Points to consider during retrospective review
Assessing actual versus predicted harms and benefits and informing future work
Have the researchers explained progress with the project so far, and is it as anticipated?
Are the actual adverse effects on the animals, and the numbers used, in line with predictions? Has the ERB
explored the reasons for any differences and proposed actions if adverse effects are greater than expected?
Do the research team and the ERB feel that the particular animal models and study designs are still the
most appropriate for achieving the aims of the project?
Has the ERB discussed with the research team whether there are any recent developments in science or
technology that could influence the future direction or conduct of the work, especially any developments
that might help to avoid or replace the use of animals in some or all of the project, or cause less suffering?
Have any wider ethical issues arisen during the project (e.g. concerns about use of particular species or
in work carried out in association with research teams abroad), and what steps does the institution plan to
take to respond to these issues in future?
Enhancing implementation of the 3Rs
Has the review process revealed any additional possibilities for implementing the 3Rs in the project
(e.g. refinement of housing and husbandry or experimental procedures, or experimental design)? If so,
have appropriate actions been agreed within the research team?
Is everyone satisfied that welfare monitoring systems and processes are working well and that humane
end-points are as refined as possible?
Has the supply and use of animals been balanced so that none are wasted?
Have any special housing and care needs arisen? If so, how have these been addressed?
Are there examples of good practice or implementation of the 3Rs that it would be beneficial to communicate
to other research teams either internally or externally?
Optimising project management
Are the researchers, animal care staff and others satisfied that facilities for procedures and animal housing
and care are still appropriate for the work? Are there any difficulties that need addressing?
Does there seem to be good communication between the animal care staff, veterinarians and the
researchers working on the project particularly regarding any concerns between animal care and scientific
staff? Has the ERB helped to address these?
Has the review process identified any additional needs for staff training or supervision?
Has the ERB helped to identify and plan for any future amendments to the project authorisation?
Have there been any particular developments or lessons learnt that should be communicated to others in