Sir

Hanno Würbel, in his Correspondence “Publications should include an animal-welfare section”, suggests an effective and powerful way in which journals, by including a dedicated category for the 3Rs — replace, refine, reduce — in the methodology section, could benefit both scientific research and animal welfare (Nature 446, 257; doi:10.1038/446257a 2007, and see http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/03/proposal_for_journals_to_inclu.html).

Ever since this idea was recommended by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, I have been probing scientists for their response to it. Almost without exception, those I have approached have recognized its potential and support the idea verbally. However, they have consistently been reticent about providing any written endorsement.

The first, but, in my opinion, least likely, reason for this behaviour could be apathy, because this sensible, moderate and pragmatic proposal does not arouse the same emotions as the 'animal research' debate itself.

Second, the polarized nature of this topic may foster the fear that publicly supporting any measure to improve animal welfare will be perceived as a defection by other scientists.

Third, there may be an unwillingness to admit what some would see as a weakening of stance — the thin end of a wedge that threatens to phase out animal research altogether. Although my personal desire is that this would indeed be the outcome, the evidence speaks otherwise. Despite the best efforts of animal-welfare advocates since the 3Rs concept was first introduced, 'replacements' have become established only when they are of scientific benefit — so it seems unreasonable that efforts to encourage them should be viewed as a threat to progress.

Finally, there is resistance to going against the grain. If a single high-impact journal were to take a unilateral decision to implement this proposal and embrace the 3Rs as integral and essential elements of good experimental design, I believe that other editors and scientists everywhere would be happy to follow.