Databases on
alternatives: What is available and how are they used?
Adrian J.
Smith, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo
This paper provides a brief history of information on
alternatives databases, gives some examples, and outlines some of the
challenges when searching for alternatives to the use of animals in research
and teaching.
”Alternatives” are defined here as all the three R’s
of Russell & Burch (1959):
Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.
Until the mid 1990’s there were few sources of
information on databases that addressed the three R’s. The first European initiative to
collect such information and make it readily available, was the ECVAM workshop
in Neubiberg, Munich in September 1996 (Janusch et al., 1997).
Information experts constructed an overview of the approximately 20
databases in existence at that time, categorised them according to their field
and made this information available on the Internet (http://oslovet.veths.no/databases.html). This overview has since been
updated, and several other similar sites have been constructed (e.g. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/databases/databases.htm
and http://www.frame.org.uk/links/databases.htm).
In 1997, the international Altweb project (Alternatives to
Animal Testing on the Web, http://altweb.jhsph.edu)
was launched. Altweb has
greatly contributed to the dissemination of information on existing databases
via the Internet. Altweb is a clearinghouse of information and news on the
three R’s. It has also taken initiative to develop new resources, such as
the Pain Management Database, in collaboration with the Animal Welfare
Information Centre in Beltsville, Maryland, USA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic). This
database includes over 10,000 peer-reviewed citations from more general
literature databases such as MEDLINE, Agricola and AGRIS. It covers all relevant laboratory
animal species and includes abstracts with information on dose of pain-killers
and possible side-effects.
In many areas of the three R’s it is a distinct
advantage if database compilers cooperate or cross-reference their
material. A good example of this
is seen within the field of information on alternatives to animals in
education. The compilers of
the NORINA database,
which provides information on as many alternatives as possible, at all phases
from junior school to University, cooperates actively with the compilers of the
EURCA database (http://www.eurca.org) which
offers peer-reviewed information on specialist alternatives for use in higher
education (in particular computer programs within physiology and
pharmacology). Furthermore, items
cited in NORINA that can be loaned from animal welfare organisations are
flagged with direct links to the organisation’s website. Loan schemes are offered by,
among others, InterNICHE (http://www.interniche.org)
and the HSUS (http://www.hsus.org).
The advantage of this type of cooperation is obvious within the field of education. Many of the earliest animal alternatives were very simple, qualitative, simulations of complex biological processes, and some of these gave the impression that ”alternatives” were too simple to be of use in higher education. Nowadays, many alternatives are extremely complex and are based on results from real studies in animals. However, many companies still cover a very small segment of the market and produce few alternatives. Without some form of database, teachers and students seeking alternatives will have great problems in finding adequate information.
One of
the problems faced when searching for information on the Internet, is that much
of the material is not accessed by standard search engines. This hidden section of the Internet,
also called The Deep Web, includes documents where the text is concealed within
a format not accessible to the search engines, such as PDF (Portable Document
Format) files, information on company intranets, and text inside
databases. It has been estimated
that over 50% of the information in the Deep Web is contained within such
databases (http://www.brightplanet.com/technology/deepweb.asp). This makes it all the more inportant to
spread information about databases containing information on the three
R’s. Those managing
databases that are available on the Internet should ensure that sufficient
information about the database’s content is, in some way or another, available
in a form that any Internet search engine can access and catalogue.
Another
problem facing Internet users is the shear volume of information that a search
returns. This may appear
overwhelming, and important details may be missed. Some Internet search engines make allowance for this by
filtering out irrelevant, non-scientific information. Scirus is an example of one of these (http://www.scirus.com). An excellent evaluation of Internet
search engines constructed by Dr. Krys Bottrill is available on the website of
FRAME (http://www.frame.org.uk). The FRAME site includes also
valuable information on designing a literature search, covering:
· Search basics
· A Guide to
searching the Internet
· Internet search
engines
· Search terms of
relevance to the three R’s
Many scientists are not aware of the dangers of restricting
their literature search to one or two of the large, well-known databases such
as MEDLINE, ignoring the specialist databases mentioned in this paper. Increasingly, authorities
regulating animal research demand that scientists applying for permission to
conduct animal experiments document a literature search for alternatives as
part of their application. One
simple search in a general literature database does not constitute an adequate
evaluation of the potential for implementing the three R’s.
Much of
the challenge associated with retrieval of information on the three R’s
is caused by the fact that many scientists rarely assign keywords to their
papers that reflect the three R’s. In this way much valuable information remains
undetected. This problem is made
worse by the fact that there does not exist any one ”Journal of the Three
R’s”.
Although not strictly databases, many of the journals within the field
of animal welfare in general, and laboratory animal science in particular have
extensive Internet-based resources which are valuable sources of material
within the three R’s. Some
of the best known journals include:
· Animal
Welfare (http://www.ufaw.org.uk)
· ATLA (Alternatives
to Laboratory Animals, http://www.frame.org.uk)
· Comparative
Medicine (http://www.aalas.org)
· ILAR Journal (http://www.ilar.org)
· Laboratory
Animals (http://www.lal.org.uk)
There
are also a range of useful bibliographies available, such as AltBib, the
bibliography on alternatives to animal testing produced by the National Library
of Medicine in Bethseda, Maryland, USA (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/altbib.html).
A large
number of email discussion groups within laboratory animal science act as
efficient disseminators of information on the three R’s, even if it is
not as well quality-controlled as other sources. These groups include CompMed (Comparative
Medicine), run by AALAS (American Association of Laboratory Animal
Science, http://www.aalas.org/search/archives/archives.htm),
which has an archive of all postings to the list, and LAREF (Laboratory
Animal Refinement and Enrichment), run by at the Animal Welfare Institute in Washington
D.C., USA (http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/winter03/0103p12.htm).
In
recent years a number of information centres have emerged, whose mandate is to
help scientists and lay people alike locate information on the three
R’s. These centres include
AWIC (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic) and UCCAA (University of California Center for
Animal Alternatives, http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/main.htm). The European Centre for the
Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM, http://ecvam.jrc.it)
has produced its own collection of databases on alternatives, known as SIS
(Scientific Information Service).
In Europe, the organisation ECOPA (European Concensus-Platform for
Alternatives, http://ecopa.vub.ac.be) has
stimulated the establishment of a dozen national platforms so far. These platforms, with
representatives from government, industry, academia and the animal welfare
movement, are centres of competence within the three R’s which identify
areas of concern in the particular country and seek to finance research into,
and the implementation of, alternatives.
An example of these is the 3R Research Foundation in Switzerland (http://www.forschung3r.ch). Many countries have centres for the
three R’s which actively cooperate with these platforms (e.g. Netherlands
Centre Alternatives, NCA, http://www.nca-nl.org).
A range
of other organisations such as UFAW (Universities Federation of Animal Welfare,
http://www.ufaw.org.uk) and FRAME (Fund
for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, http://www.frame.org.uk) act both as
refererence centres and animal welfare organisations with membership from
society at large. Their
publications are valuable sources of information on the three R’s.
The
UK-based forum Focus on Alternatives (FoA, http://www.focusonalternatives.org.uk)
has produced an excellent poster illustrating the strategy that should be
employed when planning experiments that may involve the use of animals. This flow diagram
emphasises the role that alternatives databases should play in implementation
of the three R’s (Figure 1). The poster may be downloaded at the following website: http://www.focusonalternatives.org.uk/EarlyPlanningPoster.pdf. This poster summarises very well
the way in which information databases can contribute to implementation of the
three R’s.
In
conclusion, there are now a large range of databases and other sources of
information on alternatives to the use of animals in teaching and
research. Sufficient time
must be set aside to investigate the potential for implementing the three
R’s. Information
specialists play therefore an important role in this process. Scientists and teachers alike
should be encouraged to seek professional assistance when evaluating
alternatives in their particular field.
References
Janusch A, van der Kamp M, Bottrill K, Grune B, Anderson
DC, Ekwall B, Howald M, Kolar R, Kuiper HJD, Larson J, Loprieno G, Sauer UG,
Smith AJ & van der Valk JBF (1997): Current status and future developments
of databases on alternative methods.
The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 25. Alternatives to Laboratory
Animals (ATLA) 25 (4): 411-422. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/ECVAM/ecvam25.htm
Russell W. & Burch R. (1959): The Principles of Humane
Experimental Technique. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm
Adrian Smith,
Norwegian Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science
and Alternatives
Norwegian School of Veterinary Science
P.O. Box 8146 Dep.
N-0033 Oslo
Norway
