# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experiments on Animals Should Not be Banned Essay | Bartleby

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free Essay: In the 1950's, three types of diabetes were discovered: Type I diabetes, Type II diabetes, and gestational diabetes. Type I is also known as...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. ChapStick

2. Clorox

3. Coppertone

4. Dove

5. Febreze

6. Johnson & Johnson

1. Lysol

2. Old Spice

3. Pampers

4. Tide

5. Windex

6. Vaseline

Highlights:

Contrary to poorly-substantiated claims often made, the scientific evidence about this issue is quite clear. Of course animal experiments advance knowledge to some degree, as experiments usually do. Yet this does not mean that knowledge leads to useful applications, or is worth the costs incurred in gaining it. In fact, animal experiments rarely contribute significantly to the development of cures for human diseases.

Recognising the diversity of opinions about this issue, and further, that opinions alone constitute a wholly inadequate form of evidence, for such an important and controversial field, scientists have recently begun calling for - and conducting - large-scale systematic reviews, which critically assess the contributions of animal models toward human healthcare advancements. These are reviewed in detail in my book, 'The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments'. One study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Matthews, 2008) is a critical assessment of the oft-repeated claim that 'Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals'. It is shown to be completely invalid.

Many cures have been developed for illnesses induced in laboratory animals. The problem is that few have successfully translated to human beings. Our limited public health resources would be more responsibly spent elsewhere.

The simple, unambiguous answer is "Yes, animal testing should be banned." The argument in favor of testing, whether for medications, medical devices, product toxicity, or cosmetics and so on, is familiar and also simple: It is necessary, because it is the only means possible sometimes, to protect or enhance human lives.

The argument from necessity obviously raises more questions than it answers. How did it become necessity to sacrifice the lives of certain forms of life for the benefit of one other form? Where does the transcendent value of the beneficiary life form come from? And the subsidiary value of those sacrificed? Necessity raises an amoral defense against a morally failed practice, and it assumes values and disvalues that it never substantiates. There is obviously no necessity to impose the suffering and death of product or any other kind of testing on animals. It is a choice based on perceived self-interest. It says "My interests and desires are so important that the destruction of your vital interest in life may be denied."

If we believe that life is sacred - all life, of course, for how could the truly sacred invest itself in only a portion of life - and if we can see the irrationality, egoism, and self-deception on which human moral supremacy are founded, we cannot help but want to protect and enhance the circumstances of all life. And not only that. Once we get past the false claim of necessity, and once we begin to examine all the ways that putting immediate human self-interests first have not only harmed animal and natural world interests in multiple and grievous ways but seriously jeopardized our own long term interests, we can reconsider what proper, moral relations between humans and the larger life world should be. Would we be facing the coming disasters related to anthropogenic climate and environmental changes if we had thought in larger and longer terms? Would biodiversity be shrinking at a pace not known since the last great extinction 65 million years ago? We might even consider if the pervasive violence among our own kind would be so unremitting if the violence of our kind against other kinds were not even more far-reaching, cruel, and tenacious. Violence of any kind tends to deaden sensibilities of all kinds.

We make the world better for all when we give up beliefs and practices that are anti-life. The world may become more humane and compassionate and less violent, a place we can love, when we restrain our appetites and expand our range of moral consideration. The value of animal testing can be challenged on its claims of necessity and its pragmatic benefits, but more compellingly, it fails the moral test.

The way we relate to other animals says a lot about who we are. When humans abuse other animals, including by subjecting them to cruel experiments, we lose part of our humanity and our ability to empathize with others. Our actions and attitudes define our relationships with others. We can opt for mutually beneficial relationships, based on respect, or exploitive relationships where an individual or a group mistreats others. Human beings have long engaged in exploitive relationships with each other, and with other animals. But just because this is our history does not mean it should be our future. We can learn from mistakes, and change. For thousands of years, human slavery was considered a normal and acceptable institution, but today it is widely condemned.

The more we learn about the emotional and cognitive lives of nonhuman animals, the more we understand the importance of treating them with compassion. Like us, they have memories, complex relationships, and deep emotional lives. And, like us, they are capable of acting with generosity and creating mutually beneficial relationships with others.

Animal testing is ethically unacceptable and scientifically antiquated. While there have been efforts to lessen the suffering of animals in laboratories, there will always be abuses when these living feeling creatures are seen primarily as research tools. Human beings have an uncanny ability to rationalize intolerable cruelty and injustice, and as long as we harm and treat animals as tools, there is a psychological and emotional desire to distance ourselves from our cruel behavior, often by justifying it as a "necessary evil." But what happens when it is no longer necessary?

Banning animal testing will refocus human ingenuity toward more scientifically advanced research techniques that are superior and can yield better results than animal tests. Instead, amazingly, government institutions require and subsidize animal testing. This is irrational and irresponsible, and it discourages innovation. We should incentivize compassion and progress, instead of cruel and outdated practices. Doing so will benefit both animals and humans.

If it was your child, wouldn't you kill a mouse to save her?

One of the key roles of morality is to curb selfish, cruel actions of the powerful. For example, maybe I would kill a mouse-or a multitude of animals-to save my loved ones. And in the hope of protecting my beloveds-and maybe I would also kill Thai immigrants, disabled elderly, and the very last grey whale on the planet. And this means that I would probably also kill you to save my loved ones.

The question about the mouse and the loved one is intended to show that anyone would kill a mouse to save someone they love, and therefore animal experimentation is justified. But what this question actually reveals is the importance of ethics (including religious ethics) and laws that prevent self-serving exploitation of the weaker by the powerful.

It is important to note that the question posed misrepresents the truth. Scientists who experiment on a mouse-or a 100 macaque monkeys-do not do so to save a loved one. They invariably have much to gain... but not necessarily on behalf of humanity. Millions of tax dollars support animal experimentation and provide grant money for those interested in experimenting on animals. Research publications offer prestige, job security, and can lead to increased salaries. There is a lot of money and power backing and defending animal experimentation.

Moreover, it is unlikely that any animal experiment will save even one life. Most experiments have little to do with solving our many pressing medical problems-the vast majority of animal experiments re-testing yet another oven cleaner or detergent to gather yet more information regarding the likely effects of a new caustic substance on skin or in eyes. Even in the best of scenarios, where people in white coats seek cures for horrible diseases, hundreds of animals suffer terribly and die prematurely, yet fail to yield any life-saving data-even a sliver new or relevant data. A mouse is never traded off for a child. Instead, hundreds of thousands of helpless individuals suffer cruelly and die miserable deaths while not a single human life is saved-or even improved.

In fact, animal experimentation has caused serious medical problems for humanity. For example, thalidomide was tested on nonhuman animals, passed every necessary test, and went on to cause many debilitating birth defects. Similarly, animal studies indicated that Vioxx was safe for combating arthritis; Vioxx caused tens of thousands of deaths just in the U.S. before it was recalled. And how many wonder-cures have we lost because of animal testing? Tylenol is deadly for cats and dogs-just one Tylenol can kill a cat.

So why disingenuously juxtapose a child's life against that of a mouse? There are a handful of alternatives to animal experimentation, such as cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, and micro-dosing with (often desperate and eager) volunteer human subjects. Not only have these alternatives proven their worth, but they make good common sense: Either nonhuman animals are significantly different from human beings, in which case they do not make appropriate models for medical research, or they are not significantly different from humanity, in which case it is wrong to selfishly and cruelly exploit them for our purposes.

As it turns out, non-animal alternatives are less costly and more dependable. More importantly-much more importantly-alternatives to animal experimentation align with the overarching ethics of humanity, and with religious ethics around the world, which call for compassion and respect for life-especially the lives of those who are vulnerable and fall under our power. The debate over animal experimentation is not about choosing between the life of a beloved child and the life of a single anonymous mouse-it is about choosing between the cruel tyranny of the powerful and ethics.

It is ethically irresponsible and rationally futile to justify experiments upon laboratory animals. All mammals feel pain, and non-human organs and systems are quite different from the human variety. Results from animal studies should be rejected, particularly rat research.

Half of the cancers rats get, mice do not get. Half of the cancers mice get, rats do not get. Since data from one furry long-tailed rodent cannot be applied to another, how in the name of logic and the spirit of reason can humans arbitrarily apply experimental animal research results to non-humans?

Rats also lack gallbladders, and human and rat digestive enzymes differ, and yet, millions of laboratory studies based upon rat research have provided the foundation for nutritional advice dispensed by most American physicians. Many claim that chimpanzees are man's closest relatives, but twenty years before the polio vaccine was approved for human use, a group of experimental chimpanzees treated with polio vaccine died. Clearly, even chimpanzee research exists as a betrayal to both non-human primates and humans, who rely upon unreliable chimpanzee data.

When it comes right down to it, the only time we really learn a scientific truth from an animal laboratory experiment is when the subjects are human. At least people have the ability to make volitional choices and volunteer for such research, right?

I answer "yes." I come from 50 years as a veterinarian, working with many types of animals. Part of this career was in academia, obtaining a PhD in microbiology. This entailed the use of inbred mice and rabbits, harvesting their tissues for the purpose of growing viruses in culture. During this time I realized how many variables are not included in the reports of animal testing (or experimentation in general). I was shocked one day to find that up in the attic where the mice were kept (my first trip there) half of them were always in the dark. I thought "How can I compare mice always in the dark with ones living in a sunlit room?" Granted it might make no difference, but how can we be certain? There is the factor of the food used. These days the nutrition can be rather poor (processed, GMO, containing herbicides, etc.). How does that affect the results seen?

I am giving brief examples, but when you see how many influences there are in how results may be obtained you begin to question the accuracy. As well, there are many differences between how a mouse will react to a substance (drug, cosmetic, chemical) as compared to a human. Cats are extremely sensitive to chemicals compared to dogs. Whereas humans enjoy garlic and onion flavored foods, these will make dogs sick. And so on.

If I may push the envelope further, my personal view is that it is unkind to do this to animals. If we want to know what various things will do to us, why not study it in ourselves? I don't mean we poison ourselves, but how about a teeny bit taken by volunteers? Maybe even reduced jail time for pot smokers if they will do it. I know, sounds silly, but if we think about it, a human centered program is really very possible and one that will be much more accurate. We actually are already doing this - think of the millions of people taking in chemicals from agriculture that have never been evaluated prior to now. We could just look more closely at them...

Animal testing is very often related to animal pain and suffering. From a moral and legal perspective (globally seen also), suffering has to be reduced and extinguished; also the suffering of animals. The industry and universities justify these suffering for the good of humans and other animals. Often, by a closer look at the experiment itself, the number and the grade of suffering of the used - or shall one say "abused"? - animals can be reduced, double testing avoided, the goal of the test questioned etc. Since decades, the three "R's" for "Reduce, Replace and Refine" accompany the debate on animal testing. The "Replacement" stands for a ban, of course.

And still, the ban has yet to be enacted by the law makers. Since the scientific and economic communities insist on animal testing, realistic and long-term legal goals are to be defined in order to get rid of this phase-out model. For this, a majority of the population and of the law making body is needed. How? The Global Animal Law GAL Project creates realistic proposals for the short and long term (even visionary) legal measures in the law making and law applying process in the animal testing field, among others. We co-operate with legal specialists in the field and on the spot. So, depending on the existing legislation on district or national level, the animal welfare issue is to be granted on the constitutional level and, weighed with other fundamental rights, judges should be enabled to control the law applying process in the favor of the animals as well.

The comparison of the different legal systems worldwide is helpful in the law changing process. Germany and Switzerland, for example, foresee animal welfare on the constitutional level and provide state commissions, along with animal protectors, in legal committees to decide or advise on planned animal testing. One of these committees, as in the Swiss Canton of Zurich, can appeal against a decision in favor of animal testing at higher courts. By this measure, the courts can decide on reducing the suffering or completely ban certain animal test - as it is to be expected in constitutional democracies.

Public debates, like the present one, on potential bans on animal testing are important to raise awareness on the issue of use and abuse of animals for scientific, financial and health related reasons. The long time vision, even the utopia, can lay in a ban. The next phase, maybe several decades long, might be used for a law making process to reduce the suffering and pain of animals by unnecessary testing and unjustified goals. Law applying systems might be created for making this happen, e.g., by a strongly regulated licensing system so that in decades, a partial or a complete ban would not cause unnecessary suffering for the industry and universities.

The question "Should animal testing be banned?" triggers so many others: In which cases? Under what conditions? Utilizing what species? What if alternative means of testing aren't available? Other questions are also pivotal: Are the people doing the testing competent and empathetic? What do they know about the species-specific needs of each animal? Are the animals allowed a good quality of life? Does the testing fall under the category of physiology or psychology? And which species will benefit from the testing (the same species, or another one)?

As these are pivotal questions, I wouldn't be surprised if others struggle, like I do, when asked only the primary question. Now if it was, "Should animal testing be strongly restricted?" I'd have no trouble answering 'yes,' since it requires those conducting the tests to adhere to the very highest of ethical standards, and I don't believe everyone is capable of that.

Consider two situations:

1. Dogs are kept in barren cages or kennels without daily interaction with other dogs, and without daily exercise that allows them forward movement, safe items to chew on/play with, and a comfortable surface to lie on. The only handling they get is required by testing, and it is done by handlers with little empathy for their circumstances. The testing protocols repeat tests previously done, and they involve physical or mental discomfort or pain.

2. Dogs are housed in comfortable (dry, warm, off-the-ground) quarters at night. During the day, they are allowed fresh air and the company of other dogs in an unkenneled environment. They receive daily exercise and relaxed human interaction. Furthermore, their participation in the study at hand doesn't involve physical or mental discomfort; it cannot be easily duplicated using alternate means of testing, and it directly benefits their own species.

The first situation should be banned, as should any testing falling under the category human psychology (the psychology of individual species differs greatly). The second situation should act as a model for well thought-out, carefully implemented studies utilizing animals, with species-specific variations where needed.
I can't help but recall an episode that occurred in veterinary school (thirty-plus years ago), where frogs were being dissected for a cardiac lab exercise (a waste of time, in every respect, as other ways to learn the principles existed). Uncomfortable with the entire situation, I forced myself to observe the actions of two classmates next to me so I could write up the lab report required. Prepared to answer (correctly) any of the questions put to me by the PhD leading the lab, I explained my knowledge of the cardiac principles to him while returning "my" frog to his tank, uninjured. The PhD loudly ridiculed my attempt to spare the frog's life before smashing his head against a table. He then handed his limp body back to me with the admonishment, "Do the work, if you don't want to fail this lab." It pains me to know that this jerk was the top money-generator for the university's physiology department! His studies shouldn't have received a cent, as he didn't have the moral character to be working with any animal, under any circumstance.

If we lived in a world where animal testing was only done using the highest of ethics and the highest of standards (and only where suitable alternatives didn't exist), there would be no need for stringent laws restricting, and in many cases, banning animal testing. Sadly, we don't live in that kind of world. For that reason, restrictions and, in some cases, outright bans are well-warranted and necessary.

Upon consideration of the question, "Should animal testing be banned?", one wonders if we should not be looking at this issue from the reverse. We should rather be asking, "Under what conditions should animal testing be allowed?" And, if there are such conditions, then how should animal testing and experimentation be modified to reduce the pain and distress and to minimize the number of animals involved? Is it possible to replace the animals altogether? At the crux of these questions is the implication that using animals in scientific studies is unethical and carries with it the objectification of nonhuman animals as functional for human use, rather than as sentient beings with their own worth and rights to not experience distress, discomfort, pain or have captivity imposed on them. Beliefs that nonhuman animals were put on earth for human use is derived from Abrahamic religious teachings. It permeates across many of our cultures today, including the culture of science.

Often, the public and media misconstrue the concept of "testing" with "experimentation", whether of nonhuman or human animals. The difference is that "testing" implies invasive biomedical (e.g., testing for pharmaceutical development) or product testing (e.g., testing of cosmetics or household cleaning agents) that often causes pain, distress and in many cases the animals are sacrificed at the end of the "testing". "Experimentation" certainly includes invasive studies involving nonhuman animals, where they may experience significant pain and distress. However, experimentation also includes non-invasive studies where some intervening variable is manipulated to evaluate cause and effect on behavior or physical and psychological wellbeing. One example of such non-invasive experimentation would be in a zoo setting, where a nonhuman primate such as an orangutan is provided with access to a touchscreen computer and virtual gaming software that challenges and measures the apes' cognitive abilities in return for food rewards. In this scenario, the orangutan has the option to voluntarily interact with the computer and software, and to even interact with zoo visitors via the computer, but is not coerced to do so by research, zoo staff or zoo visitors. In this way, captive animals often "choose" to work for food rewards, despite getting a balanced daily diet. This is referred to as "contrafreeloading" and has been observed in captive species as diverse as mice and chimpanzees. This is also a form of environmental enrichment for the orangutan, who otherwise might be bored, frustrated, and potentially develop negative/harmful stereotypical behaviors, a form of psychopathology. Under the heading of "experimentation" in this case, providing cognitive challenges to captive animals when they volunteer to participate, even in sanctuaries, should therefore not be viewed as unethical, but perhaps even desirable and necessary. The point is, non-invasive studies, whether experiments or observational, do not impose the same negative aspects as invasive experimentation and therefore are not subject to the same rationale for banning.

We are at a tipping point with human populations on the increase, causing habitat destruction, pollution and climate change, where a majority of animal species are on the verge of going extinct (it was reported this week that 58% of the world's wildlife populations are in decline). Once removed from their natural habitat, captive exemplars of a species are only facsimiles of their wild counterparts. With the destruction of their natural habitat, these captive species will be all that exist. The full repertoire of a species' behaviors and behavioral and cognitive adaptations will be lost in captivity, and cannot be regained in the absence of natural habitat and appropriate social interactions. We need to learn as much as possible about species from those individuals held in captivity in order to save those who still remain in the wild. This requires that observational and even experimental work continue, although we can stipulate that the majority of the studies be noninvasive. Consequently, recent activity on the part of animal rights groups to end all experimentation with nonhuman primates (for example) is misguided and in the long term counterproductive, albeit well-intentioned. We cannot learn more about these species to save them if we do not study them. And inevitably, we learn more about ourselves, as human animals, in the process.

With regard to the question of "what animal testing should be allowed?", a careful examination of the "absolute need" should provide guidance towards an answer. Toxicology testing is probably one of the cruelest forms of animal testing in the biomedical sciences. Imagine yourself as the animal being gavaged with toxic chemicals or drugs. Cosmetic testing and testing of household cleaning agents on animals is extremely harmful to the animals. Is it necessary? The answer is clearly no. There are products on the market that are permitted to be sold to the public because they are assessed to be safe in the absence of animal testing (and/or using alternatives). Even if animal testing were required for cosmetics, are cosmetics truly an "absolute need" that justifies the harm to animals? Why can't we replace animals by computer modeling? Sadly, we simply do not have sufficient knowledge to create all of the computer models that would accurately reflect biological reality. And, animal testing has been instrumental to generate the data for the development of the computer models that we do have.

In the case of biomedical testing, often the "absolute need" does provide a way of justifying the use of animals. When asked to be honest about whether someone would take a drug or other medical intervention developed using animal testing to save themselves, a family member, close friend or a pet, the majority of people reply "Yes". This is true even of individuals committed to animal welfare and animal rights, who are vegans, do not wear leather, wool, silk, and avoid using animal products as much possible. Are they hypocritical? No. They are being pragmatic and recognize the "absolute need". John Donne's poem, "No man is an island" can be paraphrased to state that no human in the present day can be completely separated from animal use ("exploitation") for human welfare, at some level.

The answer to whether to ban animal testing, in fact, hovers somewhere between "yes" and "no". In 1959, Russell and Burch introduced to the scientific community the concept of "The Three R's": reduction, refinement and replacement. The crux of the three R's is to modify testing and experimentation using animals so to reduce the number of individuals being tested, refine the protocol to eliminate as much pain and distress inflicted while providing for the animal's welfare both physically and psychologically, and wherever possible, to replace the animals with a non-sentient alternative (e.g., cell culture). Refinements, including environmental enrichment for captive animals in laboratories, are vital to good scientific outcomes and in almost all circumstances, good animal welfare leads to good scientific outcomes.

Should we improve animal welfare generally, in the wild and in captivity (zoos, labs and in people's homes)? Should we improve how animals are treated when they are used in testing and experimentation, to eliminate as much suffering as possible? Yes to both, as we have an ethical imperative to do so towards other sentient beings. Should we eliminate all invasive animal testing and experimentation in biomedical science? Not until we have realistic and workable alternatives, but we can and should minimize it and continue to pressure the scientific community to keep innovating to create these alternatives until animals are no longer needed in invasive scientific research. Should we eliminate non-invasive animal experimentation? Absolutely and resoundingly, no, as this work is critical to inform our ability to share this planet with others.

Highlights:

Responsible citizens agree that sound public policy ought to be based on the best knowledge science has to offer. This is true in all areas of public concern, including global warming, the use of childhood vaccinations, and the use of animals in biomedical research.

We must then point out that scientific consensus on the use of animals in research is overwhelming: Over 92% of scientists agree that "animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical research." In other words, halting the work would bring advances in many critical areas to a screeching halt and take away from the hope of new cures and therapies from our patients.

One must remember that a couple of generations ago, a visit to a physician might have resulted in a recommendation to induce vomiting, diarrhea or, more commonly, bleeding. Diphtheria, mumps, measles and polio were common and untreatable. Life expectancy in the United States was less than 50 years - it now stands at 80 years. Our generation benefits from treatments, medicines and diagnostic devices that our parents and grandparents only dreamt about. By all measures, animal research was an integral part of these achievements. This is an indisputable fact.

Some opponents of animal research deny medical history, or argue that new methods like organs-on-chips, computer simulations or magnetic resonance imaging in humans, make the work obsolete. Unfortunately, such statements are grossly misleading. It is true that organs-on-chips may promise a new approach to toxicology tests. If and when such methods are properly validated they should be adopted. However, for the vast majority of medical research, from cancer, to heart disease and neurological disorders, none of these methods offer a real alternative to studying an entire organism.

Some oppose the use of animal research on moral grounds. We are told that we owe the same moral consideration to all living beings, and that all living beings have a basic right to liberty and life. If one accepts this premise, it is natural to conclude it is morally wrong to use animals in medical research, even if it leads to advances in human and animal wellbeing. One must also oppose the use of animals as pets or as food. There would be no moral difference between chickens in a farm and Jews in a concentrations camp - a point made graphic by PETA's Holocaust in your Plate campaign. And we are also told that we must conclude that if it is morally permissible to use violence to free a concentration camp, so it must be to free mice from a research laboratory or kill scientists. Anyone who finds some of these conclusions abhorrent, like I do, must reject the moral theory upon which it is based.

Instead, I feel most people believe that all living beings deserve our moral concern, but not equally. Our moral concern for a human child is higher than that of a dog, which is higher to that of a mouse, and higher to that of a worm. Such sliding scale model is reflected in the strict regulations and guidelines that govern animal research in the U.S.

It would be wrong not to use our scientific skills, in responsible and well-regulated animal research, that aims to advance medical knowledge and human/animal health.

In order to improve the human race's future, we must continue to research and to develop new medications and treatment procedures. Before these new developments can be released to the public, it is necessary to test them for efficacy and for safety measures. I know it doesn't always help because animals and humans are not the same species, but sometimes animal testing makes a huge difference.

I am not an expert on these issues, but a quick search on the internet reveals that "every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals."

As much as I love animals, and could personally never cause them pain, when it comes to improving and saving human lives, there is no question in my mind - we have to do whatever we can do to bring us closer to finding cures. And, if scientists believe animal research or testing can assist in the process, then, that's what we need to do.

Image: ThomasVogel / iStock.

Was this article helpful?

Awesome! Thanks for your feedback.

Thank you for your feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Experts Pick Sides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ChapStick Clorox Coppertone Dove Febreze Johnson & Johnson Lysol Old Spice Pampers Tide Windex Vaseline Highlights: Contrary to poorly-substantiated claims often made, the scientific evidence about this issue is quite clear. Of course animal experiments advance knowledge to some degree, as experiments usually do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate about whether or not tests on animals should be banned. Support your stance with a logical argument. Read the arguments of others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research on animals costs many millions of lives each year. And millions more animals are kept confined in laboratories and cages, awaiting their turn for experimentation. Biomedical research using animals is a largely secretive process and the public knows little about what goes on in research labs. This exclusive Faunalytics Fundamental examines the use of animals in research, estimating the scope and nature of the problem based on the best available data. We hope you find the information useful in your advocacy for research animals. Please see all the sources here.

Animals live rich and complex lives. Primates exhibit deep thought and intricate social structures; their similarity to humans has made using other primates unthinkable for most purposes other than experimentation (and "entertainment"). Dogs like beagles are docile, friendly, and cooperative - traits that make them easier to manage as test subjects. Guinea pigs, which have become synonymous with animal research, are gentle and even purr like cats when they're happy. Mice and rats are empathetic and studies have shown that they will risk themselves to rescue cage-mates in captivity. There is no doubt that the animals we use for research and dissection are capable of thinking, feeling, and suffering just like we are. Check out the interactive graphics below to explore facts about some of the animals most commonly used in research. Of course, we're only scratching the surface of what makes these animals unique, sentient, and deserving of their own rights to life and freedom.

Click or tap the icons below to explore facts about each species.

Opinions about the use of animals for research are complicated and often divided when it comes to different purposes or types of research. For instance, a clear majority of people are against the use of animals for testing cosmetics and personal care products. However, if the research is claimed to save or improve human lives, then opinions shift, even if those claims are hypothetical or baseless. Attitudes regarding the use of animals for student dissection are less clear given there are fewer surveys of those audiences. However, the limited research shows that many students and teachers prefer non-animal alternatives to dissection - see our "In The Classroom" section below for a detailed breakdown.

Before they arrive at the laboratory, animals used for research are most often born and housed in large breeding facilities found throughout the world. Some research animals may come from relatively regulated companies such as Charles River or Interfauna, based in countries like the United States, England, or Spain. Other animals, such as monkeys, more often come from international suppliers that operate in Southeast Asia, parts of Africa, and China. Below, we connect some of the dots of the global breeding and transport of research animals, with Southeast Asia as an example.

How many animals are bred for research, kept in laboratories, and used in experiments? Unfortunately, under current regulations in virtually any country, it's impossible to know the exact answer. Estimates for the total number of animals used in research worldwide hover around 115 million to 127 million, while estimates for the U.S. specifically hover around 25 million. In the U.S., researchers are not required to report the numbers of rats, mice, and birds used in experiments, and these species combined make up an estimated 95% of all animals used in research. The chart below provides the best estimates for the numbers of mice, rats, and birds used in the United States in 2015, as well as the other species whose use is covered by the Animal Welfare Act.

Immediately, we can see that the Animal Welfare Act is inadequate and ignores the big picture. Not only does the act not cover these animals, it also does not mandate that researchers maintain any statistics for these species. Therefore, we can only make educated estimates on the numbers of animals being used. Secondly, we see that researchers, who already keep hidden from public view, have very few official controls or oversight for most of the work they do. For animal advocates, it is important to spotlight these facilities and the often egregious suffering that they house.

Number Of Animal TestingFacilities By State

The above map shows animal experimentation labs and breeding facilities in the U.S. You can look up the animal research facilities in your state using this tool put together by HSUS. The prevalence of such operations throughout the country may be shocking to see. Unlike the farms and feedlots that we often see while driving through the countryside, animal research and breeding facilities are much more hidden from view. Likewise, the laws that govern and regulate experimentation in the U.S. (and many other places in the world) do their part to obscure both the scope and the nature of animal research.

Conventional wisdom says that the best way for students to learn about biology is through hands-on methods, usually involving the dissection of dead animals. Dissection has been used as a learning tool for many decades, and it's estimated that 6-12 million animals are used each year - though that is a very loose estimate and no official statistics are kept. Thankfully, scientific advancements and public opinion are starting to help turn the tide. Recently, a study by Faunalytics on behalf of the National Anti-Vivisection Society found that only half of students are interested in dissecting animals and more than a third (37%) of students would prefer to use alternatives to animal dissection. What's more, a study by the American Anti-Vivisection Society found that 75% of U.S. adults agree that "students taking biology courses should be allowed to choose alternative methods of learning that do not involve dissecting animals."

The above graphic shows a small selection of some of the most exciting and promising alternatives to animal research that exist today. There are many others that are available, and even more are on the way. Among the many organizations and institutions working on better alternatives are FRAME, INTERNICHE, and Animalearn who are leading the way in promoting clinical and educational alternatives.

This Faunalytics Fundamental has provided a visual overview of the use of animals in research. The result is a complex picture: public opinion is mixed and context-specific; the number of animals used is a guesstimate due to lack of reporting for certain species; and laws are not keeping pace with students' interest in dissection alternatives. The scientific establishment has a lot of inertia in favor of continuing the use of animals in research, but is slowly shifting towards alternatives.

Meanwhile, millions of animals are trapped in labs, waiting for us to help them. The data presented here raise many questions for how to invest limited advocacy resources:

How can advocates galvanize the majority of the public that believes research animal welfare is important and guide them towards supporting elimination and alternatives? Looking a public opinion research such as this and this can help advocates to target different public audiences on a case by case basis.

What can animal advocates - and members of the public - do to contribute to the development of research alternatives? Education about alternatives and their effectiveness is key.

Public opinion for various animal research issues is somewhat contradictory and confused. What are the most effective ways that advocates can clarify the issues? First, animal advocates needs to educate themselves on the science, and then communicate that effectively.

As animal research regulations become more stringent in some parts of the world, "outsourcing" to laboratories in other parts of the world becomes a bigger issue. How can advocates anticipate and prevent this trend?

These are questions advocates should think about and possibly research further.

We hope you find the above information useful in your advocacy for animals used in research. Check out all the sources here.

There is so much more work to be done to give advocates the insight they need to choose the most effective ways to help animals. Please donate generously now to help us bring you and other advocates this crucial information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fundamentals: Research Animals - Faunalytics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research on animals costs many millions of lives each year. And millions more animals are kept confined in laboratories and cages, awaiting their turn for experimentation. Biomedical research using animals is a largely secretive process and the public knows little about what goes on in research labs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Support the HCA to end cosmetics testing on animals - The Humane Society of the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Help put an end to cosmetics testing on animals in the United States. Ask your federal legislators to support the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 2790).