The US Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations (specifically the 1985 Amendment), require that principal investigators consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals. Considering such alternatives is synonymous with the term “the three Rs,” as described in the book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959) by Russell and Burch. The 3Rs refer to the reduction in the number of animals used, refinement of techniques and procedures to reduce pain or distress, and replacement of animals with non-animal techniques or use of less-sentient species.
The IACUC at UCSC determined that both the classification of pain/distress and the consideration of alternatives would apply to all vertebrate animals and cephalopods (regardless of USDA covered species status). This means investigators are obligated to provide information in the animal use protocol on the methods used and sources consulted when evaluating the availability of alternatives, and the study does not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments. The search can take several forms, including literature reviews, consultation with experts in the field, attendance at scientific meetings, and examining regulatory testing requirements (as applicable). If the search produces no acceptable results, a statement of scientific justification must be included.