essay on experimental animals

Experimentation on Animals Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Presenting the case, author’s rebuttal, works cited.

The debate about experimentation on animals, though well documented in literature, is still endeavoring to free itself from past controversies and current challenges.

This particular debate have attracted many advocates and critics, each advancing valid reasons as to whether it is morally, scientifically and logically right to subject animals to experimentation (Horner & Minifie 304). Experimentation on animals has indeed been very beneficial in medical fields.

However, it has been observed that animals suffer a great deal in the course of these experiments. It is against this background that this essay aims to expand on the debate about experimentation on animals with an aim to come up with a well-reasoned framework that could be used to offer direction on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of these experiments in modern times.

One of the reasons used by those who advocate for the use of animals in experiments is that these experiments progress important scientific knowledge that will in the long-term benefit humans as well as animals (Horner & Minifie 316). Indeed, supporters have for a very long time recognized the intrinsic value of conducting medical research with animals, especially in finding solutions to medical conditions that continue to affect mankind.

From a moral standpoint, advocates of using animals for biomedical research suggests that it is indeed morally wrong to permit people and animals to succumb to various forms of injuries and ailments when remedies and cures can be easily discovered through animal research (ILAR 1; Horner & Minifie 317).

However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.

In this perspective, the critics argue that it is morally and spiritually wrong to cause pain and suffering for the benefit of mankind (Festing 569). In addition, the critics argue that universally acceptable benchmarks to adequately measure and control pain while subjecting animals to scientific experiments are non-existent.

Another reason espoused by supporters of experimenting with animals is that humans are susceptible to many of the same disease-causing organisms that affect animals. Current literature indeed demonstrates that “…humans have 65 infectious diseases in common with dogs, 50 with cattle, 46 with sheep and goats, 42 with pigs, 35 with horses, and 26 with fowl” (ILAR 4).

In addition, some communicable diseases such as rabies and malaria can be transmitted between animals and humans, not mentioning that other diseases such as hemophilia, diabetes, and epilepsy are common in both humans and animals. Animals are also vulnerable to a multiplicity of the same bacterial or viral infections as humans, such as anthrax and smallpox (ILAR 6).

Indeed, current literature reveals that some of the “…medical advances that have been dependent on the use of animals in their development include safe anesthetics, blood transfusions, penicillin and other antibiotics, vaccines against polio, measles and meningitis, and drugs to treat asthma, hypertension and leukemia” (Festing 570).

As such, advocates argue that it is imperative to use animals in biomedical experiments to have a better understanding of how these diseases evolve as well as their prevention and treatment modalities.

To expand on the above point, advocates of experimenting with animals propose that an animal is selected as an ‘animal model’ for biomedical studies only if it inherently shares similar characteristics with humans that are of relevance to the study (ILAR 6).

This, according to the advocates, should remove any pragmatic or moral concerns related to subjecting animals to the experiments for futile outcomes. Louis Pasteur, for instance, made use of dogs as an animal model for the purposes of studying rabies – a disease that is common in both humans and dogs.

His scientific experiment facilitated the development of a rabies vaccine primarily because dogs and humans can both develop rabies, not mentioning the fact that the immune systems of dogs and humans display similar reactions when exposed to the rabies vaccine (ILAR 6).

Critics, however, have argued that it serves no purpose to use animals as research subjects merely because they share the same diseases with humans (Horner & Minifie 318). On the contrary, scientists should use available knowledge on such diseases to search for treatment procedures using other non-animal or computer-generated models instead of struggling for a cure by subjecting another living creature to untold pain and suffering.

In addition, critics argue that the western, reductionist, scientific world is not necessary interested in discovering new forms of treatment through subjecting animals to biomedical research for the sake of mankind; rather, many scientists and organizations engage in animal experimentation in the pursuit of profit (Van Roten 539). This, according to the critics, is morally, legally and scientifically wrong.

The last reason advanced by proponents as to why experimentation on animals should continue is that animals pose minimal risks as compared to humans when it comes to testing the efficacy or efficiency of the scientific discoveries (Van Roten 538). This assertion goes hand in hand with the religious perspective of creation, which offers man dominion over all animal and plant species.

The argument also draws its strength from the moral paradigm that insinuates that it is not in the best interests of man to cause harm to fellow humans for the purpose of developing a treatment strategy aimed primarily at avoiding harm or destruction to penetrate through the realms of mankind.

In layman’s term, this assertion means that it serves no purpose to harm humans for the sake of coming up with a strategy aimed at preventing such harm. In consequence, animals come into the equation as the worthy alternatives not necessarily for man’s progression, but also for their own (Horner & Minifie 319). However, critics are quick to reject the notion of dominion of people over nature and animals, further stressing that animals have their own intrinsic value and rights that should be respected by all humans (Von Roten 539).

It is wrong to abandon experimenting on animals merely because critics and other animal activists argue that experimenting with animals in scientific research subjects them to a lot of pain and suffering. This is because the benefits accruing from such research not only benefit humans but also the animals that become inflicted by the same diseases that affect humans.

As much as it is known that some animals do suffer in research, the issue really should revolve around refining experimental processes aimed at curtailing animal pain and suffering through the use of proper restraint techniques, effective anesthetics, and acceptable dosing and euthanasia methodologies, among others (Horner & Minifie 319). It is important to note that animal experimentation progresses significant scientific knowledge aimed at benefiting both humans and animals.

The assertion by critics that it serves no purpose to use animals as research subjects merely because they share the same diseases with humans simply does not hold water. A world without vaccines, anesthetics and antibiotics is unimaginable, and these scientific breakthroughs came as a direct result of the interaction between scientists and animal research subjects (ILAR 6).

In addition, it should be realized that just as an individual undergo suffering when they become inflicted with diseases such as malaria or rabies, animals also do undergo a lot of suffering when they get inflicted by the same or common diseases. The best way forward, therefore, is to use the animals to come up with better treatment procedures for both animals and humans while maintaining the highest animal welfare standards to curtail suffering.

Lastly, it clearly serves no purpose for critics to equate animal rights with human rights in addition to rejecting the assertion on man’s domination over the animals (Von Roten 539). It is indeed true that animals have their own intrinsic values and rights which should of course be respected.

One of such right is that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary or avoidable pain and suffering, particularly for profit gain. But just as it is a violation of animal rights to cause pain and suffering to animals for profit gain on the part of humans, it is also morally unacceptable to let people suffer the consequences of diseases by not making use of animals in experiments aimed at developing superior treatment regimens to cure the ailments.

Claims and counterclaims have been floated in this paper in regards to the broad topic of experimentation on animals. From the discussion, it is evidently clear that the merits for undertaking animal experimentation for scientific gain, especially in-terms of developing treatments and cures for diseases that continue to affect both humans and animals, far outweighs the merits provided by critics against the practice.

The fact that animals should be treated with care, respect and dignity is unquestionable, and so is the fact that they should be used for bio-medical reasons so as to counteract the various forms of medical conditions affecting both humans and animals.

This conclusion synchronizes well with many public opinion polls that have dependably revealed that a majority of people around the world endorse the use of animals for scientific as well as medical gains (ILAR 1). However, it should be noted that such use should not cause unnecessary or avoidable pain and suffering to animals.

Festing, S. The Animal Research Debate. Political Quarterly 76.4 (2005): 568-572. Web.

Horner, J., & Minifie, F.D. Research Ethics 1: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) – Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 54.1 (2011): 303-329. Web.

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Science, Medicine, and Animals. 2004. Web.

Von Roten, F.C. Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation: Trend and Explanatory Factors. Social Science Quarterly 89.2 (2008): 537-549. Web.

• Defining and Enforcing Laws Against Animal Abuse
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved
• Ethics and Self-Experimentation Argument
• Louis Pasteur's Epidemiology and Vaccinations
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against
• The Singer Solution to World Poverty
• The Dangers of Using Cell Phone While Driving
• Save the Children (UNICEF)
• What the Founders Meant by the First Amendment?
• Performative Culture: Taiwan Pride
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Experimentation on Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/

"Experimentation on Animals." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Experimentation on Animals'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

1. IvyPanda . "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

• Newsletters

Peter Singer: Are experiments on animals ethically justifiable?

Petra Stock

Professor Peter Singer does not take an absolutist position on the ethics of using animals in scientific research. 

The world-renowned ethicist and philosopher, based at Princeton University in the US, has been revisiting the issue of experimentation on animals, in updating and republishing his most famous book –  Animal Liberation Now – after more than 40 years.

In the book, Singer writes: “it will not do to say ‘Never!’” when it comes to scientific and medical research. 

In conversation with  Cosmos ,   Singer clarifies. He says there may be examples of lifesaving research, where even after giving full weight to the interests of animals, the research might still be justified by the very large number of people who will benefit, if it comes off – if there are genuinely no alternatives. 

“But I think it’s quite rare, and I don’t think the system that we have of assessing experiments is really rigorous enough to allow only those sorts of experiments to pass.”

Much of the research on animals today is not about developing life-saving drugs, he says. A lot of the substances being tested are not essential. They might be a new sunscreen or cleaning agent, or a rival pharmaceutical company working on an alternative to a tried-and-tested medicine in order to gain a slice of that lucrative market.

“A very substantial proportion of the research that is done on animals, is not for urgent, lifesaving conditions, and would not be justified if we were to consider the interests of the animals in a serious and significant way, as I think we should,” he says.

It continues to take place, he says, “because the animals become tools for research. The experimenter has no problem ordering another batch of a couple of 100 mice to do research on. I think that’s the problem.”

Significant numbers of animals are used in scientific and medical research in Australia and other countries. Based on available data, Singer’s book estimates as many as 15.6 million animals are experimented on in the US, and more than 52 million in China. 

“A very substantial proportion of the research that is done on animals, is not for urgent, lifesaving conditions, and would not be justified if we were to consider the interests of the animals in a serious and significant way, as I think we should.” Peter Singer

As  Cosmos  has previously reported , some 700,000 mice and 30,000 rats are used in research in Australia based on statistics from 3 states. Advocates say the national figure is likely in excess of 1 million rodents, in addition to other laboratory animals. 

In Australia, all research involving animals is required to seek approval through Animal Ethics Committees and must consider the “3Rs” of replacement, reduction and refinement.

Singer says he has previously served on an animal ethics committee at Monash University. He believes that while there is some value in the process, it doesn’t go far enough.

Lab rats and science mice: Why are we using animals in research?

“Too often the majority of the committee are scientists already trained and set in that way of doing research,” he says.

That makes it hard for researchers to see the alternatives, even though that could potentially lead to better scientific outcomes.

In his book, Singer highlights problems relating to the transferability of animal research. He quotes Richard Klausner, a former director of the US National Cancer Institute as saying: “We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans”.

Speaking with  Cosmos , Singer mentions a presentation from the 12 th  World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, an event at which he delivered the closing address.

Researchers in Canada tested substances on laboratory mice housed in two different set ups. One group of mice were kept in the standard way, in small containers the size of a shoebox, with a grid on top and bright lights, which he describes as “quite stressful conditions for mice”.

Meanwhile another group of mice were housed in quarters more suitable to their nature, with places they could hide, and tunnels to run through.

“The basic question is, are these animals who can suffer?” Peter Singer

Singer says, the researchers found when they tested substances on two groups, they got quite different reactions depending on the conditions the mice were kept in. 

This raises questions about the veracity of experimental results involving animals like mice, already stressed by the laboratory environment and practices.

Do mice and rats deserve greater ethical consideration in science? 

“The basic question is, are these animals who can suffer?,” Singer replies.

He says there’s no doubt that mice and rats – which represent the majority of laboratory animals used in science and research – can suffer. They’re mammals, vertebrates, with the same basic nervous system and brains like humans, albeit significantly smaller.

“In some respects, because they don’t understand this situation, things may be more terrifying to them than they would be to us,” he says.

“I certainly think that they count.”

Originally published by Cosmos as Peter Singer: Are experiments on animals ethically justifiable?

Please login to favourite this article.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Contributed equally to this work with: Kai Diederich, Kathrin Schmitt

Affiliation German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), Berlin, Germany

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Kai Diederich, 
• Kathrin Schmitt, 
• Philipp Schwedhelm, 
• Bettina Bert, 
• Céline Heinl

Published: September 15, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810
• Reader Comments

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Citation: Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C (2022) A guide to open science practices for animal research. PLoS Biol 20(9): e3001810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810

Copyright: © 2022 Diederich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors are employed at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and part of the German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R) which developed and hosts animalstudyregistry.org , a preregistration platform for animal studies and animaltestinfo.de, a database for non-technical project summaries (NTS) of approved animal study protocols within Germany.

Abbreviations: CC, Creative Commons; CIRS-LAS, critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science; COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals; DOI, digital object identifier; EDA, Experimental Design Assistant; ELN, electronic laboratory notebook; EU, European Union; IMSR, International Mouse Strain Resource; JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee; LIMS, laboratory information management system; MGI, Mouse Genome Informatics; NC3Rs, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; NTS, non-technical summary; RRID, Research Resource Identifier

Introduction

Over the past decade, the quality of published scientific literature has been repeatedly called into question by the failure of large replication studies or meta-analyses to demonstrate sufficient translation from experimental research into clinical successes [ 1 – 5 ]. At the same time, the open science movement has gained more and more advocates across various research areas. By sharing all of the information collected during the research process with colleagues and with the public, scientists can improve collaborations within their field and increase the reproducibility and trustworthiness of their work [ 6 ]. Thus, the International Reproducibility Networks have called for more open research [ 7 ].

However, open science practices have not been adopted to the same degree in all research areas. In psychology, which was strongly affected by the so-called reproducibility crisis, the open science movement initiated real practical changes leading to a broad implementation of practices such as preregistration or sharing of data and material [ 8 – 10 ]. By contrast, biomedical research is still lagging behind. Open science might be of high value for research in general, but in translational biomedical research, it is an ethical obligation. It is the responsibility of the scientist to transparently share all data collected to ensure that clinical research can adequately evaluate the risks and benefits of a potential treatment. When Russell and Burch published “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” in 1959, scientists started to implement their 3Rs principle to answer the ethical dilemma of animal welfare in the face of scientific progress [ 11 ]. By replacing animal experiments wherever possible, reducing the number of animals to a strict minimum, and refining the procedures where animals have still to be used, this ethical dilemma was addressed. However, in recent years, whether the 3Rs principle is sufficient to fully address ethical concerns about animal experiments has been questioned [ 12 ].

Most people tolerate the use of animals for scientific purposes only under the basic assumption that the knowledge gained will advance research in crucial areas. This implies that performed experiments are reported in a way that enables peers to benefit from the collected data. However, recent studies suggest that a large proportion of animal experiments are never actually published. For example, scientists working within the European Union (EU) have to write an animal study protocol for approval by the competent authorities of the respective country before performing an animal experiment [ 13 ]. In these protocols, scientists have to describe the planned study and justify every animal required for the project. By searching for publications resulting from approved animal study protocols from 2 German University Medical Centers, Wieschowski and colleagues found that only 53% of approved protocols led to a publication after 6 years [ 14 ]. Using a similar approach, Van der Naald and colleagues determined a publication rate of 60% at the Utrecht Medical Center [ 15 ]. In a follow-up survey, the respective researchers named so-called “negative” or null-hypothesis results as the main cause for not publishing outcomes [ 15 ]. The current scientific system is shaped by publishers, funders, and institutions and motivates scientists to publish novel, surprising, and positive results, revealing one of the many structural problems that the numerous efforts towards open science initiatives are targeting. Non-publication not only strongly contradicts ethical values, but also it compromises the quality of published literature by leading to overestimation of effect sizes [ 16 , 17 ]. Furthermore, publications of animal studies too often show poor reporting that strongly impairs the reproducibility, validity, and usefulness of the results [ 18 ]. Unfortunately, the idea that negative or equivocal findings can also contribute to the gain of scientific knowledge is frequently neglected.

So far, the scientific community using animals has shown limited resonance to the open science movement. Due to the strong controversy surrounding animal experiments, scientists have been reluctant to share information on the topic. Additionally, translational research is highly competitive and researchers tend to be secretive about their ideas until they are ready for publication or patent [ 19 , 20 ]. However, this missing openness could also point to a lack of knowledge and training on the many open science options that are available and suitable for animal research. Researchers have to be convinced of the benefits of open science practices, not only for science in general, but also for the individual researcher and each single animal. Yet, the key players in the research system are already starting to value open science practices. An increasing number of journals request open sharing of data, funders pay for open access publications and institutions consider open science practices in hiring decisions. Open science practices can improve the quality of work by enabling valuable scientific input from peers at the early stages of research projects. Furthermore, the extended communication that open science practices offer can draw attention to research and help to expand networks of collaborators and lead to new project opportunities or follow-up positions. Thus, open science practices can be a driver for careers in academia, particularly those of early career researchers.

Beyond these personal benefits, improving transparency in translational biomedical research can boost scientific progress in general. By bringing to light all the recorded research outputs that until now have remained hidden, the publication bias and the overestimation of effect sizes can be reduced [ 17 ]. Large-scale sharing of data can help to synthesize research outputs in preclinical research that will enable better decision-making for clinical research. Disclosing the whole research process will help to uncover systematic problems and support scientists in thoroughly planning their studies. In the long run, we predict that the implementation of open science practices will lead to the use of fewer animals in unintentionally repeated experiments that previously showed unreported negative results or in the establishment of methods by avoiding experimental dead ends that are often not published. More collaborations and sharing of materials and methods can further reduce the number of animal experiments used for the implementation of new techniques.

Open science can and should be implemented at each step of the research process ( Fig 1 ). A vast number of tools are already provided that were either directly conceptualized for animal research or can be adapted easily. In this Essay, we provide an overview of open science tools that improve transparency, reliability, and animal welfare in translational in vivo biomedical research by supporting scientists to clearly communicate their research and by supporting collaborative working. Table 1 lists the most prominent open science tools we discuss, together with their respective links. We have structured this Essay to guide you through which tools can be used at each stage of the research process, from planning and conducting experiments, through to analyzing data and communicating the results. However, many of these tools can be used at many different steps. Table 1 has been deposited on Zenodo and will be updated continuously [ 21 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Application of open science practices at each step of the research process can maximize the impact of performed animal experiments. The implementation of these practices will lead to less time pressure at the end of a project. Due to the connection of most of these open science practices, spending more time in the planning phase and during the conduction of experiments will save time during the data analysis and publication of the study. Indeed, consulting reporting guidelines early on, preregistering a statistical plan, and writing down crucial experimental details in an electronic lab notebook, will strongly accelerate the writing of a manuscript. If protocols or even electronic lab notebooks were made public, just citing these would simplify the writing of publications. Similarly, if a data management plan is well designed before starting data collection, analyzing, and depositing data in a public repository, as is increasingly required, will be fast. NTS, non-technical summary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.t001

Planning the study

Transparent practices can be adopted at every stage of the research process. However, to ensure full effectivity, it is highly recommended to engage in detailed planning before the start of the experiment. This can prevent valuable time from being lost at the end of the study due to careless decisions being made at the beginning. Clarifying data management at the start of a project can help avoiding filing chaos that can be very time consuming to untangle. Keeping clear track of a project and study design will also help if new colleagues are included later on in the project or if entire project parts are handed over. In addition, all texts written on the rationale and hypothesis of the study or method descriptions, or design schemes created during the planning phase can be used in the final publications ( Fig 1 ). Similarly, information required for preregistration of animal studies or for reporting according to the ARRIVE guidelines are an extension of the details required for ethical approval [ 22 , 23 ]. Thus, the time burden within the planning phase is often overestimated. Furthermore, the thorough planning of experiments can avoid the unnecessary use of animals by preventing wrong avenues from being pursued.

Implementing open scientific practices at the beginning of a project does not mean that the idea and study plan must be shared immediately, but rather is critical for making the entire workflow transparent at the end of the project. However, optional early sharing of information can enable peers to give feedback on the study plan. Studies potentially benefit more from this a priori input than they would from the classical a posteriori peer-review process.

Most people perceive guidelines as advice that instructs on how to do something. However, it is sometimes useful to consider the term in its original meaning; “the line that guides us”. In this sense, following guidelines is not simply fulfilling a duty, but is a process that can help to design a sound research study and, as such, guidelines should be consulted at the planning stage of a project. The PREPARE guidelines are a list of important points that should be thought-out before starting a study involving animal experiments in order to reduce the waste of animals, promote alternatives, and increase the reproducibility of research and testing [ 24 ]. The PREPARE checklist helps to thoroughly plan a study and focuses on improving the communication and collaboration between all involved participants of the study (i.e., animal caretakers and scientists). Indeed, open science begins with the communication within a research facility. It is currently available in 33 languages and the responsible team from Norecopa, Norway’s 3R-center, takes requests for translations into further languages.

The UK Reproducibility Network has also published several guiding documents (primers) on important topics for open and reproducible science. These address issues such as data sharing [ 25 ], open access [ 26 ], open code and software [ 27 ], and preprints [ 28 ], as well as preregistration and registered reports [ 27 ]. Consultation of these primers is not only helpful in the relevant phases of the experiment but is also encouraged in the planning phase.

Although the ARRIVE guidelines are primarily a reporting guideline specifically designed for preparing a publication containing animal data, they can also support researchers when planning their experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. Going through the ARRIVE website, researchers will find tools and explanations that can support them in planning their experiments [ 29 ]. Consulting the ARRIVE checklist at the beginning of a project can help in deciding what details need to be documented during conduction of the experiments. This is particularly advisable, given that compliance to ARRIVE is still poor [ 18 ].

Experimental design

To maximize the validity of performed experiments and the knowledge gained, designing the study well is crucial. It is important that the chosen animal species reflects the investigated disease well and that basic characteristics of the animal, such as sex or age, are considered carefully [ 30 ]. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provides a collection of resources on the integration of sex and gender in biomedical research with animals, including tips and tools for researchers and reviewers [ 31 ]. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid unnecessary standardization of biological and environmental factors that can reduce the external validity of results [ 32 ]. Meticulous statistical planning can further optimize the use of animals. Free to use online tools for calculating sample sizes such as G*Power or the inVivo software package for R can further support animal researchers in designing their statistical plan [ 33 , 34 ]. Randomization for the allocation of groups can be supported with specific tools for scientists like Research Randomizer, but also by simple online random number generators [ 35 ]. Furthermore, it might be advisable when designing the study to incorporate pathological analyses into the experimental plan. Optimal planning of tissue collection, performance of pathological procedures according to accepted best practices, and use of optimal pathological analysis and reporting methods can add some extra knowledge that would otherwise be lost. This can improve the reproducibility and quality of translational biomedicine, especially, but not exclusively, in animal studies with morphological endpoints. In all animal studies, unexpected deaths in experimental animals can occur and be the cause of lost data or missed opportunities to identify health problems [ 36 , 37 ].

To support researchers in designing their animal research, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has also developed the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) [ 38 , 39 ]. This online tool helps researchers to better structure in vivo research by creating detailed schemes of the study design. It provides feedback on the entered design, drawing researcher’s attention to crucial decisions in the project. The resulting schemes can be used to transparently share the study design by uploading it into a study preregistration, enclosing it in a grant application, or submitting it with a final manuscript. The EDA can be used for different study designs in diverse scenarios and helps to communicate researcher plans to others [ 40 ]. The EDA might be particularly of interest to clarify very complex study designs involving multiple experimental groups. Working with the EDA might appear rather complex in the beginning, but the NC3R provides regular webinars that can help to answer any questions that arise.

Preregistration

Preregistration is an effective tool to improve the quality and transparency of research. To preregister their work, scientists must determine crucial details of the study before starting any experiment. Changes occurring during a study can be outlined at the end. A preregistered study plan should include at least the hypothesis and determine all the parameters that are known in advance. A description of the planned study design and statistical analysis will enable reviewers and peers to better retrace the workflow. It can prevent the intentional use of the flexibility of analysis to reach p -values under a certain significance level (e.g., p-hacking or HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)). With preregistration, scientists can also claim their idea at an early stage of their research with a citable individual identifier that labels the idea as their own. Some open preregistration platforms also provide a digital object identifier (DOI), which makes the registered study citable. Three public registries actively encourage the preregistration of animal studies conducted around the world: OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org [ 41 – 45 ]. Scientists can choose the registry according to their needs. Preregistering a study in a public registry supports scientists in planning their study and later to critically reevaluate their own work and assess its limitations and potentials.

As an alternative to public registries, researchers can also submit their study plan to one of hundreds of journals already publishing registered reports, including many journals open to animal research [ 8 ]. A submitted registered report passes 2 steps of peer review. In the first step, reviewers comment on the idea and the study design. After an “in-principle-acceptance,” researchers can conduct their study as planned. If the authors conduct the experiments as described in the accepted study protocol, the journal will publish the final study regardless of the outcome. This might be an attractive option, especially for early career researchers, as a manuscript is published at the beginning of a project with the guarantee of a future final publication.

The benefits of preregistration can already be observed in clinical research, where registration has been mandatory for most trials for more than 20 years. Preregistration in clinical research has helped to make known what has been tested and not just what worked and was published, and the implementation of trial registration has strongly reduced the number of publications reporting significant treatment effects [ 46 ]. In animal research, with its unrealistically high percentage of positive results, preregistration seems to be particularly worthwhile.

Research data management

To get the most out of performed animal experiments, effective sharing of data at the end of the study is essential. Sharing research data optimally is complex and needs to be prepared in advance. Thus, data management can be seen as one part of planning a study thoroughly. Many funders have recognized the value of the original research data and request a data management plan from applicants in advance [ 25 , 47 ]. Various freely available tools such as DMPTool or DMPonline already exist to design a research data management plan that complies to the requirements of different funders [ 48 , 49 ]. The data management plan defines the types of data collected and describes the handling and names responsible persons throughout the data lifecycle. This includes collecting the data, analyzing, archiving, and sharing it. Finally, a data management plan enables long-term access and the possibility for reuse by peers. Developing such a plan, whether it is required by funders or not, will later simplify the application of the FAIR data principle (see section on the FAIR data principle). The Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group from the Harvard Medical School developed a checklist to assist researchers in optimally managing their data throughout the data lifecycle [ 50 ]. Similarly, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provides a great research data management toolkit including a checklist for researchers planning their project [ 51 ]. Consulting this checklist in the planning phase of a project can prevent common errors in research data management.

Non-technical project summary

One instrument specifically conceived to create transparency on animal research for the general public is the so-called non-technical project summary (NTS). All animal protocols approved within the EU must be accompanied by these comprehensible summaries. NTSs are intended to inform the public about ongoing animal experiments. They are anonymous and include information on the objectives and potential benefits of the project, the expected harm, the number of animals, the species, and a statement of compliance with the requirements of the 3Rs principle. However, beyond simply informing the public, NTSs can also be used for meta-research to help identify new research areas with an increased need for new 3R technologies [ 52 , 53 ]. NTSs become an excellent tool to appropriately communicate the scientific value of the approved protocol and for meta-scientists to generate added value by systematically analyzing theses summaries if they fulfill a minimum quality threshold [ 54 , 55 ]. In 2021, the EU launched the ALURES platform ( Table 1 ), where NTSs from all member states are published together, opening the opportunities for EU-wide meta-research. NTSs are, in contrast to other open science practices, mandatory in the EU. However, instead of thinking of them as an annoying duty, it might be worth thoroughly drafting the NTS to support the goals of more transparency towards the public, enabling an open dialogue and reducing extreme opinions.

Conducting the experiments

Once the experiments begin, documentation of all necessary details is essential to ensure the transparency of the workflow. This includes methodological details that are crucial for replicating experiments, but also failed attempts that could help peers to avoid experiments that do not work in the future. All information should be stored in such a way that it can be found easily and shared later. In this area, many new tools have emerged in recent years ( Table 1 ). These tools will not only make research transparent for colleagues, but also help to keep track of one’s own research and improve internal collaboration.

Electronic laboratory notebooks

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are an important pillar of research data management and open science. ELNs facilitate the structured and harmonized documentation of the data generation workflow, ensure data integrity, and keep track of all modifications made to the original data based on an audit trail option. Moreover, ELNs simplify the sharing of data and support collaborations within and outside the research group. Methodological details and research data become searchable and traceable. There is an extensive amount of literature providing advice on the selection and the implementation process of an ELN depending on the specific needs and research area and its discussion would be beyond the scope of this Essay [ 56 – 58 ]. Some ELNs are connected to a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that provides an animal module supporting the tracking of animal details [ 59 ]. But as research involving animals is highly heterogeneous, this might not be the only decision point and we cannot recommend a specific ELN that is suitable for all animal research.

ELNs are already established in the pharmaceutical industry and their use is on the rise among academics as well. However, due to concerns around costs for licenses, data security, and loss of flexibility, many research institutions still fear the expenses that the introduction of such a system would incur [ 56 ]. Nevertheless, an increasing number of academic institutions are implementing ELNs and appreciating the associated benefits [ 60 ]. If your institution already has an ELN, it might be easiest to just use the option available in the research environment. If not, the Harvard Medical School provides an extensive and updated overview of various features of different ELNs that can support scientists in choosing the appropriate one for their research [ 61 ]. There are many commercial ELN products, which may be preferred when the administrative workload should be outsourced to a large extent. However, open-source products such as eLabFTW or open BIS provide a greater opportunity for customization to meet specific needs of individual research institutions [ 62 – 64 ]. A huge number of options are available depending on the resources and the features required. Some scientists might prefer generic note taking tools such as Evernote or just a simple Word document that offers infinite flexibility, but specific ELNs can further support good record keeping practice by providing immutability, automated backups, standardized methods, and protocols to follow. Clearly defining the specific requirements expected might help to choose an adequate system that would improve the quality of the record compared to classical paper laboratory notebooks.

Sharing protocols

Adequate sharing of methods in translational biomedical sciences is key to reproducibility. Several repositories exist that simplify the publication and exchange of protocols. Writing down methods at the end of the project bears the risk that crucial details might be missing [ 65 ]. On protocols.io, scientists can note all methodological details of a procedure, complete them with uploaded documents, and keep them for personal use or share them with collaborators [ 66 ]. Authors can also decide at any point in time to make their protocol public. Protocols published on protocols.io receive a DOI and become citable; they can be commented on by peers and adapted according to the needs of the individual researcher. Protocol.io files from established protocols can also be submitted together with some context and sample datasets to PLOS ONE , where it can be peer-reviewed and potentially published [ 67 , 68 ]. Depending on the affiliation of the researchers to academia or industry and on an internal or public sharing of files, protocols.io can be free of charge or come with costs. Other journals also encourage their authors to deposit their protocols in a freely accessible repository, such as protocol exchange from Nature portfolio [ 69 ]. Another option might be to separately submit a protocol that was validated by its use in an already published research article to an online and peer-reviewed journal specific for research protocols, such as Bio-Protocol. A multitude of journals, including eLife and Science already collaborate with Bio-Protocol and recommend authors to publish the method in Bio-Protocol [ 70 ]. Bio-Protocol has no submission fees and is freely available to all readers. Both protocols.io and Bio-Protocol allow the illustration of complex scientific methods by uploading videos to published protocols. In addition, protocols can be deposited in a general research repository such as the Open Science Framework (OSF repository) and referenced in appropriate publications.

Sharing critical incidents

Sharing critical or even adverse events that occur in the context of animal experimentation can help other scientists to avoid committing the same mistakes. The system of sharing critical incidents is already established in clinical practice and helps to improve medical care [ 71 , 72 ]. The online platform critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science (CIRS-LAS) represents the first preclinical equivalent to these clinical systems [ 73 ]. With this web-based tool, critical incidents in animal research can be reported anonymously without registration. An expert panel helps to analyze the incident to encourage an open dialogue. Critical incident reporting is still very marginal in animal research and performed procedures are very variable. These factors make a systemic analysis and a targeted search of incidence difficult. However, it may be of special interest for methods that are broadly used in animal research such as anesthesia. Indeed, a broad feed of this system with data on errors occurring in standard procedures today could help avoid critical incidences in the future and refine animal experiments.

Sharing animals, organs, and tissue

When we think about open science, sharing results and data are often in focus. However, sharing material is also part of a collaborative and open research culture that could help to greatly reduce the number of experimental animals used. When an animal is killed to obtain specific tissue or organs, the remainder is mostly discarded. This may constitute a wasteful practice, as surplus tissue can be used by other researchers for different analyses. More animals are currently killed as surplus than are used in experiments, demonstrating the potential for sharing these animals [ 74 , 75 ].

Sharing information on generated surplus is therefore not only economical, but also an effective way to reduce the number of animals used for scientific purposes. The open-source software Anishare is a straightforward way for breeders of genetically modified lines to promote their surplus offspring or organs within an institution [ 76 ]. The database AniMatch ( Table 1 ) connects scientists within Europe who are offering tissue or organs with scientists seeking this material. Scientists already sharing animal organs can support this process by describing it in publications and making peers aware of this possibility [ 77 ]. Specialized research communities also allow sharing of animal tissue or animal-derived products worldwide that are typically used in these fields on a collaborative basis via the SEARCH-framework [ 78 , 79 ]. Depositing transgenic mice lines into one of several repositories for mouse strains can help to further minimize efforts in producing new transgenic lines and most importantly reduce the number of surplus animals by supporting the cryoconservation of mouse lines. The International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR) can be used to help find an adequate repository or to help scientists seeking a specific transgenic line find a match [ 80 ].

Analyzing the data

Animal researchers have to handle increasingly complex data. Imaging, electrophysiological recording, or automated behavioral tracking, for example, produce huge datasets. Data can be shared as raw numerical output but also as images, videos, sounds, or other forms from which raw numerical data can be generated. As the heterogeneity and the complexity of research data increases, infinite possibilities for analysis emerge. Transparently reporting how the data were processed will enable peers to better interpret reported results. To get the most out of performed animal experiments, it is crucial to allow other scientists to replicate the analysis and adapt it to their research questions. It is therefore highly recommended to use formats and tools during the analysis that allow a straightforward exchange of code and data later on.

Transparent coding

The use of non-transparent analysis codes have led to a lack of reproducibility of results [ 81 ]. Sharing code is essential for complex analysis and enables other researchers to reproduce results and perform follow-up studies, and citable code gives credit for the development of new algorithms ( Table 1 ). Jupyter Notebooks are a convenient way to share data science pipelines that may use a variety of coding languages, including like Python, R or Matlab, and also share the results of analyses in the form of tables, diagrams, images, and videos. Notebooks contain source code and can be published or collaboratively shared on platforms like GitHub or GitLab, where version control of source code is implemented. The data-archiving tool Zenodo can be used to archive a repository on GitHub and create a DOI for the archive. Thereby contents become citable. Using free and open-source programming language like R or Python will increase the number of potential researchers that can work with the published code. Best practice for research software is to publish the source code with a license that allows modification and redistribution.

Choice of data visualization

Choosing the right format for the visualization of data can increase its accessibility to a broad scientific audience and enable peers to better judge the validity of the results. Studies based on animal research often work with very small sample sizes. Visualizing these data in histograms may lead to an overestimation of the outcomes. Choosing the right dot plots that makes all recorded points visible and at the same time focusses on the summary instead of the individual points can further improve the intuitive understanding of a result. If the sample size is too low, it might not be meaningful to visualize error bars. A variety of freely available tools already exists that can support scientists in creating the most appropriate graphs for their data [ 82 ]. In particular, when representing microscopy results or heat maps, it should be kept in mind that a large part of the population cannot perceive the classical red and green representation [ 83 ]. Opting for the color-blind safe color maps and checking images with free tools such as color oracle ( Table 1 ) can increase the accessibility of graphs. Multiple journals have already addressed flaws in data visualization and have introduced new policies that will accelerate the uptake of transparent representation of results.

Publication of all study outcomes

Open science practices have received much attention in the past few years when it comes to publication of the results. However, it is important to emphasize that although open science tools have their greatest impact at the end of the project, good study preparation and sharing of the study plan and data early on can greatly increase the transparency at the end.

The FAIR data principle

To maximize the impact and outcome of a study, and to make the best long-term use of data generated through animal experiments, researchers should publish all data collected during their research according to the FAIR data principle. That means the data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The FAIR principle is thus an extension of open access publishing. Data should not only be published without paywalls or other access restrictions, but also in such a manner that they can be reused and further processed by others. For this, legal as well as technical requirements must be met by the data. To achieve this, the GoFAIR initiative has developed a set of principles that should be taken into account as early as at the data collection stage [ 49 , 84 ]. In addition to extensively described and machine-readable metadata, these principles include, for example, the application of globally persistent identifiers, the use of open file formats, and standardized communication protocols to ensure that humans and machines can easily download the data. A well-chosen repository to upload the data is then just the final step to publish FAIR data.

FAIR data can strongly increase the knowledge gained from performed animal experiments. Thus, the same data can be analyzed by different researchers and could be combined to obtain larger sample sizes, as already occurs in the neuroimaging community, which works with comparable datasets [ 85 ]. Furthermore, the sharing of data enables other researchers to analyze published datasets and estimate measurement reliabilities to optimize their own data collection [ 86 , 87 ]. This will help to improve the translation from animal research into clinics and simultaneously reduce the number of animal experiment in future.

Reporting guidelines

In preclinical research, the ARRIVE guidelines are the current state of the art when it comes to reporting data based on animal experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. The ARRIVE guidelines have been endorsed by more than 1,000 journals who ask that scientists comply with them when reporting their outcomes. Since the ARRIVE guidelines have not had the expected impact on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications, a more rigorous update has been developed to facilitate their application in practice (ARRIVE 2.0 [ 23 ]). We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines can be more effective if they are implemented at a very early stage of the project (see section on guidelines). Some more specialized reporting guidelines have also emerged for individual research fields that rely on animal studies, such as endodontology [ 88 ]. The equator network collects all guidelines and makes them easily findable with their search tool on their website ( Table 1 ). MERIDIAN also offers a 1-stop shop for all reporting guidelines involving the use of animals across all research sectors [ 89 ]. It is thus worth checking for new reporting guidelines before preparing a manuscript to maximize the transparency of described experiments.

Identifiers

Persistent identifiers for published work, authors, or resources are key for making public data findable by search engines and are thus a prerequisite for compliance to FAIR data principles. The most common identifier for publications will be a DOI, which makes the work citable. A DOI is a globally unique string assigned by the International DOI Foundation to identify content permanently and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. An ORCID ID is used as a personal persistent identifier and is recommendable to unmistakably identify an author ( Table 1 ). This will avoid confusions between authors with the same name or in the case of name changes or changes of affiliation. Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are unique ID numbers that help to transparently report research resources. RRID also apply to animals to clearly identify the species used. RRID help avoid confusion between different names or changing names of genetic lines and, importantly, make them machine findable. The RRID Portal helps scientists find a specific RRID or create one if necessary ( Table 1 ). In the context of genetically altered animal lines, correct naming is key. The Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) Database is the authoritative source of official names for mouse genes, alleles, and strains ([ 90 ]).

Preprint publication

Preprints have undergone unprecedented success, particularly during the height of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when the need for rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge was critical. The publication process for scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals usually requires a considerable amount of time, ranging from a few months to several years, mainly due to the lengthy review process and inefficient editorial procedures [ 91 , 92 ]. Preprints typically precede formal publication in scientific journals and, thus, do not go through a peer review process, thus, facilitating the prompt open dissemination of important scientific findings within the scientific community. However, submitted papers are usually screened and checked for plagiarism. Preprints are assigned a DOI so they can be cited. Once a preprint is published in a journal, its status is automatically updated on the preprint server. The preprint is linked to the publication via CrossRef and mentioned accordingly on the website of the respective preprint platform.

After initial skepticism, most publishers now allow papers to be posted on preprint servers prior to submission. An increasing number of journals even allow direct submission of a preprint to their peer review process. The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, among other funders, also encourage prepublication and permit researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications. There are now numerous preprint repositories for different scientific disciplines. BioASAP provides a searchable database for preprint servers that can help in identifying the one that best matches an individual’s needs [ 93 ]. The most popular repository for animal research is bioRxiv, which is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ( Table 1 ).

The early exchange of scientific results is particularly important for animal research. This acceleration of the publication process can help other scientists to adapt their research or could even prevent animal experiments if other scientists become aware that an experiment has already been done before starting their own. In addition, preprints can help to increase the visibility of research. Journal articles that have a corresponding preprint publication have higher citation and Altmetric counts than articles without preprint [ 94 ]. In addition, the publication of preprints can help to combat publication bias, which represents a major problem in animal research [ 16 ]. Since journals and readers prioritize cutting-edge studies with positive results over inconclusive or negative results, researchers are reluctant to invest time and money in a manuscript that is unlikely to be accepted in a high-impact journal.

In addition to the option of publishing as preprint, other alternative publication formats have recently been introduced to facilitate the publication of research results that are hard to publish in traditional peer-reviewed journals. These include micro publications, data repositories, data journals, publication platforms, and journals that focus on negative or inconclusive results. The tool fiddle can support scientists in choosing the right publication format [ 95 , 96 ].

Open access publication

Publishing open access is one of the most established open science strategies. In contrast to the FAIR data principle, the term open access publication refers usually to the publication of a manuscript on a platform that is accessible free of charge—in translational biomedical research, this is mostly in the form of a scientific journal article. Originally, publications accessible free of charge were the answer to the paywalls established by renowned publishing houses, which led to social inequalities within and outside the research system. In translational biomedical research, the ethical aspect of urgently needed transparency is another argument in favor of open access publication, as these studies will not only be findable, but also internationally readable.

There are different ways of open access publishing; the 2 main routes are gold open access and green open access. Numerous journals offer now gold open access. It refers to the immediate and fully accessible publication of an article. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) provides a complete and updated list for high-quality, open access, and peer-reviewed journals [ 97 ]. Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin offers a specific tool for biomedical open access journals that supports animal researchers to choose an appropriate journal [ 49 ]. In addition, the Sherpa Romeo platform is a straightforward way to identify publisher open access policies on a journal-by-journal basis, including information on preprints, but also on licensing of articles [ 51 ]. Hybrid open access refers to openly accessible articles in otherwise paywalled journals. By contrast, green open access refers to the publication of a manuscript or article in a repository that is mostly operated by institutions and/or universities. The publication can be exclusively on the repository or in combination with a publisher. In the quality-assured, global Directory of Open Access Repositories (openDOAR), scientists can find thousands of indexed open access repositories [ 49 ]. The publisher often sets an embargo during which the authors cannot make the publication available in the repository, which can restrict the combined model. It is worth mentioning that gold open access is usually more expensive for the authors, as they have to pay an article processing charge. However, the article’s outreach is usually much higher than the outreach of an article in a repository or available exclusively as subscription content [ 98 ]. Diamond open access refers to publications and publication platforms that can be read free of charge by anyone interested and for which no costs are incurred by the authors either. It is the simplest and fairest form of open access for all parties involved, as no one is prevented from participating in scientific discourse by payment barriers. For now, it is not as widespread as the other forms because publishers have to find alternative sources of revenue to cover their costs.

As social media and the researcher’s individual public outreach are becoming increasingly important, it should be remembered that the accessibility of a publication should not be confused with the licensing under which the publication is made available. In order to be able to share and reuse one’s own work in the future, we recommend looking for journals that allow publications under the Creative Commons licenses CC BY or CC BY-NC. This also allows the immediate combination of gold and green open access.

Creative commons licenses

Attributing Creative Commons (CC) licenses to scientific content can make research broadly available and clearly specifies the terms and conditions under which people can reuse and redistribute the intellectual property, namely publications and data, while giving the credit to whom it deserves [ 49 ]. As the laws on copyright vary from country to country and law texts are difficult to understand for outsiders, the CC licenses are designed to be easily understandable and are available in 41 languages. This way, users can easily avoid accidental misuse. The CC initiative developed a tool that enables researchers to find the license that best fits their interests [ 49 ]. Since the licenses are based on a modular concept ranging from relatively unrestricted licenses (CC BY, free to use, credit must be given) to more restricted licenses (CC BY-NC-ND, only free to share for non-commercial purposes, credit must be given), one can find an appropriate license even for the most sensitive content. Publishing under an open CC license will not only make the publication easy to access but can also help to increase its reach. It can stimulate other researchers and the interested public to share this article within their network and to make the best future use of it. Bear in mind that datasets published independently from an article may receive a different CC license. In terms of intellectual property, data are not protected in the same way as articles, which is why the CC initiative in the United Kingdom recommends publishing them under a CC0 (“no rights reserved”) license or the Public Domain Mark. This gives everybody the right to use the data freely. In an animal ethics sense, this is especially important in order to get the most out of data derived from animal experiments.

Data and code repositories

Sharing research data is essential to ensure reproducibility and to facilitate scientific progress. This is particularly true in animal research and the scientific community increasingly recognizes the value of sharing research data. However, even though there is increasing support for the sharing of data, researchers still perceive barriers when it comes to doing so in practice [ 99 – 101 ]. Many universities and research institutions have established research data repositories that provide continuous access to datasets in a trusted environment. Many of these data repositories are tied to specific research areas, geographic regions, or scientific institutions. Due to the growing number and overall heterogeneity of these repositories, it can be difficult for researchers, funding agencies, publishers, and academic institutions to identify appropriate repositories for storing and searching research data.

Recently, several web-based tools have been developed to help in the selection of a suitable repository. One example is Re3data, a global registry of research data repositories that includes repositories from various scientific disciplines. The extensive database can be searched by country, content (e.g., raw data, source code), and scientific discipline [ 49 ]. A similar tool to help find a data archive specific to the field is FAIRsharing, based at Oxford University [ 102 ]. If there is no appropriate subject-specific data repository or one seems unsuitable for the data, there are general data repositories, such as Open Science Framework, figshare, Dryad, or Zenodo. To ensure that data stored in a repository can be found, a DOI is assigned to the data. Choosing the right license for the deposited code and data ensures that authors get credit for their work.

Publication and connection of all outcomes

If scientists have used all available open science tools during the research process, then publishing and linking all outcomes represents the well-deserved harvest ( Fig 2 ). At the end of a research process, researchers will not just have 1 publication in a journal. Instead, they might have a preregistration, a preprint, a publication in a journal, a dataset, and a protocol. Connecting these outcomes in a way that enables other scientists to better assess the results that link these publications will be key. There are many examples of good open science practices in laboratory animal science, but we want to highlight one of them to show how this could be achieved. Blenkuš and colleagues investigated how mild stress-induced hyperthermia can be assessed non-invasively by thermography in mice [ 103 ]. The study was preregistered with animalstudyregistry.org , which is referred to in their publication [ 104 ]. A deviation from the originally preregistered hypothesis was explained in the manuscript and the supplementary material was uploaded to figshare [ 105 ].

Application of open science practices can increase the reproducibility and visibility of a research project at the same time. By publishing different research outputs with more detailed information than can be included in a journal article, researchers enable peers to replicate their work. Reporting according to guidelines and using transparent visualization will further improve this reproducibility. The more research products that are generated, the more credit can be attributed. By communicating on social media or additionally publishing slides from delivered talks or posters, more attention can be raised. Additionally, publishing open access and making the work machine-findable makes it accessible to an even broader number of peers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g002

It might also be helpful to provide all resources from a project in a single repository such as Open Science Framework, which also implements other, different tools that might have been used, like GitHub or protocols.io.

Communicating your research

Once all outcomes of the project are shared, it is time to address the targeted peers. Social media is an important instrument to connect research communities [ 106 ]. In particular, Twitter is an effective way to communicate research findings or related events to peers [ 107 ]. In addition, specialized platforms like ResearchGate can support the exchange of practical experiences ( Table 1 ). When all resources related to a project are kept in one place, sharing this link is a straightforward way to reach out to fellow scientists.

With the increasing number of publications, science communication has become more important in recent years. Transparent science that communicates openly with the public contributes to strengthening society’s trust in research.

Conclusions

Plenty of open science tools are already available and the number of tools is constantly growing. Translational biomedical researchers should seize this opportunity, as it could contribute to a significant improvement in the transparency of research and fulfil their ethical responsibility to maximize the impact of knowledge gained from animal experiments. Over and above this, open science practices also bear important direct benefits for the scientists themselves. Indeed, the implementation of these tools can increase the visibility of research and becomes increasingly important when applying for grants or in recruitment decisions. Already, more and more journals and funders require activities such as data sharing. Several institutions have established open science practices as evaluation criteria alongside publication lists, impact factor, and h-index for panels deciding on hiring or tenure [ 108 ]. For new adopters, it is not necessary to apply all available practices at once. Implementing single tools can be a safe approach to slowly improve the outreach and reproducibility of one’s own research. The more open science products that are generated, the more reproducible the work becomes, but also the more the visibility of a study increases ( Fig 2 ).

As other research fields, such as social sciences, are already a step ahead in the implementation of open science practices, translational biomedicine can profit from their experiences [ 109 ]. We should thus keep in mind that open science comes with some risks that should be minimized early on. Indeed, the more open science practices become incentivized, the more researchers could be tempted to get a transparency quality label that might not be justified. When a study is based on a bad hypothesis or poor statistical planning, this cannot be fixed by preregistration, as prediction alone is not sufficient to validate an interpretation [ 110 ]. Furthermore, a boom of data sharing could disconnect data collectors and analysts, bearing the risk that researchers performing the analysis lack understanding of the data. The publication of datasets could also promote a “parasitic” use of a researcher’s data and lead to scooping of outcomes [ 111 ]. Stakeholders could counteract such a risk by promoting collaboration instead of competition.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an explosion of preprint publications. This unseen acceleration of science might be the adequate response to a pandemic; however, the speeding up science in combination with the “publish or perish” culture could come at the expense of the quality of the publication. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis comparing the quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles showed that the quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is at most slightly lower on average compared to peer-reviewed articles [ 112 ]. Additionally, preprints and social media have shown during this pandemic that a premature and overconfident communication of research results can be overinterpreted by journalists and raise unfounded hopes or fears in patients and relatives [ 113 ]. By being honest and open about the scope and limitations of the study and choosing communication channels carefully, researchers can avoid misinterpretation. It should be noted, however, that by releasing all methodological details and data in research fields such as viral engineering, where a dual use cannot be excluded, open science could increase biosecurity risk. Implementing access-controlled repositories, application programming interfaces, and a biosecurity risk assessment in the planning phase (i.e., by preregistration) could mitigate this threat [ 114 ].

Publishing in open access journals often involves higher publication costs, which makes it more difficult for institutes and universities from low-income countries to publish there [ 115 ]. Equity has been identified as a key aim of open science [ 116 ]. It is vital, therefore, that existing structural inequities in the scientific system are not unintentionally reinforced by open science practices. Early career researchers have been the main drivers of the open science movement in other fields even though they are often in vulnerable positions due to short contracts and hierarchical and strongly networked research environments. Supporting these early career researchers in adopting open science tools could significantly advance this change in research culture [ 117 ]. However, early career researchers can already benefit by publishing registered reports or preprints that can provide a publication much faster than conventional journal publications. Communication in social media can help them establish a network enabling new collaborations or follow-up positions.

Even though open science comes with some risks, the benefits easily overweigh these caveats. If a change towards more transparency is accompanied by the implementation of open science in the teaching curricula of the universities, most of the risks can be minimized [ 118 ]. Interestingly, we have observed that open science tools and infrastructure that are specific to animal research seem to mostly come from Europe. This may be because of strict regulations within Europe for animal experiments or because of a strong research focus in laboratory animal science along with targeted research funding in this region. Whatever the reason might be, it demonstrates the important role of research policy in accelerating the development towards 3Rs and open science.

Overall, it seems inevitable that open science will eventually prevail in translational biomedical research. Scientists should not wait for the slow-moving incentive framework to change their research habits, but should take pioneering roles in adopting open science tools and working towards more collaboration, transparency, and reproducibility.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input and comments from Sebastian Dunst, Daniel Butzke, and Nils Körber that have improved the content of this work.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Cary Funk MH, Brian Kennedy, Courtney Johnson. Americans say open access to data and independent review inspire more trust in research findings. Pew Research Center Website: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/americans-say-open-access-to-data-and-independent-review-inspire-more-trust-in-research-findings/ .
• 7. International Reproducibility Networks. International Networks Statement UK Reproducibility Network Website: UK Reproducibility Network. 2021. Available from: https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/b/631/files/2021/09/International-Networks-Statement-v1.0.pdf .
• 13. Article 36 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 amended by Regilation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. OJEU. 2010;L276:36.
• 19. American Association for Cancer Research. Editorial Policies. 2021. Available from: https://aacrjournals.org/content/authors/editorial-policies .
• 21. Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C. Open Science Toolbox for Animal Research. Zenodo. 2022. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/6497560 .
• 29. NC3R. ARRIVE guidelines. NC3R Website. Available from: https://arriveguidelines.org/ .
• 31. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. How to integrate sex and gender into research. Website of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html .
• 33. Simon T, Bate RAC. InVivoStat. Available from: https://invivostat.co.uk/ .
• 35. Urbaniak G, Plous S. Research randomizer (version 4.0) [computer software]. 2013.
• 47. Medical Research Council’s. Data sharing policy. UK Research and Innovation Website 2021. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/publications/mrc-data-sharing-policy/ .
• 48. University of California Curation Center. DMPTool. 2021. Available from: https://dmptool.org/ .
• 49. Digital Curation Centre. DMPOnline. Available from: https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ . Digital Curation Centre; 2021.
• 50. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Biomedical Data Lifecycle. Harvard Medical School Website: Harvard Medical School; 2021. Available from: https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/about/what-research-data-management/biomedical-data-lifecycle .
• 51. Joint Information Systems Committee. Research data management toolkit JISC Website: JISC; 2018. Available from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/rdm-toolkit .
• 54. German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R). NTPs—Nicht Technische Projektzusammenfassungen 3R-SMART; 2020. Available from: https://www.3r-smart.de/index.php?id=6895 .
• 55. Understanding Animal Research. Guide to writing non-technical summaries concordat on openness on animal research in the UK2018. Available from: https://concordatopenness.org.uk/guide-to-writing-non-technical-summaries .
• 56. Gerlach B, Untucht C, Stefan A. Electronic Lab Notebooks and Experimental Design Assistants. In: Bespalov A, Michel MC, Steckler T, editors. Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 257–75.
• 58. Adam BL, Birte L. ELN Guide: electronic laboratory notebooks in the context of research data management and good research practice–a guide for the life sciences. Cologne, Germany: ZB MED–Information Centre for Life Sciences; 2021.
• 59. AgileBio. LabCollector Website https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/2022 . Available from: https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/ .
• 61. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Electronic Lab Notebook Comparison Matrix. Zenodo. 2021.
• 70. Bio-protocol. Collaborating Journals bio-protocol website2021. Available from: https://bio-protocol.org/default.aspx?dw=Collaborating .
• 76. Dinkel H. anishare: GitHub; [updated June 2018]. Available from: https://github.com/hdinkel/anishare .
• 89. O’Connor AM. MERIDIAN: Menagerie of Reporting guidelines Involving Animals. Iowa State University; 2022. Available from: https://meridian.cvm.iastate.edu/ .
• 90. The Jackson Laboratory. Mouse Nomenclature Home Page at the Mouse Genome Informatics website World Wide Web: The Jackson Laboratory,Bar Harbor, Maine. Available from: http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/index.shtml .
• 97. Directory of Open Access Journals. Find open access journals & articles. Available from: https://doaj.org/ . Directory of Open Access Journals, [DOAJ]; 2021.
• 98. Gold Open Access research has greater societal impact as used more outside of academia [press release]. Springer Nature Website: Springer. Nature. 2020;30:2020.
• 104. Franco NH. Can we use infrared thermography for assessing emotional states in mice?—A comparison between handling-induced stress by different techniques. Available from: animalstudyregistry.org . German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR); 2020. https://doi.org/10.17590/asr.0000224

Animal experimentation: A look into ethics, welfare and alternative methods

• November 2017
• Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 63(11):923-928
• 63(11):923-928

• Universidade Federal de Goiás

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Kardelen Kocaman Kalkan
• Meral Kekeçoğlu

• BMC Med Educ
• Harpreet Kaur and Nidhi Srivastava

• Marie P.F. Corradi

• Gabriela Vitória de Oliveira

• Katsuyoshi Kudo

• INT J MOL SCI

• Ilaria Baldelli

• Susanna Penco

• Caio Vinicius Botelho Brito
• Rosa Helena de Figueiredo Chaves Soares

• INT J IMMUNOPATH PH

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Animal experiments in biomedical research: a historical perspective.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2. from antiquity to the renaissance, 3. seventeenth century and the dawn of the enlightenment.

Click here to enlarge figure

4. Eighteenth Century and the Rise of Moral Consideration for Animals

5. the nineteenth-century medical revolution and the upsurge of the antivivisection societies.

This surgeon’s spring course of experimental physiology commenced in the beginning of April. I seldom fail of “assisting” at his murders. At his first lecture, a basketful of live rabbits, 8 glass receivers full of frogs, two pigeons, an owl, several tortoises and a pup were the victims ready to lay down their lives for the good of science! His discourse was to explain the function of the fifth pair of nerves. The facility was very striking with which the professor could cut the nerve at its origin, by introducing a sharp instrument through the cranium, immediately behind and below the eye. M. Magendie drew the attention of the class to several rabbits in which the fifth pair of nerves had been divided several days before. They were all blind of one eye, a deposition of lymph having taken place in the comes, from inflammation of the eye always following the operation alluded to, although the eye is by this section deprived of all its sensibility. Monsieur M. has not only lost all feeling for the victims he tortures, but he really likes his business. When the animal squeaks a little, the operator grins; when loud screams are uttered, he sometimes laughs outright. The professor has a most mild, gentle and amiable expression of countenance, and is in the habit of smoothing, fondling and patting his victim whilst occupied with preliminary remarks, and the rabbit either looks him in the face or ‘licks the hand just raised to shed his blood. During another lecture, in demonstrating the functions of the motive and sensitive fibers of the spinal nerves, he laid bare the spinal cord in a young pup, and cut one bundle after another of nerves. (…) Living dissection is as effectual a mode of teaching as it is revolting, and in many cases the experiments are unnecessarily cruel and too frequently reiterated; but so long as the thing is going on, I shall not fail to profit by it, although I never wish to see such experiments repeated. cit in Olmsted, 1944 [ 101 ]

No hesitation is possible, the science of life can be established only by experiment, and we can save living beings from death only by sacrificing others. Experiments must be made either on man or on animals. Now I think physicians already make too many dangerous experiments on man, before carefully studying them on animals. I do not admit that it is moral to try more or less dangerous or active remedies on patients, without first experimenting with them on dogs; for I shall prove, further on, that results obtained on animals may all be conclusive for man when we know how to experiment properly. If it is immoral, then, to make an experiment on man when it is dangerous to him, even though the result may be useful to others, it is essentially moral to do experiments on an animal, even though painful and dangerous to him, if they may be useful to man.

6. The Twentieth-Century Triumph of Science-Based Medicine

7. animal liberation and the pathway for a more humane science, 8. conclusion, acknowledgments, conflict of interest, references and notes.

• von Staden, H. Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Court, W.E. Pharmacy from the ancient world to 1100 AD. In Making Medicines: A Brief History of Pharmacy and Pharmaceuticals ; Anderson, S., Ed.; Pharmaceutical Press: London, UK, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maehle, A.-H.; Tröhler, U. Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: Attitudes and arguments. In Vivisection in Historical Perspective ; Rupke, N.A., Ed.; Croom Helm: London, UK, 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geller, M.J. Phlegm and breath—Babylonian contributions to hippocratic medicine. In Disease in Babylonia ; Finkel, I.L., Geller, M.J., Eds.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guerrini, A. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Malley, C.D. Andreas Vesalius of Brussels ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan, T.; Singer, P. Animal Rights and Human Obligations , 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prioreschi, P. A History of Medicine, Volume 3: Roman Medicine ; Horatius Press: Omaha, NE, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prioreschi, P. A History of Medicine, Volume 2: Greek Medicine , 2nd ed.; Horatius Press: Omaha, NE, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prioreschi, P. Experimentation and scientific method in the classical world: Their rise and decline. Med. Hypoth. 1994 , 42 , 135–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prioreschi, P. A History of Medicine, Volume 5: Medieval Medicine , 2nd ed.; Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston, NY, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bacon, F. The second book of francis bacon on the proficience and advancement of learning, divine and human (originally published in 1605). In The Works of Francis Bacon: Baron of Verulam, Viscount St. Albans, and Lord High Chancellor of England ; Montague, B., Ed.; Carey and Hart: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1842. [ Google Scholar ]
• Descartes, R. Animals are machines. In Animal Rights and Human Obligations , 2nd ed.; Regan, T., Singer, P., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 13–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rupke, N.A. Vivisection in Historical Perspective ; Croom Helm: London, UK, 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boden, M.E. Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, C. Animal consciousness. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Summer 2011 ed.; Zalta, E.N., Ed.; Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottingham, J. A brute to the brutes—Descartes’ treatment of animals. In Rene Descartes: Critical Assessments ; Moya, G.J.D., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison, P. Descartes on animals. Philosoph. Quart. 1992 , 42 , 219–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leiber, J. Descartes: The smear and related misconstruals. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 2011 , 41 , 365–376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dennett, D.C. Animal consciousness: What matters and why. Soc. Res. 1995 , 62 , 691–710. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner, G. Descartes on the moral status of animals. Arch. für Geschichte der Philosophie 1998 , 80 , 268–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steintrager, J.A. Science and insensibility. In Cruel Delight: Enlightenment Culture and the Inhuman ; Steintrager, J.A., Ed.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bayon, H.P. René Descartes, 1596–1650. A short note on his part in the history of medicine. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 1950 , 43 , 783–785. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bitbol-Hespériès, A. Cartesian physiology. In Descartes’ Natural Philosophy ; Gaukroger, S., Schuster, J., Sutton, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner, G. Anthropocentrism and its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy ; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spinoza, B. The Ethics ; Echo Library: Teddington, Middlesex, UK, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke, J. Some Thoughts Concerning Education ; Walker: Dublin, Ireland, 1778. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant, I. Lectures on Ethics ; Schneewind, J.B., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadie, A.; Pybus, E.M. Kant’s treatment of animals. Philosophy 1974 , 49 , 375–383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linzey, A. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence ; Sussex Academic Press: Eastbourne, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory, A. Harvey’s Heart: The Discovery of Blood Circulation ; Icon Books Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wear, A. Early Modern Europe, 1500–1700. In The Western Medical Tradition: 800 BC–1800 AD ; Conrad, L.I., Neve, M., Nutton, V., Porter, R., Wear, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shackelford, J. William Harvey and the Mechanics of the Heart ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMullen, E. Anatomy of a physiological discovery: William Harvey and the circulation of the blood. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 1995 , 88 , 491–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, I.B. Scientific revolution. In Interactions: Some Contacts between the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences ; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beard, D.A.; Bassingthwaighte, J.B.; Greene, A.S. Computational modeling of physiological systems. Physiol. Genom. 2005 , 23 , 1–3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grene, M.G.; Depew, D.J. Descartes, Harvey, and the emergence of modern mechanism. In The Philosophy of Biology: An Episodic History ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 35–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weil, E. The Echo of Harvey’s de Motu Cordis (1628) 1628 to 1657. J. History Med. Allied Sci. 1957 , XII , 167–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martins e Silva, J. From the discovery of the circulation of the blood to the first steps in hemorheology: Part 2. Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia 2009 , 28 , 1405–1439. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grene, M.G. Descartes and the heart beat: A conservative innovation. In Wrong for the Right Reasons (Archimedes-New Studies in the History and Phylosophy of Science and Technology) ; Buchwald, J.Z., Franklin, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 11, pp. 91–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorham, G. Mind-body dualism and the Harvey-Descartes controversy. J. History Ideas 1994 , 55 , 211–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frank, R.G. Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists: Scientific Ideas and Social Interaction ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wooley, C.F. Palpitation: Brain, heart, and ‘spirits’ in the seventeenth century. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 1998 , 91 , 157–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felts, J.H. Richard Lower: Anatomist and physiologist. Ann. Int. Med. 2000 , 132 , 420–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wootton, D. Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dear, P. The meanings of experience. In The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 3: Early Modern Science ; Park, K., Daston, L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• French, R.K. William Harvey’s Natural Philosophy ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Worp, H.B.; Howells, D.W.; Sena, E.S.; Porritt, M.J.; Rewell, S.; O’Collins, V.; Macleod, M.R. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010 , 7 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maehle, A.-H. Opium: Explorations of an ambiguous drug-ethical aspects. In Drugs on Trial: Experimental Pharmacology and Therapeutic Innovation in the Eighteenth Century ; Editions Rodopi: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 193–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle, R. New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall, Touching the Spring of the Air, and its Effects (Made in a New Pneumatical Engine): Written by Way of Letter to the Right Honorable Charles, Lord Vicount of Dungarvan, Eldest Son to the Earl of Corke/by the Honorable Robert Boyle, Esq. ; Printed by H. Hall: Oxford, UK, 1660. [ Google Scholar ]
• West, J.B. Robert Boyle’s landmark book of 1660 with the first experiments on rarified air. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005 , 98 , 31–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, J.B. Stephen Hales: Neglected respiratory physiologist. J. Appl. Physiol. 1984 , 57 , 635–639. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, I.B. The impact of Stephen Hales on medicine. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 1993 , 86 , 349–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark-Kennedy, A.E. Stephen Hales, DD, FRS. Br. Med. J. 1977 , 2 , 1656–1658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Porter, R. The eighteenth century. In The Western Medical Tradition: 800 BC-1800 AD ; Conrad, L.I., Neve, M., Nutton, V., Porter, R., Wear, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frixione, E. Albrecht Von Haller (1708–1777). J. Neurol. 2006 , 253 , 265–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duffin, J. Interrogating life: History of physiology. In History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction , 2nd ed.; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Canada, 2010; p. 40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buess, H. William Harvey and the foundation of modern haemodynamics by Albrecht Von Haller. Med. Hist. 1970 , 14 , 175–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fye, W.B. Albrecht von Haller. Clin. Cardiol. 1995 , 18 , 291–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bay, J.C. Albrecht Von Haller medical encyclopedist. Bull. Med. Library Assoc. 1960 , 48 , 393–403. [ Google Scholar ]
• Festing, S. Animal experiments: The long debate. New Sci. 1989 , 121 , 51–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maehle, A.H. Literary responses to animal experimentation in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century britain. Med. Hist. 1990 , 34 , 27–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maehle, A.-H. Drugs on Trial: Experimental Pharmacology and Therapeutic Innovation in the Eighteenth Century ; Editions Rodopi: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cajavilca, C.; Varon, J.; Sternbach, G.L. Luigi Galvani and the foundations of electrophysiology. Resuscitation 2009 , 80 , 159–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Piccolino, M. Luigi Galvani and animal electricity: Two centuries after the foundation of electrophysiology. Trends Neurosci. 1997 , 20 , 443–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roe, S.A. Matter, Life, and Generation: Eighteenth-Century Embryology and the Haller-Wolff Debate ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The context of animal research: Past and present. In The Ethics of Research Involving Animals ; Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London, UK, 2005.
• Voltaire, F.M.A. Animals. In Philosophical Dictionary ; Penguin Books: London, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schopenhauer, A. On the Basis of Morality ; Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.: London, UK, 1903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rousseau, J.-J. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality ; Filiquarian Publishing, LLC: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentham, J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation ; W. Pickering: London, UK, 1823. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentham, J. Anarchical fallacies: Being an examination of the declarations of rights issued during the french revolution. In The Works of Jeremy Bentham ; Bowring, J., Ed.; William Tate: London, UK, 1843. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boralevi, L.C. Bentham and the Oppressed ; W. de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacyna, L.S. The localization of disease. In Medicine Transformed: Health, Disease and Society in Europe, 1800–1930 ; Brunton, D., Ed.; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, L. Biomedical science and human health. Yale J. Biol. Med. 1978 , 51 , 133–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffin, J. First do no harm: History of treatment, pharmacology and pharmaceuticals. In History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction , 2nd ed.; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Canada, 2010; p. 98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bynum, W.F. Conclusion: Did science matter? In Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; pp. 218–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesch, J.E. The Paris Academy of Medicine and Experimental Science. In The Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine ; Coleman, W., Holmes, F.L., Eds.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot, P. Vivisection and the emergence of experimental physiology in nineteenth-century France. In Vivisection in Historical Perspective ; Rupke, N.A., Ed.; Croom Helm: London, UK, 1987; p. 125. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFollette, H.; Shanks, N. Animal experimentation: The legacy of Claude Bernard. Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 1994 , 8 , 195–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orlans, B. History and ethical regulation of animal experimentation: An international perspective. In A Companion to Bioethics ; Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tubbs, R.S.; Loukas, M.; Shoja, M.M.; Shokouhi, G.; Oakes, W.J. François Magendie (1783–1855) and his contributions to the foundations of neuroscience and neurosurgery. J. Neurosurg. 2008 , 108 , 1038–1042. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schiller, J. Physiology’s struggle for independence in the first half of the nineteenth century. Hist. Sci. 1968 , 7 , 64–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Monamy, V. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryder, R.D. Victorian consolidation. In Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Toward Speciesism ; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 95–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloch, H. Francois Magendie, Claude Bernard, and the interrelation of science, history, and philosophy. South. Med. J. 1989 , 82 , 1259–1261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Normandin, S. Claude Bernard and an introduction to the study of experimental medicine: “Physical vitalism”, dialectic, and epistemology. J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci. 2007 , 62 , 495–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rudacille, D. Viruses, vaccines and vivisection. In The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 17–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard, C. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine ; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1927. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkowitz, C. Disputed discovery: Vivisection and experiment in the 19th century. Endeavour 2006 , 30 , 98–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bynum, W.F. Medicine in the laboratory. In Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century ; Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmer, H.G. Carl Ludwig: The man, his time, his influence. Pflügers Archiv-Eur. J. Physiol. 1996 , 432 , R9–R22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenoir, T. Science for the clinic: Science policy and the formation of Carl Ludwig’s institute in leipzig. In The Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine ; Coleman, W., Holmes, F.L., Eds.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahan, D. Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Otis, L. Johannes Peter Müller (1801–1858). The Virtual Laboratory ; Max Planck Institute for the History of Science: Berlin, Germany, 2004. Available online: http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/essays/data/enc22 (accessed on 13 March 2013).
• Coleman, W.; Holmes, F.L. The Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Malley, C.D. The History of Medical Education ; University of California Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manuel, D. Marshall Hall (1790–1857): Vivisection and the development of experimental physiology. In Vivisection in Historical Perspective ; Rupke, N.A., Ed.; Croom Helm: London, UK, 1987; p. 78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Preece, R. The history of animal ethics in western culture. In The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond: A Resource for Clinicians and Researchers ; Blazina, C., Boyra, G., Shen-Miller, D., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 45–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guerrini, A. Animal experiments and antivivisection debates in the 1820s. In Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romantic Culture, 1780–1830 ; King, C.K., Goodall, J.R., Eds.; Ashgate: Burlington, Canada, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olmsted, J.M.D. François Magendie ; Arno Press: New York, NY, USA, 1944. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross, C.G. Claude Bernard and the constancy of the internal environment. The Neuroscientist 1998 , 4 , 380–385. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broennle, A.M. Lectures on anesthetics and on asphyxia (book review). Anesth. Analg. 1991 , 72 , 132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.A. Claude Bernard (1813–1878). Anaesthesia 1978 , 33 , 741–747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, N.K. The moral aspects of vivisection. North Am. Rev. 1885 , 140 , 203–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Inoue, T.; Kodama, Y. Future Alternatives in “3Rs”: Learning from History. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan, 21–25 August 2007; pp. 257–260.
• Debré, P. Louis Pasteur ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rey, R. The History of Pain ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow, S.J. Blessed Days of Anaesthesia: How Anaesthetics Changed the World ; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards, S. Anaesthetics, ethics and aesthetics: Vivisection in the late nineteenth-century british laboratory. In The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine ; Cunningham, A., Williams, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992; pp. 142–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feller, D.A. Dog fight: Darwin as animal advocate in the antivivisection controversy of 1875. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part C: Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 2009 , 40 , 265–271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tait, L. The Uselessness of Vivisection upon Animals as a Method of Scientific Research ; The Herald Press: Birmingham, West Midlands, UK, 1882; Volume II. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot, C.W.; Walker, F.A.; Paddock, F.K. Vivisection—A statement in behalf of science. Science 1896 , 3 , 421–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, E.M. Charles Darwin and the vivisection outrage. The Primate Diaries. Scientific American, 2011. Available online: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2011/10/06/vivisection-outrage/ (accessed on 13 March 2013).
• Darwin, C. Darwin on vivisection—Experiments on living animals necessary to the progress of physiological study. The New York Times 1881 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaw, J.L. “A Time to Heal”: The Diffusion of Listerism in Victorian Britain ; American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards, S. Drawing the life-blood of physiology: Vivisection and the physiologists’ dilemma, 1870–1900. Ann. Sci. 1986 , 43 , 27–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolan, K. The coming of the law on laboratory animals. In Laboratory Animal Law: Legal Control of the Use of Animals in Research , 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publisher: Oxford, UK, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor, J.T. Cruel knives? Vivisection and biomedical research in Victorian English Canada. Can. Bull. Med. Hist. 1997 , 14 , 37–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Semmelweis, I. Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever ; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flack, H.D. Louis Pasteur’s discovery of molecular chirality and spontaneous resolution in 1848, together with a complete review of his crystallographic and chemical work. Acta Crystallogr. Sec. A 2009 , 65 , 371–389. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bazin, H. The swine erypselas vaccine: 1883. In Vaccination—A History: From Lady Montagu to Genetic Engineering ; John Libbey Eurotext Ltd.: Montrouge, France, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen, B. America’s first medical breakthrough: How popular excitement about a french rabies cure in 1885 raised new expectations for medical progress. Am. Hist. Rev. 1998 , 103 , 373–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz, M. The life and works of Louis Pasteur. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001 , 91 , 597–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morton, D.B. Humane endpoints in animal experimentation for biomedical research. In Humane Endpoints in Animals Experiments for Biomedical Research ; Hendriksen, C.F.M., Morton, D.B., Eds.; Royal Society of Medicine Press: London, UK, 1999; pp. 5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenau, M.J. The pasteur prophylactic treatment. In Preventive Medicine and Hygiene , 2nd ed.; D. Appleton and Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1916; pp. 45–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallery-Radot, R. The Life of Pasteur ; Doubleday: Garden City, NY, USA, 1911. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallery-Radot, R. Louis Pasteur—His Life and Labours ; D. Appleton and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1886. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howard-Jones, N. Robert Koch and the cholera vibrio: A centenary. Br. Med. J. 1984 , 288 , 379–381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ullmann, A. Pasteur–Koch: Distinctive ways of thinking about infectious diseases. Microbe 2007 , 2 , 383–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brock, T.D. Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology ; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosch, F.; Rosich, L. The contributions of Paul Ehrlich to pharmacology: A tribute on the occasion of the centenary of his Nobel Prize. Pharmacology 2008 , 82 , 171–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silverstein, A.M. The standardization of toxins and antitoxins. In Paul Ehrlich’s Receptor Immunology: The Magnificent Obsession ; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 41–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kantha, S.S. A centennial review: The 1890 tetanus antitoxin paper of von Behring and Kitasato and the related developments. Keio J. Med. 1991 , 40 , 35–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linton, D.S. From immunization to serum therapy. In Emil von Behring: Infectious Disease, Immunology, Serum Therapy ; American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearce, R.M. Research in medicine. II. The development of laboratories for the medical sciences. Popul. Sci. Month. 1912 , 80 , 548–562. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, N. History of medical progress during the last half of the nineteenth century completed. The present status of medical investigations and progress, and the indications of further advancement. In History of Medicine ; Cleveland Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ernst, H.C. Animal Experimentation; A Series of Statements Indicating its Value to Biological and Medical Science ; Little, Brown, and Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1902. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romano, T.M. Part III. The medical sciences: Critics and allies. In Making Medicine Scientific: John Burdon Sanderson and the Culture of Victorian Science ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warner, J.H. Ideals of science and their discontents in late nineteenth-century American medicine. Isis 1991 , 82 , 454–478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warner, J.H. The fall and rise of professional mystery. In The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine ; Cunningham, A., Williams, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992; pp. 110–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Defence SocietyUnderstanding Animal ResearchCoalition for Medical Progress Medical Advances and Animal Research—The Contribution of Animal Science to the Medical Revolution: Some Case Histories ; Understanding Animal Research: London, UK, 2007.
• Foundation for Biomedical Research. Available online: http://www.fbresearch.org/nobelprize/ (accessed on 12 March 2013).
• Kirkwood, T.B.L. A systematic look at an old problem. Nature 2008 , 451 , 644–647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kinsella, K.; He, W. An Aging World: 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, International Population Reports, P95/09-1 ; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oeppen, J.; Vaupel, J.W. Broken limits to life expectancy. Science 2002 , 296 , 1029–1031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rudacille, D. The dogs of war. In The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 55–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Preece, R. Animal sensibilities in the Shavian era. In Animal Sensibility and Inclusive Justice in the Age of Bernard Shaw ; University of British Columbia Press: Vancouver, Canada, 2011; pp. 93–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liddick, D. History and philosophy of the animal rights movement. In Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements ; Praeger: Westport, CT, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederer, S.E. Political animals. The shaping of biomedical research literature in twentieth-century america. Isis 1992 , 83 , 61–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumans, V. The welfare of laboratory mice. In The Welfare of Laboratory Animals ; Kaliste, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 119–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaliste, E.; Mering, S. The welfare of laboratory rats. In The Welfare of Laboratory Animals ; Kaliste, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 153–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsey, J.R.; Baker, H.J. Historical foundations. In The Laboratory Rat ; Suckow, M.A., Weisbroth, S.H., Franklin, C.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedrich, H.J. The history and development of the rat as a laboratory animal model. In The Laboratory Rat ; Krinke, G., Ed.; Academic: Waltham, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henig, R.M. The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics ; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon, J.W.; Ruddle, F.H. Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei. Science 1981 , 214 , 1244–1246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse, H.C. Building a better mouse: One hundred years of genetics and biology. In The Mouse in Biomedical Research: History, Wild Mice, and Genetics ; Fox, J.G., Ed.; Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davisson, M.T.; Linder, C.C. History of mouse genetics and research with the laboratory mouse. In The Laboratory Mouse ; Hedrich, H.J., Bullock, G.R., Eds.; Elsevier Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 16–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sixth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
• Singer, P. Animal liberation at 30. The New York Review of Books 2003 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryder, R.D. Speciesism. In Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes toward Speciesism ; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 223–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, P. Animal Liberation ; HarperCollins Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, P. About ethics. In Practical Ethics ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, P. Equality for animals? In Practical Ethics ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 48–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, P. Setting limits on animal testing. The Sunday Times 2006 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan, T. The case for animal rights. In Animal Rights and Human Obligations , 2nd ed.; Regan, T., Singer, P., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orlans, F.B. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation ; Oxford University Press: Cary, NC, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, C.; Regan, T. The Animal Rights Debate ; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conn, P.M.; Parker, J.V. The Animal Research War ; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liddick, D. Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements ; Praeger: Westport, CT, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regan, T.; Masson, J.M. Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights ; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin, F.K.; Morrison, A.R. Scientists in bunkers: How appeasement of “animal rights” activism has failed. In Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science ; Donway, W., Ed.; Diane Publishing Company: Darby, PA, USA, 1999; Volume 1, pp. 50–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Birke, L.; Michael, M. Views from behind the barricade. New Sci. 1992 , 134 , 29–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cressey, D. Battle scars. Nature 2011 , 470 , 452–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rollin, B.E. The ethics of animal research. Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007 , 8 , 521–525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aldhous, P.; Coghlan, A.; Copley, J. Animal experiments: Let the people speak. New Sci. 1999 , 162 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crettaz von Roten, F. Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Underst. Sci. 2012 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singer, P. Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement ; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell, W.M. The three Rs: Past, present and future. Anim. Welf. 2005 , 14 , 279–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balls, M. Professor W.M.S. Russell (1925–2006): Doyen of the three Rs. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan, 21–25 August 2007; pp. 1–7.
• Stephens, M.L.; Goldberg, A.M.; Rowan, A.N. The first forty years of the alternatives approach: Refining, reducing, and replacing the use of laboratory animals. In The STate of the Animals: 2001 ; Salem, D.J., Rowan, A.N., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 121–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell, W.M.S.; Burch, R.L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique ; Methuen & Co. Ltd.: London, UK, 1959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balls, M. Alternatives to animal experiments: Serving in the middle ground. AATEX 2005 , 11 , 4–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smyth, D.H. Alternatives to Animal Experiments ; Scolar Press [for] the Research Defence Society: London, UK, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsson, I.A.S.; Robinson, P.; Sandøe, P. Ethics of animal research. In Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science-Volume I: Essential Principles and Practices , 3rd ed.; Hau, J., Schapiro, S.J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey, R.G. Utilitarianism and animals. In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics ; Beauchamp, T.L., Frey, R.G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 172–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sztybel, D. Animal rights law: Fundamentalism versus pragmatism. J. Crit. Anim. Stud. 2007 , 5 , 1–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollin, B.E. Reasonable partiality and animal ethics. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2005 , 8 , 105–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francione, G.L. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement ; Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione, G.L. Animal rights theory and utilitarianism: Relative normative guidance. Between the Species . 2003. Available online: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=bts (accessed on 13 March 2013).
• Burch, R.L. The progress of humane experimental technique since 1959: A personal view. Altern. Lab. Anim. 1995 , 23 , 776–783. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens, M.L. Pursuing Medawar’s challenge for full replacement. ALTEX Proc. 2012 , 1 , 23–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukerjee, M. Trends in animal research. Sci. Am. 1997 , 276 , 86–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlsson, H.-E.; Hagelin, J.; Hau, J. Implementation of the ‘three Rs’ in biomedical research. Vet. Record 2004 , 154 , 467–470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kulpa-Eddy, J.; Snyder, M.; Stokes, W. A review of trends in animal use in the united states (1972–2006). In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan, 21–25 August 2007; Volume 14, pp. 163–165.
• Rowan, A.N. A brief history of the animal research debate and the place of alternatives. AATEX 2007 , 12 , 203–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, K.; Gordon, N.; Langley, G.; Higgins, W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA 2008 , 36 , 327–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ormandy, E.H.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically-modified animal models. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2009 , 37 , 63–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Festing, S.; Wilkinson, R. The ethics of animal research—Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007 , 8 , 526–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Executive Committee of the Congress. Background to the three Rs declaration of bologna, as adopted by the 3rd world congress on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences, bologna, italy, on 31 august 1999. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2009 , 37 , 286–289.
• Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
• Basel Declaration Society. Position paper: 3R in research—how can the concept of 3Rs best be implemented in the context of fundamental research? Adopted on 17 October 2011. Available online: http://www.basel-declaration.org/basel-declaration/the-3rs/ (accessed on 13 March 2013).
• Basel Declaration Society. Basel declaration: A call for more trust, transparency and communication on animal research. Adopted on 29 November 2010. Available online: http://www.basel-declaration.org/basel-declaration/ (accessed on 13 March 2013).
• Louhimies, S. Eu Directive 2010/63/EU: “Implementing the three Rs through policy”. ALTEX Proc. 2012 , 1 , 27–33. [ Google Scholar ]

© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Share and Cite

Franco, N.H. Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective. Animals 2013 , 3 , 238-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238

Franco NH. Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective. Animals . 2013; 3(1):238-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238

Franco, Nuno Henrique. 2013. "Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective" Animals 3, no. 1: 238-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About ILAR Journal
• About the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, experimental design: initial steps, design of the animal experiment, experimental design: final considerations.

• < Previous

Practical Aspects of Experimental Design in Animal Research

Paula D. Johnson, D.V.M., M.S., is Executive Director, Southwest Association for Education in Biomedical Research, University of Arizona, Tucson; David G. Besselsen, D.V.M., Ph.D., is Veterinary Specialist and Chief, Pathology Services, University Animal Care, University of Arizona, Tucson.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Paula D. Johnson, David G. Besselsen, Practical Aspects of Experimental Design in Animal Research, ILAR Journal , Volume 43, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 202–206, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.202

• Permissions Icon Permissions

A brief overview is presented of the key steps involved in designing a research animal experiment, with reference to resources that specifically address each topic of discussion in more detail. After an idea for a research project is conceived, a thorough review of the literature and consultation with experts in that field are pursued to refine the problem statement and to assimilate background information that is necessary for the experimental design phase. A null and an alternate hypothesis that address the problem statement are then formulated, and only then is the specific design of the experiment developed. Likely the most critical step in designing animal experiments is the identification of the most appropriate animal model to address the experimental question being asked. Other practical considerations include defining the necessary control groups, randomly assigning animals to control/treatment groups, determining the number of animals needed per group, evaluating the logistics of the actual performance of the animal experiments, and identifying the most appropriate statistical analyses and potential collaborators experienced in the area of study. All of these factors are critical to designing an experiment that will generate scientifically valid and reproducible data, which should be considered the ultimate goal of any scientific investigation.

Experimental design is obviously a critical component of the success of any research project. If all aspects of experimental design are not thoroughly addressed, scientists may reach false conclusions and pursue avenues of research that waste considerable time and resources. It is therefore critical to design scientifically sound experiments and to follow standard laboratory practices while performing these experiments to generate valid reproducible data ( Bennett et al. 1990 ; Diamond 2001 ; Holmberg 1996 ; Larsson 2001 ; Sproull 1995 ; Weber and Skillings 2000 ; Webster 1985 ; Whitcom 2000 ). Data generated by this approach should be of sufficient quality for publication in well-respected peer-reviewed journals, the major form of widespread communication and archiving experimental data in research. This article provides a brief overview of the steps involved in the design of animal experiments and some practical information that should also be considered during this process.

Literature Search

A thorough search of the scientific literature must be performed to determine what is known about the focus of the study. The search should include current and past journal articles and textbooks, as well as information available via the internet. Journal searches can be performed in any number of appropriate journal databases or indexes (e.g., MEDLINE, TOXLINE, PUBMED, NCBI, AGRICOLA). The goals of the literature search are to learn of pertinent studies and methods, identify appropriate animal models, and eliminate unnecessary duplication of research. The “3Rs” of animal research ( Russell and Burch 1959 ) should also be considered at this stage: reduction of animal numbers, refinement of methods, and replacement of animals by viable nonanimal alternatives when these exist. The literature search is also an important component of an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC 1 ) protocol submission to provide evidence that the project is not duplicative, that alternatives to the use of animals are not available, and that potentially painful procedures are justified.

Scientific Method

The core aspect of experimental design is the scientific method ( Barrow 1991 ; Kuhn 1962 ; Lawson 2002 ; Wilson 1952 ). The scientific method consists of four basic steps: (1) observation and description of a scientific phenomena, (2) formulation of the problem statement and hypothesis, (3) use of the hypothesis to predict the results of new observations, and (4) the performance of methods or procedures to test the hypothesis.

Problem Statement, Objectives, and Hypotheses

It is critical to define the problem statement, objectives, and hypotheses clearly. The problem statement should include the issue that will be addressed experimentally and its significance (e.g., potential application to human or animal health, improved understanding of biological processes). Objectives should be stated in a general description of the overall goals for the proposed experiments and the specific questions being addressed. Hypotheses should include two distinct and clearly defined outcomes for each proposed experiment (e.g., a null and an alternate hypothesis). These outcomes may be thought of as the two experimental answers to the specific question being investigated: The null hypothesis is defined as no difference between experimental groups, and the alternate hypothesis is defined as a real difference between experimental groups. Development of a clearly stated problem statement and the hypotheses are necessary to proceed to the next stage of the experimental design process, although they obviously can (and likely will) be modified as the process continues. Examples of a problem statement and various types of hypotheses follow:

Problem statement: Which diet causes more weight gain in rats: diet A or diet B?

Null hypothesis: Groups are expected to show the same results (e.g., rats on diet A will gain the same amount of weight as rats on diet B).

Alternate hypothesis: Experimental groups are expected to show different results (e.g., rats will gain more weight on diet A than diet B, or vice versa).

Nontestable hypothesis: A result cannot be easily defined or interpreted (e.g., rats on diet A will look better than rats on diet B). What does “better” mean? Its definition must be clearly stated to create a testable hypothesis.

Identification of Animal Model

In choosing the most appropriate animal models for proposed experiments, we offer the following recommendations: (1) Use the lowest animal on the phylogenic scale (in accordance with replacement, one of the 3Rs). (2) Use animals that have the species- and/or strain-specific characteristics desirable or required for the specific study proposed. (3) Consider the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining the animal model during the period of experimentation. (4) Perform a thorough literature search, network with colleagues within the selected field of study, and/or contact commercial vendors or government-supported repositories of animal models to identify a potential source of the animal model. (5) Consult with laboratory animal veterinarians before final determination of the animal model.

Identification of Potential Collaborators

The procedures required to carry out the experiments will determine what, if any, additional expertise is needed. It is important to identify and consult with potential collaborators at the beginning of project development to determine who will be working on the project and in what capacity (e.g., as coinvestigators, consultants, or technical support staff). Collaborator input into the logistics and design of the experiments and proper sample acquisition are critical to ensure the validity of the data generated. Core facilities at larger research institutions provide many services that involve highly technical procedures or require expensive equipment. Identification of existing core facilities can often lead to the development of a list of potential intramural collaborators.

Research Plan

A description of the experimental manipulations required to address the problem statement, objectives, and hypotheses should be carefully devised and documented ( Keppel 1991 ). This description should specify the experimental variables that are to be manipulated, suitable test parameters that accurately assess the effects of experimental variable manipulation, and the most appropriate methods for sample acquisition and generation of the test data. The overall practicality of the project as well as the time frame for data collection and evaluation are determined at this stage in the development process.

Practical issues that may need to be addressed include the lifespan of the animal model (for chronic studies), the anticipated progression of disease in that model (to determine appropriate time points for evaluation), the amount of personnel time available for the project, and the costs associated with performing the experiments ( De Boer et al. 1975 ). If the animals are to receive chemical or biological treatments, an appropriate method for administration must be identified (e.g., per os via the diet or in drinking water [soluble substances only], by osmotic pump, or by injection). Known or potential hazards must also be identified, and appropriate precautions to minimize risk from these hazards must be incorporated into the plan. All experimental procedures should be detailed through standard operating procedures, a requirement of good laboratory practice standards ( EPA 1989 ; FDA 1987 ).

Finally, the methods to be used for data analysis should be determined. If statistical analysis is required to document a difference between experimental groups, the appropriate statistical tests should be identified during the design stage. A conclusion will be drawn subsequently from the analysis of the data with the initial question answered and/or the hypotheses accepted or rejected. This process will ultimately lead to new questions and hypotheses being formulated, or ideas as to how to improve the experimental design.

Experimental Unit

The entity under study is the experimental unit, which could be an individual animal or a group. For example, an individual rat is considered the experimental unit when a drug therapy or surgical procedure is being tested, but an entire litter of rats is the experimental unit when an environmental teratogen is being tested. For purposes of estimating error of variance, or standard error for statistical analysis, it is necessary to consider the experimental unit ( Weber and Skillings 2000 ). Many excellent sources provide discussions of the types of experimental units and their appropriateness ( Dean and Voss 1999 ; Festing and Altman 2002 ; Keppel 1991 ; Wu and Hamada 2000 ).

N Factor: Experimental Group Size

The assignment of an appropriate number of animals to each group is critical. Although formulas to determine the proper number of animals can be found in standard statistical texts, we recommend consulting a statistician to ensure appropriate experimental design for the generation of statistically significant results ( Zolman 1993 ). Indeed, the number of animals assigned to each experimental group is often determined by the particular statistical test on the basis of the anticipated magnitude of difference between the expected outcomes for each group. The number of animals that can be grouped in standard cages is a practical consideration for determining experimental group size. For example, standard 71 sq in (460 sq cm) polycarbonate shoebox cages can house up to four adult mice, so group sizes that are divisible by four will maximize group size and minimize per diem costs.

A plethora of variables (e.g., genetic, environmental, infectious agents) can potentially affect the outcome of studies performed with animals. It is therefore critical to use control animals to minimize the impact of these extraneous variables or to recognize the possible presence of unwanted variables. In general, each individual experiment should use control groups of animals that are contrasted directly to the experimental groups of animals. Multiple types of controls include positive, negative, sham, vehicle, and comparative.

Positive Controls

In positive control groups, changes are expected. The positive control acts as a standard against which to measure difference in severity among experimental groups. An example of a positive control is a toxin administered to an animal, which results in reproducible physiological alterations or lesions. New treatments can then be used in experimental groups to determine whether these alterations may be prevented or cured. Positive controls are also used to demonstrate that a response can be detected, thereby providing some quality control on the experimental methods.

Negative Controls

Negative controls are expected to produce no change from the normal state. In the example above, the negative control would consist of animals not treated with the toxin. The purpose of the negative control is to ensure that an unknown variable is not adversely affecting the animals in the experiment, which might result in a false-positive conclusion.

Sham Controls

A sham control is used to mimic a procedure or treatment without the actual use of the procedure or test substance. A placebo is an example of a sham control used in pharmaceutical studies ( Spector 2002 ). Another example is the surgical implantation of “X” into the abdominal cavity. The treated animals would have X implanted, whereas the sham control animals would have the same surgical procedure with the abdominal cavity opened, as with the treated animals, but without having the X implanted.

Vehicle Controls

A vehicle control is used in studies in which a substance (e.g., saline or mineral oil) is used as a vehicle for a solution of the experimental compound. In a vehicle control, the supposedly innocuous substance is used alone, administered in the same manner in which it will be used with the experimental compound. When compared with the untreated control, the vehicle control will determine whether the vehicle alone causes any effects.

Comparative Controls

A comparative control is often a positive control with a known treatment that is used for a direct comparison to a different treatment. For example, when evaluating a new chemopreventive drug regime in an animal model of cancer, one would want to compare this regime to the chemopreventive drug regime currently considered “accepted practice” to determine whether the new regime improves cancer prevention in that model.

Randomization

Randomization of the animals assigned to different experimental groups must be achieved to ensure that underlying variables do not result in skewed data for each experimental group. To achieve randomization, it is necessary to begin by defining the population. A homogeneous population consists of animals that are considered to share some characteristics (e.g., age, sex, weight, breed, strain). A heterogeneous population consists of animals that may not be the same but may have some common feature. Generally, the better the definition of the group, the less variable the experimental data, although the results may be less pertinent to large broad populations. Methods commonly used to achieve randomization include the following ( Zolman 1993 ):

Identifying each animal with a unique identification number, then drawing numbers “out of a hat” and randomly assigning them in a logical fashion to different groups. For example, the first drawn number is assigned to group 1, the second to group 2, the third to group 1, the fourth to group 2, and so forth. Dice or cards may also be used to randomly assign animals to experimental groups.

Using random number tables or computer-generated numbers/sampling to achieve randomization.

Experimental Protocol Approval

Animal experimentation requires IACUC approval of an animal care and use protocol if the species used are covered under the Animal Welfare Act (regardless of funding source), the research is supported by the National Institutes of Health and involves the use of vertebrate species, or the animal care program is accredited by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International ( Silverman et al. 2000 ). In practice, virtually all animal experiments require IACUC approval, which entails full and accurate completion of appropriate protocol forms for submission to the IACUC, followed by clarification or necessary modification of any procedures the IACUC requires. Approval must be obtained before the animal purchase or experimentation and is required before submission of a grant proposal by some funding agencies. If the research involves hazardous materials, then protocol approval from other intramural oversight committees or departments may also be required (e.g., a Biosafety Committee if infectious agents or recombinant DNA are to be used, or a Radiation Safety Committee if radioisotopes or irradiation are to be used).

Animal welfare regulations and Public Health Service policy mandate that individuals caring for or using research animals must be appropriately trained. Specifically, all personnel involved in a research project must be appropriately qualified and/or trained in the methods they will be performing for that project. The institution where the research is being performed is responsible for ensuring this training, although the actual training may occur elsewhere.

Pilot Studies

Pilot studies use a small number of animals to generate preliminary data and/or allow the procedures and techniques to be solidified and “perfected” before large-scale experimentation. These studies are commonly used with new procedures or when new compounds are tested. Preliminary data are essential to show evidence supporting the rationale of a proposal to a funding agency, thereby increasing the probability of funding for the proposal. All pilot projects must have IACUC approval, as for any animal experiment. As soon as the pilot study is completed, the IACUC representative will either give the indication to proceed to a full study or will indicate that the experimental manipulations and/or hypotheses need to be modified and evaluated by additional pilot studies.

Data Entry and Analysis

The researcher has the ultimate responsibility for collecting, entering, and analyzing the data correctly. When dealing with large volumes of data, it is especially easy for data entry errors to occur (e.g., group identifications switched, animal identifications transposed). Quality assurance procedures to identify data entry errors should be developed and incorporated into the experimental design before data analysis. This process can be accomplished by directly comparing raw (original) data for individual animals with the data entered into the computer or with compiled data for the group as a whole (to identify potential “outliers,” or data that deviates significantly from the rest of the members of a group). The analysis of the data varies depending on the type of project and the statistics required to evaluate it. Because this topic is beyond the scope of this article, we refer the reader to the many outstanding books and articles on statistical analysis ( Cobb 1998 ; Cox and Reid 2000 ; Dean and Voss 1999 ; Festing and Altman 2002 ; Lemons et al. 1997 ; Pickvance 2001 ; Wasserman and Kutner 1985 ; Wilson and Natale 2001 ; Wu and Hamada 2000 ).

Detection of flaws, in the developing or final experimental design is often achieved by several levels of review that are applicable to animal experimentation. For example, grant funding agencies and the IACUC provide input into the content and design of animal experiments during their review processes and may also serve as advisory consultants before submission of the grant proposal or animal care and use protocol. Scientific peers and the scientific literature also provide invaluable information applicable to experimental design, and these resources should be consulted throughout the experimental design process. Finally, scientific peer-reviewed journals provide a final critical evaluation of the soundness of the experimental design. The overall quality of the experimental data is evaluated and a determination is made as to whether it is worthy of publication. Obviously, discovering major experimental design deficiencies during manuscript peer review is not desirable. Therefore, pursuit of scientific peer review throughout the experimental design process should be exercised routinely to ensure the generation of valid, reproducible, and publishable data.

The steps listed below comprise a practical sequence for designing and conducting scientific studies. We recommend that investigators

Conduct a complete literature review and consult experts who have experience with the techniques proposed in an effort to become thoroughly familiar with the topic before beginning the experimental design process.

Ask a specific question and/or formulate an appropriate hypothesis. Then design the experiments to specifically address that problem/question.

Consult a biostatistician during the design phase of the project, not after performing the experiments.

Choose proper controls to ensure that only the variable of interest is evaluated. More than one control is frequently required.

Start with a small pilot project to generate preliminary data and work out procedures and techniques. Then proceed to larger scale experiments to generate statistical significance.

Modify original question and procedures, ask new questions, and begin again.

Barrow J . 1991 . Theories of Everything . New York : Oxford University Press .

Google Scholar

Bennett BT Brown MJ Schofield JC . 1990 . Essentials for animal research: A primer for research personnel. In: Alternative Methodologies . Beltsville : USDA National Agricultural Library University of Illinois at Chicago p 13 – 25 .

Blount RL Bunke VL Zaff JF . 2000 . Bridging the gap between explicative and treatment research: A model and practical implications . J Clin Psych Med Set 7 : 79 – 90 .

Cobb GW . 1998 . Introduction to Design and Analysis of Experiments . New York : Springer .

Cox DR Reid N . 2000 . The theory of the design of experiments. In: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 86 . Boca Raton : Chapman & Hall/CRC Press .

Dean AM Voss D . 1999 . Design and Analysis of Experiments . New York : Springer .

De Boer J Archibald J Downie HG . 1975 . An Introduction to Experimental Surgery: A Guide to Experimenting with Laboratory Animals . New York : Elsevier .

Diamond WJ . 2001 . Practical Experiment Designs for Engineers and Scientists . 3rd ed. New York : Wiley .

EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] . 1989 . Good Laboratory Practice Regulations. Federal Register 40, chapter 1, part 792 .

FDA [Food and Drug Administration] . 1987 . Good Laboratory Practice Regulations. Federal Register 21, chapter 1, part 58 .

Festing MFW Altman DG . 2002 . Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals . ILAR J 43 : 244 – 258 .

Holmberg P . 1996 . From dogmatic discussions to observations and planned experiments: Some examples from early aurora borealis research in Finland . Sci Educ 5 : 267 – 276 .

Keppel G . 1991 . Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook . 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice Hall .

Kuhn T . 1962 . The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Larsson NO . 2001 . A design view on research in social sciences . Syst Prac Act Res 14 : 383 – 405 .

Lawson AE . 2002 . What does Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery? Sci Educ 11 : 1 – 24 .

Lemons J Shrader-Frechette K Cranor C . 1997 . The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors . Found Sci 2 : 207 – 236 .

Pickvance CG . 2001 . Four varieties of comparative analysis . J Hous Built Env 16 : 7 – 28 .

Russell WMS Burch RL . 1959 . The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . London : Methuen & Co. Ltd . [Reissued: 1992, Universities Federation for animal Welfare Herts , England .] http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm .

Silverman J Suckow MA Murthy S NIH IACUC . 2000 . The IACUC Handbook . Boca Raton : CRC Press .

Spector R . 2002 . Progress in the search for ideal drugs . Pharmacology 64 : 1 – 7 .

Sproull NL . 1995 . Handbook of Research Methods: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in the Social Sciences . 2nd ed. Metuchen : Scarecrow Press .

Wasserman W Kutner MH . 1985 . Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance and Experimental Designs . 2nd ed. Homewood : RD Irwin .

Weber D Skillings JH . 2000 . A First Course in the Design of Experiments: A Linear Models Approach . Boca Raton : CRC Press .

Webster IW . 1985 . Starting to do research . Med J Aust 142 : 624 .

Whitcom PJ . 2000 . DOE Simplified: Practical Tools for Effective Experimentation . Portland : Productivity .

Wilson EB . 1952 . An Introduction to Scientific Research . New York : McGraw-Hill .

Wilson JB Natale SM . 2001 . “Quantitative” and “qualitative” research: An analysis . Int J Value-Based Mgt 14 : 1 – 10 .

Wu CF Hamada M . 2000 . Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimization . New York : Wiley .

Zolman JF . 1993 . Biostatistics: Experimental Design and Statistical Inference . New York : Oxford University Press .

Abbreviation used in this article: IACUC, institutional animal care and use committee.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1930-6180
• Print ISSN 1084-2020
• Copyright © 2024 Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Animal testing and experiments FAQ

How many animals are used in experiments each year?

Which animals are used in experiments, what kinds of experiments are animals used in, what kinds of institutions use animals in experiments, where do laboratories get the animals they use in experiments, what is life like for animals in laboratories, what happens to the animals once an experiment is over, aren’t there laws to protect animals used in experiments, why are animals still used in experiments, what are the alternatives to experiments on animals, what are the advantages of using non-animal alternatives instead of animals in experiments.

• What are you doing to end experiments on animals?

What can I do to help animals in laboratories?

Stand with us to demand that the federal government, state governments, companies and universities stop relying on outdated animal experiments.

It is estimated that more than 50 million animals are used in experiments each year in the United States. Unfortunately, no accurate figures are available to determine precisely how many animals are used in experiments in the U.S. or worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does compile annual statistics on some animals used in experiments, including cats , dogs , guinea pigs , hamsters , pigs , primates , rabbits and  sheep .

However, the animals most commonly used in experiments—“purpose-bred” mice and rats  (mice and rats bred specifically to be used in experiments)—are not counted in annual USDA statistics and are not afforded the minimal protections provided by the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that sets minimal standards for the treatment of certain warm-blooded animals used in experiments. The law also requires that unannounced inspections of all regulated animal testing facilities are carried out annually, although some facilities only receive partial inspections . In addition to purpose-bred mice and rats, animals such as crabs, fish , frogs, octopuses and turtles , as well as purpose-bred birds , are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The failure to protect these animals under the law means that there is no oversight or scrutiny of their treatment in the laboratory or the experiments performed on them. And, because these animals are not counted, no one knows how many of them are suffering in laboratories. It also means that facilities using unprotected species in experiments are not required to search for alternative, non-animal methods that could be used to replace or reduce harmful experiments that use animals.

View Animals Used in Experiments by State

View Dogs Used in Experiments by State

Read Dogs Used in Experiments FAQ

Use our Animal Laboratory Search Tool  to find information about universities, hospitals, companies and other organizations that use certain animals in experiments

View a list of U.S. laboratories that use certain animals in experiments ; click on “License Type” and select “Class R – Research Facilities." Note that numbers only include animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act.

Back to top

Animals used in experiments include baboons, cats , cows , dogs , ferrets,  fish , frogs, guinea pigs , hamsters , horses , llamas, mice , monkeys (such as marmosets and macaques), owls, pigs , quail, rabbits , rats and  sheep .

Chimpanzees have thankfully not been subjected to invasive experiments in the U.S. since 2015, when federal decisions were made to prevent their use. Despite this, hundreds of chimpanzees are still languishing in laboratories while they wait to be moved to sanctuaries.

Animals are used in many different kinds of experiments. These are just a few examples:

• Dogs have their hearts, lungs or kidneys deliberately damaged or removed to study how experimental substances might affect human organ function.  
• Monkeys are taken from their mothers as infants to study how extreme stress might affect human behavior.
• Mice are force-fed daily doses of a chemical for two years to see if it might cause cancer in humans.
• Cats have their spinal cords damaged and are forced to run on treadmills to study how nerve activity might affect human limb movement.
• Ferrets are deliberately infected with extremely painful, potentially fatal diseases (such as RSV, COVID-19 or Ebola) and not given pain relief or treatment before their death to study how humans might be affected by the same disease.  
• Pigs are implanted with various devices (such as pacemakers and dental implants) to study how human bodies might respond to such devices.  
• Pregnant rabbits are force-fed toxic pesticides every day for several weeks to study how human mothers and babies might be affected if they were exposed to the pesticides.
• Sheep are subjected to high pressures (such as those experienced deep underwater) for hours at a time and then returned to normal pressure so that their response can be observed.
• Rats are placed in small tubes and are forced to inhale cigarette smoke for hours at a time to study how humans might respond to cigarette smoke.   
• Baboons are injected with endometrial tissue to induce painful symptoms of endometriosis and study how humans might be affected by the disorder.
• Horses are infected with a potentially fatal virus (such as hepatitis) and their symptoms monitored to study how humans might be affected by the same virus.

Experiments are often excruciatingly painful for the animals used and can vary in duration from days to months to years. The experiment can cause vomiting, diarrhea, irritation, rashes, bleeding, loss of appetite, weight loss, convulsions, respiratory distress, salivation, paralysis, lethargy, bleeding, organ abnormalities, tumors, heart failure, liver disease, cancer and death.

There is no limit to the extent of pain and suffering that can be inflicted on animals during experiments. In some instances, animals are not given any kind of pain medication to help relieve their suffering or distress during or after the experiment on the basis that it could affect the experiment.

Animals are typically killed once an experiment is over so that their tissues and organs can be examined, although it is not unusual for animals to be used in multiple experiments over many years. There are no accurate statistics available on how many animals are killed in laboratories every year.

Read Cosmetics Animal Testing FAQ

• Read about our 2022 undercover investigation at Indiana laboratory Inotiv, one of America’s largest animal testing labs. We documented hundreds of dogs, monkeys, rats and pigs undergoing experiments, including terrified beagle puppies being force-fed a potentially toxic drug in cruel and ineffective months-long tests paid for by Crinetics, a pharmaceutical company in San Diego.
• Read about our 2019 undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners to be adopted.

Chemical, pesticide and drug companies (as well as contract laboratories that carry out tests for those companies), public and private universities, community and technical schools, government facilities, Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities and hospitals all use animals in experiments.

View USDA List of Organizations that Use Dogs in Experiments

View Chart of Institutions That Use Dogs in Experiments

The majority of animals in laboratories are “purpose-bred” meaning that they are bred specifically to be used in experiments. People who breed and sell certain purpose-bred animals are called Class A dealers and are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Facilities that only sell purpose-bred mice, rats, birds or cold-blooded animals such as crabs, fish, frogs, octopuses and turtles to laboratories are excluded and are not licensed or inspected by the USDA.

Some animals used in experiments are taken from the wild—including birds and  monkeys . 

Historically, some cats and dogs  were sold to laboratories by brokers known as random source Class B dealers, who acquired animals at auctions, from newspaper ads and various other sources, including animal shelters. Random source Class B dealers have not been allowed to operate since 2015 when Congress first passed legislation to prevent them from being licensed.  

Some cats and dogs in laboratories are still obtained directly from animal shelters, a practice known as “pound seizure.” Pound seizure laws vary from state to state with one state (Oklahoma) requiring shelters to give cats and dogs to laboratories, rather than euthanizing them, and others allowing or prohibiting laboratories from taking animals from animal shelters. Some states have no laws at all, leaving it up to the individual shelter or locality.

View Pound Seizure Laws by State

Animals in laboratories suffer immensely. In addition to the painful experiments that the vast majority of animals in laboratories experience over days, months, years or even decades, life in a laboratory is typically a miserable and terrifying experience.

Typically kept alone in barren steel cages with little room to move around and few, if any, comforts, such as toys or soft bedding, animals often become excruciatingly lonelyand anxious, often devoid of the companionship of other animals or the loving touch of a human. Animals in laboratories can associate humans with painful situations and, with no way to hide or get away, they panic whenever a person approaches their cage or freeze with fear when they are taken into treatment rooms. Despite this, dogswill often still seek out human attention.

Animals in laboratories typically also have to watch (or hear) other animals suffering, including their own parents, siblings or babies. High levels of constant stress can cause animals to exhibit unnatural behaviors. For example, it is not uncommon for monkeys to mutilate themselves or to rock or vocalize constantly as a way to help relieve their anxiety, mice to overgroom each other until they are completely bald, and dogs to continually pace.  

Very often the experiments themselves lead to suffering and death. In our 2022 undercover investigation we documented monkeys in “restraint chairs”—devices that are used to hold monkeys in place while the experiments are carried out—who accidentally hanged themselves while unattended. We also documented a dog named Riley used to test a substance so toxic that it brought him near death after only two days of forced dosing. He was hypersalivating, trembling, vomiting, and moaning, yet was dosed yet again with this highly toxic substance. Later, he lay on the floor, unable to stand. Our undercover investigator tried to comfort him while he was dying, but Riley was left to suffer in excruciating pain overnight because the laboratory’s veterinarian was unavailable on a weekend

Animals in laboratories are also subject to mistreatment by inexperienced or careless staff. Although there are penalties for laboratories when animals are injured or killed due to negligence or when they fail to meet minimum standards of animal care, in reality, the fines are typically either very small or waived entirely.

In some cases, animals die as a deliberate result of the experiment. For example, the LD50 (lethal dose 50%) test, which is typically performed on mice, rats, pigeons, quail and fish, involves determining the dose of a substance (such as a pesticide) that kills (or would lead to the death of) 50% of the animals tested.

It is extremely rare that animals are either adopted out or placed into a sanctuary after research is conducted on them. However, more and more states are passing laws that require laboratories, when possible, to offer dogs and cats to shelters and other rescue organizations so they can be adopted into loving homes after the experiments they were used in have ended. As of December 2023, 16 states have such laws.

The Animal Welfare Act was designed to protect certain animals, like dogs and monkeys, used in experiments, but the law only offers minimal standards for housing, food and exercise. The Animal Welfare Act also stipulates that the proposed experiments be reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, whose members are appointed by the laboratory itself and largely made up of employees of the institution. A 2014 audit report reviewing Animal Welfare Act oversight of laboratories found that “animals are not always receiving basic humane care and treatment and, in some cases, pain and distress are not minimized during and after experimental procedures.”

The animals most commonly used in experiments—“purpose-bred” mice and rats  (mice and rats bred specifically to be used in experiments)—are not counted in annual USDA statistics and are not afforded the minimal protections provided under the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law that sets minimal standards for the treatment of certain warm-blooded animals used in experiments. The law also requires that unannounced inspections of all regulated research facilities are carried out annually. In addition to purpose-bred mice and rats, animals such as crabs, fish , frogs, octopuses and turtles as well as purpose-bred birds are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. The failure to protect these animals under the law means that there is no oversight or scrutiny of their treatment and use in the laboratory. And, because these animals are not counted, no one knows how many of them are suffering in laboratories. It also means that facilities using unprotected species in experiments are not required to search for alternative, non-animal methods that could be used to replace or reduce harmful experiments that use animals.

The vast majority of experiments on animals are not required by government law or regulations. Despite that, government agencies often seem to prefer that companies carry out animal tests to assess the toxicity or efficacy of products such as industrial chemicals, pesticides, medical devices and medicines.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that a new pesticide be fed to dogs for 90 days as part of its evaluation and approval process. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates various products such as drugs, medical devices, food, fragrances and color additives, will not approve potential drugs unless they are first tested on animals, which usually includes dogs. In addition to tests on  dogs ,  mice and rats ,  rabbits ,  birds  and primates are also used to test pesticides and drugs. These types of tests have been performed for years, regardless of whether they provide valuable information. While some regulatory agencies, like the EPA, are now taking a critical look at these animal tests to determine if they provide information necessary for assessing how safe a product or substance is for humans, and if better approaches are available, others have done little. More efforts can be made by agencies to invest in and encourage the development of non-animal methods.

Swapping animal experiments for non-animal alternative methods seems like a straightforward process, given that using animals has so many limitations and sophisticated new technologies offer countless possibilities for creating methods that are more humane and that more accurately mimic how the human body will respond to drugs, chemicals or treatments. Unfortunately, developing these alternatives is a complex process facing many obstacles, including inadequate funding. In most cases, a non-animal alternative must be formally validated—historically an expensive and lengthy process—in order to be accepted by government regulatory agencies, both in the U.S. and globally, although new, faster approaches to approving these methods are being developed. In contrast, animal experiments have never been subjected to the same level of scrutiny and validation. Despite these challenges, many scientists are increasingly committed to developing and using non-animal methods.

The world is continuously moving toward a future dominated by sophisticated methods that use human cells, tissues and organs, 3D printing, robotics, computer models and other technologies to create experiments that do not rely on animals.

While many animal experiments have not changed since they were developed decades ago and will always have severe limitations, advanced non-animal methods represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer, provide countless possibilities to improve our understanding and treatment of human diseases and will only continue to improve over time. Non-animal methods also have several advantages over outdated animal experiments: they more closely mimic how the human body responds to drugs, chemicals and treatments; they are more efficient and often less expensive; and they are more humane. Ultimately, moving away from animal experiments is better for both humans and animals.

We advocate for the immediate replacement of animal experiments with available non-animal methods and for more funding to develop new non-animal methods. A concerted effort to shift funding and technological development toward more non-animal alternatives will lead us to a future where animal experiments are a thing of the past.

Examples of non-animal alternative methods

• “Organs-on-chips” are tiny 3D chips created from human cells that look and function like miniature human organs. Organs-on-chips are used to determine how human systems respond to different drugs or chemicals and to find out exactly what happens during infection or disease. Several organs, representing heart, liver, lungs or kidneys, for example, can be linked together through a “microfluidic” circulatory system to create an integrated “human-on-a-chip” model that lets researchers assess multi-organ responses.
• Sophisticated computer models use existing information (instead of carrying out more animal tests) to predict how a medicine or chemical, such as drain cleaner or lawn fertilizer, might affect a human.
• Cells from a cancer patient’s tumor are used to test different drugs and dosages to get exactly the right treatment for that specific individual, rather than testing the drugs on animals.
• Specialized computers use human cells to print 3D tissues that are used to test drugs.
• Skin cells from patients, such as those with Alzheimer’s disease, are turned into other types of cells (brain, heart, lung, etc.) in the laboratory and used to test new treatments.
• Sophisticated computer programming, combined with 3D imaging, is used to develop highly accurate 3D models of human organs, such as the heart. Researchers then input real-world data from healthy people and those with heart disease to make the model hearts “beat” and test how they might respond to new drugs.

Human cells or synthetic alternatives can replace horseshoe crab blood in tests to determine whether bacterial contaminants are present in vaccines or injectable drugs.

• Animal experiments are time-consuming and expensive.
• Animal experiments don’t accurately mimic how the human body and human diseases respond to drugs, chemicals or treatments.
• Animals are very different from humans and, therefore, react differently.
• Increasing numbers of people find animal testing unethical.
• There are many diseases that humans get that animals do not.

What are you doing to end experiments on animals?

We advocate for replacing animals with non-animal alternative methods when they are available and more funding for the development of new alternative methods to quickly replace antiquated and unreliable animal tests and experiments. Our two main areas of focus are ending cosmetics animal testing  and ending experiments on dogs .

Cosmetics testing on animals

We—along with our partner, Humane Society International —are committed to ending cosmetics animal testing forever. Through our  Be Cruelty-Free campaign, we are working in the United States and around the globe to create a world where animals no longer have to suffer to produce lipstick and shampoo. 

• In the United States, we are working to pass the Humane Cosmetics Act , federal legislation that would prohibit animal testing for cosmetics, as well as the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.
• We are also working in several U.S. states to pass legislation that would end cosmetics animal testing. As of March 2024, 12 states (California, Hawai'i, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington) have passed laws banning the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.
• Internationally, as of December 2023, 45 countries have passed laws or regulations to ban cosmetics animal testing, including every country in the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom.
• We work with scientists from universities, private companies and government agencies around the globe to promote the development, use and regulatory acceptance of non-animal test methods that will reach beyond cosmetics.
• We educate consumers about animals used in cruel and unnecessary cosmetics tests and how to shop for cruelty-free cosmetics and personal care products.

Experiments on dogs

There is no place for harmful experiments on dogs in the U.S. We are committed to ending this practice.

• In the summer of 2022, we led the removal of 3,776 beagles from Envigo, a facility in Virginia that bred dogs to sell to animal laboratories. This historic mission was the result of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice that described shocking violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the facility. Instead of continuing to suffer, the dogs were removed from Envigo and headed to loving homes , a process facilitated by our shelter and rescue partners around the country.
• In April 2022, we released the results of our undercover investigation at Inotiv, an Indiana laboratory where thousands of dogs, monkeys, pigs and rats are used in experiments and killed.
• In 2021, we released a report examining the U.S. government’s role in using dogs in experiments. We found that the government uses millions of taxpayer dollars to fund harmful experiments on dogs each year—and also seems to prefer that companies carry out dog tests. Our researchers scrutinized public records and found that between 2015 and 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded more than $200 million to 200 institutions for 303 projects that used dogs in harmful experiments. Dogs were subjected to multiple surgeries, fitted with equipment to impair their heart function and implanted with devices to alter normal bodily functions. Following the conclusion of an experiment, dogs are typically killed instead of being adopted into loving homes.
• In 2019, we released the results of our undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a test year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs, agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners so they could be adopted.
• After a recent analysis we performed that showed the 90-day dog test for pesticide registration was rarely used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the risk that pesticides pose to humans, we are urging the agency to eliminate or significantly limit this test in the near future. We also want the agency to reaffirm their previously stated commitment to end their reliance on using mammals to test pesticides and chemicals by 2035.
• We are asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support the development of alternative methods that replace dogs in experiments. 
• We want the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to adopt the recommendations of an independent panel review released in 2020 that analyzed VA experiments using dogs, identified several areas where dogs are not needed and urged the agency to develop a strategy to replace all animal use. 
• We are recommending that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scrutinize grant proposals for projects using dogs, by applying strict criteria that must be met before dogs can be used and that they ban the use of dogs in experiments that cause unrelieved pain. We are also requesting that the NIH define a date when they will no longer fund or support experiments on dogs.
• prohibit or limit the use of dogs in experiments not required by federal law, similar to laws passed in California and Illinois .
• ensure an opportunity for  dogs and cats to be adopted into loving homes after the experiment ends.
• strengthen regulatory oversight of facilities that breed dogs destined for laboratories and increase penalties for animal welfare violations.
• Direct state funding to support the research and development of modern non-animal technologies, similar to the law passed in Maryland .

One easy way to help animals suffering in cosmetics tests is to swap out your personal care and household products for cruelty-free versions! Cosmetics (such as shampoo, deodorant and lipstick) and household products (such as dish soap, laundry detergent and glass cleaner) are typically tested on guinea pigs , rabbits ,  mice and rats .

Help us demand better for animals used in experiments through the following actions:

• Tell the FDA to stop encouraging companies to test on animals and instead switch to sophisticated non-animal alternatives.
• Stand with us to end research and tests on dogs by signing our petition.
• Urge the USDA to do their job and help protect animals in laboratories.
• Ask your federal legislators in Congress to ban cosmetic tests on animals.
• Support efforts to replace animal experiments with advanced non-animal alternatives that are better for both human health and animal welfare.

Follow us on Facebook to learn the latest news and actions related to animals in laboratories!

Alternatives to horseshoe crab blood

The Humane Society of the United States urges that horseshoe crab blood be replaced with non-animal methods when conducting endotoxin tests for medical products.

Vaccine, injectable drug and medical device manufacturers must test for endotoxins, a type of bacterial contaminant that, if present, can cause patients to develop symptoms that can include fever, chills, headache and nausea. Blood from horseshoe crabs is used to conduct the Limulus amebocyte lysate (or LAL) test for endotoxins.

The problem

To create this test, horseshoe crabs are captured from the wild and up to 30% of their blood is removed by medical supply companies. The crabs are later returned to the wild; however, it is estimated that 10-15% or more of them die as a result of this process.

In addition to being collected for their blood, horseshoe crabs are gathered up by fisheries, which use them as bait. These practices have led to a rapid decrease in the horseshoe crab population, putting them at risk of extinction. The decrease in wild horseshoe crab populations also impacts other species, including migratory shorebirds like the red knot, a threatened species that depends on horseshoe crab eggs for food.

THE solution

Scientists have developed recombinant Factor C (rFC), a synthetic alternative to the protein in horseshoe crab blood that can detect bacterial endotoxins. Repeated studies have demonstrated that rFC is equivalent or superior to the LAL test. A second method—the monocyte activation test—uses human cells and can not only detect bacterial endotoxins, but also pyrogenic (fever-causing) non-endotoxins.

what should be done

As a member of the Horseshoe Crab Recovery Coalition, the Humane Society of the United States is advocating for the replacement of the Limulus amebocyte lysate test with recombinant Factor C (rFC) or the monocyte activation test (MAT).

We urge the U.S. Pharmacopoeia—which sets quality, purity, strength and identity standards for medicines, food ingredients and dietary supplements—to encourage manufacturers to use rFC or MAT rather than LAL.

We also urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to update its guidance for vaccine, injectable drug and device manufacturers to indicate that these non-animal tests are now the preferred methods for endotoxin and pyrogenicity testing.

Donate today and your gift can have TRIPLE the impact to help save more animals from suffering.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 29 May 2012

The '3Is' of animal experimentation

Nature Genetics volume  44 ,  page 611 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

2401 Accesses

6 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Experimental organisms
• Genetics research

Animal experimentation in scientific research is a good thing: important, increasing and often irreplaceable. Careful experimental design and reporting are at least as important as attention to welfare in ensuring that the knowledge we gain justifies using live animals as experimental tools.

We have previously argued for the necessity of animal experimentation and the duty to explain the work to the public, despite the difficulty of doing so while treating animal experimentation as a problem in need of regulatory reduction ( Nat. Genet. 38 , 497–498, 2006). We now note that many experiments may be wasting human and animal lives because the focus on reduction in animal experiments can lead to unreliable results from underpowered experiments on too few animals.

In our opinion, the classic review by Sean Scott and colleagues ( Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. 9 , 4–15, 2008) should be required reading for anyone designing an animal experiment. It shows the danger of publishing positive results from underpowered studies on noisy experimental systems. By systematically investigating the standard model for familial motor neuron disease—the transgenic mouse bearing the human SOD1 G93A variant—this group showed that transgene copy number, non–amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cause of death and litter clustering contributed to noise in mean survival time and that any two small groups of animals always had a very high probability of showing differential survival of the previously publishable magnitude without any drug treatment . Rather than the previous publication mode of 5–10 mice per group, they used their knowledge of the sources of experimental variation to redesign the standard assay with 24 mice per group (saving 6 animals per group by same-gender litter matching and including equal numbers of males and females in case of a gender-specific drug effect). They were then able to repeat over 50 published studies of drug trials, often with twice the number of mice used in the combined preceding studies and with 90% power to detect the published effects. None of the drugs showed the published effect. These authors systematically investigated welfare issues relevant to experimental outcome, finding that basic, clean and specific pathogen–free housing made no difference to mean survival time. They also developed a surrogate endpoint for complete paralysis (wherein a mouse on its side takes >30 s to right itself) to prevent distress in mice with advanced disease.

It has been difficult to arrive at international standards for animal research because of regional variations in attitudes and legislation, but there is broad agreement on principles and practices for humane and scientifically appropriate treatment of animals ( http://cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/1985_texts_of_guidelines.htm ). Still, it has been possible to export best practice from one region to another. The UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs; www.nc3rs.org.uk ) is an effective agency with broad support from scientists, funders, veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies, in spite of its quaint name (somewhat redolent of Orwellian doublespeak—in contrast, the US government has a plain Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm ). The name reflects a 1959 UK Home Office policy (3Rs) that has consistently influenced that nation's approach to legal and ethical protection for animal research subjects, and the current NC3Rs and its collaborators have been able to develop reporting guidelines to encourage best practice. We have adopted these guidelines in our Guide to Authors ( http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/experimental.html ), in which the Nature journals insist upon authors applying the widely accepted Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for reporting animal research ( PLoS Biol. 8 , e1000412, 2010). In the form of a checklist, these guidelines are easy to follow and apply, and statistical issues, such as those discussed above, are front and foremost. However, one point, item 18c, may come as a surprise, as the recommendation is slanted in an entirely negative direction that may be unfamiliar to experimenters outside the UK:

“Describe any implications of your experimental methods or findings for the replacement, refinement, or reduction (the 3Rs) of the use of animals in research.”

In the interests of both good experimental design and continuing to explain to the public why animal research is useful and necessary, we emphasize that this duty to report scientific implications is also a duty to note any implications of your experiments for the importance, irreplaceability or, indeed, increase in animal experimentation. The privilege to know comes with a duty to explain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

The '3Is' of animal experimentation. Nat Genet 44 , 611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2322

Download citation

Published : 29 May 2012

Issue Date : June 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2322

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Between two stools: preclinical research, reproducibility, and statistical design of experiments.

• Penny S. Reynolds

BMC Research Notes (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

Animal experimentation

Nonhuman animals are used in laboratories for a number of purposes. Examples of animal experimentation include product testing, use of animals as research models and as educational tools. Within each of these categories, there are also many different purposes for which they are used. For instance, some are used as tools for military or biomedical research; some to test cosmetics and household cleaning products, and some are used in class dissection to teach teenagers the anatomy of frogs or to have a subject for a Ph.D. dissertation.

The number of animals used in animal experimentation is certainly smaller than that of those used in others such as animal farming or the fishing industry. 1  Yet it has been estimated to be well above 100 million animals who are used every year. 2

The ways in which these animals can be harmed in experimental procedures, also known as vivisection, 3 vary. In almost all cases they are very significant and the majority of them end with the death of the animals.

There’s an important difference today between the consideration that is afforded to the potential and actual subjects used in experiments, depending on whether they are human or nonhuman animals. Few people today would condone experimenting on human beings in harmful ways, and in fact, indicative of this, such research is strongly restricted by law, when it isn’t just prohibited outright. When experimentation on humans is permitted it is always in a context of the individuals involved consenting to it, for whatever personal benefit that serves as an incentive for them. For nonhuman animals, this is not the case.

This is not because of any belief that experimentation on humans could not bring about important knowledge (in fact, it seems obvious that this practice would uncover far more useful and relevant knowledge than any experimentation on nonhuman animals ever can). Rather, the reason for this double standard is that nonhuman animals are not morally taken into account because the strong arguments against speciesism are not considered.

In the following sections the most important areas in which nonhuman animals are used in laboratories or classrooms, as well as the research methods that don’t use them, are addressed.

Animals used for experimentation

Environmental research.

Animals are made to suffer and are killed to test the impact that chemicals can have in the environment. Some of the most important environmentalist organizations have been lobbying for this practice and have often been successful despite the opposition of animal defenders.

Cosmetic and household products testing

While animal testing of new cosmetics and household products is now illegal in places such as the European Union and India, it’s still being carried out in the U.S. and other places, where many animals are blinded, caused extreme pain and killed.

Military experimentation

The use of animals to test new weaponry, bullets and warfare chemicals, as well as the effects of burns and poison for military purposes, remains mainly hidden today, but many animals die in terrible ways because of it.

Biomedical experimentation

Animals of a variety of species are harmed for numerous purposes in biomedical research because the non-animal methodologies aren’t implemented. Those animals are harmed in many ways that most people ignore.

Experimentation with new materials

When new materials are developed, they are often tested by using methods such as cell or tissue cultures, or computational models. However, materials are also commonly tested on animals who are killed afterwards.

Animals used in education

Animals used in primary and secondary education.

Dissecting animals and using them in other ways has been common practice in the U.S. and some other countries in primary and especially secondary education for many years. This means killing a huge number of animals and educating new generations in the idea that it’s acceptable to harm animals for our benefit.

Animals used in higher education

In the science departments of many different universities, research, teaching and training are successfully carried out without using animals as laboratory tools. However, animals are still subjected to all kind of procedures in many other places.

Towards a future without animals harmed in laboratories

Research methods that do not involve the use of nonhuman animals.

Defenders of animal experimentation often claim that there is no choice but to harm animals lest scientific progress be stopped, but this is not so. There are many non-harmful methods available today.

Companies that test on animals

Despite the fact that many other companies do not experiment on sentient animals, there are still companies that choose to continue carrying out animal tests out of a lack of will to implement new methods.

Companies that do not test on animals

Fortunately, although many companies today choose not to harm animals in product development, quality and safety isn’t affected in the least.

1 Every year tens of billions are killed in slaughterhouses and trillions are fished and killed in fish factories. For estimations regarding this see: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021) “ Livestock primary ”, FAO STAT , February 19 [accessed on 24 March 2013]. See also Mood, A. &  Brooke, P. (2010) “ Estimating the number of fish caught in global fishing each year ”, Fishcount.org.uk , July [accessed on 18 October 2020]; (2012) “ Estimating the number of farmed fish killed in global aquaculture each year ”, Fishcount.org.uk , July [accessed on 18 January 2021].

2  See Taylor, K.; Gordon, N.; Langley, G. & Higgins, W. (2008) “Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005”,  Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , 36, pp. 327-342.

3 Although the term “vivisection” literally means “cutting a living animal,” this word has broadened its meaning in common language to denote any kind of laboratory invasive use of an animal. Defenders of animal experimentation prefer not to use it due to its negative connotations. Opponents of it claim that there shouldn’t be a problem with using this term given the meaning it already has in common language. They argue that its rejection is due to an intention to use language that is not explicit about how animals are used in this field.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Video course and ebook.

• Introduction to wild animal suffering video course
• Introduction to wild animal suffering ebook

RECENT RESEARCH

• An illustrated physiology of nervous systems in invertebrates
• eDNA sampling
• US law and wild animals
• Impacts of fires on wild animals
• Where to start
• Research help

WANT TO HELP?

• What you can do
• Join us on Patreon

ANIMAL ETHICS IN OTHER LANGUAGES

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988.

Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

Executive Summary

The use of animals in scientific research has been a controversial issue for well over a hundred years. The basic problem can be stated quite simply: Research with animals has saved human lives, lessened human suffering, and advanced scientific understanding, yet that same research can cause pain and distress for the animals involved and usually results in their death. It is hardly surprising that animal experimentation raises complex questions and generates strong emotions.

Animal experimentation is an essential component of biomedical and behavioral research, a critical part of efforts to prevent, cure, and treat a vast range of ailments. As in the past, investigators are using animals to learn about the most widespread diseases of the age, including heart disease and cancer, as well as to gain basic knowledge in genetics, physiology, and other life sciences. Animals are also needed to combat new diseases, of which acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is currently the most prominent example. At the same time, behavioral researchers are drawing on animal studies to learn more about such major causes of human suffering as mental illness, drug addiction, and senility.

The recognition that animals are essential in scientific research is critical in making decisions about their use, but these decisions are also made in the broad context of social and ethical values. In this report, the committee addresses these issues and examines how and why animals are used in research and how society oversees that research.

• Patterns of Animal Use

Data about the numbers and species of animals used for scientific experimentation in the United States come primarily from two sources: the National Research Council's Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Though the information from both of these sources is incomplete, it provides a picture of the magnitude of animal experimentation in the United States. In 1983, an estimated 17 to 22 million animals were used for research, testing, and education in the United States. In this case, ''animal'' includes all vertebrates—namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. The majority of animals used—between 12 million and 15 million—were rats and mice. These quantities are a small fraction of the total of over 5 billion animals used annually for food, clothing, and other purposes in the United States.

A significant portion of the laboratory animals used each year are involved not in research but in testing. Research and testing are not always separable, but testing generally entails the use of animals, primarily rats and mice, to assess the safety or effectiveness of consumer products such as drugs, chemicals, and cosmetics.

The data concerning the numbers of animals used in testing are not complete. Various sources estimate that anywhere from several million to more than half of the approximately 20 million animals used for research and testing in the United States are used for testing. In contrast, the use of animals in education is relatively small (i.e., only an estimated 53,000 animals are used per year in teaching in medical and veterinary schools) and has been declining in recent years.

In general, the data concerning animal use in the United States must be viewed as uncertain. The Office of Technology Assessment has concluded that it is not even possible to tell from the existing data whether the total number of animals used each year is increasing or decreasing. A survey now being planned by ILAR, the fourth in a series of ILAR surveys conducted since 1962, will provide some of this information.

Animal research encompasses a wide range of biomedical and behavioral experiments. One field of behavioral research entails observing animals in colonies that simulate their natural environments. Other animals undergo medical procedures such as surgery to gauge the effectiveness of new techniques. Some are exposed to toxic substances until death or disability results. Others are killed immediately to obtain an essential organ or tissue for further studies. Although long-term survival is sometimes the goal of animal experimentation, most research animals are humanely killed at some point during the course of the research.

• Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals

The use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research has greatly increased scientific knowledge and has had enormous benefits for human health. For example, in the United States, animal experimentation has contributed to an increase in average life expectancy of about 25 years since 1900. A few examples give an indication of the breadth and variety of these contributions.

• Animals have been used to study cardiovascular function and disease since the early 1600s. Heart-lung machines, which have made open-heart surgery possible, were developed with animals before being used with humans. More than 80 percent of all congenital heart diseases that were formerly fatal can now be cured by surgical treatment based on animal experiments. Similarly, a wide variety of surgical techniques and drug treatments, which have extended life for millions of Americans, were first perfected in animals.
• Studies of the biology of transplantation in animals have made it possible to transfer organs between people. Some 30,000 Americans now alive have transplanted kidneys, which free them from the laborious and uncomfortable dialysis treatments once needed to keep them alive. Other Americans are now alive because of transplanted hearts or livers, or have had their lives immeasurably improved because of skin or cornea transplants. Basic research on transplantation has also contributed greatly to the understanding of immunology, with wide ramifications for the treatment of many diseases.
• Animal research shed light on the nature of polio and has helped to nearly eliminate the disease from the United States. In the early 1900s, researchers succeeded in transmitting the polio virus to monkeys for the first time. In following years, investigators tested various altered or inactivated forms of the virus in monkeys until strains were found that could immunize the monkeys without giving them the disease. This work led to human vaccines that have reduced the number of cases of paralytic polio in the United States from 58,000 in 1952, at the height of one epidemic, to 4 in 1984.
• Many clinically useful methodologies were first tested on animals before being used with humans. Examples include computed axial tomographic (CAT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
• Animal studies have been essential in probing the functions of the brain in health and disease. Investigators have used animals to understand movement (and the movement dysfunctions caused by such diseases as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis), vision, memory (including the severe memory loss that occurs in 5 percent of persons over the age of 65), drug addiction, nerve cell regeneration, learning, and pain.

The use of animals is important if biomedical research is to continue to lead to the understanding and amelioration of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and uncontrolled infectious diseases. It will also be essential in efforts to understand and control newly emergent human diseases. For example, researchers have identified viruses in monkeys and other animals that cause diseases in those species similar to AIDS. These animals can therefore act as model systems for the human disease, allowing investigation of possible treatments and vaccines.

Animal research does not only benefit humans. Much animal research also benefits animals, either directly because animal health is the subject of research or indirectly because the same procedures and treatments used in humans can be used in animals. Most of the animals that benefit from this research are domesticated and therefore assist humans in some way—as sources of food and fiber, for instance, or as pets and companions. Vaccines, antibiotics, anesthetics, and other products have improved the lives of countless animals.

• Alternative Methods in Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Scientists have been and are searching for alternative methods to the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research for a variety of reasons, including an interest in the welfare of animals, a concern for the increasing costs of purchasing and caring for animals, and because in some areas alternative methods may be more efficient and effective research tools. In current usage, the term "alternative methods" includes replacements for mammals, reductions in the use of animals, and refinements in experimental protocols that lessen the pain of the animals involved.

One way to reduce the use of mammals is to modify experimental protocols so that fewer of them are needed. In the field of testing, for instance, methods have been found to assess toxicity using fewer mammals than were once thought necessary. In addition, in some experimental situations, features of mammals can be modeled by nonmammalian vertebrates (birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish), invertebrates, plants, organs, tissues, cells, microorganisms, and nonbiological systems. For example, research conducted on the fruit fly Drosophila has led to understandings in genetics that apply to all living things, and mathematical models can increase the effectiveness of experiments by defining variables and checking theories, thus making experiments on biological systems more effective and economical. Finally, experimental protocols can be refined to reduce the pain and suffering experienced by laboratory animals. These approaches are all referred to as alternatives.

The search for alternatives to the use of animals in research and testing remains a valid goal of researchers, but the chance that alternatives will completely replace animals in the foreseeable future is nil. Nevertheless, successes have occurred in reducing the numbers of animals used, in developing nonmammalian models, and in refining experimental protocols to reduce the pain experienced by animals, and work continues in this area.

Recognizing the above, the committee recommends that:

• Research investigators should consider possible alternative methods before using animals in experimental procedures.

To enable researchers better to consider alternatives, it is important that they have access to relevant information. The committee therefore recommends that:

• Databases and knowledge bases should be further developed and made available for those seeking appropriate experimental models for use in the design of research protocols.

Furthermore, although the committee's work has focused mainly on research, it recommends that:

• Federal regulatory agencies should move rapidly to accept tests—as such tests become validated—that reduce the number of vertebrates used, insofar as this does not compromise the regulatory mission of an agency and protection of the public.
• Regulatory Issues

The laws and regulations governing animal research reflect the broad ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals by humans. The most important federal law affecting animal research in the United States is the Animal Welfare Act. Passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985, the act sets minimum standards for handling, housing, feeding, and watering laboratory animals and establishes basic levels of sanitation, ventilation, and shelter from temperature and weather extremes. The law covers those warm-blooded animals designated by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overseer of the Animal Welfare Act. At present, this includes dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, and marine mammals, but not rats, mice, birds, and farm animals used in biomedical research—although rats and mice account for about 85 percent of the animals used in research, education, and testing.

The most recent amendments to the Animal Welfare Act, which took the form of the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985, added several important provisions to the law. The law requires investigators to consider alternative methods that do not involve animals and to consult with a veterinarian before beginning any experiment that could cause pain. It also requires that dogs receive proper exercise, that primates be provided with environments that promote their psychological well-being, and that all animals used receive adequate presurgical and postsurgical care and pain-relieving drugs. These amendments also require that each registered research facility appoint a committee to monitor animal research in that institution. These committees must include a veterinarian and a person unaffiliated with the research facility to represent the community's interests in animal welfare. Committee members must inspect the facility's animal laboratories twice a year and report deficiencies to the institution for correction. If the deficiencies are not corrected promptly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture must be notified for enforcement, and any funding agency must be informed so that it can decide whether to suspend or revoke grants or contracts to the violator.

A second long-standing, important document affecting animal research in the United States is a product not of the federal government but of the scientific community. In 1963, the Animal Care Panel released the Guide for Laboratory Animal Facilities and Care . The Guide has been revised five times since then by ILAR, most recently in 1985, and has been renamed the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals to reflect its broadened scope. Its purpose is to assist investigators and institutions in caring for and using laboratory animals professionally and humanely. It is written in general terms so that it can be used by the wide variety of institutions that conduct experiments using animals.

A number of other government agencies and private organizations have drawn on the Guide in establishing standards for animal research. The 1985 Health Research Extension Act, which reauthorized funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), requires that researchers receiving funding from NIH adhere to the standards of the Guide . In 1986, the Public Health Service (PHS)—which includes NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration—released the most recent revision of its policy statement on the humane care and use of laboratory animals. This, too, requires compliance with the Guide . An Interagency Research Animal Committee incorporated the Guide by reference in its 1985 "U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training." On the nongovernmental side, the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care uses the Guide in evaluating the animal facilities of institutions seeking accreditation.

In addition to requiring compliance with the Guide , the PHS policy statement and 1985 Health Research Extension Act include several other important statutory and regulatory changes. They require that each institution receiving funds from PHS maintain an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to monitor animal research. As with the committees required by the Animal Welfare Act, each IACUC must include one veterinarian and one individual not affiliated with the institution. Investigators who plan to use animals must submit their research protocols to these committees, including a justification for the use of a particular kind of animal and a demonstration that they have considered methods that do not use animals.

The use of animals for research, testing, and education is also regulated in other ways in the United States. For example, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have established Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) regulations that affect the use and care of animals.

Even with this abundance of regulatory activity, self-regulation is the most important determinant of humane treatment of animals. Professional societies have set up guidelines to be followed by their members. In addition, many individual institutions—governmental, academic, and private—have established policies governing animal experimentation and testing. Many institutions now provide information and instruction to animal users on the proper care and handling of research animals. Most important are individual investigators; under the review of their institutional animal committees, they ultimately have the greatest control over and responsibility for how an animal will be cared for and used. At the same time, most scientists acknowledge the need for regulations to set minimum standards and provide for public accountability.

Although humane care and use of laboratory animals characterize the scientific community, there have been from time to time some members of this community who have been found to care inadequately for their animals. The committee believes that the mistreatment or mishandling of animals is not acceptable. Maltreatment and improper care of animals used in research cannot be tolerated, and individuals responsible for such behavior must be subject to censure. Without such punishment, the continued use of animals by all scientists is threatened, as more regulations and restrictions are imposed by legislative and regulatory authorities in response to their perception that scientists who commit abuses are not punished.

Many scientists believe, however, that present regulatory procedures can in some instances be disruptive, in that they may decrease efficiency, increase costs, and slow progress. For instance, obtaining preliminary approval of all research protocols does delay some experiments. On the other hand, protocol review can help the researcher when it provides an opportunity for the scientist's peers to offer advice and assistance. This advice may result in a better-planned experiment that not only improves animal care and minimizes animal pain but also leads to more instructive results. In any case, more extensive regulations may have contributed to the increased expense of animal research, which constrains the research that can be done.

The requirement that investigators strictly comply with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals has also raised difficulties. The 1985 Health Research Extension Act essentially imparts the force of law to the Guide , but the Guide was not written to be a legal document. It was designed to provide for flexibility in interpretation, guided by professional judgment. As such, it has served the community of individuals using laboratory animals well in the more than 20 years since it was first published. Because it is now being used to set minimum standards for inspection, it may in some respects be too rigidly interpreted, as in the requirement for multiple separate areas and rooms for performing aseptic surgery. If the Guide is to act as law, it should be carefully examined and redrafted as needed to ensure that its language satisfies the intent, as distinct from the letter, of the law.

In the general area of regulation, the committee recommends the following:

• No additional laws or regulatory measures (except the regulations required by the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985) affecting the use of animals in research should be promulgated until, based on experience, a careful accounting of the effects of the application of the present body of laws, regulations, and guidelines has been made and evidence of the need for more regulation is available.
• A mechanism should be established for ongoing review of the regulatory framework of federal agencies for animal experimentation. It is essential that research scientists who must abide by this regulatory framework be prominently involved in its assessment. Specifically, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals should be reviewed as soon as possible to determine whether revisions are necessary due to new information.
• Federal standards developed by different agencies for the care and use of laboratory animals should be congruent with each other.
• Sufficient federal funds should be appropriated for the inspections required for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
• Sufficient federal funds should be appropriated for maintenance and improvement of animal facilities to allow individuals and institutions to conduct animal research in compliance with government policies, regulations, and laws. It is important that such funds should be added to ongoing research support.
• Use of Pound Animals

One of the most controversial areas in the current debate involves the use of impounded dogs and cats. The emotions engendered have resulted in the passage of laws by a number of political jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict the release of impounded animals for use in research. These laws create a dilemma: the impounded animals are not released for use in research but are killed by the pound or shelter if not claimed. Each year more than 10 million such animals are destroyed at pounds or shelters, whereas fewer than 200,000 dogs and cats are released from pounds and shelters to scientific establishments for use in research—less than 2 percent of the number that are destroyed.

A prohibition against the use of pound animals also means that more animals are used each year. Instead of using one of the 10 million pound animals that will be destroyed, different animals are bred for use in research.

Whether a pound animal or a "purpose-bred" animal is the appropriate research model depends on the needs of the experiment. Pound animals are seen as having varied genetic backgrounds. In some experiments the genetic variability, because it is much like that found naturally in humans, is an advantage; in other cases it is necessary to know the genetic background of the animal, requiring an animal bred for research. For other experiments it may be necessary to use purpose-bred animals because the health history, physiological status, and age of pound animals are not well enough known to ensure that conditions present in the animals will not interfere with conduct of the experiment.

Twelve states have passed laws that prohibit the release of impounded animals for use in research. In 11 of these states, researchers can use animals impounded in other states, which are legally transported across state lines by dealers. In Massachusetts, a new law that went into effect in 1986 prohibits researchers from using any animals from pounds, no matter where those animals were impounded.

A prohibition against the use of pound animals inevitably increases the costs of animal research because the cost of an animal from a dealer is greater than the cost of a pound animal. If the impounded dogs used each year in research were not available, a substantial additional cost would be incurred from buying replacement dogs from dealers.

In addressing the use of pound animals:

• The committee unanimously recommends that pound animals be made available for research in which the experimental animals are used in acute experiments (i.e., in which the animals remain anesthetized until they are killed). While a majority of the committee supports the appropriate use of pound animals in all experiments, a minority opposes the use of pound animals for chronic, survival experiments.

American society is a pluralistic society in which public policy takes into account many different perspectives. No single ideology or theology governs people's ways of thinking. Similarly, decisions in the United States do not arise unilaterally from authorities. They reflect a consensus within society, as expressed through people's elected representatives.

Some people will continue to contend that animal research should be eliminated. The committee rejects such a view. Indeed, the committee concludes that:

• Humans are morally obliged to each other to improve the human condition. In cases in which research with animals is the best available method to reach that goal, animals should be used.

The committee also recognizes that:

• Scientists are ethically obliged to ensure the well-being of animals used in research and to minimize their pain and suffering.

The committee affirms the principle of humane care of all animals used in research and recommends that:

• All those responsible for the care and use of animals in research should adhere to the principle that these animals be treated humanely.
• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988. Executive Summary.
• PDF version of this title (664K)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Executive Summary - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Resea... Executive Summary - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Animal experimentation

• Published: March 2006
• Volume 12 , pages 111–122, ( 2006 )

Cite this article

• Roman Kolar 1  

7534 Accesses

25 Citations

Explore all metrics

Millions of animals are used every year in oftentimes extremely painful and distressing scientific procedures. Legislation of animal experimentation in modern societies is based on the supposition that this is ethically acceptable when certain more or less defined formal (e.g. logistical, technical) demands and ethical principles are met. The main parameters in this context correspond to the “3Rs” concept as defined by Russel and Burch in 1959, i.e. that all efforts to replace, reduce and refine experiments must be undertaken.

The licensing of animal experiments normally requires an ethical evaluation process, oftentimes undertaken by ethics committees. The serious problems in putting this idea into practice include inter alia unclear conditions and standards for ethical decisions, insufficient management of experiments undertaken for specific (e.g. regulatory) purposes, and conflicts of interest of ethics committees’ members.

There is an ongoing societal debate about ethical issues of animal use in science. Existing EU legislation on animal experimentation for cosmetics testing is an example of both the public will for setting clear limits to animal experiments and the need to further critically examine other fields and aspects of animal experimentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Alternatives to Animal Experiments in Research and Regulatory Testing

Ethical Issues in Animal Research

Animal Research

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Akademie für Tierschutz (1989) Verträglichkeit für Auge und Schleimhaut — Der Draize-Test und mögliche Ersatzmethoden , Köllen Druck & Verlag GmbH, Bonn.

Google Scholar  

Weil, C.S. and Scala, R.A. (1971) Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 19 : 276–360.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gettings, S.D., Teal, J.J., Bagley, D.M. et al. (1991) The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase I. Hydro-alcoholic formulations: Part 2: data analysis and biological significance. In Vitro Toxicology 4 : 247–288.

Commission of the European Communities (2005) Fourth report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union . COM (2005) 7 final, Brussels, 20.01.2005. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/com_2005_7_en.pdf.

Sauer, U.G., Spielmann, H. and Rusche, B. (2005) Fourth EU Report on the statistics on the number of animals used for scientific purposes in 2002 — trends, problems, conclusions. ALTEX 22 : 19–24.

Sauer, U.G. and Kolar, R. (2000) Developments in the collection of statistical information on the number of animals used in experiments and other scientific purposes in the European Union. ATLA 28 : 133–145.

Mather, J.A. (2001) Animal suffering: An invertebrate perspective. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4 : 151–156.

Sherwin C.M. (2001) Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Animal Welfare 10 : 103–118.

Anon (1986) Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 . UK Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/animallegislation.html.

Zinko, U., Jukes, N. and Gericke, C. (1997) From guinea pig to computer mouse; alternative methods for humane education , EuroNICHE.

Maehle, A.-H. (1992) Kritik und Verteidigung des Tierversuchs. Die Anfänge der Diskussion im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert , Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.

Kant, I. (1956) Werke , Bd.4, Weischedel W. Hrsg., Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

Young, T. (1798) An Essay on Humanity to Animals , Cadwell T., Jun. and Davies W., London.

Reinhard, F.V. (1816) System der Christlichen Moral ,. Bd. 5, Grässer C. und Härter, Wien.

Dann, C.A. (1838) Bitte der armen Thiere, der unvernünftigen Geschöpfe, an ihre vernünftigen Mitgeschöpfe und Herrn die Menschen , 2. Auflage, Ludwig Friedrich Fues, Tübingen.

Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L. (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique , Special Edition 1992, ed. Universities for Animal Welfare, Methuen & Co Ltd., London.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1937) AAAS Resolution: Animal Experimentation . http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=218.

Anon (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 animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities L358 : 1–13. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdf.

Anon (1986) European Convention ETS 123 for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes , Council of Europe, Strasbourg. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/123.htm.

Johnston, N.E. and Rusche, B. (1997) Ethics committees: how do they contribute to the Three Rs? Synopsis of the workshop, in: van Zutphen L. F. M. and Balls M. eds. Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences , Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam et al.: 391–395.

Gruber, F.P. and Kolar, R. (1997) Animal test advisory commissions: ethics committees in Germany, in: van Zutphen L. F. M. and Balls M. eds. Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences , Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam et al.: 373–376.

Kolar, R. (2000) Die Abwägung der ethischen Vertretbarkeit von Tierversuchen: Theorie und Praxis. ALTEX 17 : 227–234.

Kolar, R. (2004) Ethical evaluation of research proposals by ethics panels. ATLA 32 : Supplement 1: 429–439.

Delpire, V.C., Mepham, B. and Balls, M. (1999) A proposal for a new ethical scheme addressing the use of laboratory animals for biomedical purposes. ATLA 27 : Supplement 1, 869–881.

Anon (2003) Directive 2003/15/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27.02.2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Official Journal of the EU , L66 : 26–35.

Ruhdel, I. (2004) EU sales ban on new cosmetics tested on animals: Impact on alternative methods. WTO implications and animal welfare aspects, in: The three R’s at the beginning of the 21st century. Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. 11–15 August 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. ATLA 32 : Supplement 1, 365–371.

Taylor, R. (2001) A step at a time: New Zealand’s progress toward hominid rights. Animal Law Volume 7 : 35–44. http://www.animallaw.info/journals/jo_pdf/lralvol_7p35.pdf.

Animal Welfare Act 1999 (2000) http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/1999/an/142.html)

Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences & Swiss Academy of Sciences (1995) Ethical Principles and Guidelines for Scientific Experiments on Animals 2nd ed. http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/pageitems/document/cda_downloaddocument/0,11996,0-0-45-137181-0,00.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Animal Welfare Academy (Akademie für Tierschutz), German Animal Welfare Federation (Deutscher Tierschutzbund), Spechtstr. 1, 85579, Neubiberg, Germany

Roman Kolar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Kolar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kolar, R. Animal experimentation. SCI ENG ETHICS 12 , 111–122 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0011-1

Download citation

Issue Date : March 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0011-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• animal experimentation
• animal welfare
• ethics committees
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Band 9: Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

The ethical implications of animal experimentation have incited a contentious debate among various stakeholders. Proponents of banning such practices argue that utilizing animals as subjects in research is inherently cruel, while opponents assert that these experiments are critical to advancing scientific knowledge. This essay will articulate a rationale for the continuation of animal experimentation and explore alternative methodologies that could mitigate ethical concerns.

To begin with, there is substantial evidence indicating that animal experimentation yields significant benefits, particularly in the medical field. Vital breakthroughs, such as the development of vaccines and treatments for debilitating diseases, are often predicated on prior animal studies. For example, the successful development of the polio vaccine was contingent upon extensive testing in animal models, which enabled researchers to observe the effects of the vaccine before human trials commenced. Such findings illustrate the indispensable role that animal research plays in safeguarding public health.

Nevertheless, emerging technologies present viable alternatives to traditional animal experimentation. Firstly, advancements in robotics have led to the development of sophisticated robotic systems that can simulate human physiological responses. Utilizing robots as experimental subjects alleviates ethical concerns associated with animal suffering, while providing insights that are applicable to human health. Additionally, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into research frameworks offers promising prospects. AI can model experimental conditions and generate predictive analyses of potential outcomes, thereby reducing reliance on animal testing. For instance, platforms utilizing AI have been employed to predict the efficacy of drug compounds, enabling researchers to focus on the most promising candidates before any biological testing.

In conclusion, while the moral complexities surrounding animal experimentation cannot be disregarded, it is evident that the contributions to scientific advancement are substantial. Rather than imposing an outright ban, it is essential to recognize the potential of alternative methods, such as robotics and artificial intelligence, which could complement or, in some instances, replace the need for animal subjects in research. By balancing ethical considerations with scientific necessity, a more humane and innovative approach to research can be established.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample with your idea, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, essays on the same topic:, some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. however, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. can experimentation on animals be justified are there any alternatives.

It is claimed that animal experimentation should be prohibited due to its cruelty. However, others argue that animal experiments are attributed to significant scientific purposes and advancements. From my perspective, I believe that using animals for experimentation should be limited and replaced by several viable alternative measures, such as human-based research and computer modeling. On […]

It is claimed that animal experimentation should be prohibited due to its cruelty. However, others argue that animal experiments are attributed to significant scientific purposes and advancements. From my perspective, I believe that using animals for experimentation should be limited and replaced by several viable alternative measures. On the one hand, it is understandable that […]

There are different opinions and an ongoing discussion about the experimentation on animals. Some people think it should be banned because it is harmful for animals, while others underline its importance for scientific research. In this essay, I will state my point of view on the topic, and I will try to investigate the existing […]

Other Topics:

Men and women are different in terms of their characteristics and abilities. for this reason, some jobs are better done by men and others by women. do you agree or disagree.

This essay agrees with the opinion that men and women are not alike in capabilities and behaviors. This essay provides some information about norms which are existed in each nation about genders’ rights and also on differences in each gender. First of all, some people believe that acknowledging differences between men and women is not […]

People doing dangerous sporting activities like scuba-diving and bungee-jumping should be responsible for their own safety. Rescue workers should not risk their lives to save people doing those sports. Do you agree or disagree?

It is commonly believed that doing scuba diving and bungee jumping are life-threatening sports. That is why people who are into these should also be the one to save their own lives from danger without asking the help of rescuers. In my own perspective, I disagree that they should not get any help at all. […]

It is better for companies to help their workers feel happy at work rather than put lots of pressure on them for the sake of profit. Do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that companies should prioritize the happiness of their employees over exerting pressure for the benefits of companies. I fully agree with this view and I will state my reasons below. Firstly, working with satisfaction will increase productivity. Research consistently shows that employees who feel valued and satisfied are more likely to be […]

More companies should employ older people. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

In todays world, many companies are opting to employ more people from older age brackets. This essay will examine the merits and the drawbacks this trend could offer. To begin with, older people can contribute to the company greatly in terms of experince . In other words, companies could benefit from the experiences and skills […]

Museums and art galleries should concentrate on local works of art, and not show the culture or artworks from other countries.

Some feel that museums and art galleries ought to primarily focus on showcasing local, rather than international, works. In my opinion, despite the importance of domestic pieces for national cohesion, there is greater value in international items. Those who advocate for domestic art in national museums and exhibition halls point out the unifying effect. Students […]

Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others think that they should be allowed to study subjects related to science and technology. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

The choice of studying courses related to one’s preferences in a university is contentious with some advocating for students to study courses as per their liking while others necessitating that students study subjects connected with science and technology. This essay explains both viewpoints regarding this matter in detail along with apt examples. On one hand, […]

Plans & Pricing

• Help Animals
• Investigations
• Animal Rights Issues
• Students Opposing Speciesism (SOS)
• Join the Action Team
• Monthly Giving
• Your Legacy For Animals
• PETA Vanguard Society
• ‘In Honor of’ and Memorial Gifts
• Membership Services
• More Ways to Support PETA
• Report Cruelty to Animals
• Urgent Alerts
• Our Campaigns
• Action Team
• Activist Guide
• Get Active Online
• Leaflets & Stickers
• Adoptable Animals
• Rescue Stories
• Recent Investigations
• Investigations & Rescue Fund

Animals Used for Experimentation

• Entertainment
• Companion Animals
• Personal Care & Fashion
• Food & Health
• Humane Home
• Animal Companions
• Students Opposing Speciesism
• Cruelty-Free Database
• PETA Shopping Guide
• PETA Approved Vegan
• PETA Presents
• Work at PETA
• PETA Global
• Vanguard Society
• More Ways to Support
• Gifts in Wills

Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and are deprived of everything that’s natural and important to them. All they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. A lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situations cause some animals to develop neurotic behaviors, such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

How PETA Helps Animals in Laboratories

Since PETA’s inception and the landmark  Silver Spring monkeys  case, we’ve been at the forefront of exposing and ending experiments on animals. Our scientists, campaigners, researchers, and other dedicated staff work hard to persuade universities, hospitals,  contract laboratories ,  other companies , and government agencies to abandon animal tests and embrace modern, non-animal methods.

Two teams lead PETA’s efforts to end tests on animals. Our Laboratory Investigations Department focuses on ending the use of animals in experiments not required by law, and our Regulatory Toxicology Department focuses on replacing the use of animals in tests required by law with human-relevant, animal-free toxicity testing approaches. With help from supporters like you, these teams and other hardworking staff at PETA win numerous  victories  for animals imprisoned in laboratories every year. Here’s how they do it:

• Promoting PETA’s Research Modernization Deal , the first comprehensive, science-backed plan to phase out tests on animals
• Conducting groundbreaking  eyewitness investigations and colorful advocacy campaigns to shut down laboratories and areas of animal experimentation
• Filing groundbreaking lawsuits to challenge public funding of wasteful, cruel animal experiments
• Working with members of Congress to enact laws to replace animals in laboratories
• Persuading government agencies to stop conducting and  requiring experiments on animals
• Encouraging  pharmaceutical, chemical , and  consumer product companies to replace tests on animals with more effective, non-animal methods
• Ending the use of animals in experiments at colleges and universities
• Helping  students and  teachers  end animal dissection in the classroom
• Developing and funding humane non-animal research methods
• Publishing scientific papers on reliable non-animal test methods and presenting them at scientific conferences
• Hosting free workshops and online seminars to share information about animal-free toxicity testing methods
• Urging  health charities not to invest in dead-end tests on animals

How Animals Are Exploited in Laboratories

More than 110 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests. They also experience this fate in  medical training exercises , curiosity-driven  experiments at universities ,  classroom biology experiments , and  dissection even though modern, non-animal methods have repeatedly been shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren’t available, because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 99% of animals used in experiments—aren’t covered by even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted.

Examples of chemical and toxicity tests on animals include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs chemicals, and applying corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals doesn’t guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans.

Much product testing conducted on animals today isn’t required by law. In fact, a number of countries have implemented bans on the testing of certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics testing bans in India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, at universities and other institutions, experimenters inflict suffering on and kill animals for little more than curiosity’s sake—even though the vast majority of their findings fail to advance human health . They tear baby monkeys away from their mothers , sew kittens’ eyes shut , mutilate owls’ brains , puncture the intestines of mice so that feces leak into their stomachs , and terrorize songbirds with the sounds of predators . At the end of experiments like these—which consume billions in taxpayer funds and charitable donations each year—almost all the animals are killed.

Animal Experiments Throughout History: A Century of Suffering

PETA created an interactive timeline, “ Without Consent ,” featuring almost 200 stories of animal experiments from the past century to open people’s eyes to the long history of suffering inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge them to rethink this exploitation. Visit “ Without Consent ” to learn more about harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

Advancing Science Without Suffering: Animal-Free Testing

Testing on animals has been a spectacular failure that has resulted in the loss of trillions of dollars and has cost the lives of innumerable humans and other animals. Experiments on one species frequently fail to predict results in another. Even the National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, acknowledges that 95% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials.

Technologically advanced  non-animal research methods —such as those using human cells, computational models, or clinical studies—can be used in place of animal testing. These methods are more humane, have the potential to be faster, and are more relevant to humans.

Scientists in PETA’s Science Advancement & Outreach division , a part of the Laboratory Investigations Department, have developed a roadmap to phase out failing tests on animals with sophisticated, animal-free methods. Their Research Modernization Deal has gained the support of scientists, medical doctors, members of Congress, and thousands of others who care about ethical and effective science.

How You Can Help Animals Used in Experiments

Each of us can help prevent the suffering and deaths of animals in laboratories. Here are a few easy ways to get started:

• Sign up for PETA’s Action Team to be alerted when protests are taking place in your area.
• Urge your members of Congress to support PETA’s Research Modernization Deal .
• Search PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies database to ensure that you’re buying only cruelty-free products.
• Donate only to charities that don’t experiment on animals .
• Request alternatives to animal dissection at your school.
• Call on your alma mater to stop experimenting on animals.
• Share information about animal experimentation issues with your friends and family—and invite them to join you in speaking up for animals.

Popular Resources

PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies program is the ultimate resource for conscientious shoppers, making the quest for cruelty-free products as easy as pie.

Stand up for your rights in five easy steps!

Take PETA’s Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! Our handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance.

Sign the pledge and joining the thousands of caring consumers who refuse to purchase products from corporations that abuse animals.

By submitting this form, you’re acknowledging that you have read and agree to our privacy policy and agree to receive e-mails from us.

“Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? ”

— Ingrid E. Newkirk, PETA President and co-author of Animalkind

Text CRAZY to 73822 to take action for chimpanzees suffering in human homes & roadside zoos! Then watch Chimp Crazy, HBO’s new docuseries to learn more.

Terms for automated texts/calls from PETA: http://peta.vg/txt . Text STOP to end, HELP for more info. Msg/data rates may apply. U.S. only.