Abstract:The use of animals in research entails a range of societal and ethical issues, and there is widespread consensus that animals are to be kept safe from unnecessary suffering. Therefore, harm done to animals in the name of research has to be carefully regulated and undergo ethical review for approval. Since 2013, this has been enforced within the European Union through Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. However, critics argue that the directive and its implementation by member states do not properly consider all aspects of animal welfare, which risks causing unnecessary animal suffering and decreased public trust in the system. In this pilot study, the ethical review process in Sweden was investigated to determine whether or not the system is in fact flawed, and if so, what may be the underlying cause of this. Through in-depth analysis of 18 applications and decisions of ethical reviews, we found that there are recurring problems within the ethical review process in Sweden. Discrepancies between demands set by legislation and the structure of the application form lead to submitted information being incomplete by design. In turn, this prevents the Animal Ethics Committees from being able to fulfill their task of performing a harm–benefit analysis and ensuring Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (the 3Rs). Results further showed that a significant number of applications failed to meet legal requirements regarding content. Similarly, no Animal Ethics Committee decision contained any account of evaluation of the 3Rs and a majority failed to include harm–benefit analysis as required by law. Hence, the welfare may be at risk, as well as the fulfilling of the legal requirement of only approving “necessary suffering”. We argue that the results show an unacceptably low level of compliance in the investigated applications with the legal requirement of performing both a harm–benefit analysis and applying the 3Rs within the decision-making process, and that by implication, public insight through transparency is not achieved in these cases. In order to improve the ethical review, the process needs to be restructured, and the legal demands put on both the applicants and the Animal Ethics Committees as such need to be made clear. We further propose a number of improvements, including a revision of the application form. We also encourage future research to further investigate and address issues unearthed by this pilot study.

Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden

The Dividing Line Between Wildlife Research and Management—Implications for Animal Welfare

An international perspective on ethics approval in animal behaviour and welfare research

A case for integrity: gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations

Statistical Review of Animal trials -- A Guideline

Ethical Review of Animal Research and the Standards of Procedural Justice: A European Perspective

The Impact of the Introduction of the Ethical Review process for Research using Animals in the UK: Attitudes to Alternatives among those Working with Experimental Animals

Harm–benefit analysis – what is the added value? A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research

Perceptions of 3R implementation in European animal research: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators

The Interpretation and Application of the Three Rs by Animal Ethics Committee Members

Fetal and animal research in Sweden: The construction of viable lives in regulatory policy debates, 1970-1980

Regulation (EU) 536/2014 and the role of ethics committees: a proposal for a review system model

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Toward Transparency on Animal Experimentation in Switzerland: Seven Recommendations for the Provision of Public Information in Swiss Law

The Usefulness of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments for the Design of Preclinical and Clinical Studies

3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical

Have the non-technical summaries of animal experiments in Europe improved? An update

Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research

Animal owners’ appraisal of large carnivore presence and use of interventions to prevent carnivore attacks on domestic animals in Sweden

Effects of Directive 2010/63/EU on research on wild-sourced animals: a review of publication trends in studies on captive wild mice (Apodemus sp.)

Ethical and Animal Welfare Considerations in Relation to Species Selection for Animal Experimentation