Which scenario best illustrates an 'unnecessary duplication' concern during protocol review?

• A. The protocol proposes to reduce pain by admin analgesia.
• B. The study uses animals when the same question could be answered with existing data or non-animal methods.
• C. The proposal includes a new species not previously studied.
• D. The proposed numbers are high due to statistical power.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is avoiding unnecessary repetition of animal experiments—using animals to answer a question when existing data or non-animal methods could do it. This is a key part of reducing animal use and aligning with the goal of Replacement where possible. When a protocol would study something that’s already well answered by prior data, or could be addressed with computer models, literature data, or in vitro methods, proceeding with animal work would be duplicative and wasteful. So this scenario best captures the concern because it targets redundancy and the ethical imperative to minimize animal use.

Analgesia for pain relief focuses on refining welfare during procedures, not on duplicating prior knowledge. Introducing a new species expands or adds to knowledge rather than duplicating what’s already known. A plan with very high animal numbers aimed at statistical power concerns the design and resource use, but it doesn’t inherently describe duplicating an already-answerable question.