# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing | Pros & Cons | ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments. Opponents say animal testing is cruel and inhumane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are the 3Rs? I Definitions | Replacement | Reduction | Refinement | Our impacts

What are the 3Rs?

The principles of the 3Rs ( Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) were developed over 50 years ago providing a framework for performing more humane animal research. Since then they have been embedded in national and international legislation and regulations on the use of animals in scientific procedures, as well as in the policies of organisations that fund or conduct animal research. Opinion polls of public attitudes consistently show that support for animal research is conditional on the 3Rs being put into practice.

The NC3Rs is the UK's national organisation for the 3Rs. Our strategy is to advance the 3Rs by focusing on their scientific impacts and benefits. We have re-defined the standard 3Rs definitions so that they are more reflective of contemporary scientific practice and developments.

Definitions of the 3Rs

Methods which avoid or replace the use of animals

Accelerating the development and use of models and tools, based on the latest science and technologies, to address important scientific questions without the use of animals

Methods which minimise the number of animals used per experiment

Appropriately designed and analysed animal experiments that are robust and reproducible, and truly add to the knowledge base

Methods which minimise animal suffering and improve welfare

Advancing research into animal welfare by exploiting the latest in vivo technologies and by improving understanding of the impact of welfare on scientific outcomes

Replacement

Replacement refers to technologies or approaches which directly replace or avoid the use of animals in experiments where they would otherwise have been used.

For many years research animals have been used to answer important scientific questions including those related to human health. Animal models are often costly and time-consuming and depending on the research question present scientific limitations, such as poor relevance to human biology. Alternative models can address some of these concerns. In the last decade or so, advances in science and technology have meant that there are now realistic opportunities to replace the use of animals.

We divide replacement into two key categories, full and partial replacement.

Full replacement avoids the use of any research animals. It includes the use of human volunteers, tissues and cells, mathematical and computer models, and established cell lines.

Partial replacement includes the use of some animals that, based on current scientific thinking, are not considered capable of experiencing suffering. This includes invertebrates ¹ such as Drosophila, nematode worms and social amoebae, and immature forms of vertebrates ². Partial replacement also includes the use of primary cells (and tissues) taken from animals killed solely for this purpose (i.e. not having been used in a scientific procedure that causes suffering).

¹ Note cephalopods such as octopuses and squid are protected in the UK by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

2 Under the UK's the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 embryonic and fetal forms of mammals, birds and reptiles are protected during the last third of their gestation or incubation period, fish and amphibians once they can feed independently, and cephalopods at the point they hatch. Embryonic and fetal forms are protected from an earlier stage of development if they are going to live beyond the stage described above and the procedure is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm after they have developed to that stage.

Reduction

Reduction refers to methods that minimise the number of animals used per experiment or study consistent with the scientific aims. It is essential for reduction that studies with animals are appropriately designed and analysed to ensure robust and reproducible findings.

Reduction also includes methods which allow the information gathered per animal in an experiment to be maximised in order to reduce the use of additional animals. Examples of this include the use of some imaging modalities which allow longitudinal measurements in the same animal to be taken (rather than for example culling cohorts of animals at specific time points), or microsampling of blood, where small volumes enable repeat sampling in the same animal. In these scenarios, it is important to ensure that reducing the number of animals used is balanced against any additional suffering that might be caused by their repeated use.

Sharing data and resources (e.g. animals, tissues and equipment) between research groups and organisations can also contribute to reduction.

Refinement

Refinement refers to methods that minimise the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that may be experienced by research animals, and which improve their welfare. Refinement applies to all aspects of animal use, from their housing and husbandry to the scientific procedures performed on them. Examples of refinement include ensuring the animals are provided with housing that allows the expression of species-specific behaviours, using appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to minimise pain, and training animals to cooperate with procedures to minimise any distress.

Evidence suggests that pain and suffering can alter an animal's behaviour, physiology and immunology. Such changes can lead to variation in experimental results that impairs both the reliability and repeatability of studies.

We have recently published our strategy for improving animal welfare.

Our impacts

Our 3Rs impacts are wide ranging, from policy and regulatory change to the development and uptake of new technologies and approaches.

Here we provide case studies from the research we have funded at UK institutions to illustrate the breadth of the science we support and the benefits delivered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are the 3Rs? I Definitions | Replacement | Reduction | Refinement | Our impacts The principles of the 3Rs ( Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) were developed over 50 years ago providing a framework for performing more humane animal research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 11 Mar 2023 | *Discuss

There are many pros and cons to the practice of animal testing. Unfortunately, neither seem to fully tip the scale to a side that pleases everyone - including the general public, government and scientists.

Pros or Postives of Animal Testing

1. Helps researchers to find drugs and treatments:
The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more.

2. Improves human health:
It is for this reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use. In fact, there are also individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.

3. Helps ensure safety of drugs:
Another important aspect to note is that animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are exposed to regularly. Drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety of drugs prior to commencing trials on humans. This means that human harm is reduced and human lives are saved - not simply from avoidance of the dangers of drugs but because the drugs themselves save lives as well as improve the quality of human life.

4. Alternative methods of testing do not simulate humans in the same way
Scientists typically use animals for testing purposes because they are considered similar to humans. As such, researchers do recognise the limitations and differences but the testing is done on animals because they are thought to be the closest match and best one with regards to applying this data to humans.

Cons or Negatives of Animal Testing

1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity:
In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity.

2. Some substances tested, may never be used for anything useful:
The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice, as it seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred.

3. It is very expensive:
Another con on the issue of animal testing is the price. Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. There are companies who breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them.

4. Animals and humans are never exactly the same:
There is also the argument that the reaction of a drug in an animal's body is quite different from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is unreliable. Following on that criticism is the premise that because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation.

Personal Choice

While there are numerous pros and cons of animal testing, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them, which means that emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in whether a person believes the benefits of animal testing outweigh the problems associated with the practice.

For more information about the ethics of animal testing on this site, read the following features:

1. The controversy of animal testing
2. Medical treatments that have been found as a result of animal testing
3. Medical trials on humans.

External Resources

Read around the subject at external sites - here are two very good resources:
The BBC education page on animal ethics The Government legislation relating to animal testing
You might also like...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 11 Mar 2023 | *Discuss There are many pros and cons to the practice of animal testing. Unfortunately, neither seem to fully tip the scale to a side that pleases everyone - including the general public, government and scientists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many medical research institutions make use of non-human animals as test subjects. Animals may be subject to experimentation or modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human disease or for testing potential human treatments. Because animals as distant from humans as mice and rats share many physiological and genetic similarities with humans, animal experimentation can be tremendously helpful for furthering medical science.

However, there is an ongoing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation. Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge. According to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain and suffering. Others argue that while it is wrong to unnecessarily abuse animals, animal experimentation must continue because of the enormous scientific resource that animal models provide. Proponents of continued animal experimentation often also point out that progress can still be made to improve the conditions of laboratory animals and they fully support efforts to improve living conditions in laboratories, to use anesthesia appropriately, and to require trained personnel to handle animals.

On closer scrutiny, there exists a wide range of positions on the debate over the ethics of animal testing. The two views mentioned above represent two common positions at the opposing ends of the spectrum. Others endorse a view closer to the middle of the spectrum. Usually, this middle view accepts experimentation on some, but not all, animals and aims to avoid unnecessary use of animals in scientific research by pursuing alternatives to animal testing.

The following sections briefly outline a few of the arguments for and against animal experimentation. They do not represent every possible argument, or even necessarily the best arguments. They also do not necessarily reflect the views of the HOPES team. They are simply our effort to review and raise awareness of the underlying issues.

The Case Against Animal Experimentation^

An important part of the debate over animal rights centers on the question of the moral status of an animal. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status - that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status.

The strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. The ethicists who endorse this position do not mean that animals are entitled to the very same treatment as humans; arguing that animals should have the right to vote or hold office is clearly absurd. The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals.

One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans. They can feel pain and experience pleasure. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment.

Supporters of this type of argument frequently claim that granting animals less moral status than humans is just a form of prejudice called "speciesism." We have an innate tendency, they say, to consider the human species more morally relevant merely because it is the group to which we belong. However, we look upon past examples of this behavior as morally condemnable. Being of a particular race or gender does not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. Many animal rights advocates argue similarly-that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant.

The Case For Animal Experimentation^

Defenders of animal experimentation usually argue that animals cannot be considered morally equal to humans. They generally use this claim as the cornerstone of an argument that the benefits to humans from animal experimentation outweigh or "make up for" the harm done to animals. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion.

Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common. By sharing these traits, they belong to a particular moral community and thus take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights. For example, in most human moral communities all individuals have the right to make independent decisions and live autonomous lives - and with that right comes the responsibility to respect others' independence.

Although a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not. The human moral community, for instance, is often characterized by a capacity to manipulate abstract concepts and by personal autonomy. Since most animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy (animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goals), they are not included in the moral community. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.

If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the research.

One problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community. Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits. Are those individuals outside the human moral community? Do they lack fundamental human rights and should we use them for experimentation? One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights (or lack of rights) as non-human animals. However, most people are uncomfortable with that scenario and some philosophers have put forth a variety of reasons to include all humans in the human moral community. A common way to "return" excluded individuals to the human moral community is to note how close these individuals come to meeting the criteria. In fact, some of them (the infants) will surely meet all of the criteria in the future. With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral community.

In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack. Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research.

A Middle Ground^

There is a middle ground for those who feel uncomfortable with animal experimentation, but believe that in some circumstances the good arising out of experimentation does outweigh harm to the animal. Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal research.

One principle calls for the preferential research use of less complex organisms whenever possible. For example bacteria, fruit flies, and plants would be preferred over mammals. This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom. A philosophical grounding for this sort of hierarchy is the "moral worth as richness of life" model. This point of view suggests that more complicated organisms have richer, more fulfilling lives and that it is the richness of the life that actually correlates with moral worth.

Another principle is to reduce animal use as far as possible in any given study. Extensive literature searches, for instance, can ensure that experiments are not unnecessarily replicated and can ensure that animal models are only used to obtain information not already available in the scientific community. Another way to reduce animal use is to ensure that studies are conducted according to the highest standards and that all information collected will be useable. Providing high quality, disease-free environments for the animals will help ensure that every animal counts. Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical analysis of data can minimize the number of animals required for statistically significant results.

A third principle is to ensure the best possible treatment of the animals used in a study. This means reducing pain and suffering as much as possible. When appropriate, anesthesia should be used; additionally, studies should have the earliest possible endpoints after which animals who will subsequently experience disease or suffering can be euthanized. Also, anyone who handles the animals should be properly trained.

The "bottom line" for the middle ground position is that animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research strategies.

For further reading:

Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ethics in Practice . LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Peter Singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality. This philosophical essay briefly presents his views.

Fox, Michael Allen. "The Moral Community." Ethics in Practice. LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. This essay defends animal experimentation.

Frey, R.G. "Animals and Their Medical Use." Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005 In this essay Frey puts forth a view where animals do matter, but human welfare is considered more important.

Regan, Tom. "Empty Cages: Animals Rights and Vivisection." Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. This essay supports animal rights.

"Ethics and Alternatives". Research Animal Resources. University of Minnesota. 2003. Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching . A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals.

- Adam Hepworth, 11-26-08

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ethics of Animal Experimentation - HOPES Huntington's Disease Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many medical research institutions make use of non-human animals as test subjects. Animals may be subject to experimentation or modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human disease or for testing potential human treatments. Because animals as distant from humans as mice and rats share many physiological and genetic similarities with humans, animal experimentation can be tremendously helpful for furthering medical science.