“We Recognise the Value of Animal Experimentation, but we Recognise the Value of Animals as well”: Qualitative Insights on the Conflicting Experiences of Researchers on the Implementation of the 3Rs in Switzerland

Abstract

The practice of animal experimentation leads to conflicting obligations experienced by laboratory staff, e.g. regarding the dual status of laboratory animals or the severity of procedures versus the societal benefit of research. This generates ethical tensions that may remain unresolved and directly impact the implementation of best practices in animal research, in particular regarding the 3R principles (replace, reduce, refine). In this study, we conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with Swiss researchers working in public institutions. Following a qualitative analysis through reflexive thematic analysis, we identified two broad categories of conflicting experiences in relation to the implementation of the 3Rs: (1) Loyalty conflicts between their professional obligation to advance science, their own career, and to care for animals; (2) Conflicting personal attitudes on how researchers relate to animals, perceive the 3Rs, and perceive transparency. This empirical mapping of experiences lived by researchers shows the complex nature of dilemmas in this setting and the specificities of this stakeholder group. Conversely, it also uncovers how researchers cope with these dilemmas, which can help to design more targeted ethical research on the topic. These insights call for further ethical and legal guidance to provide better axiological clarity in this context.