ABSTRACT
In this brief introduction to the chapter, I wish to compare the controls on some aspects of human and animal research; the bulk of the chapter will address animal matters.
World-wide legal controls on the use of animals in research normally encompass the ‘Three Rs’, first put forward by Russell and Burch in 1959. They are replacement, reduction and refinement, i.e., if there is an alternative way of achieving the scientific objective without the use of animals then that should be used, but if animals have to be used then the number should be reduced to the minimum, and the scientific procedures should be refined so as to cause as little suffering as possible. Interestingly, this approach does not seem to have been so overtly adopted in human research, possibly because humans normally consent to the procedures being carried out-whether that consent is valid in terms of being fully informed, voluntary, etc., is another matter. However, when comparing laws controlling research in humans and animals it often seems that animals get better protection in many ways, but this is nothing new because the first humane societies set up in the early part of the nineteenth century protected animals as well as children, and in some countries there are still no laws controlling research on animals (or humans-and they are not necessarily the same countries).
