One of the main requirements of the current animal welfare legislation in Europe is to prove the necessity of performing a given experiment with animals. Thus, a study using animals should not proceed, if another scientifically reliable method is available to obtain the desired results that either avoids animal experiments altogether, minimises pain and suffering of animals or reduces the number of animals needed. Scientists are legally required to search the literature and other relevant sources for alternatives prior to any experimental study with animals. Access to information has become much easier since the introduction of the Internet as a standard tool. Today, a variety of online sources is available, e.g. web-based bibliographic databases and specialised web sites providing details about alternatives to animal studies. However, scientists still need to determine the most appropriate searching strategies, depending on the objectives of the relevant web sites and their own line of research. A critical discussion of this issue takes into account the objectives of both the information providers and the information retrieval systems.
European Council (1986). Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animal used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL358, 1–28.
2.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
3.
Animal Welfare Act of 25 May 1998. Federal Law Gazette I, 1105/Tierschutzgesetz. In der Bekanntmachung vom 24 May 1998, Bundesgesetzblatt I S. 1105.
4.
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Policy Manual, Policy #11 — Painful/Distressful Procedures — April 14, 1997. Web site http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/policy/policy11.pdf.
5.
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care Policy Manual, Policy #12 — Written Narrative for Alternatives to Painful Procedures — June 21, 2000. Web site http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/policy/policy11.pdf.
6.
SchatzB.R. (1997). Information retrieval in digital libraries: bringing search to the net. Science, New York275, 327–334.
7.
HakkinenP.J.B., & GreenD.K. (2002). Alternatives to animal testing: information resources via the Internet and World Wide Web. Toxicology173, 3–11.
8.
BottrillK. (1999). Searching for Information on Non-animal Replacement Alternatives. A Guide to Search Techniques, Databases and Specialised Resources, 52 pp. Nottingham, UK: FRAME.
9.
Janusch-RoiA., LibowitzL., GruneB., & KregerM. (2000). Alternative methods databases — specialised information sources on alternatives to support scientists and authorities responsible for granting project licences. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1731–1736. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
10.
LangleyG., BroadheadC., BottrillK., CombesR., EwbankR., HawkinsP., HubrechtR., JenningsM., NewmanC., RoweS., SoutheeJ., ToddM., & WardL. (1999). Accessing information on the reduction, refinement and replacement of animal experiments. ATLA27, 239–245.
11.
BoschertK. (2000). The Internet's impact on the Three Rs. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1441–1443. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
GruneB., HerrmannS., DörendahlA., SkolikS., Behnck-KnoblauS., BoxR., & SpielmannH. (2000). Die ZEBET-Datenbank über Alternativen zu Tierversuchen im Internet — ein konkreter Beitrag zum Tierschutz von Versuchstieren. ALTEX17, 127–133.
British indexing standard (BS3700: 1988). In Frequently Asked Questions About Indexing (ed. American Society of Indexers), Web site http://www.asindexing.org/site/indfaq.shtml.
16.
FiresteinK., & HartL. (2000). Unobtrusive study of animals in the wild: database search strategies. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1239–1246. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
17.
AllenT. (1997). On-line database and the WorldWide Web: What is available? What is missing? In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 483–490. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
18.
HartL.A., & WoodW.W. (2000). Facilitating compliance in bibliographic searching for alternatives: a model programme for developing local support. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1409–1414. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
19.
HugginsJ. (1994). Communication by keyword: enhanced distribution and retrieval of information about alternatives to animal testing. In Vitro Toxicology7, 369–375.
20.
BottrillK., & HugginsJ. (2000). Key words for use with alternatives. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1737–1739. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
21.
BottrillK. (2000). Three Rs information needs of scientists. In Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.E.), pp. 1401–1407. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
