experiment on animals pros

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

• History of Animal Testing

Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other  biomedical , commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as circa 500 BC. Physician-scientists such as  Aristotle ,  Herophilus , and  Erasistratus  performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms.  Vivisection  (dissection of a living organism) was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human body in ancient Greece led to a reliance on animal subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them.  Theophrastus , a successor to Aristotle, disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, like humans, they can feel pain, and causing pain to animals was an affront to the gods. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments for humans and animals alike. Nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. To name just a few examples, animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions including breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and tuberculosis. Testing on animals was also instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Scientists racing to develop a vaccine for coronavirus during the 2020 global pandemic needed to test on genetically modified mice to ensure that the vaccine did not make the virus worse. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Australia, said testing a coronavirus vaccine on animals is “absolutely essential” and skipping that step would be “fraught with difficulty and danger.” [ 119 ] [ 133 ] Researchers have to test extensively to prevent “vaccine enhancement,” a situation in which a vaccine actually makes the disease worse in some people. “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals,” explains Peter Hotez, Dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College. [ 119 ] [ 141 ] Further, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. Vaccines tested on animals have saved millions of animals that would otherwise have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [ 9 ] [ 21 ] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing to develop safe drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. [ 9 ] [ 13 ] [ 23 ] Read More

Pro 2 Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [ 9 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] Animals often make better research subjects than humans because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. [ 9 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] Further, animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. [ 19 ] [ 20 ] A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 120 ] Read More

Pro 3 Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. [ 3 ] All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Most major research institutions’ programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Rachel Rubino, attending veterinarian and director of the animal facility at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, says, “Most people who work with research animals love those animals…. We want to give them the best lives possible, treat them humanely.” At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s animal research facility, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a “toy rotation program” provides opportunities for play. [ 28 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means,” according to Humane Society International. The US Department of Agriculture reported in Jan. 2020 that research facilities used over 300,000 animals in activities involving pain in just one year. [ 47 ] [ 102 ] Plus, most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates: “only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used.” A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies, including “incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud.” [ 64 ] [ 128 ] Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 26 ] [ 28 ] [ 135 ] Even the animals protected by the AWA are mistreated. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [ 68 ] Read More

Con 2 Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after succeeding in animal trials. Nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [ 5 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 109 ] [ 110 ] Plus, animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.” [ 105 ] [ 106 ] [ 127 ] Read More

Con 3 Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.” The Environmental Protection Agency is so confident in alternatives that the agency intends to reduce chemical testing on mammals 30% by 2025 and end it altogether by 2035. [ 61 ] [ 134 ] [ 140 ] Scientists are also able to test vaccines on humans volunteers. Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code. [ 142 ] [ 143 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Animal Testing – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• Did You Know?
• Glossary: Animals Used in Animal Testing
• Number of Animals Used for Testing
• Cite this Page
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

16 Integral Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation

Over 25 million animals are used for experimentation in the U.S. every year. Monkeys, rabbits, cats, ferrets, pigs, sheep and chimpanzees are just some of the animals used for biomedical experiments, science education, and product and cosmetics testing. Some animals, however, are more preferred by laboratories. In fact, over 90% of test subjects are mice, birds and rats.

Many proponents of animal experimentation claim that the process is for a good cause. Better to use animals than humans for testing, right? After all, they are below humans in the natural chain of things. But, as English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham puts it, it is not a question of whether they can talk or reason, but whether or not they suffer. Considering that animals cry and show discomfort, it is safe to conclude that they feel something.

Unfortunately, vivisection, or the practice of animal experimentation, is perfectly acceptable and legal. It is the worst form of animal abuse that is institutionalized and sanctioned by our society. Despite the fact that the conditions of animals in labs are monotonous, stressful, and very unnatural for them, invasive experimentation persists, and even when the endpoint is death. Whether animal experimentation is good or bad really depends on who you are asking. But, if it is condone by society, then there must be some advantages to it, even if the benefits are at the expense of animal lives.

List of Pros of Animal Experimentation

1. Contributes to many cures and treatments that save many human lives The majority of the medical breakthroughs that have happened in the last 100 years were direct results from animal research and experimentation, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. Insulin, for example, was discovered through an experiment where dogs have their pancreases removed. The Anderson Cancer Center animal research also associated the vaccine for Hepatitis B with experimentation on chimpanzees. Without these experimentations, thousands, if not millions, of diabetic patients and those with hepatitis B would have been killed every year. The same facility also said that the chimps serve as humanity’s only hope for finding a Hepatitis C vaccine.

2. Provides adequate living, whole body system test subject No other living thing in this planet has the closest anatomical structure as humans than animals. A human body is extremely complex that cell cultures in a petri dish cannot provide sufficient test results or proof that a cure or product is effective. Testing a drug for side effects, for example, requires a circulatory system that will carry the drug to different organs. Studying interrelated processes is also best done in subjects with endocrine system, immune system, and central nervous system, something humans and animals have. What about the use of computer models? They would require accurate information that is gathered from animal research.

3. Humans and animals are almost identical in many ways The DNA of chimpanzees are 99% similar with humans, while the genetics of mice are 98% similar. Humans and animals are also biologically similar, having the same set of organs, bloodstream and central nervous system, which is why they are affected with the same diseases and health conditions. Given these circumstances, animals used in experimentation do serve as appropriate research subjects.

4. Provides an ethical alternative for testing Most people would say that it is unethical to use humans for invasive experimental procedures, especially when it can result in death. The lives of human volunteers must not be endangered when testing medicines for side effects or potential toxicity. Ethical consideration must also be made when genetic manipulation would be involved. Human trials must be preceded by animal testing, as stated by the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. But, if animals could talk, they would probably demand the same ethical considerations.

5. Offer benefits to animals themselves Animal experimentation is not only beneficial to humans but animals as well. If the vaccines were not tested on them, a lot of them could have died from rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, feline leukemia, and canine parvovirus. Remedies for hip dysplasia and glaucoma were also discovered through animal testing. But the real highlight is that vivisection helped kept endangered species, such as the California condor, the tamarins of Brazil, and the black-footed ferret, from becoming extinct. This is why animal testing is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

6. Allow researchers to study a test subject for a whole life span Humans can live up to 80 years or more, which means some scientists would be dead before others results will be gathered. Laboratory mice, on the other hand, only live for 2 to 3 years, giving researchers an opportunity to study effects of genetic manipulation or treatments over an entire lifetime. In some cases, they can continue to study across several generations. This is why mice and rats have been used for long-term cancer research.

7. Animals are protected from abuse and mistreatment Contrary to what most opponents believe, animal research is highly regulated, with laws enacted to protect animals. Since 1966, the federal Animal Welfare Act have been regulating animal experimentation.

• Research animals must be provided with shelter that follows minimum housing standards, such as the right-sized enclosure, recommended temperature, access to clean food and water, etc.
• Veterinarians must regularly inspect the animals and their living conditions
• Each research facility must set up an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that will approve all proposals to use animals for experimentation.
• The IACUC will be responsible for enforcing humane treatment of animals.
• Research facilities funded by the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the policies on Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals imposed by PHS.

8. Fewer animals are used in research than as food for humans Compared to the amount of chicken, cattle, sheep and pigs that humans eat, relatively few of them are used in experimentation. With consideration to the medical progress and advancement such tests provided, it is a small price to pay. To illustrate, for every chicken used in research, an equivalent of 340 are used as food.

List of Cons of Animal Experimentation

1. Cruel and inhumane treatment Protocols in animal testing are often painful to the test subjects. They are forced fed, deprived of food and water, restrained physically for prolonged periods, inflicted with burns, wounds and pain to test for healing process effects and remedies, and even killed through neck-breaking or asphyxiation. This is according to the Humane Society International. When testing to evaluate irritation caused by cosmetics, for example, a rabbit’s eyes will be held open by clips so it cannot blink away the products being evaluated. The clips usually stay on for days, and to ensure the rabbits stay in place, they are incapacitated. Some experimentation also involves using lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can kill animals.

2. Animals make poor test subjects This statement is a direct contradiction from what proponents believe about how closely related animals and humans are anatomically and biologically, because of the many metabolic, cellular, and anatomical differences between the two species. Using rats for toxicity, for example, must not be accepted as reliable since humans are nowhere close to being 70-kilogram rats, according to Thomas Hartung, professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University. This is further supported by the 2013 study in the Archives of Toxicology that states that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a mouse makes the usefulness of research data dubious.

3. Success in animal experimentation does not equate to human safety When the sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats, mice, cats and guinea pigs, there were no incidence of birth defects, except when administered at extremely high doses. However, when it was used by pregnant women, it resulted in severe deformities affecting 10,000 babies.

• The arthritis drug Vioxx, which turned out great on animals was really bad news on humans because it caused more than 20,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths.
• A majority of the drugs that passed animal tests, 94% to be exact, failed in human clinical trials.
• 100 of the drugs designed to treat stroke worked on animals, but completely failed in humans
• Over 85 vaccines for HIV worked well in primates, but failed in humans

4. Can lead to misleading research Some medicines and products that are harmful to animals are actually valuable to humans. Aspirin, for example, was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals. Imagine what would have happened if aspirin was completely taken off the pharmaceutical list? There would have been no way to lower the risk of organ transplant being rejected.

5. Most animals used in testing and research are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) As of 2010, only over 1 million animals are covered by the AWA, leaving around 25 million more unprotected from mistreatment and abuse. These include birds, fish, mice and rats. And because vivisections within laboratory walls are regulated by the committee that the facility itself selected, animal subjects are even more at risk of being treated like prisoners in a hospital for their entire existence. One very good example of a clear violation of AWA was discovered in a federally funded facility in Louisiana, New Iberia Research Center (NIRC). The animals were so stressed out psychologically that they resorted to self-mutilation. The rest of the 337 violations that NIRC committed were caught on a video footage, showing the heartbreaking conditions of the animals. But this facility is just one of the many that violates AWA.

6. There are less expensive alternatives to animal experimentation Despite what proponents insist, cell cultures in a petri dish, or in vitro (in glass) testing, are not exactly useless or insufficient. They can even produce results that are more relevant than animal experimentation. The same thing is true when using artificial human skin as a test subject, instead of animal skin. Virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures done through computer models also have the capacity to predict toxicity levels of substances, so no need to poison animals to collect data and draw conclusions. And, when testing for adverse reactions, administering small doses on humans, also known as microdosing, also offers an alternative. Combined with blood analysis, results will be produced.

But what is really important is that these alternatives are less expensive than animal experimentations. In glass testing, for example, only costs $11,000, which is less than $21,000 than an “unscheduled DNA synthesis”. A phototoxicity test that doesn’t use rats only cost $1,300, which is almost $10,000 less than its animal-based equivalent. These only shows that animal tests are wasting plenty of government dollars allocated for research.

7. Plenty of animal lives are wasted Considering all the tests that failed, not to mention other non-experimental factors that affect animals, there is a significant number of animal lives wasted for nothing. They suffer or get killed during the experiment, and suffer the same fate after the experiment. But what is really inhumane and unethical are the poor research procedures used by some facilities. Serious flaws were discovered in plenty of studies in the UK and the U.S. that use rodents, according to a peer-reviewed study conducted in 2009. Selection bias was a major problem, but even with randomization and blinding technique used, proper selection of animals still failed. There is also a lack of hypothesis or objective related to the study.

8. Medical breakthroughs need not involve animals Is animal experimentation really that necessary in discovering treatments and cures? Opponents argue that there is really no evidence of its vital role in major medical advances. If funds and resources are focused on animal-free alternatives, more humane, ethical and inexpensive solutions. One such alternative that should be given full support is the microfluidic chip, also known as organs on a chip. This involves the use of chips to achieve certain functions of a human body, such as mix, pump and sort. The chips are lined with human cells so they work similar to human organs. With this alternative, researchers can no longer use the excuse that they need a living, whole-body system to run experiments.

14 Pros and Cons of Animal Research

Animal research is the process of using non-human animals to control variables that may affect biological systems or behaviors in experiments. It is the process of animal testing that is done under the guise of research to benefit humanity, but the applied research may have little or no concern to the animals involved.

Up to 100 million animals, from fish to chimpanzees, may be used every year for the purpose of animal research. Reptiles, amphibians, fish, rats, and mice make up about 85% of the testing population in any given year.

The advantage of animal research is that it puts no human lives at risk. Experiments can take place to determine if a product or idea will work as intended. If it does, then it can be tested on humans with a lower risk of a negative outcome.

The disadvantage of animal research is that it lessens the value of life. Most animals, once the testing process has been completed, are euthanized. Many of those animals are purposely bred for the experiments being performed as well, which means millions of animals are at a higher risk of suffering from abuse or neglect in a field that is often poorly regulated.

Here are some of the additional pros and cons of animal research to discuss.

What Are the Pros of Animal Research?

1. It has led to several medical advancements for humans. The British Royal Society has released a statement regarding animal research, noting that almost every 20th century medical achievement relied on the use of animals in some way during the development process. Because it cannot be fully replaced by computer simulations or models, the argument is that live testing will continue to be needed.

2. It enhances the safety of the products being released. Animal testing helps to lessen the risk of an unplanned event occurring when humans use or ingest the products that are part of the animal testing experiment. Drugs can be potentially and immediately harmful to humans, especially during the testing phase of a product, so animal testing allows for researchers to determine the quality and safety of a product before humans take it.

3. There are no other testing alternatives. Animals are the closest thing to humans on our planet. If one assumes that human life is more valuable than animal life, then performing experiments on animals makes sense because it offers the chance to explore how the various living systems within a body may react when exposed to a test sample. Animals and humans share numerous systems, including the central nervous system, and the data collected can be used to improve products.

4. Some animals are almost carbon copies of humans. The reason why mice are frequently used in animal research is that their genetic profile is 98% similar to humans. Chimpanzees were popular to use in the past, and still are in some areas of the world, because their genetic profile is 99% similar to a human. With similar organs, circulatory systems, and reactions to an illness, researchers can look at how animals react and be able to make comfortable prediction about how humans might react.

5. It offers a different set of legalities. Testing humans with invasive experiments could result in death. Although there will always be a risk when testing new items, even after animal research has provided positive data, the risks to a human without animal research would be incredibly high. Through animal research, the legality of accidentally causing the death of an animal is very different than what would occur with the accidental death of a human.

6. It provides an opportunity to examine a complete life cycle. In many countries, the average life expectancy of a human exceeds 70 years of age. Some nations have an average life expectancy of over 80 years. In comparison, a mouse has a lifespan of 2-3 years, allowing researchers the opportunity to study through research and experimentation how something may affect the life cycle. Any long-term research involves mice and rats because of this unique aspect to the research.

7. There are protections in place for the animals. Although animal research may have ethical concerns, the US has regulated its practice since 1966. Veterinarians are required to inspect the living conditions of the animals. Committees must approve animal research and be held responsible for the humane treatment of each animal. Access to food and water is mandatory, as are shelters that follow minimum sizing standards.

What Are the Cons of Animal Research?

1. Many of the items that are tested are never used. Animal testing may provide safety benefits for new products, but some of the items that are tested will never be used. That means animals will likely be sacrificing their lives to determine the safety of a product that a human will never even know was being developed. With no direct societal benefit produced, what is the benefit of an animal suffering from the testing process?

2. It can be an expensive practice. Caring for an animal requires a large investment. Some of the animals that are used for testing are bought at auction or taken from the wild, which brings additional costs into the process. According to Petfinder, the total cost of caring for a single dog could be over $9,000 per year. Even at the low end of the scale, the car cost is over $500. Now multiple those costs over an entire laboratory and the cost of animal research becomes very high, very quickly.

3. It may not offer valid results. The structure of an animal’s body is very different from the structure of a human’s body. That means animal research can be more unreliable than even researchers claim it may be. Several drugs have passed animal testing, but have been found to be harmful to humans. In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92% of drugs that pass their pre-clinical tests, including animal research, fail to reach the market. Recent data suggests that failure rates from animal research to human research could be even higher, at 96%, according to the NIH. Nearly 100 vaccines for HIV showed potential in primates, but failed in humans. That means the results that animal research can produce may not even be valid.

4. Many facilities are exempt from animal welfare laws. About 4% of the animals that are involved in ongoing research projects are covered by animal welfare laws. That means there are more than 20 million animals who could be at a high risk of abuse or neglect in the name of research. Even when the facilities are in compliance with the law, they are governed by committees that are self-appointed and only a direct inspection of the facility would let someone know there are issues going on.

5. Animals don’t need to be the “only” method of research. Although testing living tissues will be beneficial compared to computer simulations for the recent future, there are methods of research that can involve living tissues that don’t put the lives of animals at risk. From living cell lines to cultures and other forms of cell harvesting, there are possibilities available. A cell line from cervical cancer cells taken in 1951 is still being researched, even though the individual died from that cancer in the same year.

6. Poor research practices invalidate the data obtained. Data discrepancies are not the only issue that face animal research transitioning to human research. When poor research practices are used, the data that is obtained could be invalidated. There is also the possibility that poor research practices could create false positive data that could then place human lives at risk. Unless there is accurate and complete oversight over the current field of animal research, this threat to the data will always exist.

7. Reverse data can also be a problem with animal research. There are drugs and products that could be harmful to animals, but highly beneficial to humans, and the current state of research priority would make it extremely difficult to know if this was the case. Animal testing occurs before human testing. An example of this issue is aspirin. It is a dangerous product for animals to have, but think of the millions of lives that have been improved or saved because of the drug. Insulin causes animal birth defects, but it saves lives every day. That is the reality of animal research.

The pros and cons of animal research will always be controversial. Testing animals to see if a product is safe may be better than testing humans first, but that also means the life of an animal is devalued. On the other hand, more animals are butchered for food every year than are used in animal experimentation, so the ethics of life value are more of a gray area than distinctly black and white.

How do you feel about the process of animal research?

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ethics of animal experimentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizations and Resources

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

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

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

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

20 Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, involves using animals in scientific research to develop new medicines, test the safety of products, and study biological processes.

This practice has been a cornerstone of biomedical research for centuries, contributing to numerous medical advancements and scientific discoveries.

However, animal testing is also a subject of ethical debate and controversy due to concerns about animal welfare and the moral implications of using animals for experimentation.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons of animal testing to help readers understand the complexities and impacts of this practice.

Pros Of Animal Testing

1. medical advancements.

One of the primary benefits of animal testing is its contribution to medical advancements. Many life-saving treatments and vaccines have been developed and tested on animals before being approved for human use. For example, insulin for diabetes management, vaccines for polio and hepatitis, and treatments for HIV/AIDS and cancer were all developed with the help of animal research. Animal testing allows researchers to study disease mechanisms and evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments before they are administered to humans.

2. Safety Testing For Products

Animal testing plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of various products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and household chemicals. Regulatory agencies often require animal testing to assess the potential toxicity, allergenicity, and environmental impact of these products. By testing on animals, manufacturers can identify potential hazards and take measures to protect consumers from harmful effects. This process helps prevent adverse reactions and promotes public health and safety.

3. Understanding Biological Processes

Animal testing provides valuable insights into fundamental biological processes and disease mechanisms. By studying animals, scientists can explore the complexities of genetics, physiology, and behavior. Animal models are often used to investigate the causes and progression of diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and cardiovascular diseases. This knowledge is essential for developing targeted therapies and preventive measures.

4. Development Of Veterinary Medicine

Animal testing also benefits veterinary medicine by improving treatments and preventive measures for various animal diseases. Research on animals helps develop vaccines, medications, and surgical techniques that enhance the health and well-being of pets, livestock, and wildlife. These advancements contribute to animal welfare and support the agricultural industry by ensuring the health of farm animals.

5. Ethical Considerations And Regulations

While ethical concerns about animal testing exist, stringent regulations and oversight aim to minimize animal suffering and ensure humane treatment. Regulatory bodies, such as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in the United States, oversee animal research protocols to ensure compliance with ethical standards. Researchers are required to follow guidelines for housing, care, and handling of animals, and to use the minimum number of animals necessary for their studies.

6. Alternatives And Refinements

Animal testing has driven the development of alternative methods and refinements to reduce animal use and suffering. The “3Rs” principle—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—guides researchers in seeking alternatives to animal testing, reducing the number of animals used, and refining procedures to minimize pain and distress. Advancements in cell culture techniques, computer modeling, and in vitro testing have emerged as alternatives to traditional animal testing, reducing reliance on animal models.

7. Educational Value

Animal testing has educational value for training future scientists and healthcare professionals. Hands-on experience with animal models helps students understand complex biological systems and develop skills in experimental techniques. This practical training is essential for preparing the next generation of researchers, veterinarians, and medical practitioners.

8. Contribution To Basic Research

Basic research conducted on animals provides foundational knowledge that can lead to unexpected breakthroughs. Many scientific discoveries, such as the understanding of DNA replication, neural pathways, and immune responses, were made possible through animal experimentation. This knowledge forms the basis for applied research and the development of new technologies.

9. Regulation Of Human Medicine

Animal testing is often a regulatory requirement for the approval of new drugs and medical devices. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States mandate preclinical testing on animals to assess the safety and efficacy of new treatments. These regulations help protect human participants in clinical trials and ensure that only safe and effective therapies reach the market.

10. Advancement Of Neuroscience

Animal testing has been instrumental in advancing neuroscience research. Studies on animals have provided insights into brain function, neural circuits, and behavior. This research has led to a better understanding of neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and epilepsy, and has paved the way for the development of new treatments and interventions.

Cons of Animal Testing

1. ethical and moral concerns.

The primary criticism of animal testing is the ethical and moral concern regarding the treatment of animals. Many people believe that it is wrong to subject animals to pain, suffering, and death for the benefit of humans. The use of animals in experiments raises questions about the moral status of animals and the justification for causing harm to sentient beings. Animal rights advocates argue that animals have intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

2. Animal Suffering

Animal testing often involves procedures that cause pain, distress, and suffering to animals. Common practices include exposure to toxic substances, surgical interventions, and behavioral tests that induce fear and anxiety. Despite efforts to minimize pain and distress, animals used in research are still subjected to conditions that can negatively impact their well-being. This suffering raises ethical concerns and challenges the justification for animal experimentation.

3. Limited Relevance To Humans

One of the significant limitations of animal testing is the question of its relevance to humans. Animals and humans differ in their physiology, genetics, and responses to treatments. As a result, findings from animal studies may not always accurately predict human outcomes. There have been instances where treatments that were effective in animals failed in human clinical trials or caused adverse effects. This discrepancy calls into question the reliability of animal models for predicting human responses.

4. Availability Of Alternatives

Advancements in science and technology have led to the development of alternative methods that can replace animal testing. In vitro testing, computer modeling, and organ-on-a-chip technologies offer promising alternatives for studying biological processes and assessing product safety. These methods can provide more accurate and humane options for research, reducing the need for animal experimentation.

5. High Cost

Animal testing is expensive, requiring significant financial resources for housing, care, and experimental procedures. The cost of maintaining animal facilities, providing veterinary care, and conducting experiments can be substantial. In contrast, alternative methods, such as cell culture and computer modeling, can be more cost-effective and efficient.

6. Regulatory and Compliance Challenges

Compliance with regulatory and ethical guidelines for animal testing can be complex and time-consuming. Researchers must obtain approvals from oversight committees, adhere to strict protocols, and conduct regular inspections to ensure humane treatment of animals. These regulatory requirements can delay research progress and increase administrative burdens.

7. Public Opposition

Public opinion on animal testing is increasingly negative, with growing awareness of animal rights and welfare issues. Advocacy groups and campaigns have raised awareness about the ethical concerns and suffering associated with animal experimentation. This public opposition can lead to increased scrutiny, regulatory changes, and pressure on companies and institutions to adopt alternative methods.

8. Limited Applicability To Complex Human Conditions

Animal models may not fully capture the complexity of human diseases and conditions. While animal testing can provide valuable insights into specific biological processes, it may not accurately represent the multifaceted nature of human health issues. For example, psychiatric disorders, autoimmune diseases, and chronic conditions involve intricate interactions that may not be adequately replicated in animal models.

9. Risk Of Inconsistent Results

Variability in animal models can lead to inconsistent and irreproducible results. Differences in genetics, age, sex, and environmental conditions can influence experimental outcomes, making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions. Inconsistent results can hinder scientific progress and raise questions about the reliability of animal testing.

10. Impact On Biodiversity

The use of wild-caught animals for research can impact biodiversity and threaten endangered species. Collecting animals from their natural habitats for experimentation can disrupt ecosystems and contribute to population declines. Ethical and conservation concerns arise when research practices compromise the survival of vulnerable species.

Animal testing is a complex and contentious issue with significant implications for science, ethics, and society. On the positive side, it has contributed to numerous medical advancements, product safety, and a deeper understanding of biological processes. Animal testing plays a crucial role in the development of new treatments, vaccines, and veterinary medicine, and it provides valuable educational and research opportunities.

However, the ethical and moral concerns surrounding animal testing cannot be ignored. The suffering and distress experienced by animals, the limited relevance to humans, the availability of alternative methods, and the high cost are significant drawbacks. Public opposition and regulatory challenges further complicate the issue.

Ultimately, the decision to use animal testing must balance the potential benefits against the ethical considerations and strive to minimize harm to animals. The adoption of alternative methods, adherence to ethical guidelines, and ongoing efforts to refine and reduce animal use are essential steps toward more humane and effective research practices. By carefully weighing the pros and cons, society can work towards a future where scientific progress and animal welfare coexist in harmony.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Communication
• Recreational

Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

• Post author: admin
• Post published: August 13, 2024
• Post category: Animal
• Post comments: 0 Comments

Animal testing, a contentious practice used in scientific and medical research, presents various benefits and drawbacks. This guide explores the key advantages and disadvantages to help you understand its implications.

1 Medical Advancements: Animal testing has contributed to significant medical breakthroughs, such as vaccines and treatments for diseases. 2 Safety Testing: Ensures the safety of new drugs, treatments, and consumer products before they reach humans. 3 Biological Similarity: Animals share many biological similarities with humans, making them useful models for research. 4 Regulatory Requirements: Many regulatory agencies require animal testing to ensure the safety and efficacy of new products. 5 Predictive Value: Animal models can provide predictive data on human reactions to drugs and treatments. 6 Genetic Research: Helps in understanding genetic disorders and developing gene therapies. 7 Toxicology Studies: Animal testing identifies potential toxic effects of substances, protecting public health. 8 Veterinary Medicine: Contributes to advancements in veterinary medicine and treatments for animal diseases. 9 Organ Transplantation: Research on animals has led to improved organ transplantation techniques. 10 Behavioral Studies: Helps in understanding animal behavior and developing conservation strategies. 11 Infectious Disease Research: Animal testing is crucial for studying infectious diseases and developing vaccines. 12 Educational Value: Provides valuable educational experiences for medical and veterinary students. 13 Reproductive Studies: Assists in understanding reproductive health and developing fertility treatments. 14 Biomedical Research: Advances knowledge in biomedical fields, leading to improved health outcomes. 15 Nutritional Studies: Helps in understanding nutritional requirements and developing dietary guidelines. 16 Drug Development: Speeds up the drug development process by providing initial safety and efficacy data. 17 Aging Research: Contributes to research on aging and age-related diseases. 18 Ethical Alternatives: Refinement and reduction efforts aim to minimize animal suffering and use. 19 Cancer Research: Animal models are essential for studying cancer biology and developing treatments. 20 Chronic Disease Research: Helps in understanding and treating chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease.

1 Ethical Concerns: Raises significant ethical issues regarding the treatment and welfare of animals. 2 Animal Suffering: Causes pain, distress, and suffering to animals, raising moral questions. 3 Alternatives Available: Modern alternatives, such as in vitro testing and computer models, can sometimes replace animal testing. 4 Species Differences: Differences between animal and human biology can lead to inaccurate results. 5 High Costs: Animal testing can be expensive and resource-intensive. 6 Regulatory Hurdles: Complex regulatory requirements can slow down research and development. 7 Public Opposition: Increasing public opposition and activism against animal testing. 8 Limited Applicability: Some results from animal testing may not be directly applicable to humans. 9 Genetic Modification: Use of genetically modified animals raises additional ethical and safety concerns. 10 Pain Management Issues: Difficulty in adequately managing and assessing pain in animals. 11 Housing and Care: High standards of housing and care are required, adding to the cost and complexity. 12 Bias in Research: Potential for bias in selecting animal models that may skew research outcomes. 13 Regulatory Changes: Evolving regulations can impact the feasibility and conduct of animal testing. 14 Reproducibility Issues: Some animal studies face reproducibility challenges, affecting research reliability. 15 Environmental Impact: The breeding and housing of large numbers of animals can have environmental impacts. 16 Limited Predictive Value: Not all animal test results accurately predict human outcomes. 17 Dependency on Animal Models: Over-reliance on animal models may hinder the development of alternative methods. 18 Complexity of Human Diseases: Some complex human diseases cannot be effectively modeled in animals. 19 Ethical Research Funding: Funding for animal research may be scrutinized or reduced due to ethical concerns. 20 Animal Rights Movement: Growing animal rights movement advocating for the cessation of animal testing.

You Might Also Like

Pros and cons of elevated dog feeders

Pros and Cons of Owning a Cat

Pros and Cons of Owning a Ferret

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Net Zero Features
• Conscious Living Essentials
• Geothermal Energy Installers
• Planet Earth
• Climate Policy
• Sustainability

The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

Animal testing is a hot topic in the food, medicine, and cosmetics industries. The conversation seeps into other sectors, like fashion and cleaning products. It is commonly agreed that harming creatures isn’t aligned with environmentalist ideals, but are there pros and cons to animal testing? 

To uncover the truth behind the argument, you must understand the logistics behind executing an animal test — whether for medicine or fashion — and the technology these experts have available to them. Explore the subject’s nuances and if there are any ways to justify the practice.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing encompasses any test, whether chemical, medical, or anything in between, that is performed on animals instead of humans. It is for research purposes, usually during product development, such as formulating a new medication or testing the irritants of a perfume. 

The food industry may give test products to animals sprayed with new pesticides to see how they impact animals biologically similar to humans. The possibilities are comprehensive and versatile, but does that make them ethical?

Most animal testing occurs in containment in laboratory settings. Animal testers must abide by specific regulations. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture governs them. They work alongside the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for enforcement. However, the primary law they look to is the Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966. It encompasses everything from testing methods and transport. These are some of the basic tenets animal testers must follow:

• Refer to an animal care board
• Have veterinary programs
• Ensure qualifications of those practicing on animals
• Have adequate safety and reporting tools for animal welfare

Do these guidelines make animal testing a viable option? Not necessarily. The act does not cover rats, mice, and birds — most animals used in animal testing. Let’s dive into the pros and cons of animal testing, starting with some arguable pros.

These are the most prominent arguments those in favor of animal testing make, despite potential evidence for the contrary. 

It Saves Human Lives With Medical Advancement

Numerous vaccines and medications throughout human history became what they are today from animal testing. Everything from cholera to polio had animals leading the charge to save millions of human lives. It is not just vaccines and medications — they also advanced surgical procedures, like organ transplants and other body part replacements. Biomedical research would not be the same without it.

Animals Also Benefit from Research

Medical advancements happen to more than just humans. Animal testing can improve the health and livelihoods of animals , extending their life span. For numerous diseases and ailments that impact both humans and animals, researchers can manipulate discoveries to help all parties involved. 

The saturation of animal rights and environmentalist education is revealing the catastrophic cons of animal testing. Do any of them outweigh the potential pros?

There Are Plenty of Alternatives to Animal Testing

The technology humans have nowadays has rendered live animal testing obsolete. First, medical researchers can run paid testing scenarios with humans or ask for willing volunteers. Humans can provide consent that animals cannot, allowing them to continue living in their habitats unharmed for the benefit of humans.

Additionally, doctors can test product reactions using in vitro methods, analyzing how small pieces of tissue and even human cells react without needing a wholly live participant. The results would appear with relative accuracy — especially when animal testing has debatable accuracy and predictive value abilities . 

There is also software now that leverages AI, machine learning, modeling, and related resources to execute scenarios and determinations well with near-infinite data. For example, scientists are working on integrating advanced AI algorithms with emerging technologies like organ-on-a-chip and in vitro models. These innovations simulate human organ function and allow for more accurate drug efficacy and toxicity testing.

Humans and Animals Are Not the Same, Causing Waste

Despite how the media portrays animal subjects as biologically similar, that is not the only similarity required for in-lab tests to translate to human subjects. The National Institute of Health revealed that 95% of novel drugs that went through animal testing fail application to humans. For example, medication tests for ailments such as Alzheimer’s and sepsis have a near 100% failure rate. 

The percentage reveals how much time and research funds are wasted on experiments that do not yield results. The amount of waste in products, resources, energy, labor, and animals is toxic for the environment and an objectively poor business model. 

Encourages Animal Cruelty in Captivity

It is the most significant and powerful argument in the conversation. Despite rules and regulations, it is impossible to make animal testing objectively humane. Even if the lab and housing conditions when away from testing are comfortable, it does not excuse the potential pain and suffering countless animals have endured to benefit humans. It includes but is not limited to, being exposed to toxic substances or being force-fed.

Over 110 million animals die in the United States alone yearly from animal testing, and this does not include other nations in the world that have mandatory animal testing for most products, including makeup.

This is especially true for non-essential products, like cosmetics. For example, testing makeup on animal fur could cause topical irritation or burning, irreparably damaging the coats that keep them safe and warm. It is why the Leaping Bunny symbol came into existence, only branding cosmetics with its signature if the company proves it is cruelty-free and does not engage in animal testing.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons for a Healthier Environment

The animal testing conversation is heated, but when looking at the big picture, it is possible to eliminate it for biodiversity and animal welfare — primarily for non-essential, non-medical purposes. Research and development in related industries will need adjustments, but harming animals like this is questionably effective when compared to how it will affect humans.

To help the planet thrive, humans should seek alternative ways to formulate products, including medicine. Exploring technology is the best way to keep animals safe and healthy while empowering humans toward medical advancement and safe and refined consumer products.

This post was updated on May 31, 2024 with more updated information.

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Like what you read? Join other Environment.co readers!

Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!

About the author

Seaweed Belongs To Which Of Earth’s Spheres?

Uncharted Waters: Is Deep-Sea Mining the Future or an Ecological Disaster in the Making?

The Impacts of Methane Burning and How to Abate Them

How Much Greenhouse Gasses Are Produced Every Year?

The Changing Climate: When Did Global Warming Start?

These Effects of Extreme Weather Conditions May Surprise You

Animal Testing Pros and Cons: Arguments For & Against It

There’s a heated debate in the world of science. And no, not a discussion about theories or hypotheses but about ethics. Animal testing has been a staple of research and studies for a long time. Now animal activists are campaigning to end the use of animals in laboratories.

On the one hand, we have scientists who support experiments on animals to advance science. On the other hand, we have animal activists who feel that testing on animals is unethical.

It’s not an easy debate, though, because, as is with everything, there are pros and cons of animal testing. Yes, animals suffer and are even killed in the pursuit of knowledge. Still, one can’t deny what the world has gained from animal testing.

So how about we dive deep into animal testing pros and cons and see which side of the debate we want to be on.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons

Each side of the debate has its points. About 100 million animals take part in research every year. Because of that, for some people, this is a high-stakes fight for what is right but for others, it’s an unfortunate but acceptable price to pay for science.

So, which side has the right idea? Without further ado, here are animal testing pros and cons.

Pros and Benefits of Animal Testing

1. enable medical advancements.

Statistics from the California Biomedical Research Association show that almost every medical breakthrough in the past 100 years results from animal experiments. This is probably one of the most significant benefits of animal testing.

Thanks to animal research, we have had significant advances in treatment for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, polio, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, childhood leukemia, and more. Did you know that pacemakers and anesthetics were developed using animal testing? One famous medical discovery is insulin which was discovered through an experiment in which dogs had their pancreas removed.

2. Animals have physiological and biological similarities to human

Some animals share a surprisingly high amount of DNA with human beings. For instance, chimpanzees share 99% of DNA with humans, while mice share 98%. In addition to similar DNA, humans and some animals have the same organs, bloodstream, and central nervous system. This is why such animals get affected by the same diseases and health conditions as us.

These animals are used in lab tests as they allow scientists to predict how human beings might react to certain drugs or vaccines.

3. Help ensure product safety

Let’s say you’ve bought a can of insect repellant at the store. How do companies ensure you don’t suffer side effects when spraying it in your room? Well, they test the product on animals to ensure that there are no unpleasant surprises for customers.

One of the advantages of animal testing is that it protects humans from unsafe medical treatments. Before medical products are approved for the mass market, plenty of research and testing must be done to ensure they’re safe for use.

4. Allow for examination of a complete life cycle

Human beings live an estimated 70 years. If a scientist wanted to study the entire life cycle, it would be a logistics nightmare to study people because of their long lives.

On the other hand, most animals have really short life cycles. Animals like mice tend to live two-three years. This makes it possible for researchers to study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan or even across several generations of mice. Such long-term studies contribute highly to cancer research.

5. Less legal hurdles to cross

Simply put, animals don’t have the same rights or cognitive abilities as we do. Scientists must jump through many legal hurdles to experiment on humans, including getting consent forms. Numerous laws inhibit testing on human beings, especially when the experiments involve genetic manipulation.

Laws like the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki restrict human trials before animal tests are done.

6. Animals also benefit from the research

Animal testing doesn’t just benefit human beings. The animals themselves gain from it. Vaccines that have saved millions of animals were created using animal testing. It has even brought certain species from the brink of extinction.

Animal research has provided vaccines and cures for rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, feline leukemia, and canine parvovirus.

Therefore, animal research isn’t only beneficial to us humans. Still, animal testing findings help veterinaries know how to treat our pets when they’re unwell.

7. Lack of proper alternatives

A list of animal testing pros is incomplete without mentioning the main reason animal testing exists. For the longest time, no adequate alternative could match the complex systems found within humans and animals. There’s no other living creature with the nearest human-like anatomic form than animals. For this reason, researchers feel they had no choice but to use animals to better understand the human body and create practical products.

You may argue that computer models have made tremendous advancements. While that’s true, for the models to work efficiently in researching the endocrine system, the immune system, and the central nervous system, they’d need reliable information obtained from animal testing.

Learn more about animal testing alternatives.

8. There’s more value in using animals for research than as food for humans

We eat more animals than we use for animal testing. Can’t quite comprehend it? To illustrate it better, animal testing facts show that for every chicken used in research, 340 more are used as food.

So when you think about the medical advancement and progress made from animal testing, we’re better off using a few animals for experimentation than eating a whole lot more.

Cons of Animal Testing

Now let’s take a look at the cons of animal testing.

1. It’s an expensive process

One of the significant negatives of animal testing is just how expensive it is. It costs significantly more money to use animals in experiments than alternatives to testing, such as in-vitro testing methods.

Animal testing requires plenty of workforce and expensive equipment, leading to spending billions of dollars each year in this field. Animal experiments last a long time too, which adds to the overall cost.

When you think about the financial burden countries have to bear, it becomes questionable whether animal testing really provides enough benefits.

2. Inaccurate results

92% of drugs don’t make it past animal testing trials. Most of the products tested on animals don’t even make it to supermarkets. This is because, despite the similarities between humans and other mammals, the differences are still significant enough to give unreliable results. With such highly inaccurate results, putting animals through such torture seems wasteful.

3. Animal welfare laws exemptions

Most research projects are unregulated by the government. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protects a small section of animals, such as dogs and cats. This means that the rest are not covered by animal protection laws. The Act leaves out over 25 million animals at risk of abuse and neglect yearly.

4. Cruel treatment

A lot of research projects cause physical and psychological harm to animals. Sometimes the animals are deprived of food and water. Sometimes, they’re subjected to painful procedures that inflict them with burns, wounds, and pain to test. In other experiments, animals are injected with lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can kill them.

Even worse are the experiments that kill the animals to understand death. For many people, none of the animal testing pros beat this animal testing con.

Related article : Should testing on animals be banned?

5. Ineffective results

Some drugs and products are harmful to animals but beneficial to humans. The reverse is also true. A good example is Aspirin which was almost shelved due to the destructive reactions it caused in animal subjects. Another example is thalidomide which passed animal tests but caused congenital disabilities in human beings.

6. There are useful alternatives

Thanks to scientific innovation, alternatives to animal testing exist today. Computer modeling, robotics, 3-D modeling, in-vitro testing , and even human volunteers are all acceptable replacements. Over time, other alternatives are being invented and refined for use. With the existence of such options, shouldn’t we abandon animal testing for good?

7. Demand for cruelty-free products

Cruelty-free products are becoming very popular. It’s estimated that the cruelty-free cosmetics market could reach $10 billion by 2024. Many countries are banning animal tests forcing companies to turn to alternatives. This popularity is bound to grow as time goes on.

Related article: Animal Testing In Makeup and Cosmetics

Animal testing is one of the most controversial aspects of modern-day science. As you can see, animal testing pros and cons are heavily debatable depending on the side you’re on. Despite the advantages of animal testing, the enormous weight of the animal testing cons, and the existence of reliable alternatives, there’s little reason to allow this practice to continue.

You Might Also Like:

• Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned: 7 Reasons It Has To Stop

Hi, I hope you enjoyed reading this article.

If you are looking for more ways to live an eco-conscious lifestyles, then check out our complete guide here.

Thanks for stopping by - Jamie

Popular Posts

How To Save Water in the Home

Green Cleaning: The Ultimate Guide

Zero Waste Living Guide

Ethical & Sustainable Clothing Guide

105 Ways To Be More Eco Friendly

Sather Health

• Fitness & Exercise
• Reproductive and Sexual Health
• Diseases & Conditions
• Drugs and Alcohol
• Emotions and Mood
• Mental Illness & Disorders
• Mental Health Resources & Services
• Environmental & Community Health
• Wellness & Lifestyle
• Healthcare & Public Health

• The Debate on Animal Experimentation
• Medical Advancement: Research done on animals can save countless human lives. It has already led to the discovery of insulin and hepatitis C; vaccines against polio and hepatitis B; and procedures such as open heart surgeries, coronary bypass surgery, and heart transplantation. Many animals, especially primates, share about 90% of their genetic make-ups with humans, so experimenting on such animals can give scientists a good idea about possible reactions in the human body. Further, new medicines can help animals too, since breakthroughs in veterinary medicine have also occurred due to animal experimentation.
• Product Safety: Animal testing helps ensure the safety of drugs and other substances that humans may be exposed to on a daily basis, such as cosmetics. It helps minimize the chances of adverse human reactions, such as rash, itching, or even death, during human clinical trials. Animals used for such safety testing are usually not killed and remain relatively healthy. Furthermore, animals such as mice and rabbits usually reproduce very quickly.

Cons to Animal Testing

• Pain, Suffering, and Death: Most companies claim that no animals were hurt during animal experimentation, but there nonetheless exists a shadow of doubt. Testing potentially includes the jabbing of needles, storage into cramped spaces, and lack of quality/quantity in nutrition. Some animals may die over the course of the experiment or be killed after their use, and others may lose their limbs, eyesight, hearing, muscle coordination, and so on. In some cases, many of the substances tested may never even see approval of public consumption and use; thus, these animals may have undergone such treatment in vain, seeing that no direct benefit to humans occurred.
• Ethics: Since animals cannot volunteer themselves for testing and cannot voice their opinions, some people believe that it is only ethical to test on subjects who willingly give their consent for self testing.
• Price: Animal testing is expensive, as one must pay for food, housing, and maintenance, as well as the initial cost of breeding/buying the animal. This is a cost that may reoccur over the course of several months, even years.
• Accuracy: Although testing on animals are the best alternative to actual humans, there is still an important margin of error, and some people still believe animal testing to be unreliable. A reason for this, other than genetic makeup, is that the animals are kept in an unnatural environment (the laboratory) that places them under stress, which may alter their response.

All in all, both sides of animal testing seems to tilt the scales equally. Animal testing may save millions of human lives, but at the expense of the lives of animals. In the end, taking the pros and cons into consideration, animal testing highlights the fine line between ethics and practical need, and the ultimate decision is subjective to the values of each individual.

Article by Sherry Jiaa

Feature Image Source: Science 

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

You Might Also Like

Breaking the Breakfast Myth

Cramming for an Exam with Your Fists

Interview with Dr. Julianna Deardorff, Part I

How Can Driving Affect Your Health?

Recent posts, take the dive: shake off stress, heel to heal, protein: how much is too much, our furry friends and us.

Looking Out for Your Eyes

Dieting: Healthy or Not?

Make Your Breaks Count

Simple Hacks to Improve Your Sleep

Supa Hot Cheetos… I Eat Those

The (Non)Mystery Behind Female Ejaculation

Insulin Resistance

Campus Maintenance and Student Health

Late-Night Work: How to Maximize Utility Without Sacrificing Health

Flesh-Eating Superbugs: We Need Superman

Harm Reduction: Reducing Alcohol Consumption in the Dorms

The Power of a Healthy Diet

E-Readers Increasing Reading Comprehension, Deterring Dyslexia

Why Does Chocolate Make Us Happy?

Subscribe to sather health via email.

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons

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

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

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

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

The BBC education page on animal ethics

The Government legislation relating to animal testing

SEO and Link Building If you would like to sponsor a page on this website, or any of our other 300 sites, all of which have authority (or why would you be seeing this?) get in touch here. .

Sciencing_Icons_Science SCIENCE

Sciencing_icons_biology biology, sciencing_icons_cells cells, sciencing_icons_molecular molecular, sciencing_icons_microorganisms microorganisms, sciencing_icons_genetics genetics, sciencing_icons_human body human body, sciencing_icons_ecology ecology, sciencing_icons_chemistry chemistry, sciencing_icons_atomic & molecular structure atomic & molecular structure, sciencing_icons_bonds bonds, sciencing_icons_reactions reactions, sciencing_icons_stoichiometry stoichiometry, sciencing_icons_solutions solutions, sciencing_icons_acids & bases acids & bases, sciencing_icons_thermodynamics thermodynamics, sciencing_icons_organic chemistry organic chemistry, sciencing_icons_physics physics, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-physics fundamentals, sciencing_icons_electronics electronics, sciencing_icons_waves waves, sciencing_icons_energy energy, sciencing_icons_fluid fluid, sciencing_icons_astronomy astronomy, sciencing_icons_geology geology, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geology fundamentals, sciencing_icons_minerals & rocks minerals & rocks, sciencing_icons_earth scructure earth structure, sciencing_icons_fossils fossils, sciencing_icons_natural disasters natural disasters, sciencing_icons_nature nature, sciencing_icons_ecosystems ecosystems, sciencing_icons_environment environment, sciencing_icons_insects insects, sciencing_icons_plants & mushrooms plants & mushrooms, sciencing_icons_animals animals, sciencing_icons_math math, sciencing_icons_arithmetic arithmetic, sciencing_icons_addition & subtraction addition & subtraction, sciencing_icons_multiplication & division multiplication & division, sciencing_icons_decimals decimals, sciencing_icons_fractions fractions, sciencing_icons_conversions conversions, sciencing_icons_algebra algebra, sciencing_icons_working with units working with units, sciencing_icons_equations & expressions equations & expressions, sciencing_icons_ratios & proportions ratios & proportions, sciencing_icons_inequalities inequalities, sciencing_icons_exponents & logarithms exponents & logarithms, sciencing_icons_factorization factorization, sciencing_icons_functions functions, sciencing_icons_linear equations linear equations, sciencing_icons_graphs graphs, sciencing_icons_quadratics quadratics, sciencing_icons_polynomials polynomials, sciencing_icons_geometry geometry, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geometry fundamentals, sciencing_icons_cartesian cartesian, sciencing_icons_circles circles, sciencing_icons_solids solids, sciencing_icons_trigonometry trigonometry, sciencing_icons_probability-statistics probability & statistics, sciencing_icons_mean-median-mode mean/median/mode, sciencing_icons_independent-dependent variables independent/dependent variables, sciencing_icons_deviation deviation, sciencing_icons_correlation correlation, sciencing_icons_sampling sampling, sciencing_icons_distributions distributions, sciencing_icons_probability probability, sciencing_icons_calculus calculus, sciencing_icons_differentiation-integration differentiation/integration, sciencing_icons_application application, sciencing_icons_projects projects, sciencing_icons_news news.

• Share Tweet Email Print
• Home ⋅
• Science ⋅
• Nature ⋅

Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing

Pros & Cons of Animal Testing

Each year, reports Santa Clara University, approximately 20 million animals are used in medical experiments or to test products, many of them dying in the process. Animal rights advocates argue that such testing is unnecessary and cruel, while proponents of animal testing believe that the benefits to humans outweigh the moral issues.

Alternatives

One argument against animal testing is that there are often more acceptable alternatives. For example, scientists can test whether chemicals will irritate the eyes using the blood vessel-rich membrane lining a hen's egg, rather than exposing the eyes of living animals to the chemical. Cells grown in a test tube (in vitro) and computer simulations can offer a good idea of how animals and humans would respond to certain tests. Those against animal testing advocate three Rs: replacement (finding alternative methods of testing), reduction (using animal testing as little as necessary) and refinement (making sure that animal testing is done in the most humane and pain-free fashion).

Unknown Variables

Alternatives to animal testing do not always work, however, because the system of a living organism can be unpredictable. If scientists perform tests on computer models, test tube-grown cells or “lower organisms” (such as eggs or invertebrates, rather than warm-blooded animals), they may not see as full a picture of the test results as they would with testing on live animals (or animals which are more similar to humans). In order to fully understand a live organism's system, scientists must perform animal testing at some point.

Unnecessary Cruelty

Animal rights advocates argue that testing on animals is cruel and unnecessary. Some connect animal testing to racism or sexism, arguing that all living creatures are worthy of respect and that making animals suffer for any reason is morally wrong. Dr. Tom Regan, a leader in the animal rights movement, writes that animals “have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future.” The argument that animal testing may be necessary is no excuse, from this point of view, because it is the responsibility of scientists to discover humane alternatives.

Greater Good

Those in favor of animal testing argue that it has led to many advances in science, increasing the quality of life for both humans and animals. Animal testing has helped us develop vaccines, surgeries, cancer treatments and other life-saving medical advances. Although animal testing may cause pain to a few animals, many believe that the greater good of humanity outweighs this cost.

Related Articles

What is the purpose of animal testing, projects on forensic science, the positive effects of genetic engineering, research topic ideas for biology, how to calculate significance, importance of animals in human lives, quantitative vs. qualitative data and laboratory testing, microban toxicity, the importance of hypothesis testing, 4 ways to tell if health reporting might be fake news, how to calculate pa2 value, ethics research paper topics, the importance of studying human dna genetics, toothpaste whitener science fair project, science fair project on color blindness, pros and cons of recombinant dna technology, characteristics of a good sample size, positive effects of mosquitoes, the controversy about the human brain making new cells.

• Research Animal Resources: Ethics and Alternatives
• Santa Clara University: Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small

About the Author

Mara Shannon is a writer whose work appears on various websites. Shannon also blogs about gaming and literature. Shannon holds a Bachelor of Arts in music with a focus on performance.

Find Your Next Great Science Fair Project! GO

Environment Go!

The Environment | Nature | Humans

16 Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

Animal testing, here defined as the use of animals in research to address human concerns such as drug efficacy and the safety of goods like cosmetics, is a contentious enterprise that is rife with ethical dilemmas but there are pros and cons of animal testing which we need to consider.

Humankind benefits from animal research blatantly and unmistakably, such as the creation of medicines to treat fatal diseases.

In addition, some forms of testing subject animals to cruel practices, negating any positive effects on humans, in the opinion of those who oppose animal testing.

Table of Contents

What is Animal Testing?

The term “ animal testing ” refers to procedures carried out on living animals for research into basic biology and diseases, evaluating the efficacy of new pharmaceuticals, and testing the safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals, and industrial/agrochemicals for human health and/or the environment.

All surgeries, even those deemed to be “mild,” have the potential to inflict the animal’s pain and suffering on both a physical and emotional level. The operations frequently lead to a lot of pain. Most animals are killed after an experiment, although some might be used again.

• Giving animals potentially dangerous drugs by injection or force-feeding them is one type of animal experiment.
• Surgically removing an animal’s organs or tissues with the intent to harm it
• Exposing animals to poisonous gasses
• Placing animals in frightful conditions induces anxiety and sadness.

In some tests, the animal must pass away to do the test. In the harsh Lethal Dose 50 test, 50% of the animals die or are murdered shortly before the point of death, for instance, regulatory tests for botox, vaccinations, and various tests for chemical safety are essentially versions of this procedure.

Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

The following are the pros and cons of animal testing, we will look at the pros of animal testing first

Pros: Medications and vaccines that save lives

Without animal testing, the landscape of modern medicine would undoubtedly be very different. For instance, the discovery of insulin in the early 20th century was the result of studies on dogs in which the animals’ pancreas were removed; this has helped millions of diabetics throughout the world by saving and improving their lives.

The polio vaccine, which was only made for human use after being tested on animals, has contributed to the near eradication of this feared illness.

Animal testing has directly contributed to advancements in the treatment of diseases such as breast cancer, brain injury, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, and tuberculosis. Without chimpanzee testing, there would be no hepatitis B vaccine.

Pros: Offers a sufficient living, whole-body test subject.

Animals have the closest anatomical structure to that of humans or any other living species on this planet. Cell cultures in a petri dish cannot sufficiently evaluate a human body’s complexity or demonstrate the efficacy of a treatment or product.

For example, a vascular system that will deliver the medicine to various organs is necessary when testing a drug for side effects. The endocrine, immunological, and central nervous systems, which both humans and animals have, are necessary for studying connected processes. What about the application of digital models? They would need precise data acquired from animal experiments.

Pros: In many ways, humans and animals are very similar.

While mice’s genetic makeup is 98% similar to that of humans, chimpanzees share 99% of our DNA. Animals and humans share the same set of organs, blood vessels, and central nervous systems, making them biologically comparable and causing them to be susceptible to the same illnesses. In light of these facts, experimentation on animals is acceptable as a subject for research.

Pros: Offers a moral substitute for testing

Most people would agree that using humans for intrusive experimental procedures is unethical, especially when it has the potential to be fatal.

Testing medications for adverse effects or probable toxicity must not threaten the life of human test subjects. When a genetic alteration is involved, ethical considerations must also be taken into account.

According to the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association, animal experimentation must come before human trials. But if animals could speak, they probably would demand the same moral standards.

Pros: Provide advantages to animals directly

Animal experimentation is advantageous for both humans and animals. Many of them may have perished from diseases including rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, feline leukemia, and canine influenza if the vaccines hadn’t been tested on them.

Aside from glaucoma and hip dysplasia, animal experimentation has also led to the discovery of treatments.

The fact that vivisection prevented the extinction of endangered species like the California condor, Brazilian tamarins, and the black-footed ferret is the true highlight, though. For this reason, the American Veterinary Medical Association supports animal testing.

Pros: Permit researchers to observe a test subject throughout their entire life.

Humans have an average lifespan of 80 years or more, thus some scientists may not see the outcomes of their work.

Laboratory mice, however, only survive for two to three years, allowing scientists the chance to examine the impacts of genetic engineering or medical interventions throughout a lifetime.

They may be able to continue learning for numerous generations in some situations. Rats and mice have so been employed for extensive cancer research.

Pros: Animals are shielded from mistreatment and abuse.

Contrary to popular belief, animal research is strictly regulated, and animal protection regulations have been passed. The federal Animal Welfare Act has governed animal testing since 1966.

• Veterinarians must frequently check the animals and their living conditions to ensure that they adhere to minimal housing standards, such as the appropriate size enclosure, suitable temperature, access to clean food and water, etc.
• Each research facility will establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which shall have the authority to accept all applications for the use of animals in research and shall be responsible for the enforcement of the principles of the humane treatment of animals.
• The regulations on Human Care and the Use of Laboratory Animals enforced by the US Public Health Service (PHS) must be followed by research facilities receiving funding from PHS.

Pros: Fewer animals are used for research than for human consumption.

Fewer chickens, cattle, lambs, and pigs are utilized in experiments compared to the quantities that humans consume. It is a minor amount to pay when you take into account the medical improvement and progress that these tests gave. For instance, an equivalent of 340 is used in research for every chicken used as food.

Let’s now look at the cons of animal testing

Cons: Animal experiments that use cruel methods of treatment

Any discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of animal testing must note that certain studies on animals involve torturing the subjects in ways that are akin to torture.

According to the Humane Society International, animals are frequently burned, physically restrained for extended periods, denied food and water, force-fed, made to inhale toxic substances, and some of them even have their necks snapped and decapitated.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture claimed in 2010 that about 100,000 animals went through painful studies without receiving any anesthetic. In the course of testing cosmetics items, it is also common practice to hold animals’ eyes wide with clips for hours or even days at a time.

Cons: Pets are inadequate to test subjects.

Due to the numerous metabolic, molecular, and anatomical distinctions between the two species, this assertion directly contradicts what supporters think about how physically and biologically similar animals and humans are.

Thomas Hartung, a professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues that using rats as a model for toxicity is unreliable because people are not even close to being 70 kg rats.

This is further confirmed by a 2013 study published in the Archives of Toxicology, which claims that the value of research data is in doubt because there is no direct comparison of human data with that of a mouse.

Cons: The safety of humans cannot be determined by the outcome of animal experiments.

In tests on pregnant rats, mice, cats, and guinea pigs, the sleeping medication thalidomide did not cause any birth malformations until it was given in extremely high dosages. However, when it was used by expectant mothers, 10,000 babies were born with serious abnormalities.

• Vioxx is an anti-arthritis medication that worked wonders on animals but is terrible for humans since it resulted in more than 20,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths.
• One hundred of the stroke medications worked on animals but were utter failures in people.
• Over 85 HIV vaccines were successful in primates but ineffective in humans

Cons: Can result in inaccurate research

Some medications and goods that are bad for animals are beneficial to people. For instance, aspirin was nearly discontinued because it was found to be harmful to animals.

Imagine what would have occurred if aspirin had been completely removed from the list of approved medications. There was no technique to reduce the possibility of an organ transplant being rejected.

Cons: The Animal Welfare Act does not safeguard the majority of animals employed in testing and research (AWA)

Only about 1 million animals are protected under the AWA as of 2010, leaving about 25 million more vulnerable to neglect and abuse. These include mice, rats, fish, and birds.

Animal subjects are even more at risk of being treated like inmates in a hospital for the entirety of their lives since vivisections performed inside laboratory walls are governed by a committee that the facility itself chose.

A very strong illustration of a blatant AWA violation was found in the New Iberia Research Center, a federally financed facility in Louisiana (NIRC). The animals turned to self-mutilation because they were under such intense psychological strain.

The remaining 337 infractions by NIRC were documented on camera, which revealed the appalling conditions in which the animals were kept. However, this facility is merely one of many that do so.

Cons: Animal experiments can be replaced with less expensive methods

Contrary to what supporters claim, in vitro (in glass) tests and cell cultures in Petri dishes are not entirely ineffective or inadequate. Even more pertinent results than those of animal testing can be obtained from them. The same holds if fake human skin rather than animal skin is used as the test subject.

There is no need to poison animals to gather data and make conclusions because virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures made using computer models may also estimate toxicity levels of chemicals.

Microdosing, or giving small dosages to humans to test for negative reactions, is an additional option. Results will be obtained in conjunction with blood analysis.

However, the fact that these alternatives are less expensive than animal experimentation is what matters most. For instance, glass testing only costs $11,000, which is far less than the $21,000 cost of an “unscheduled DNA synthesis”.

It costs $1,300 to do a phototoxicity test without using rats, which is almost $10,000 less than an animal-based test. These merely serve to demonstrate how much money spent on research is being wasted on animal testing.

Cons: Numerous animal lives are lost.

There are a large number of animal lives that are spent for nothing when you take into account all the unsuccessful tests as well as other non-experimental elements that have an impact on animals.

During the experiment, they suffer or die, and they continue to suffer after the experiment. However, what is truly cruel and immoral are the subpar research practices employed by some facilities.

A 2009 peer-reviewed study revealed significant faults in numerous rodent-based studies undertaken in the UK and the US. Although blinding and randomization techniques were applied, correct animal selection still failed because of selection bias. Additionally, the study’s hypothesis or purpose is lacking.

Cons: Animals are not always necessary for medical advancements

Is using animals in experiments truly required to find treatments and cures? Its detractors claim that there isn’t any solid proof of its significance in important medical advancements. If funding and efforts are concentrated on animal-free substitutes, more affordable, moral, and humane options.

The microfluidic chip, commonly referred to as organs on a chip, is one such option that needs full support. In this, chips are used to perform bodily functions like mixing, pumping, and sorting.

The chips function similarly to human organs since they are lined with human cells. With this solution, scientists are no longer able to claim that they require a living, whole-body system to conduct studies.

There are many concerns about the practice of animal testing since the 20th century and from the above, we have been able to know some of the reasons why animal testing has been a concern. But another thing to know here is that animal testing can bring about epidemics and pandemics which we have seen with Covid-19 and Ebola. This talks more about a more serious matter, Environmental health .

16 Pros and Cons of Animal Testing – FAQs

Is animal testing entirely bad.

Animal Testing would be dangerous for Nonhuman Organisms. This toxicity test has the potential to cause death, blindness, and scarring. Along with the LD50 test, it is one of the most widely used toxicity tests. Both are notorious for the excruciating suffering they subject their victims through.

Why do we test on animals instead of humans?

Society considers it unethical to use newly developed medications or surgical procedures on humans first because there is a chance they will do more damage than good. Instead, animal testing is done to ensure the safety and efficacy of the drug or treatment.

Recommendations

• 6 Effects of GMOs on the Environment .
• 7 Effects of Globalization on the Environment .
• 11 Carbon Negative Products Reducing Greenhouse Emissions .
• 7 Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas .
• Top 10 Negative Effects of Improper Waste Disposal to the Environment .
• Top 10 Eco-Friendly Swimwear Manufacturers

Providence Amaechi

A passion-driven environmentalist by heart. Lead content writer at EnvironmentGo. I strive to educate the public about the environment and its problems. It has always been about nature, we ought to protect not destroy.

• Volunteer for Climate Change, 79 Opportunities
• Air Pollution in Lagos – How Waste Disposal is Contributing
• Registered Environmental Professional (REP) Certification
• 12 Major Causes of Habitat Loss

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

• AML Training: Top Challenges and How to Overcome Them
• How Building Assessments Influence Sustainable Reconstruction

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Prev Med Hyg
• v.63(2 Suppl 3); 2022 Jun

Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation

Aysha karim kiani.

1 Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan

2 MAGI EUREGIO, Bolzano, Italy

DEREK PHEBY

3 Society and Health, Buckinghamshire New University, High Wycombe, UK

GARY HENEHAN

4 School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Technological University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

RICHARD BROWN

5 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

PAUL SIEVING

6 Department of Ophthalmology, Center for Ocular Regenerative Therapy, School of Medicine, University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

PETER SYKORA

7 Department of Philosophy and Applied Philosophy, University of St. Cyril and Methodius, Trnava, Slovakia

ROBERT MARKS

8 Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

BENEDETTO FALSINI

9 Institute of Ophthalmology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy

NATALE CAPODICASA

10 MAGI BALKANS, Tirana, Albania

STANISLAV MIERTUS

11 Department of Biotechnology, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius, Trnava, Slovakia

12 International Centre for Applied Research and Sustainable Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia

LORENZO LORUSSO

13 UOC Neurology and Stroke Unit, ASST Lecco, Merate, Italy

DANIELE DONDOSSOLA

14 Center for Preclincal Research and General and Liver Transplant Surgery Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca‘ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

15 Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

GIANLUCA MARTINO TARTAGLIA

16 Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

17 UOC Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Dentistry, Fondazione IRCCS Ca Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

MAHMUT CERKEZ ERGOREN

18 Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus

MUNIS DUNDAR

19 Department of Medical Genetics, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey

SANDRO MICHELINI

20 Vascular Diagnostics and Rehabilitation Service, Marino Hospital, ASL Roma 6, Marino, Italy

DANIELE MALACARNE

21 MAGI’S LAB, Rovereto (TN), Italy

GABRIELE BONETTI

Astrit dautaj, kevin donato, maria chiara medori, tommaso beccari.

22 Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

MICHELE SAMAJA

23 MAGI GROUP, San Felice del Benaco (BS), Italy

STEPHEN THADDEUS CONNELLY

24 San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

DONALD MARTIN

25 Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, SyNaBi, Grenoble, France

ASSUNTA MORRESI

26 Department of Chemistry, Biology and Biotechnology, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

ARIOLA BACU

27 Department of Biotechnology, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania

KAREN L. HERBST

28 Total Lipedema Care, Beverly Hills California and Tucson Arizona, USA

MYKHAYLO KAPUSTIN

29 Federation of the Jewish Communities of Slovakia

LIBORIO STUPPIA

30 Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University "G. d'Annunzio", Chieti, Italy

LUDOVICA LUMER

31 Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, UK

GIAMPIETRO FARRONATO

Matteo bertelli.

32 MAGISNAT, Peachtree Corners (GA), USA

Animal experimentation is widely used around the world for the identification of the root causes of various diseases in humans and animals and for exploring treatment options. Among the several animal species, rats, mice and purpose-bred birds comprise almost 90% of the animals that are used for research purpose. However, growing awareness of the sentience of animals and their experience of pain and suffering has led to strong opposition to animal research among many scientists and the general public. In addition, the usefulness of extrapolating animal data to humans has been questioned. This has led to Ethical Committees’ adoption of the ‘four Rs’ principles (Reduction, Refinement, Replacement and Responsibility) as a guide when making decisions regarding animal experimentation. Some of the essential considerations for humane animal experimentation are presented in this review along with the requirement for investigator training. Due to the ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in experimentation, their use is declining in those research areas where alternative in vitro or in silico methods are available. However, so far it has not been possible to dispense with experimental animals completely and further research is needed to provide a road map to robust alternatives before their use can be fully discontinued.

How to cite this article: Kiani AK, Pheby D, Henehan G, Brown R, Sieving P, Sykora P, Marks R, Falsini B, Capodicasa N, Miertus S, Lorusso L, Dondossola D, Tartaglia GM, Ergoren MC, Dundar M, Michelini S, Malacarne D, Bonetti G, Dautaj A, Donato K, Medori MC, Beccari T, Samaja M, Connelly ST, Martin D, Morresi A, Bacu A, Herbst KL, Kapustin M, Stuppia L, Lumer L, Farronato G, Bertelli M. Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. J Prev Med Hyg 2022;63(suppl.3):E255-E266. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2768

Introduction

Animal model-based research has been performed for a very long time. Ever since the 5 th century B.C., reports of experiments involving animals have been documented, but an increase in the frequency of their utilization has been observed since the 19 th century [ 1 ]. Most institutions for medical research around the world use non-human animals as experimental subjects [ 2 ]. Such animals might be used for research experimentations to gain a better understanding of human diseases or for exploring potential treatment options [ 2 ]. Even those animals that are evolutionarily quite distant from humans, such as Drosophila melanogaster , Zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) and Caenorhabditis elegans , share physiological and genetic similarities with human beings [ 2 ]; therefore animal experimentation can be of great help for the advancement of medical science [ 2 ].

For animal experimentation, the major assumption is that the animal research will be of benefit to humans. There are many reasons that highlight the significance of animal use in biomedical research. One of the major reasons is that animals and humans share the same biological processes. In addition, vertebrates have many anatomical similarities (all vertebrates have lungs, a heart, kidneys, liver and other organs) [ 3 ]. Therefore, these similarities make certain animals more suitable for experiments and for providing basic training to young researchers and students in different fields of biological and biomedical sciences [ 3 ]. Certain animals are susceptible to various health problems that are similar to human diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease [ 4 ]. Furthermore, there are genetically modified animals that are used to obtain pathological phenotypes [ 5 ]. A significant benefit of animal experimentation is that test species can be chosen that have a much shorter life cycle than humans. Therefore, animal models can be studied throughout their life span and for several successive generations, an essential element for the understanding of disease progression along with its interaction with the whole organism throughout its lifetime [ 6 ].

Animal models often play a critical role in helping researchers who are exploring the efficacy and safety of potential medical treatments and drugs. They help to identify any dangerous or undesired side effects, such as birth defects, infertility, toxicity, liver damage or any potential carcinogenic effects [ 7 ]. Currently, U.S. Federal law, for example, requires that non-human animal research is used to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of any new treatment options before proceeding to trials on humans [ 8 ]. Of course, it is not only humans benefit from this research and testing, since many of the drugs and treatments that are developed for humans are routinely used in veterinary clinics, which help animals live longer and healthier lives [ 4 ].

COVID-19 AND THE NEED FOR ANIMAL MODELS

When COVID-19 struck, there was a desperate need for research on the disease, its effects on the brain and body and on the development of new treatments for patients with the disease. Early in the disease it was noticed that those with the disease suffered a loss of smell and taste, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms, some of which lasted long after the patients had “survived” the disease [ 9-15 ]. As soon as the pandemic started, there was a search for appropriate animal models in which to study this unknown disease [ 16 , 17 ]. While genetically modified mice and rats are the basic animal models for neurological and immunological research [ 18 , 19 ] the need to understand COVID-19 led to a range of animal models; from fruit flies [ 20 ] and Zebrafish [ 21 ] to large mammals [ 22 , 23 ] and primates [ 24 , 25 ]. And it was just not one animal model that was needed, but many, because different aspects of the disease are best studied in different animal models [ 16 , 25 , 26 ]. There is also a need to study the transmission pathways of the zoonosis: where does it come from, what are the animal hosts and how is it transferred to humans [ 27 ]?

There has been a need for animal models for understanding the pathophysiology of COVID-19 [ 28 ], for studying the mechanisms of transmission of the disease [ 16 ], for studying its neurobiology [ 29 , 30 ] and for developing new vaccines [ 31 ]. The sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the fact that animal research is necessary, and that the curtailment of such research has serious consequences for the health of both humans and animals, both wild and domestic [ 32 ] As highlighted by Adhikary et al. [ 22 ] and Genzel et al. [ 33 ] the coronavirus has made clear the necessity for animal research and the danger in surviving future such pandemics if animal research is not fully supported. Genzel et al. [ 33 ], in particular, take issue with the proposal for a European ban on animal testing. Finally, there is a danger in bypassing animal research in developing new vaccines for diseases such as COVID-19 [ 34 ]. The purpose of this paper is to show that, while animal research is necessary for the health of both humans and animals, there is a need to carry out such experimentation in a controlled and humane manner. The use of alternatives to animal research such as cultured human cells and computer modeling may be a useful adjunct to animal studies but will require that such methods are more readily accessible to researchers and are not a replacement for animal experimentation.

Pros and cons of animal experimentation

Arguments against animal experimentation.

A fundamental question surrounding this debate is to ask whether it is appropriate to use animals for medical research. Is our acceptance that animals have a morally lower value or standard of life just a case of speciesism [ 35 ]? Nowadays, most people agree that animals have a moral status and that needlessly hurting or abusing pets or other animals is unacceptable. This represents something of a change from the historical point of view where animals did not have any moral status and the treatment of animals was mostly subservient to maintaining the health and dignity of humans [ 36 ].

Animal rights advocates strongly argue that the moral status of non-human animals is similar to that of humans, and that animals are entitled to equality of treatment. In this view, animals should be treated with the same level of respect as humans, and no one should have the right to force them into any service or to kill them or use them for their own goals. One aspect of this argument claims that moral status depends upon the capacity to suffer or enjoy life [ 37 ].

In terms of suffering and the capacity of enjoying life, many animals are not very different from human beings, as they can feel pain and experience pleasure [ 38 ]. Hence, they should be given the same moral status as humans and deserve equivalent treatment. Supporters of this argument point out that according animals a lower moral status than humans is a type of prejudice known as “speciesism” [ 38 ]. Among humans, it is widely accepted that being a part of a specific race or of a specific gender does not provide the right to ascribe a lower moral status to the outsiders. Many advocates of animal rights deploy the same argument, that being human does not give us sufficient grounds declare animals as being morally less significant [ 36 ].

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

Those who support animal experimentation have frequently made the argument that animals cannot be elevated to be seen as morally equal to humans [ 39 ]. Their main argument is that the use of the terms “moral status” or “morality” is debatable. They emphasize that we must not make the error of defining a quality or capacity associated with an animal by using the same adjectives used for humans [ 39 ]. Since, for the most part, animals do not possess humans’ cognitive capabilities and lack full autonomy (animals do not appear to rationally pursue specific goals in life), it is argued that therefore, they cannot be included in the moral community [ 39 ]. It follows from this line of argument that, if animals do not possess the same rights as human beings, their use in research experimentation can be considered appropriate [ 40 ]. The European and the American legislation support this kind of approach as much as their welfare is respected.

Another aspect of this argument is that the benefits to human beings of animal experimentation compensate for the harm caused to animals by these experiments.

In other words, animal harm is morally insignificant compared to the potential benefits to humans. Essentially, supporters of animal experimentation claim that human beings have a higher moral status than animals and that animals lack certain fundamental rights accorded to humans. The potential violations of animal rights during animal research are, in this way, justified by the greater benefits to mankind [ 40 , 41 ]. A way to evaluate when the experiments are morally justified was published in 1986 by Bateson, which developed the Bateson’s Cube [ 42 ]. The Cube has three axes: suffering, certainty of benefit and quality of research. If the research is high-quality, beneficial, and not inflicting suffering, it will be acceptable. At the contrary, painful, low-quality research with lower likelihood of success will not be acceptable [ 42 , 43 ].

Impact of experimentations on animals

Ability to feel pain and distress.

Like humans, animal have certain physical as well as psychological characteristics that make their use for experimentation controversial [ 44 ].

In the last few decades, many studies have increased knowledge of animal awareness and sentience: they indicate that animals have greater potential to experience damage than previously appreciated and that current rights and protections need to be reconsidered [ 45 ]. In recent times, scientists as well as ethicists have broadly acknowledged that animals can also experience distress and pain [ 46 ]. Potential sources of such harm arising from their use in research include disease, basic physiological needs deprivation and invasive procedures [ 46 ]. Moreover, social deprivation and lack of the ability to carry out their natural behaviors are other causes of animal harm [ 46 ]. Several studies have shown that, even in response to very gentle handling and management, animals can show marked alterations in their physiological and hormonal stress markers [ 47 ].

In spite of the fact that suffering and pain are personalized experiences, several multi-disciplinary studies have provided clear evidence of animals experiencing pain and distress. In particular, some animal species have the ability to express pain similarly to human due to common psychological, neuroanatomical and genetic characteristics [ 48 ]. Similarly, animals share a resemblance to humans in their developmental, genetic and environmental risk factors for psychopathology. For instance, in many species, it has been shown that fear operates within a less organized subcortical neural circuit than pain [ 49 , 50 ]. Various types of depression and anxiety disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder have also been reported in mammals [ 51 ].

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF ANIMALS

Some researchers have suggested that besides their ability to experience physical and psychological pain and distress, some animals also exhibit empathy, self-awareness and language-like capabilities. They also demonstrate tools-linked cognizance, pleasure-seeking and advanced problem-solving skills [ 52 ]. Moreover, mammals and birds exhibit playful behavior, an indicator of the capacity to experience pleasure. Other taxa such as reptiles, cephalopods and fishes have also been observed to display playful behavior, therefore the current legislation prescribes the use of environmental enrichers [ 53 ]. The presence of self-awareness ability, as assessed by mirror self-recognition, has been reported in magpies, chimpanzees and other apes, and certain cetaceans [ 54 ]. Recently, another study has revealed that crows have the ability to create and use tools that involve episodic-like memory formation and its retrieval. From these findings, it may be suggested that crows as well as related species show evidence of flexible learning strategies, causal reasoning, prospection and imagination that are similar to behavior observed in great apes [ 55 ]. In the context of resolving the ethical dilemmas about animal experimentation, these observations serve to highlight the challenges involved [ 56 , 57 ].

Ethics, principles and legislation in animal experimentation

Ethics in animal experimentation.

Legislation around animal research is based on the idea of the moral acceptability of the proposed experiments under specific conditions [ 58 ]. The significance of research ethics that ensures proper treatment of experimental animals [ 58 ]. To avoid undue suffering of animals, it is important to follow ethical considerations during animal studies [ 1 ]. It is important to provide best human care to these animals from the ethical and scientific point of view [ 1 ]. Poor animal care can lead to experimental outcomes [ 1 ]. Thus, if experimental animals mistreated, the scientific knowledge and conclusions obtained from experiments may be compromised and may be difficult to replicate, a hallmark of scientific research [ 1 ]. At present, most ethical guidelines work on the assumption that animal experimentation is justified because of the significant potential benefits to human beings. These guidelines are often permissive of animal experimentation regardless of the damage to the animal as long as human benefits are achieved [ 59 ].

PRINCIPLE OF THE 4 RS

Although animal experimentation has resulted in many discoveries and helped in the understanding numerous aspects of biological science, its use in various sectors is strictly controlled. In practice, the proposed set of animal experiments is usually considered by a multidisciplinary Ethics Committee before work can commence [ 60 ]. This committee will review the research protocol and make a judgment as to its sustainability. National and international laws govern the utilization of animal experimentation during research and these laws are mostly based on the universal doctrine presented by Russell and Burch (1959) known as principle of the 3 Rs. The 3Rs referred to are Reduction, Refinement and Replacement, and are applied to protocols surrounding the use of animals in research. Some researchers have proposed another “R”, of responsibility for the experimental animal as well as for the social and scientific status of the animal experiments [ 61 ]. Thus, animal ethics committees commonly review research projects with reference to the 4 Rs principles [ 62 ].

The first “R”, Reduction means that the experimental design is examined to ensure that researchers have reduced the number of experimental animals in a research project to the minimum required for reliable data [ 59 ]. Methods used for this purpose include improved experimental design, extensive literature search to avoid duplication of experiments [ 35 ], use of advanced imaging techniques, sharing resources and data, and appropriate statistical data analysis that reduce the number of animals needed for statistically significant results [ 2 , 63 ].

The second “R”, Refinement involves improvements in procedure that minimize the harmful effects of the proposed experiments on the animals involved, such as reducing pain, distress and suffering in a manner that leads to a general improvement in animal welfare. This might include for example improved living conditions for research animals, proper training of people handling animals, application of anesthesia and analgesia when required and the need for euthanasia of the animals at the end of the experiment to curtail their suffering [ 63 ].

The third “R”, Replacement refers to approaches that replace or avoid the use of experimental animals altogether. These approaches involve use of in silico methods/computerized techniques/software and in vitro methods like cell and tissue culture testing, as well as relative replacement methods by use of invertebrates like nematode worms, fruit flies and microorganisms in place of vertebrates and higher animals [ 1 ]. Examples of proper application of these first “3R2 principles are the use of alternative sources of blood, the exploitation of commercially used animals for scientific research, a proper training without use of animals and the use of specimen from previous experiments for further researches [ 64-67 ].

The fourth “R”, Responsibility refers to concerns around promoting animal welfare by improvements in experimental animals’ social life, development of advanced scientific methods for objectively determining sentience, consciousness, experience of pain and intelligence in the animal kingdom, as well as effective involvement in the professionalization of the public discussion on animal ethics [ 68 ].

OTHER ASPECTS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ETHICS

Other research ethics considerations include having a clear rationale and reasoning for the use of animals in a research project. Researchers must have reasonable expectation of generating useful data from the proposed experiment. Moreover, the research study should be designed in such a way that it should involve the lowest possible sample size of experimental animals while producing statistically significant results [ 35 ].

All individual researchers that handle experimental animals should be properly trained for handling the particular species involved in the research study. The animal’s pain, suffering and discomfort should be minimized [ 69 ]. Animals should be given proper anesthesia when required and surgical procedures should not be repeated on same animal whenever possible [ 69 ]. The procedure of humane handling and care of experimental animals should be explicitly detailed in the research study protocol. Moreover, whenever required, aseptic techniques should be properly followed [ 70 ]. During the research, anesthetization and surgical procedures on experimental animals should only be performed by professionally skilled individuals [ 69 ].

The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines that are issued by the National Center for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) are designed to improve the documentation surrounding research involving experimental animals [ 70 ]. The checklist provided includes the information required in the various sections of the manuscript i.e. study design, ethical statements, experimental procedures, experimental animals and their housing and husbandry, and more [ 70 ].

It is critical to follow the highest ethical standards while performing animal experiments. Indeed, most of the journals refuse to publish any research data that lack proper ethical considerations [ 35 ].

INVESTIGATORS’ ETHICS

Since animals have sensitivity level similar to the human beings in terms of pain, anguish, survival instinct and memory, it is the responsibility of the investigator to closely monitor the animals that are used and identify any sign of distress [ 71 ]. No justification can rationalize the absence of anesthesia or analgesia in animals that undergo invasive surgery during the research [ 72 ]. Investigators are also responsible for giving high-quality care to the experimental animals, including the supply of a nutritious diet, easy water access, prevention of and relief from any pain, disease and injury, and appropriate housing facilities for the animal species [ 73 ]. A research experiment is not permitted if the damage caused to the animal exceeds the value of knowledge gained by that experiment. No scientific advancement based on the destruction and sufferings of another living being could be justified. Besides ensuring the welfare of animals involved, investigators must also follow the applicable legislation [ 74 , 75 ].

To promote the comfort of experimental animals in England, an animal protection society named: ‘The Society for the Preservation of Cruelty to Animals’ (now the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was established (1824) that aims to prevent cruelty to animal [ 76 ].

ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS

Legislation for animal protection during research has long been established. In 1876 the British Parliament sanctioned the ‘Cruelty to Animals Act’ for animal protection. Russell and Burch (1959) presented the ‘3 Rs’ principles: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, for use of animals during research [ 61 ]. Almost seven years later, the U.S.A also adopted regulations for the protection of experimental animals by enacting the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [ 60 ]. In Brazil, the Arouca Law (Law No. 11,794/08) regulates the animal use in scientific research experiments [ 76 ].

These laws define the breeding conditions, and regulate the use of animals for scientific research and teaching purposes. Such legal provisions control the use of anesthesia, analgesia or sedation in experiments that could cause distress or pain to experimental animals [ 59 , 76 ]. These laws also stress the need for euthanasia when an experiment is finished, or even during the experiment if there is any intense suffering for the experimental animal [ 76 ].

Several national and international organizations have been established to develop alternative techniques so that animal experimentation can be avoided, such as the UK-based National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) ( www.caat.jhsph.edu ), the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) [ 77 ], the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) ( www.ufaw.org.uk ), The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) [ 78 ], and The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) ( www.caat.jhsph.edu ). The Brazilian ‘Arouca Law’ also constitutes a milestone, as it has created the ‘National Council for the Control of Animal Experimentation’ (CONCEA) that deals with the legal and ethical issues related to the use of experimental animals during scientific research [ 76 ].

Although national as well as international laws and guidelines have provided basic protections for experimental animals, the current regulations have some significant discrepancies. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act excludes rats, mice and purpose-bred birds, even though these species comprise almost 90% of the animals that are used for research purpose [ 79 ]. On the other hand, certain cats and dogs are getting special attention along with extra protection. While the U.S. Animal Welfare Act ignores birds, mice and rats, the U.S. guidelines that control research performed using federal funding ensure protections for all vertebrates [ 79 , 80 ].

Living conditions of animals

Choice of the animal model.

Based on all the above laws and regulations and in line with the deliberations of ethical committees, every researcher must follow certain rules when dealing with animal models.

Before starting any experimental work, thorough research should be carried out during the study design phase so that the unnecessary use of experimental animals is avoided. Nevertheless, certain research studies may have compelling reasons for the use of animal models, such as the investigation of human diseases and toxicity tests. Moreover, animals are also widely used in the training of health professionals as well as in training doctors in surgical skills [ 1 , 81 ].

Researcher should be well aware of the specific traits of the animal species they intend to use in the experiment, such as its developmental stages, physiology, nutritional needs, reproductive characteristics and specific behaviors. Animal models should be selected on the basis of the study design and the biological relevance of the animal [ 1 ].

Typically, in early research, non-mammalian models are used to get rapid insights into research problems such as the identification of gene function or the recognition of novel therapeutic options. Thus, in biomedical and biological research, among the most commonly used model organisms are the Zebrafish, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans . The main advantage of these non-mammalian animal models is their prolific reproducibility along with their much shorter generation time. They can be easily grown in any laboratory setting, are less expensive than the murine animal models and are somewhat more powerful than the tissue and cell culture approaches [ 82 ].

Caenorhabditis elegans is a small-sized nematode with a short life cycle and that exists in large populations and is relatively inexpensive to cultivate. Scientists have gathered extensive knowledge of the genomics and genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans ; but Caenorhabditis elegans models, while very useful in some respects, are unable to represent all signaling pathways found in humans. Furthermore, due to its short life cycle, scientists are unable to investigate long term effects of test compounds or to analyze primary versus secondary effects [ 6 ].

Similarly, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has played a key role in numerous biomedical discoveries. It is small in size, has a short life cycle and large population size, is relatively inexpensive to breed, and extensive genomics and genetics information is available [ 6 ]. However, its respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems differ considerably from human beings. In addition, its immune system is less developed when compared to vertebrates, which is why effectiveness of a drug in Drosophila melanogaster may not be easily extrapolated to humans [ 83 ].

The Zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) is a small freshwater teleost, with transparent embryos, providing easy access for the observation of organogenesis and its manipulation. Therefore, Zebrafish embryos are considered good animal models for different human diseases like tuberculosis and fetal alcohol syndrome and are useful as neurodevelopmental research models. However, Zebrafish has very few mutant strains available, and its genome has numerous duplicate genes making it impossible to create knockout strains, since disrupting one copy of the gene will not disrupt the second copy of that gene. This feature limits the use of Zebrafish as animal models to study human diseases. Additionally they are rather expensive, have long life cycle, and genomics and genetics studies are still in progress [ 82 , 84 ].

Thus, experimentation on these three animals might not be equivalent to experimentation on mammals. Mammalian animal model are most similar to human beings, so targeted gene replacement is possible. Traditionally, mammals like monkey and mice have been the preferred animal models for biomedical research because of their evolutionary closeness to humans. Rodents, particularly mice and rats, are the most frequently used animal models for scientific research. Rats are the most suitable animal model for the study of obesity, shock, peritonitis, sepsis, cancer, intestinal operations, spleen, gastric ulcers, mononuclear phagocytic system, organ transplantations and wound healing. Mice are more suitable for studying burns, megacolon, shock, cancer, obesity, and sepsis as mentioned previously [ 85 ].

Similarly, pigs are mostly used for stomach, liver and transplantation studies, while rabbits are suitable for the study of immunology, inflammation, vascular biology, shock, colitis and transplantations. Thus, the choice of experimental animal mainly depends upon the field of scientific research under consideration [ 1 ].

HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT

Researchers should be aware of the environment and conditions in which laboratory animals are kept during research, and they also need to be familiar with the metabolism of the animals kept in vivarium, since their metabolism can easily be altered by different factors such as pain, stress, confinement, lack of sunlight, etc. Housing conditions alter animal behavior, and this can in turn affect experimental results. By contrast, handling procedures that feature environmental enrichment and enhancement help to decrease stress and positively affect the welfare of the animals and the reliability of research data [ 74 , 75 ].

In animals, distress- and agony-causing factors should be controlled or eliminated to overcome any interference with data collection as well as with interpretation of the results, since impaired animal welfare leads to more animal usage during experiment, decreased reliability and increased discrepancies in results along with the unnecessary consumption of animal lives [ 86 ].

To reduce the variation or discrepancies in experimental data caused by various environmental factors, experimental animals must be kept in an appropriate and safe place. In addition, it is necessary to keep all variables like humidity, airflow and temperature at levels suitable for those species, as any abrupt variation in these factors could cause stress, reduced resistance and increased susceptibility to infections [ 74 ].

The space allotted to experimental animals should permit them free movement, proper sleep and where feasible allow for interaction with other animals of the same species. Mice and rats are quite sociable animals and must, therefore, be housed in groups for the expression of their normal behavior. Usually, laboratory cages are not appropriate for the behavioral needs of the animals. Therefore, environmental enrichment is an important feature for the expression of their natural behavior that will subsequently affect their defense mechanisms and physiology [ 87 ].

The features of environmental enrichment must satisfy the animals’ sense of curiosity, offer them fun activities, and also permit them to fulfill their behavioral and physiological needs. These needs include exploring, hiding, building nests and gnawing. For this purpose, different things can be used in their environment, such as PVC tubes, cardboard, igloos, paper towel, cotton, disposable masks and paper strips [ 87 ].

The environment used for housing of animals must be continuously controlled by appropriate disinfection, hygiene protocols, sterilization and sanitation processes. These steps lead to a reduction in the occurrence of various infectious agents that often found in vivarium, such as Sendai virus, cestoda and Mycoplasma pulmonis [ 88 ].

Euthanasia is a term derived from Greek, and it means a death without any suffering. According to the Brazilian Arouca Law (Article 14, Chapter IV, Paragraphs 1 and 2), an animal should undergo euthanasia, in strict compliance with the requirements of each species, when the experiment ends or during any phase of the experiment, wherever this procedure is recommended and/or whenever serious suffering occurs. If the animal does not undergo euthanasia after the intervention it may leave the vivarium and be assigned to suitable people or to the animal protection bodies, duly legalized [ 1 ].

Euthanasia procedures must result in instant loss of consciousness which leads to respiratory or cardiac arrest as well as to complete brain function impairment. Another important aspect of this procedure is calm handling of the animal while taking it out of its enclosure, to reduce its distress, suffering, anxiety and fear. In every research project, the study design should include the details of the appropriate endpoints of these experimental animals, and also the methods that will be adopted. It is important to determine the appropriate method of euthanasia for the animal being used. Another important point is that, after completing the euthanasia procedure, the animal’s death should be absolutely confirmed before discarding their bodies [ 87 , 89 ].

Relevance of animal experimentations and possible alternatives

Relevance of animal experiments and their adverse effects on human health.

One important concern is whether human diseases, when inflicted on experimental animals, adequately mimic the progressions of the disease and the treatment responses observed in humans. Several research articles have made comparisons between human and animal data, and indicated that the results of animals’ research could not always be reliably replicated in clinical research among humans. The latest systematic reviews about the treatment of different clinical conditions including neurology, vascular diseases and others, have established that the results of animal studies cannot properly predict human outcomes [ 59 , 90 ].

At present, the reliability of animal experiments for extrapolation to human health is questionable. Harmful effects may occur in humans because of misleading results from research conducted on animals. For instance, during the late fifties, a sedative drug, thalidomide, was prescribed for pregnant women, but some of the women using that drug gave birth to babies lacking limbs or with foreshortened limbs, a condition called phocomelia. When thalidomide had been tested on almost all animal models such as rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, cats, hamsters, armadillos, ferrets, swine, guinea pig, etc., this teratogenic effect was observed only occasionally [ 91 ]. Similarly, in 2006, the compound TGN 1412 was designed as an immunomodulatory drug, but when it was injected into six human volunteer, serious adverse reactions were observed resulting from a deadly cytokine storm that in turn led to disastrous systemic organ failure. TGN 1412 had been tested successfully in rats, mice, rabbits, and non-human primates [ 92 ]. Moreover, Bailey (2008) reported 90 HIV vaccines that had successful trial results in animals but which failed in human beings [ 93 ]. Moreover, in Parkinson disease, many therapeutic options that have shown promising results in rats and non-human primate models have proved harmful in humans. Hence, to analyze the relevance of animal research to human health, the efficacy of animal experimentation should be examined systematically [ 94 , 95 ]. At the same time, the development of hyperoxaluria and renal failure (up to dialysis) after ileal-jejunal bypass was unexpected because this procedure was not preliminarily evaluated on an animal model [ 96 ].

Several factors play a role in the extrapolation of animal-derived data to humans, such as environmental conditions and physiological parameters related to stress, age of the experimental animals, etc. These factors could switch on or off genes in the animal models that are specific to species and/or strains. All these observations challenge the reliability and suitability of animal experimentation as well as its objectives with respect to human health [ 76 , 92 ].

ALTERNATIVE TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION/DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRODUCTS AND TECHNIQUES TO AVOID ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN RESEARCH

Certainly, in vivo animal experimentation has significantly contributed to the development of biological and biomedical research. However it has the limitations of strict ethical issues and high production cost. Some scientists consider animal testing an ineffective and immoral practice and therefore prefer alternative techniques to be used instead of animal experimentation. These alternative methods involve in vitro experiments and ex vivo models like cell and tissue cultures, use of plants and vegetables, non-invasive human clinical studies, use of corpses for studies, use of microorganisms or other simpler organism like shrimps and water flea larvae, physicochemical techniques, educational software, computer simulations, mathematical models and nanotechnology [ 97 ]. These methods and techniques are cost-effective and could efficiently replace animal models. They could therefore, contribute to animal welfare and to the development of new therapies that can identify the therapeutics and related complications at an early stage [ 1 ].

The National Research Council (UK) suggested a shift from the animal models toward computational models, as well as high-content and high-throughput in vitro methods. Their reports highlighted that these alternative methods could produce predictive data more affordably, accurately and quickly than the traditional in vivo or experimental animal methods [ 98 ].

Increasingly, scientists and the review boards have to assess whether addressing a research question using the applied techniques of advanced genetics, molecular, computational and cell biology, and biochemistry could be used to replace animal experiments [ 59 ]. It must be remembered that each alternative method must be first validated and then registered in dedicated databases.

An additional relevant concern is how precisely animal data can mirror relevant epigenetic changes and human genetic variability. Langley and his colleagues have highlighted some of the examples of existing and some emerging non-animal based research methods in the advanced fields of neurology, orthodontics, infectious diseases, immunology, endocrine, pulmonology, obstetrics, metabolism and cardiology [ 99 ].

IN SILICO SIMULATIONS AND INFORMATICS

Several computer models have been built to study cardiovascular risk and atherosclerotic plaque build-up, to model human metabolism, to evaluate drug toxicity and to address other questions that were previously approached by testing in animals [ 100 ].

Computer simulations can potentially decrease the number of experiments required for a research project, however simulations cannot completely replace laboratory experiments. Unfortunately, not all the principles regulating biological systems are known, and computer simulation provide only an estimation of possible effects due to the limitations of computer models in comparison with complex human tissues. However, simulation and bio-informatics are now considered essential in all fields of science for their efficiency in using the existing knowledge for further experimental designs [ 76 ].

At present, biological macromolecules are regularly simulated at various levels of detail, to predict their response and behavior under certain physical conditions, chemical exposures and stimulations. Computational and bioinformatic simulations have significantly reduced the number of animals sacrificed during drug discovery by short listing potential candidate molecules for a drug. Likewise, computer simulations have decreased the number of animal experiments required in other areas of biological science by efficiently using the existing knowledge. Moreover, the development of high definition 3D computer models for anatomy with enhanced level of detail, it may make it possible to reduce or eliminate the need for animal dissection during teaching [ 101 , 102 ].

3D CELL-CULTURE MODELS AND ORGANS-ON-CHIPS

In the current scenario of rapid advancement in the life sciences, certain tissue models can be built using 3D cell culture technology. Indeed, there are some organs on micro-scale chip models used for mimicking the human body environment. 3D models of multiple organ systems such as heart, liver, skin, muscle, testis, brain, gut, bone marrow, lungs and kidney, in addition to individual organs, have been created in microfluidic channels, re-creating the physiological chemical and physical microenvironments of the body [ 103 ]. These emerging techniques, such as the biomedical/biological microelectromechanical system (Bio-MEMS) or lab-on-a-chip (LOC) and micro total analysis systems (lTAS) will, in the future, be a useful substitute for animal experimentation in commercial laboratories in the biotechnology, environmental safety, chemistry and pharmaceutical industries. For 3D cell culture modeling, cells are grown in 3D spheroids or aggregates with the help of a scaffold or matrix, or sometimes using a scaffold-free method. The 3D cell culture modeling conditions can be altered to add proteins and other factors that are found in a tumor microenvironment, for example, or in particular tissues. These matrices contain extracellular matrix components such as proteins, glycoconjugates and glycosaminoglycans that allow for cell communication, cell to cell contact and the activation of signaling pathways in such a way that the morphological and functional differentiation of these cells can accurately mimic their environment in vivo . This methodology, in time, will bridge the gap between in vivo and in vitro drug screening, decreasing the utilization of animal models during research [ 104 ].

ALTERNATIVES TO MICROBIAL CULTURE MEDIA AND SERUM-FREE ANIMAL CELL CULTURES

There are moves to reduce the use of animal derived products in many areas of biotechnology. Microbial culture media peptones are mostly made by the proteolysis of farmed animal meat. However, nowadays, various suppliers provide peptones extracted from yeast and plants. Although the costs of these plant-extracted peptones are the same as those of animal peptones, plant peptones are more environmentally favorable since less plant material and water are required for them to grow, compared with the food grain and fodder needed for cattle that are slaughtered for animal peptone production [ 105 ].

Human cell culture is often carried out in a medium that contains fetal calf serum, the production of which involves animal (cow) sacrifice or suffering. In fact, living pregnant cows are used and their fetuses removed to harvest the serum from the fetal blood. Fetal calf serum is used because it is a natural medium rich in all the required nutrients and significantly increases the chances of successful cell growth in culture. Scientists are striving to identify the factors and nutrients required for the growth of various types of cells, with a view to eliminating the use of calf serum. At present, most cell lines could be cultured in a chemically-synthesized medium without using animal products. Furthermore, data from chemically-synthesized media experiments may have better reproducibility than those using animal serum media, since the composition of animal serum does change from batch to batch on the basis of animals’ gender, age, health and genetic background [ 76 ].

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL-DERIVED ANTIBODIES

Animal friendly affinity reagents may act as an alternative to antibodies produced, thereby removing the need for animal immunization. Typically, these antibodies are obtained in vitro by yeast, phage or ribosome display. In a recent review, a comparative analysis between animal friendly affinity reagents and animal derived-antibodies showed that the affinity reagents have superior quality, are relatively less time consuming, have more reproducibility and are more reliable and are cost-effective [ 106 , 107 ].

Conclusions

Animal experimentation led to great advancement in biological and biomedical sciences and contributed to the discovery of many drugs and treatment options. However, such experimentation may cause harm, pain and distress to the animals involved. Therefore, to perform animal experimentations, certain ethical rules and laws must be strictly followed and there should be proper justification for using animals in research projects. Furthermore, during animal experimentation the 4 Rs principles of reduction, refinement, replacement and responsibility must be followed by the researchers. Moreover, before beginning a research project, experiments should be thoroughly planned and well-designed, and should avoid unnecessary use of animals. The reliability and reproducibility of animal experiments should also be considered. Whenever possible, alternative methods to animal experimentation should be adopted, such as in vitro experimentation, cadaveric studies, and computer simulations.

While much progress has been made on reducing animal experimentation there is a need for greater awareness of alternatives to animal experiments among scientists and easier access to advanced modeling technologies. Greater research is needed to define a roadmap that will lead to the elimination of all unnecessary animal experimentation and provide a framework for adoption of reliable alternative methodologies in biomedical research.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano in the framework of LP 15/2020 (dgp 3174/2021).

Conflicts of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author's contributions

MB: study conception, editing and critical revision of the manuscript; AKK, DP, GH, RB, Paul S, Peter S, RM, BF, NC, SM, LL, DD, GMT, MCE, MD, SM, Daniele M, GB, AD, KD, MCM, TB, MS, STC, Donald M, AM, AB, KLH, MK, LS, LL, GF: literature search, editing and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Contributor Information

INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS STUDY GROUP : Derek Pheby , Gary Henehan , Richard Brown , Paul Sieving , Peter Sykora , Robert Marks , Benedetto Falsini , Natale Capodicasa , Stanislav Miertus , Lorenzo Lorusso , Gianluca Martino Tartaglia , Mahmut Cerkez Ergoren , Munis Dundar , Sandro Michelini , Daniele Malacarne , Tommaso Beccari , Michele Samaja , Matteo Bertelli , Donald Martin , Assunta Morresi , Ariola Bacu , Karen L. Herbst , Mykhaylo Kapustin , Liborio Stuppia , Ludovica Lumer , and Giampietro Farronato

10 Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation

Millions of animals are being used for experiments in the US each year. Those who support this legal practice say that it is for a good cause, implying that it is better to use animals than human beings for testing. But on the other side of the coin, critics are also pushing their reasons why the practice should not be continued, with animal suffering and ethical issues as their biggest concerns. After all, it cannot be denied that the conditions of these test subjects are truly monotonous, unnatural and stressful, causing them to feel uncomfortable, suffer and even die. Basically, whether this practice is good or bad really depends on who you are asking. To come up with a well-informed opinion, let us take a look at the pros and cons of animal experimentation.

List of Pros of Animal Experimentation

1. It contributes to cures and treatments that save human lives. Proponents claim that most medical breakthroughs in the last century were direct results of animal experimentation. For example, insulin was discovered through a test where dogs had their pancreases removed. The Anderson Cancer Center also associated the hepatitis B vaccine with tests that were conducted on chimpanzees. Without these experimentations, these people say that thousands, if not millions, of hepatitis B and diabetic patients would have died each year. Moreover, the center said that chimpanzees are humanity’s only hope for finding a vaccine for hepatitis C.

2. It provides an ethical alternative solution to testing. It is widely believed that it is unethical to use humans for invasive experiments, especially when it could result in death. Human lives should not be put at risks by letting them volunteer for testing medicines for potential toxicity or side effects, as well as for manipulating genes. To prevent unfavorable consequences, animal testing is done to precede human trials.

3. It allows researchers to study test subjects for an entire life span. Considering that human beings can live up to 80 years or more, scientists who are conducting tests would be dead before they can gather results. On the other hand, laboratory animals, particularly rats, can only live for 2 to 3 years, which give researchers the opportunity to study the effects of treatments and genetic manipulation over an entire lifetime. In other cases, they can even continue to conduct experiments across several generations, which is why lab animals have been used for long-term research on cancer.

4. It uses animals that are identical to humans in some way. According to scientists, chimpanzee DNA is 99% similar with humans, while it is 98% for mice in terms of genetics. As you can see, people and animals are biologically similar, having the same set of organs, central nervous system and bloodstream, which is why both are affected by virtually the same health conditions and diseases. Considering these facts, animals are being accepted as appropriate research subjects.

5. It provides benefits to the animals themselves. If vaccines were not tested on animals, a lot of them could have died from diseases and health conditions, such as hepatitis, rabies, leukemia, anthrax, parvo, hip dysplasia, glaucoma, etc. Aside from this, animal experimentation helped keep some endangered species from becoming extinct. This is the reason of the American Veterinary Medical Association to endorse this practice.

List of Cons of Animal Experimentation

1. It uses cruel and inhumane treatment. Generally, testing protocols are often painful to the animal test subjects, where they are deprived of food and water, force-fed, physically restrained in long periods, inflicted with pain and wounds to test for healing process effects and remedies, and even purposely killed as part of the process. For instance, to evaluate irritation caused by cosmetics, rabbit’s eyes are held open by clips for days, so they will not be able to blink while the products are being assessed. Some experiments also include the administration of lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much would kill animals.

2. It uses animals that make poor test subjects. This directly contradicts what proponents believe about the closeness of animals and humans in an anatomical and biological sense, as both have many cellular, metabolic and anatomical differences. According to Thomas Hartung of the Johns Hopkins University, using rats to test for toxicity should not be accepted as reliable, as these animals are nowhere close to being 70 kilograms. This is further supported by the Archives of Toxicology study in 2013, stating that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a rat puts in question the usefulness of research data.

3. It risks completing a misleading research. Some products and medicines that have the potential to harm animals are actually useful to humans, such as the aspirin. As you can see, the drug was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals, which could have lead to the difficulty of lowering the risk of organ rejection during transplants.

4. It uses animals that are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). As only over 1 million animals are covered by the AWA as of 2010, around 25 million more are left unprotected from abuse and mistreatment. And because animal experimentations are being regulated by the committee that is selected by the facility itself, animal subjects are even put at a bigger risk of being treated poorly for their entire existence.

5. It is performed despite the existence of less expensive alternatives. There are alternatives to animal experimentation that are considered viable, such cell cultures in a petri dish and in vitro testing, which can even produce more relevant results than those from vivisection. The same thing goes to using artificial human skin, where virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures are done through computer models. And for testing adverse reactions, there is also the method called microdosing, where small doses are being administered on humans themselves.

Indeed, animal experimentation offers some benefits, where medical treatments have been developed through it, but it also comes with significant problems, with those related to ethics being the biggest, which need to be carefully addressed. And with the pros and cons listed above, we can surely come up with a considerable opinion about this subject matter.

You Might Also Like

Recent Posts

• Only Child Characteristics
• Does Music Affect Your Mood
• Negative Motivation
• Positive Motivation
• External and Internal Locus of Control
• How To Leave An Emotionally Abusive Relationship
• The Ability To Move Things With Your Mind
• How To Tell Is Someone Is Lying About Cheating
• Interpersonal Attraction Definition
• Napoleon Compex Symptoms

Animal testing and experiments FAQ

How many animals are used in experiments each year?

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

• What are you doing to end experiments on animals?

What can I do to help animals in laboratories?

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

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

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

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

View Animals Used in Experiments by State

View Dogs Used in Experiments by State

Read Dogs Used in Experiments FAQ

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

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

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Cosmetics Animal Testing FAQ

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

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

View Chart of Institutions That Use Dogs in Experiments

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

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

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

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

View Pound Seizure Laws by State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of non-animal alternative methods

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

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

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

What are you doing to end experiments on animals?

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

Cosmetics testing on animals

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

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

Experiments on dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives to horseshoe crab blood

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

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

The problem

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

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

THE solution

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

what should be done

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

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

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

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

• Skip to content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Health and Medical Blog

Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation

  Scientists and various experts have been discovering things that can be used by humans with different health issues, and to prove whether their discoveries are effective for human use, they would usually make animal experimentations first. Most of these experts use mice, goats and other animals to test different discoveries they had and learn whether their experimentations can be used with humans. Though these are developed and designed for positive purposes, there are still certain arguments discussing about the pros and cons of animal experimentations.

Most of these animal experimentations are done in pharmaceuticals, universities and other private institutions where medicinal tests of particular discoveries are done and observe the effects of such tests to the animals.

Pros of Animal Experimentation

The purpose of animal experimentations is for positive uses and the following are the advantages of using such experimentations:

Finding out treatments and drugs that help in the improvement of one’s health. There are many results already showing various medicinal breakthroughs with animal experimentation making it an advantageous procedure to try.

Helps in assuring that substances and medicines created are safe for living organisms. Animals are chosen to be the living organisms where particular medicinal discoveries are tried. This is a way of ensuring whether the medicinal discoveries are safe to be used by any living organisms.

Most medical products and treatments that are used nowadays will not be used if not for animal experimentation. There are many successful medical researches done that has prove the effectiveness of various medical products and treatments that are being used today and has helped many people in their diseases.

Cons of Animal Experimentations

There are many positive things that can be listed for animal experimentation. However, there are particular things that make these animal experimentation processes unfavorable for some animal rights advocates. These things are as follows:

Morality issues. As how animal rights advocates are saying, animals have their right to live their lives normally. Most animals used during these experimentations are either euthanized after certain researches while others are spending their entire life living in captivity.

Validity of these experiments to animals. Drugs that are tested in animals are seen to have no approval from humans and have not benefited humans directly. Since animals are not the same as humans, there are several cases wherein the validity of using animals are not accountable for the benefit of humans.

Should Animal Experimentation Be Supported?

Given that there are both pros and cons of the animal experimentation procedures, it is your decision whether you should be supporting this kind of experimentations or not. Yes, there are positive benefits that human can get since tests are not directly done to humans. But when it comes to the right of animals, there are particular things that you might consider thinking. Is it worth it that animals should be captured for their lifetime and euthanized for the benefit of humans? Would it be possible that this kind of experimentations be stopped or minimized to protect the lives of different animals used for various experiments?

• 13 ANC Nails Pros and Cons
• 15 Artificial Sphincter Pros and Cons
• 14 Hysterectomy for Fibroids Pros and Cons
• 15 Monovision Lasik Pros and Cons
• 12 Pros and Cons of the Da Vinci Robotic Surgery
• 14 Peritoneal Dialysis Pros and Cons
• 14 Pros and Cons of the Cataract Surgery Multifocal Lens
• 19 Dermaplaning Pros and Cons
• 15 Mirena IUD Pros and Cons
• 11 Pros and Cons of Monovision Cataract Surgery
• Calories Burned
• Cancer Articles and Infographics
• Definitions and Examples of Theory
• Definitions for Kids
• Dental Articles and Infographics
• Elder Care Articles and Infographics
• Environmental
• Health Research Funding
• Healthcare Articles and Infographics
• ICD 9 Codes
• Major Accomplishments
• Medical Articles and Infographics
• Nutrition Articles and Infographics
• Pharmaceutical Articles and Infographics
• Psychological Articles and Infographics
• Skin Articles and Infographics
• Surgery Articles and Infographics
• Theories and Models
• Uncategorized
• Videos on How to Get Research Funding