# data[].attributes.body
animal are used to biomedical research since some Greek physician like Aristotle
(384 – 322 BC) and Erasistratus,
(304 – 258 BC) performed experiments on living animals

link- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research. Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 - 322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 - 258 BC), performed experiments on living animals. Likewise, Galen (129 - 199 / 217 AD), a Greek physician who practiced in Rome and was a giant in the history of medicine, conducted animal experiments to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar), an Arab physician in twelfth century Moorish Spain, introduced animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.

In recent years, the practice of using animals for biomedical research has come under severe criticism by animal protection and animal rights groups. Laws have been passed in several countries to make the practice more 'humane'. Debates on the ethics of animal testing have raged since the seventeenth century. Theodore Roosevelt in the nineteenth century stated, "Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime."

Those against, contend that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans. Those in favor of animal testing argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, stated that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree". Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.

Drug testing using animals became important in the twentieth century. In 1937, a pharmaceutical company in the USA created a preparation of sulfanilamide, using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent, and called the preparation 'Elixir Sulfanilamide'. DEG was poisonous to humans, but the company's chief pharmacist and chemist was not aware of this. He simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, which he had dissolved in DEG, and the company marketed the product. The preparation led to mass poisoning causing the deaths of more than a hundred people. No animal testing was done. The public outcry caused by this incident and other similar disasters led to the passing of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed.

Another tragic drug fiasco occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s with thalidomide. It was found to act as an effective tranquilizer and painkiller and was proclaimed a 'wonder drug' for insomnia, coughs, colds, and headaches. It was found to have an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and hence, thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. Consequently, more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with malformations or missing limbs (phocomelia, from the Greek meaning 'limb'). The drug was withdrawn in 1961 and 1968 after a long campaign.

The above-mentioned incidents and others illustrate the harm to humans from the use of substances that have not been first tested on animals and underline the importance of animal experimentation to avert or prevent human tragedy. The practice of using animals in biomedical research has led to significant advances in the treatment of various diseases.

Issues such as 'cruelty' to animals and the humane treatment of animals are valid concerns, and hence, the use of animals in experimentation is greatly regulated. This has led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices. However, total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines, and treatment. By employing the 3Rs when continuing to use animals for scientific research, the scientific community can affirm its moral conscience as well as uphold its obligation to humanity to further the advancement of science for civilization and humanity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research. Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 - 322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 - 258 BC), performed experiments on living animals.

# data[].attributes.body
Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) is a Arab physician in the 12th century introduced animal testing and testing surgeries/medications  on animal before using it on humans.

link-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research. Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 - 322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 - 258 BC), performed experiments on living animals. Likewise, Galen (129 - 199 / 217 AD), a Greek physician who practiced in Rome and was a giant in the history of medicine, conducted animal experiments to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar), an Arab physician in twelfth century Moorish Spain, introduced animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.

In recent years, the practice of using animals for biomedical research has come under severe criticism by animal protection and animal rights groups. Laws have been passed in several countries to make the practice more 'humane'. Debates on the ethics of animal testing have raged since the seventeenth century. Theodore Roosevelt in the nineteenth century stated, "Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime."

Those against, contend that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans. Those in favor of animal testing argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, stated that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree". Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.

Drug testing using animals became important in the twentieth century. In 1937, a pharmaceutical company in the USA created a preparation of sulfanilamide, using diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent, and called the preparation 'Elixir Sulfanilamide'. DEG was poisonous to humans, but the company's chief pharmacist and chemist was not aware of this. He simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, which he had dissolved in DEG, and the company marketed the product. The preparation led to mass poisoning causing the deaths of more than a hundred people. No animal testing was done. The public outcry caused by this incident and other similar disasters led to the passing of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed.

Another tragic drug fiasco occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s with thalidomide. It was found to act as an effective tranquilizer and painkiller and was proclaimed a 'wonder drug' for insomnia, coughs, colds, and headaches. It was found to have an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and hence, thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. Consequently, more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with malformations or missing limbs (phocomelia, from the Greek meaning 'limb'). The drug was withdrawn in 1961 and 1968 after a long campaign.

The above-mentioned incidents and others illustrate the harm to humans from the use of substances that have not been first tested on animals and underline the importance of animal experimentation to avert or prevent human tragedy. The practice of using animals in biomedical research has led to significant advances in the treatment of various diseases.

Issues such as 'cruelty' to animals and the humane treatment of animals are valid concerns, and hence, the use of animals in experimentation is greatly regulated. This has led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices. However, total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines, and treatment. By employing the 3Rs when continuing to use animals for scientific research, the scientific community can affirm its moral conscience as well as uphold its obligation to humanity to further the advancement of science for civilization and humanity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research. Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 - 322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 - 258 BC), performed experiments on living animals.

# data[].attributes.body
more than 100 million animals are died each year in the US these animals deaths include animals such as frogs,mice rats,dogs,cats, birds and etc. These deaths are caused by animals testing such as chemical test,drug test, food test, cosmetic test and etc

link- https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year, more than 110 million animals-including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds-are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them-they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.

Animal Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Center poll found that 52 percent of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. 5,6 The majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease ... poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research." ⁷

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way.

For example, according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." ⁸ This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We have moved away from studying human disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. ... The problem is that it hasn't worked, and it's time we stopped dancing around the problem. ... We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans." ⁹

The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans. ¹⁰ In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work." ¹¹

These are not anomalies. The National Institutes of Health has stated, "Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more." ¹²

Research published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that universities commonly exaggerate findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories and "often promote research that has uncertain relevance to human health and do not provide key facts or acknowledge important limitations." ¹³ One study of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories often omit crucial information and that "the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented." ¹⁴ Because experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies, other scientists and the public do not have ready access to information on the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation.

Funding and Accountability

Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who-knowingly or unknowingly-fund animal experimentation. One of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such as NIH. Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted nearly $42 billion for research and development. 15,16 In addition, many charities--including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and countless others-use donations to fund experiments on animals. One-third of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society involve animal experimentation. ¹⁷

Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal experimentation, it is nearly impossible for the public to obtain current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are being carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. State open-records laws and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain documents and information from state institutions, government agencies, and other federally funded facilities, but private companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. In many cases, institutions that are subject to open-records laws fight vigorously to withhold information about animal experimentation from the public. ¹⁸

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories but are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 19,20 Many laboratories that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with pain relief or veterinary care, to search for and consider alternatives to animal use, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is largely unregulated. ²¹

As for the more than 11,000 facilities that the USDA does regulate (of which more than 1,200 are designated for "research"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations. ²² Reports have repeatedly concluded that even the minimal standards set forth by the AWA are not being met by these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to carry out their mandate. A 1995 report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "found that the activities of the IACUCs did not always meet the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not be performed on laboratory animals." ²³ In 2000, a USDA survey of the agency's laboratory inspectors revealed serious problems in numerous areas, including "the search for alternatives [and] review of painful procedures." ²⁴ A September 2005 audit report issued by the OIG found ongoing "problems with the search for alternative research, veterinary care, review of painful procedures, and the researchers' use of animals." ²⁵ In December 2014, an OIG report documented continuing problems with laboratories failing to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA's weak enforcement actions failing to deter future violations. The audit highlighted that from 2009 to 2011, USDA inspectors cited 531 experimentation facilities for 1,379 violations stemming from the IACUCs' failure to adequately review and monitor the use of animals. The audit also determined that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators by an average of 86 percent, even in cases involving animal deaths and egregious violations. ²⁶

Research co-authored by PETA documented that, on average, animal experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 percent of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. institutions. A whopping 98.6 percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also made up of animal experimenters. The authors observed that the dominant role played by animal experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving animal experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight system." ²⁷ Even when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law. When valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to use such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

A high-profile study published in the prestigious BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) documenting the ineffectiveness and waste of experimentation on animals concluded that "if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced." ²⁸

Research with human volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on human cells and tissues are critical to the advancement of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animal research methods are available and have been shown time and again to be more accurate than crude animal experiments. ²⁹ However, this modern research requires a different outlook, one that is creative and compassionate and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Human health and well-being can also be promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public is becoming more aware and more vocal about the cruelty and inadequacy of the current research system and is demanding that tax dollars and charitable donations not be used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Animal Testing

PETA created " Without Consent"-an interactive timeline featuring almost 200 stories of animal experiments from the past century-to open people's eyes to the long history of suffering that's been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people 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.
Without Consent
You Can Help Stop Animal Testing

Virtually all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Your lawmakers needs to know that you don't want your money used to pay for animal experiments.

Urge your members of Congress to endorse PETA's Research Modernization Deal, which provides a roadmap for modernizing U.S. investment in research by ending funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in effective research that's relevant to humans.
Take Action Not a U.S. Resident? Take Action Here
Animal Testing Facts and Figures

Almost 1 million animals are held captive in laboratories or used in experiments (excluding rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used in agricultural experiments), plus an estimated 110 million mice and rats

69 million animals used in experiments as reported by CCAC-certified institutions*

115,818 animals subjected to "severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals"

*The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is a "national peer-review organization" that is funded by the Canadian government but has no regulatory capacity. Only institutions that receive public funds are required to be certified by the CCAC, and the figures reported by the organization reflect only this subset of facilities. Most private research facilities are not certified by the CCAC, and their animal use is not accounted for in the CCAC's figures.

76 million procedures on animals

Of those procedures, 110,400 were assessed to be "severe," including "long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 Apr. 2021.
²Larry Carbone, " Estimating Mouse and Rat Use in American Laboratories by Extrapolation From Animal Welfare Act-Regulated Species," Scientific Reports 11, 493 (2021).
³Canadian Council on Animal Care, " CCAC 2021 Animal Data Report," 2022
⁴U.K. Government, " Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2022," Home Office, 13 July 2023.
⁵Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, " Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Research Center, 16 Aug. 2018
⁶Peter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, " Let the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
⁷Daniel G. Hackam, M.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., " Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human," The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
⁸Marlene Simmons et al., " Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions," Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
⁹Rich McManus, "Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Research," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
¹⁰Jarrod Bailey, " An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, " Is It Time to Give Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Health, " About New Therapeutic Uses," National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 9 Oct. 2019.
¹³Steve Woloshin, M.D., M.S., et al., " Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?" Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-8.
¹⁴Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, " Media Reporting on Research Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed," The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-80.
¹⁵Diana E. Pankevich et al., " International Animal Research Regulations: Impact on Neuroscience Research," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, " Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et al.
¹⁸Deborah Ziff, " On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Research Records," Wisconsin State Journal 5 Apr. 2010.
¹⁹U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
²⁰Justin Goodman et al., " Trends in Animal Use at US Research Facilities," Journal of Medical Ethics 0(2015): 1-3.
²¹The Associated Press, "Animal Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Care: Search."
²³U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, " USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit report, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et al., " Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, " Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., " Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The facts on animal testing are clear: Researchers in U.S. laboratories kill more than 110 million animals in wasteful and unreliable experiments each year.

# data[].attributes.headline
How animals suffer due to animal testing 

# data[].attributes.subject
How animals suffer due to animal testing 

# data[].attributes.body
before the animals die because of testing some Animals are forced to inhale toxic gases until they suffocate to death and other animals have holes drilled into their skull and other have their skinned burned during testing and some unlucky ones have their spine crushed

link-https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year, more than 110 million animals-including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds-are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them-they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment.

Animal Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Center poll found that 52 percent of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress. 5,6 The majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease ... poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research." ⁷

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way.

For example, according to former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." ⁸ This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We have moved away from studying human disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. ... The problem is that it hasn't worked, and it's time we stopped dancing around the problem. ... We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans." ⁹

The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans. ¹⁰ In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British newspaper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work." ¹¹

These are not anomalies. The National Institutes of Health has stated, "Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more." ¹²

Research published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that universities commonly exaggerate findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories and "often promote research that has uncertain relevance to human health and do not provide key facts or acknowledge important limitations." ¹³ One study of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories often omit crucial information and that "the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented." ¹⁴ Because experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies, other scientists and the public do not have ready access to information on the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation.

Funding and Accountability

Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who-knowingly or unknowingly-fund animal experimentation. One of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such as NIH. Approximately 47 percent of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted nearly $42 billion for research and development. 15,16 In addition, many charities--including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and countless others-use donations to fund experiments on animals. One-third of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society involve animal experimentation. ¹⁷

Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal experimentation, it is nearly impossible for the public to obtain current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are being carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. State open-records laws and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain documents and information from state institutions, government agencies, and other federally funded facilities, but private companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. In many cases, institutions that are subject to open-records laws fight vigorously to withhold information about animal experimentation from the public. ¹⁸

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories but are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 19,20 Many laboratories that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with pain relief or veterinary care, to search for and consider alternatives to animal use, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is largely unregulated. ²¹

As for the more than 11,000 facilities that the USDA does regulate (of which more than 1,200 are designated for "research"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations. ²² Reports have repeatedly concluded that even the minimal standards set forth by the AWA are not being met by these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to carry out their mandate. A 1995 report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "found that the activities of the IACUCs did not always meet the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not be performed on laboratory animals." ²³ In 2000, a USDA survey of the agency's laboratory inspectors revealed serious problems in numerous areas, including "the search for alternatives [and] review of painful procedures." ²⁴ A September 2005 audit report issued by the OIG found ongoing "problems with the search for alternative research, veterinary care, review of painful procedures, and the researchers' use of animals." ²⁵ In December 2014, an OIG report documented continuing problems with laboratories failing to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA's weak enforcement actions failing to deter future violations. The audit highlighted that from 2009 to 2011, USDA inspectors cited 531 experimentation facilities for 1,379 violations stemming from the IACUCs' failure to adequately review and monitor the use of animals. The audit also determined that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators by an average of 86 percent, even in cases involving animal deaths and egregious violations. ²⁶

Research co-authored by PETA documented that, on average, animal experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 percent of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. institutions. A whopping 98.6 percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also made up of animal experimenters. The authors observed that the dominant role played by animal experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving animal experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight system." ²⁷ Even when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law. When valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to use such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

A high-profile study published in the prestigious BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) documenting the ineffectiveness and waste of experimentation on animals concluded that "if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced." ²⁸

Research with human volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on human cells and tissues are critical to the advancement of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animal research methods are available and have been shown time and again to be more accurate than crude animal experiments. ²⁹ However, this modern research requires a different outlook, one that is creative and compassionate and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Human health and well-being can also be promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public is becoming more aware and more vocal about the cruelty and inadequacy of the current research system and is demanding that tax dollars and charitable donations not be used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Animal Testing

PETA created " Without Consent"-an interactive timeline featuring almost 200 stories of animal experiments from the past century-to open people's eyes to the long history of suffering that's been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people 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.
Without Consent
You Can Help Stop Animal Testing

Virtually all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Your lawmakers needs to know that you don't want your money used to pay for animal experiments.

Urge your members of Congress to endorse PETA's Research Modernization Deal, which provides a roadmap for modernizing U.S. investment in research by ending funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in effective research that's relevant to humans.
Take Action Not a U.S. Resident? Take Action Here
Animal Testing Facts and Figures

Almost 1 million animals are held captive in laboratories or used in experiments (excluding rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used in agricultural experiments), plus an estimated 110 million mice and rats

69 million animals used in experiments as reported by CCAC-certified institutions*

115,818 animals subjected to "severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals"

*The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is a "national peer-review organization" that is funded by the Canadian government but has no regulatory capacity. Only institutions that receive public funds are required to be certified by the CCAC, and the figures reported by the organization reflect only this subset of facilities. Most private research facilities are not certified by the CCAC, and their animal use is not accounted for in the CCAC's figures.

76 million procedures on animals

Of those procedures, 110,400 were assessed to be "severe," including "long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and " Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 Apr. 2021.
²Larry Carbone, " Estimating Mouse and Rat Use in American Laboratories by Extrapolation From Animal Welfare Act-Regulated Species," Scientific Reports 11, 493 (2021).
³Canadian Council on Animal Care, " CCAC 2021 Animal Data Report," 2022
⁴U.K. Government, " Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2022," Home Office, 13 July 2023.
⁵Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, " Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Research Center, 16 Aug. 2018
⁶Peter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, " Let the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
⁷Daniel G. Hackam, M.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., " Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human," The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
⁸Marlene Simmons et al., " Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions," Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
⁹Rich McManus, "Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Research," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
¹⁰Jarrod Bailey, " An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, " Is It Time to Give Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Health, " About New Therapeutic Uses," National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 9 Oct. 2019.
¹³Steve Woloshin, M.D., M.S., et al., " Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?" Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-8.
¹⁴Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, " Media Reporting on Research Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed," The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-80.
¹⁵Diana E. Pankevich et al., " International Animal Research Regulations: Impact on Neuroscience Research," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, " Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et al.
¹⁸Deborah Ziff, " On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Research Records," Wisconsin State Journal 5 Apr. 2010.
¹⁹U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
²⁰Justin Goodman et al., " Trends in Animal Use at US Research Facilities," Journal of Medical Ethics 0(2015): 1-3.
²¹The Associated Press, "Animal Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Care: Search."
²³U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, " USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, " Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit report, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et al., " Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, " Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., " Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing Facts and Statistics | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The facts on animal testing are clear: Researchers in U.S. laboratories kill more than 110 million animals in wasteful and unreliable experiments each year.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2013, the European Union banned the testing of cosmetics on animals in the EU, and the marketing or sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals outside the EU. Since then, Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Turkey, India, Guatemala, Taiwan, and New Zealand have instituted bans on testing or marketing. Other countries, including Canada and Australia, have active pending legislation underway.

In the United States, California passed the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, but the federal government does not require animal testing for cosmetics. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Susan Collins introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, S. 1113, with the goal of improving cosmetics safety and regulation. But to be effective, S.1113 must drive regulatory science forward and ban animal testing for cosmetics.

link- https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animal-testing-and-alternatives/cruelty-free-cosmetics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? "

Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? " Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.body
The majority of cosmetics imported for sale in China are required to be tested on animals. There are some exceptions; however, it is estimated that cosmetics testing to satisfy Chinese regulatory requirements account for potentially 75 percent of animals killed for cosmetics testing globally.

Until China removes these testing requirements, companies large and small are trying strategies to remain cruelty-free, such as manufacturing in China, avoiding manufacture of some kinds of cosmetics, creating separate product lines for the Chinese market, or avoiding selling their products in China altogether.

link-https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animal-testing-and-alternatives/cruelty-free-cosmetics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? "

Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? " Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.body
Companies can pursue a number of approaches to ensure their cosmetics are safe without testing on animals. There are more than 40 in vitro methods approved by international regulatory bodies.

Known Safe Ingredients: Thousands of ingredients have been used for many years, and we already have a lot of information about them.

Threshold of Toxicological Concern: Based on knowledge about other chemicals with similar structures and some information about an ingredient, scientists can establish a level below which an ingredient is unlikely to be harmful.

Computer-Based Methods: The potential toxicity of an ingredient can be predicted by assessing the chemical structures and properties of a few or many thousands of chemicals, together with mathematical algorithms and supercomputing power.

In Vitro Methods: From simple cell cultures to 3D models of human skin, liver, and other organs, there are many methods available to assess cosmetic safety.

“

link-https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animal-testing-and-alternatives/cruelty-free-cosmetics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? "

Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
" What could be more beautiful than cruelty-free wrinkle creams, eye shadows, and shampoos that protect both humans and animals? " Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., Vice President of Research Policy, Physicians Committee

# data[].attributes.body
Draize irritancy tests, which require directly exposing animals’ eyes and skin to chemicals, are developed. Considered for decades to be the gold standard for cosmetic safety assessments, these tests cause extensive animal suffering.

link-https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/timeline-cosmetics-testing-animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, animal welfare advocates have been working to end the testing of makeup and personal care products on animals. See how far we've come and how you can help support the Be Cruelty-Free campaign, our global effort to end cosmetic cruelty.
Read the FAQ 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2000-2012 | 1980-1999 | 1938-1979
2021

November: New Jerseypasses a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

June: Maine passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

July: Hawaii passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

May: Maryland passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

March: Virginia passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

January: New cosmetics regulations go into effect in China opening a potential pathway for import of ordinary cosmetics, such as shampoo and mascara, without the need for new animal testing.

2020

December: Chile introduces a bill to ban cosmetics animal testing and sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

August: Colombia passes a law to ban cosmetics animal testing and sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

March: The Mexican Senate passes a bill to ban cosmetics animal testing and sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

January: Laws banning the sale of animal-tested cosmetics go into effect in California, Illinois and Nevada.

2019

November: The federal Humane Cosmetics Act, legislation to prohibit cosmetics animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics, is reintroduced in the U.S. with support from the cosmetic industry.

November: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) approves a new non-animal test method for eye irritation.

September: Illinois passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

June: Nevada passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

June: The OECD approves new non-animal test methods for eye irritation, skin irritation, skin allergy and phototoxicity.

June: Estée Lauder announces its support for the #BeCrueltyFree campaign.

April: Avon announces its support for the #BeCrueltyFree campaign.

March: Australian government passes a ban on the use of new animal data for cosmetics safety.

February: P&G announces its support for the #BeCrueltyFree campaign.

2018

October: Unilever announces its support for the #BeCrueltyFree campaign.

September: California passes a ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

July: Minais Gerais, Brazil passes a ban on cosmetics animal testing.

June: The OECD approves new non-animal test methods for skin allergy.

June: Canada Cruelty-free Cosmetics Act, legislation to ban cosmetics animal testing and the sale of animal tested ingredients, passes the Senate.

2017

December: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil bans cosmetics animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

December: South Africa introduces legislation to ban cosmetics animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics.

October: The OECD approves new non-animal test methods for eye irritation and skin allergy.

June: The Humane Cosmetics Act, legislation to prohibit cosmetics animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics, is reintroduced in the U.S.

February: Guatemala becomes the first country in the Americas to ban cosmetics animal testing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades, animal welfare advocates have been working to end the testing of makeup and personal care products on animals. See how far we've come and how you can help support the Be Cruelty-Free campaign, our global effort to end cosmetic cruelty.