Cross-Jurisdictional Study of the 3Rs: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Animal Research Governance in Finland and Switzerland

Abstract

The 3R principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) have become a widely used regulatory framework for governing animal research worldwide. While widely endorsed as a moral baseline, its actual capacity to protect animals and to support a transition toward animal-free research remains contested. This article examines how Switzerland and Finland embed and operationalise the 3Rs in law, and asks whether these legal frameworks meaningfully advance responsibility toward animals beyond procedural compliance, within their distinct legal, cultural, and societal frameworks for regulating the use of animals in research. Through a comparative legal analysis, the paper explores how different normative foundations are articulated in the regulation of animal research: Switzerland grounds protection in the constitutional concepts of animal dignity and welfare, whereas Finland, under EU law, relies on animal sentience and intrinsic value, combined with an explicit long-term objective of full replacement of live-animal procedures when scientifically possible. Drawing on an ethics of care perspective, the study examines not only formal legal standards, but also how legal structures frame and allocate responsibility, recognise animal vulnerability, and address continuity of care before, during, and after experiments. The analysis reveals that although both systems incorporate the 3Rs extensively, they remain largely confined to regulating experimental procedures and only partially address breeding, surplus animals, and post-study responsibilities. The paper argues that without clearer legal hierarchies, stronger institutional accountability, and an explicit transition strategy toward non-animal methods, the 3Rs risk functioning primarily as a refinement tool rather than as a genuine framework for structural change, that enables a transition beyond animal-based research.