Paper short abstract:

Local ethical review of animal experimentation coordinates responsibilities of researchers and regulators. Ethnographic research reveals mobilisation of the 3Rs construct of Replacement, Reduction & Refinement as a boundary object in the construction of ethical science through this review process.

Paper long abstract:

This paper demonstrates how the '3Rs' construct is mobilised as a device to establish authority and impart responsibility during the ethical review process for scientific procedures using animals. It draws on empirical ethnographic research combining in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with observational studies of the ethical review process in practice over the course of a year. The argument for consideration of the 3Rs as a boundary object is formulated, and contributes to the literature in this field.

The use of non-human animals in scientific procedures is regulated through a system of licensing to establish a framework of responsibility. Applications for project licenses must complete local ethical review, which serves as an intermediary between the scientist as applicant and the Home Office as regulator. The '3Rs' stands for Replacement, Reduction & Refinement. As a concept it provides a tangible basis upon which the ethical review committee can effect change within regulatory constraints, and has become effectively institutionalised in the field of animal research. Specific responsibilities towards the 3Rs are constructed and coordinated through the social enactment of the review process and the moral pluralism of its membership. The 3Rs construct is amenable to be utilised in both technical and ethical discourses to formulate what the applicant must do for the proposed project to be considered sufficiently ethical science. Tactical positioning of the 3Rs construct was observed as a means of framing the responsibilities of the applicant and coordinating the authority of the committee to 'do ethics' in this context.