As a rule, transgenic animals are being used in in vivo experiments to examine gene functions, their regulation or the contribution of genetic alterations to the development of diseases. Many transgenic animals already are affected in their wellbeing due to the genetic modification alone regardless of the procedures performed with them. Moreover, it is to be questioned wither the experimental use of transgenic animals led to results that were of such outstanding scientific relevance that they legitimated the suffering of the animals. In order to point to possible approaches to avoiding the use of transgenic animals in the areas of research identified, subsequent investigations aimed at collecting information on non-animal test methods that might be applied in pursuing the aforesaid questions. In particular, these were non-animal test methods that make use of genetic techniques. Amongst these are in vitro cell culture methods with genetically modified cells, such as the so called Transfected Cell Array, as well as in vitro test methods, in which specifically targeted genes can be turned on or off selectively for example by the so-called RNA interference technique or by antisense oligonucleotide genes. Since such technologies can also be applied to cell cultures with human cells, investigations with these methods enable direct information on the function of human genes. Even though a one to one replacement of animal experiments with transgenic animals by non-animal test methods is considered unlikely, from the point of view of animal welfare the broad spectrum of already available non-animal test methods with which to study the function of genes and genetically caused pathophysiological reactions proves that waiving of animal tests with transgenic animals is possible without impeding biomedical research. Even if it cannot be totally excluded that some very specific questions linked to the respective animal experiment might not be pursued for the time being, nevertheless research that would be restricted to modern and ethically acceptable in vitro test methods would certainly conceive its very own questions to pursue and solve the problems currently faced by biomedical research. It is against this background that it is to be welcomed that the German Federal Government currently actively promotes the further development of genetechnological non-animal test methods. In order to ensure that these funding measures will make an effective contribution to reducing animal experiments, as spelled out by the government itself, the conversion of genetechnological research, just like biomedical research as a whole, to non-animal testing methods should be supported by concrete political actions. From the point of view of the German Animal Welfare Federation the following issues are to be requested:

• In order to enable a fast and comprehensive advancement of promising genetechnological non-animal test methods, it should be ensured that public funding is provided with an adequate budget and over a sufficiently long period of time.


• The legislator should initiate broad discussions on the question if society would be willing to dispense with certain pieces of knowledge if they would necessarily have to be gained at the expense of a certain degree of animal suffering. As the case may be, in the German Animal Welfare Act it should be laid down that certain procedures should not be considered acceptable as such.


• As long as animal experiments with transgenic animals continue to be performed, concrete legal measures should be laid down in the German Animal Welfare Act to ensure that the distress of the animals (taking into account all factors relevant for transgenic animals) and the expected benefit of the research project are determined objectively so that the outcome of the ethical evaluation process becomes comprehensible.


• The legislator should provide the authorities responsible for the licensing of research projects with concrete instructions in order to ensure that all aspects relevant for the welfare of the animals are fully taken into account when evaluating the ethical acceptability and scientific indispensability of projects and that special attention is given to research projects with transgenic animals.


• The German Decree on the Reporting of Laboratory Animals should be amended to ensure that alt individual transgenic animals are included in the official statistical reports regardless of whether they end up being used in scientific procedures or not.

From the point of view of animal welfare it is possible to redesign biomedical research to do without transgenic animals without impeding necessary scientific progress. The survey in hand sought to make a contribution to providing a scientifically sound background for initiating these discussions.

Tissue engineering, defined as using a combination of cultured cells and biodegradable scaffolds to repair tissue damaged by injury or disease, represents a booming sector of biomedical research. Animal experimentation is routinely performed prior to clinical trials. The presented study tries to translate the aspect of the 3Rs to tissue engineering research: Cell culture protocols were adapted to antibiotic free and serum free conditions. Biomaterials (Bio-Gide® and a collagen sponge prototype) were pre-tested using the HET-CAM assay. CAM-testing suggested a protocol change for application of the Bio-Gide® scaffold and demonstrated unsuitable material properties of the collagen sponge. Application of 3R compliant protocols for tissue engineering research led to increased cell proliferation, higher synthesis of extracellular matrix molecules, reduced dedifferentiation and more information about the biomaterials at an early experimental stage. Tissue engineering research can therefore profit from the increased efforts to validate in vitro alternatives and supplements to animal testing.

The replacement of anima I testing using dogs for the registration of plant protection products requires a long-term step-by-step procedure. The first goal should be to achieve international agreement on using only one single study in dogs. This would result in a significant short-term reduction of the use of dogs for this purpose. The competent working groups both in the EU and the United States EPA have declared this to be their intended aim. In this context, the 90-day study is to be the preferred study from the scientific as well as the animal welfare points of view. It is proposed to set up an international expert task force within the next 12 months, which should seek to initiate a process of international harmonisation of the testing requirements following the example of the International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Medical Products, ICH. The goal should be to achieve international agreement on only one single study with dogs within the next 2 to 3 years. In addition, other valid scientific procedures, with which the use of dogs for testing can be reduced, should be critically assessed. A complete replacement of the use of dogs for plant protection product testing is suggested to take place at a later stage. This may be achieved by either deriving safety threshold values by applying a safety factor to chronic NOAEL values obtained in studies using rats for those groups of substances, for which there is evidence that the dog is the more sensitive species, or by combining the chronic rat study with other animal tests stipulated for the registration of pesticides.

In accordance with the German Animal Welfare Act, animal experiments in fundamental biomedical research may only be performed after licensing by the responsible authority. This license may only be granted if the experiments are considered indispensable and if the distress of the animals seems ethically acceptable in relation to the purpose of the study. Since 1987 advisory committees have been established to support the authorities in the evaluation of these provisions. Animal welfare organisations had expected case-by-case evaluations of the indispensability of research proposals and of the distress of the animals and the scientific benefit of the experiments to take place in these committees, so that such projects that would not meet the criteria of ethical acceptability could be prevented. However, already the lack of parity in the advisory committees alone, in which as a rule four scientists counterpart two representatives from animal welfare organisations, oftentimes prevents a balanced discussion of these provisions from taking place. Additionally, due to the freedom of science granted in the German Constitution without reservations, until 2002 also the licensing authorities were merely permitted to perform a formal examination of the applications. In the meantime, by including animal welfare as a national objective in the Constitution, the preconditions were made to enable an examination of the contents. From the point of view of animal welfare it therefore is to be requested that now also the advisory committees are ascribed more importance in the course of the licensing procedure and to establish the legal framework for this, if necessary by a revision of the Animal Welfare Act.