit a realm so marginalized that they are not even mentioned in the Act. The urgency of safeguarding aquatic animal welfare is a matter of moral imperative, scientific integrity, and justice. By employing a multifaceted approach that combines ethical considerations and legal frameworks, this Article seeks to catalyze change in the treatment of aquatic animals in research settings. It underscores the importance of aligning our regulatory and ethical frameworks with evolving scientific insights and moral imperatives, ultimately paving the way for more compassionate and just treatment of all sentient beings—whether terrestrial or aquatic—while challenging the underlying speciesism that has long persisted in our society.