essay about lab animals

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

Using animals for scientific research is still indispensable for society as we know it

Senior Advisor Animal Ethics and Outreach, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud University

Professor, Radboud University

Associate Professor in Neuroinformatics, Radboud University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Kenya’s national airline – Kenya Airways – made headlines when it announced it would stop transporting monkeys for animal research. This followed an accidental highway crash in Pennsylvania , in the US, which involved a truck transporting monkeys that had been bred in Mauritius for laboratory experiments in the US.

Following the accident, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) US, an animal rights group, contacted Kenya Airways urging them to reconsider transporting the animals, putting forward their view that animal experimentation is a cruel industry.

Read more: The macaque monkeys of Mauritius: an invasive alien species, and a major export for research

Such an incident is indeed tragic. But if we consider the number of people who would have died without the existence of medication and novel medical technologies developed thanks to animal research, then ending animal research could lead to a more tragic outcome in the longer term.

Most countries do animal research, perhaps not very tiny countries or very poor countries. There is a nationwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics throughout the European Union, Israel, Norway, as well as in India. But animal testing for other reasons is still widely accepted.

Most of the animals used come from commercial breeders – one is Jackson Laboratory in the US. Other sources include specialist breeders and large breeding centres which can provide genetically modified animals for specific research. The animal testing facilities themselves may also rear animals.

In general, all over the world, policymakers do aim to move towards animal-free methods of scientific research and have introduced very strict regulations for animal research.

Scientists and policymakers share the long-term goal of reducing animal use in scientific research and where possible eventually even stopping it. It’s an ambitious goal. For this to happen, animal-free methods need to be developed and validated before they can become a new standard.

Animal-free innovations have been developed for some areas of biomedical research, such as toxicology . However, most parties recognise that at present, not all research questions can be answered using only animal-free methods.

Based on decades of doing research on the human brain, which involves using animals, to us it’s clear that – for the foreseeable future – there remains a crucial need for animal models to understand health and disease and to develop medicines.

Unique knowledge

It is animal research that provides researchers with unique knowledge about how humans and animals function. Perhaps more than in any other field of biomedical research, complete living animals are needed to understand brain function, behaviour and cognition.

Behaviour and cognition, the final outputs of a brain organ, cannot be mimicked using any existing animal-free technologies. We currently simply do not understand the brain well enough to make animal-free solutions.

Another striking, very recent example that showed the current need for animal research is the COVID-19 pandemic . The way out of the pandemic required the development of a functioning vaccine. Researchers amazed the world when they made targeted vaccines available within one year. This, however, has relied greatly on the use of animals for testing the efficacy and safety of the vaccine.

A key fact that remains often invisible is that the rules and regulations for conducting animal research are, in comparison, perhaps even stricter and more regulated, by for example the Animal Welfare act in the US and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in Europe. Than, for example, in the food and entertainment industry, although regulations are in place here too such as governmental rules for the treatment of animals in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

Should it be banned?

In the world as we know it today, animal research is still generally accepted as part of society. There are many important reasons why laboratory animal research is still needed:

To learn about biological processes in animals and humans.

To learn about the cause of diseases.

To develop new treatments and vaccines and evaluate their effects.

To develop methods that can prevent disease both in animals and humans.

To develop methods for the management of animals such as pests but also for the conservation of endangered species.

Of course many, animal researchers included, are hopeful that one day animal experiments will no longer be necessary to achieve the much needed scientific outcomes. However, the situation is that for many research questions related to human and animal health we still need animals.

As long as we cannot replace animals, there should be more focus on transparency and animal welfare, to benefit the animals as well as science. Awareness and financial support of this at the governmental level is key to enable animal researchers to always strive for the highest level of animal welfare possible.

• Scientific research
• Science and innovation for development

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Eighth edition.

A respected resource for decades, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals has been updated by a committee of experts, taking into consideration input from the scientific and laboratory animal communities and the public at large. The Guide incorporates new scientific information on common laboratory animals, including aquatic species, and includes extensive references. It is organized around major components of animal use:

• Key concepts of animal care and use. The Guide sets the framework for the humane care and use of laboratory animals.
• Animal care and use program. The Guide discusses the concept of a broad Program of Animal Care and Use, including roles and responsibilities of the Institutional Official, Attending Veterinarian and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
• Animal environment, husbandry, and management. A chapter on this topic is now divided into sections on terrestrial and aquatic animals and provides recommendations for housing and environment, husbandry, behavioral and population management, and more.
• Veterinary care. The Guide discusses veterinary care and the responsibilities of the Attending Veterinarian. It includes recommendations on animal procurement and transportation, preventive medicine (including animal biosecurity), and clinical care and management. The Guide addresses distress and pain recognition and relief, and issues surrounding euthanasia.
• Physical plant. The Guide identifies design issues, providing construction guidelines for functional areas; considerations such as drainage, vibration and noise control, and environmental monitoring; and specialized facilities for animal housing and research needs.

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals provides a framework for the judgments required in the management of animal facilities. This updated and expanded resource of proven value will be important to scientists and researchers, veterinarians, animal care personnel, facilities managers, institutional administrators, policy makers involved in research issues, and animal welfare advocates.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Brief
• Presentation on the Guide
• Thai version of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition
• Japanese version of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition

• ↓ Scroll Down for More Resources
• Biology and Life Sciences — Laboratory Animal Research
• Agriculture — Animal Health and Nutrition
• Biology and Life Sciences — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations

Suggested Citation

National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12910. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-15400-0
• Ebook:  978-0-309-18663-6

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Statement on the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Copyright information.

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 29 September 2004

Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma?

• V Baumans 1 , 2  

Gene Therapy volume  11 ,  pages S64–S66 ( 2004 ) Cite this article

70k Accesses

103 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

Mankind has been using animals already for a long time for food, for transport and as companion. The use of animals in experimental research parallels the development of medicine, which had its roots in ancient Greece (Aristotle, Hippocrate). With the Cartesian philosophy in the 17th century, experiments on animals could be performed without great moral problems. The discovery of anaesthetics and Darwin's publication on the Origin of Species, defending the biological similarities between man and animal, contributed to the increase of animal experimentation. The increasing demand for high standard animal models together with a critical view on the use of animals led to the development of Laboratory Animal Science in the 1950s with Russell and Burch's three R's of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement as guiding principles, a field that can be defined as a multidisciplinary branch of science, contributing to the quality of animal experiments and to the welfare of laboratory animals. The increased interest in and concern about animal welfare issues led to legislative regulations in many countries and the establishment of animal ethics committees.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 20,95 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

Translational science: a survey of US biomedical researchers’ perspectives and practices

3R measures in facilities for the production of genetically modified rodents

Van Zutphen LFM . History of animal use. In: Van Zutphen LFM, Baumans V, Beynen AC (eds). Principles of Laboratory Animal Science . Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2001, pp 2–5.

Google Scholar  

Dennis Jr MB . Welfare issues of genetically modified animals. ILAR J 2002; 43 : 100–109.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Russell WMS, Burch RL . The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . Methuen: London, 1959, Reprinted by UFAW, 1992: 8 Hamilton Close, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Herts EN6 3QD England.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baumans, V. Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma?. Gene Ther 11 (Suppl 1), S64–S66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302371

Download citation

Published : 29 September 2004

Issue Date : 01 October 2004

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302371

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• animal experiments

This article is cited by

The effect of modification of dna interference on myostatin gene expression in mice.

• Mitra Riasi
• Sina Mozaffari-Jovin
• Ali Javadmanesh

Journal of Genetics (2023)

The small molecule ZY-214-4 may reduce the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus by inhibiting pigment production

BMC Microbiology (2021)

Non-random associations in group housed rats (Rattus norvegicus)

• Leanne Proops
• Camille A. Troisi
• Teresa Romero

Scientific Reports (2021)

Multi-scale generative adversarial network for improved evaluation of cell–cell interactions observed in organ-on-chip experiments

• M. C. Comes
• E. Martinelli

Neural Computing and Applications (2021)

Modeling clear cell renal cell carcinoma and therapeutic implications

• Melissa M. Wolf
• W. Kimryn Rathmell
• Kathryn E. Beckermann

Oncogene (2020)

Quick links

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

Blog Section

The ethics of animal experimentation.

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

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

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

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

• The Case Against Animal Experimentation
• The Case For Animal Experimentation
• A Middle Ground

The Case Against Animal Experimentation ^

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

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

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

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

The Case For Animal Experimentation ^

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Middle Ground ^

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

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

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

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

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

For further reading:

• Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Ethics in Practice . LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Peter Singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality. This philosophical essay briefly presents his views.
• Fox, Michael Allen. “The Moral Community.” Ethics in Practice. LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. This essay defends animal experimentation.
• Frey, R.G. “Animals and Their Medical Use.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005 In this essay Frey puts forth a view where animals do matter, but human welfare is considered more important.
• Regan, Tom. “Empty Cages: Animals Rights and Vivisection.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. This essay supports animal rights.
• “Ethics and Alternatives”. Research Animal Resources. University of Minnesota. 2003. Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching . A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals.

– Adam Hepworth, 11-26-08

© 2020 HOPES Stanford University

HOPES is a team of faculty and undergraduate students at Stanford University dedicated to making scientific information about Huntington’s disease (HD) more readily accessible to the public. Our goal is to survey the rapidly growing scientific literature on HD and to present this information in a web source.

We emphasize that we are neither medical professionals, nor are we affiliated with the researchers and laboratories mentioned on our pages. The information we present is intended for educational purposes only and should not be construed as offering diagnoses or recommendations. We operate as a not-for-profit public service organization, and our funding is entirely from private sources.

Ethical Issues in Animal Research

• First Online: 16 November 2022

Cite this chapter

• Gerard Marshall Raj 4 &
• Rekha Priyadarshini 4  

1057 Accesses

1 Citations

Contribution of animals in biomedical research—though in varied proportions—is indispensable. Both the cases for and against the use of laboratory animals are equally debatable. Apart from fundamental biological research, animals were extensively utilized in drug toxicity testings including non-pharmaceutical chemical safety assessments and also in biomedical teaching and training. However, with the growing understanding of animal experimentations and animal ethics—particularly with greater application of the 3R principles—nowadays, the experimental procedures involving animals warrant even more judicious perusal. Whenever feasible, the principle of replacement (absolute or relative) is given prime importance and engagement of appropriate alternatives to animal experiments (non-animal testing methods) is highly recommended. Reduction and refinement (and rehabilitation , the 4th R) are secondary principles of humane animal experimentations. This Chapter includes discussion on the principles of animal ethics, the evolution of ethical issues in animal experiments, the 3R approach including the alternatives to animal experiments, the present status of animal experimentations, and the various guidelines related to animal research.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Akbarsha MA, Pereira S. Mahatma gandhi-doerenkamp center for alternatives to use of animals in life science education. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):108–10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.72353 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Akbarsha MA, Zeeshan M, Pereira S. Alternatives discussed at Indian science congress. ALTEX. 2012;29(2):216–8. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.2.216 .

Badyal DK, Desai C. Animal use in pharmacology education and research: the changing scenario. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014;46(3):257–65. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.132153 .

Caloni F, De Angelis I, Hartung T. Replacement of animal testing by integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA): a call for in vivitrosi. Arch Toxicol. 2022. Epub ahead of print. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03299-x .

Cheluvappa R, Scowen P, Eri R. Ethics of animal research in human disease remediation, its institutional teaching; and alternatives to animal experimentation. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2017 Aug;5(4):e00332. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.332 .

CPCSE. Compendium of CPCSEA, 2018. Available from: http://cpcsea.nic.in

Google Scholar  

CPCSEA. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for IAEC, 2010 [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 May 6]. Available from: http://cpcsea.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/SOP_CPCSEA_inner_page.pdf.

Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharm J. 2015 Jul;23(3):223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002 .

Festing S, Wilkinson R. The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007 Jun;8(6):526–30. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400993. PMID: 17545991; PMCID: PMC2002542.

Hubrecht RC, Carter E. The 3Rs and humane experimental technique: implementing change. Animals (Basel). 2019 Sep 30;9(10):754. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100754 .

ICCVAM (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods). A Strategic Roadmap for Establishing New Approaches to Evaluate the Safety of Chemicals and Medical Products in the United States [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 April 17]. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.22427/NTP-ICCVAM-ROADMAP2018.

INSA. Man, Animal and Science, 2011. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 May 6]. Available from: https://www.insaindia.res.in/pdf/FINAL_DOCUMENT_ON_MAN_ANIMAL_SCIENCE.pdf.

Knight A. 127 million non-human vertebrates used worldwide for scientific purposes in 2005. Altern Lab Anim. 2008;36(5):494–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Knight J, Rovida C, Kreiling R, Zhu C, Knudsen M, Hartung T. Continuing animal tests on cosmetic ingredients for REACH in the EU. ALTEX. 2021;38(4):653–68. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2104221 .

Kojima H, Seidle T, Spielmann H. Alternatives to animal testing. Proceedings of Asian Congress. 2016. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-13-2447-5.

Liebsch M, Grune B, Seiler A, Butzke D, Oelgeschläger M, Pirow R, Adler S, Riebeling C, Luch A. Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future perspectives. Arch Toxicol. 2011 Aug;85(8):841–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x .

National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals: Eighth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 May 11]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/12910.

NMC. Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 March 21]. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.in/ActivitiWebClient/open/getDocument?path=/Documents/Public/Portal/NmcGazette/Medical%20College%20MSR%20regulations%202020.pdf.

Pereira S, Tettamanti M. Ahimsa and alternatives: the concept of the 4th R. The CPCSEA in India. ALTEX. 2005;22(1):3–6.

Pereira S, Veeraraghavan P, Ghosh S, Gandhi M. Animal experimentation and ethics in India: the CPCSEA makes a difference. Altern Lab Anim. 2004 Jun;32(Suppl 1B):411–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403201s67 .

Sakuratani Y, Horie M, Leinala E. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment: OECD activities on the development and use of adverse outcome pathways and case studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018 Sep;123(Suppl 5):20–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12955 .

Smith AJ, Hawkins P. Good science, good sense and good sensibilities: the three Ss of Carol Newton. Animals (Basel). 2016;6(11):70. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110070 .

Stephens ML. Personal reflections on Russell and Burch, FRAME, and the HSUS. Altern Lab Anim. 2009 Dec;37(Suppl 2):29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290903702S21 .

Tannenbaum J, Bennett BT. Russell and Burch's 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015 Mar;54(2):120–32.

The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research, 2018 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/science-and-technology/ethical-guidelines-for-the-use-of-animals-in-research/.

UGC. Guidelines for discontinuation of dissection and animal· experimentation in Zoology/ Life Sciences in a phased manner [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6686154_guideline.pdf.

UGC. Dissection and animal experimentation in zoology /life sciences and allied disciplines in undergraduate, postgraduate and research programmes [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 March 20]. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/6819407_ugcletterzoology.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Gerard Marshall Raj & Rekha Priyadarshini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard Marshall Raj .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Pharmacology, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India

Mageshwaran Lakshmanan

Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, Pondicherry, India

Deepak Gopal Shewade

Gerard Marshall Raj

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Raj, G.M., Priyadarshini, R. (2022). Ethical Issues in Animal Research. In: Lakshmanan, M., Shewade, D.G., Raj, G.M. (eds) Introduction to Basics of Pharmacology and Toxicology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5343-9_49

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5343-9_49

Published : 16 November 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5342-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5343-9

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What Do We Owe Lab Animals?

The standard ethical guidelines encourage minimizing the use of, and harm to, animals used in research. Some experts propose an additional courtesy: repayment.

By Brandon Keim

When Lauren Strohacker received her second Covid-19 vaccine dose in the spring of 2021, she rejoiced. It meant she could see her friends again, go to concerts and live with far less fear that an infection might leave her physically or financially devastated.

But it became a bittersweet memory. Not long after Ms. Strohacker, an artist based in Knox County, Tenn., returned home from the vaccination site, she read an article about monkeys used in testing Covid vaccines.

“I thought, I’m afraid of a stupid needle,” she said. “And these animals have to deal with this all the time.” She reflected on how her newfound freedom, and quite possibly her health, came at the expense of animals suffering or dying to develop the vaccines.

Merely being grateful for those animals seemed insufficient; Ms. Strohacker wanted to give something tangible in return. A little online research returned the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s sanctuary fund, which supports the care of retired lab animals. She made a small donation. “To give thanks was the very least I could do,” Ms. Strohacker said.

Her gesture embodies a voice that is not often heard in debates about the use of animals in biomedical research. These tend to be polarized between opponents of the research , who claim that it is unethical and the benefits are overstated, and proponents who argue that the benefits are enormous and justify the harms to animals.

The advancement of animal-free methods for developing drugs and testing product safety does raise the possibility that, at least in some cases, the use of animals can be avoided. But it will take years for that to happen, and few researchers think the use of animals will cease altogether. So long as animals are used, then, the question remains: What do people owe them? 

“The typical consideration is that if I plan the research well, have an important idea and respect the animals by housing them as carefully as I can and so on, then I’ve done my job in terms of the relationship,” said John Gluck, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico whose growing discomfort with his use of monkeys led him to become a bioethicist. “I think that is just poverty-stricken.”

Scientists often point to the so-called Three Rs , a set of principles first articulated in 1959 by William Russell, a sociologist, and Rex Burch, a microbiologist, to guide experimental research on animals. Researchers are encouraged to replace animals when alternatives are available, reduce the number of animals used and refine their use so as to minimize the infliction of pain and suffering.

These are unquestionably noble aims, ethicists note, but may seem insufficient when compared with the benefits derived from animals. Covid vaccines, for example, which were tested on mice and monkeys, and developed so quickly thanks to decades of animal-based work on mRNA vaccine technology, saved an estimated 20 million lives in their first year of use and earned tens of billions of dollars in revenues .

In light of that dynamic — which applies not only to Covid vaccines, but to many other human lifesaving, fortune-generating therapeutics — some wonder if a fourth R might be warranted: repayment.

Inklings of the idea of repayment can already be found in the research community, most visibly in laboratories that make arrangements for animals — primarily monkeys and other nonhuman primates — to be retired to sanctuaries . In the case of dogs and companion species, including rats , they are sometimes adopted as pets.

“It’s kind of karma,” said Laura Conour, the executive director of Laboratory Animal Resources at Princeton University, which has a retirement arrangement with the Peaceable Primate Sanctuary . “I feel like it balances it out a little bit.” The school has also adopted out guinea pigs, anole lizards and sugar gliders as pets to private citizens, and tries to help with their veterinary care.

Adoption is not an option for animals destined to be killed, however, which raises the question of how the debt can be repaid. Lesley Sharp, a medical anthropologist at Barnard College and author of “Animal Ethos: The Morality of Human-Animal Encounters in Experimental Lab Science,” noted that research labs sometimes create memorials for animals: commemorative plaques, bulletin boards with pictures and poems and informal gatherings in remembrance.

“There is this burden the animal has to carry for humans in the context of science,” Dr. Sharp said. “They require, I think, respect, and to be recognized and honored and mourned.”

She acknowledged that honoring sacrificed animals was not quite the same as giving something back to them. To imagine what that might entail, Dr. Sharp pointed to the practice of donating one’s organs after death. Transplant recipients often want to give something in return, “but the donor is dead,” Dr. Sharp said. “Then you need somebody who is a sort of proxy for them, and that proxy is the close surviving kin.”

If someone receives a cornea  or a heart from a pig — or funding to study those procedures — then they might pay for the care of another pig at a farmed animal sanctuary, Dr. Sharp proposed: “You’re going to have animals who stand in for the whole.”

A variation of that principle can be seen in children’s participation in possibly risky research, said Rebecca Walker, a bioethicist at the University of North Carolina. An ill child enrolled in a clinical trial for a still-unapproved drug may receive no personal benefit, but this is considered ethically acceptable because the research will benefit a larger community of children living with that condition.

“You’re contributing to the group, even if you’re not contributing to the individual,” Dr. Walker said. “That can be really relevant to the animal case.” For example, research on captive axolotls, a critically-endangered species of salamander, has yielded insights into breast cancer, spina bifida and tissue regeneration; in return, people might support efforts to help wild axolotls now struggling to survive in polluted canals in Mexico City.

For Lisa Genzel, a neuroscientist at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and Judith Homberg, her collaborator at the institution’s medical school, compensating research animals is best accomplished by giving those animals a far better life than the regulations require. “We try to give back to the individual animal,” Dr. Genzel said.

That means contemplating their lives and what matters to them, she said. Dr. Genzel and Dr. Homberg said they no longer use food restriction to motivate their rats to solve mazes. They also make sure the rats can socialize not only with one another but with humans, who play with them daily.

They would like to house their rats in larger, more naturalistic enclosures, or at least cages large enough to stand up in, but “it’s not an easy thing,” Dr. Genzel said. “First we have to get the financing. We don’t have the money.” The cost of replacing the cages in a single facility can quickly run to tens of thousands of euros — and that’s without considering the price of new cage-cleaning machines.

Giving something back to research animals would entail a cost. Some experts offered that a portion of drug revenues or research grants could be earmarked for this purpose.

“I’m surprised it hasn’t been done already,” said Prem Premsrirut, chief executive of Mirimus, a company that develops animal models for testing new therapeutics. “I think that for anything we do in science, we have to give to those who sacrifice, regardless of whether it’s human beings or animals.”

For many critics of animal research, this would still not go far enough. “What we really owe the animals is to legitimately replace their use,” said Aysha Akhtar, a neurologist and former medical officer with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration who co-founded the Center for Contemporary Sciences , which supports the development of animal-free, human-relevant medical research methods.

Dr. Akhtar has called for increased funding for such methods. Revenue and grant earmarks might be devoted to this aim as well. “If I could make some part of my lab associated with the development of alternatives — to me, that’s how I could really give back,” Dr. Gluck said.

As for Ms. Strohacker, she has received her Covid vaccine boosters and is thinking of making another donation, this time in gratitude for the animals involved in testing her birth control drugs.

“We’ve been conditioned not to think about the animals who are sacrificed for our health,” Ms. Strohacker said. “I don’t think the world is so pure that we’ll ever do no harm, but we could maybe be more thankful materially for the harm that we do.”

Explore the Animal Kingdom

A selection of quirky, intriguing and surprising discoveries about animal life..

To protect Australia’s iconic animals, scientists are experimenting with vaccine implants , probiotics, tree-planting drones and solar-powered tracking tags.

When traditional conservation fails, science is using “assisted evolution” to give vulnerable wildlife a chance , while posing the question whether we should change species to save them?

Two periodical cicada broods are appearing in a 16-state area in the Midwest and Southeast for the first time in centuries. Can you get rid of them? Do they bite? We answer your questions .

Aside from chimps and humans, researchers have found clear evidence of menopause in only five species — all of them whales. A new study looks at the possible causes for it .

Scientists never imagined that the blind cave salamanders called olms willingly left their caves. Then, they discovered several at aboveground springs in northern Italy .

According to a common narrative that male mammals tend to be larger than female ones. A new study paints a more complex picture .

Virtue Ethics and Laboratory Animal Research

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
• PMID: 32717051
• DOI: 10.1093/ilar/ilaa015

This article appeals to virtue ethics to help guide laboratory animal research by considering the role of character and flourishing in these practices. Philosophical approaches to animal research ethics have typically focused on animal rights or on the promotion of welfare for all affected, while animal research itself has been guided in its practice by the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement). These different approaches have sometimes led to an impasse in debates over animal research where the philosophical approaches are focused on whether or when animal studies are justifiable, while the 3Rs assume a general justification for animal work but aim to reduce harm to sentient animals and increase their welfare in laboratory spaces. Missing in this exchange is a moral framework that neither assumes nor rejects the justifiability of animal research and focuses instead on the habits and structures of that work. I shall propose a place for virtue ethics in laboratory animal research by considering examples of relevant character traits, the moral significance of human-animal bonds, mentorship in the laboratory, and the importance of animals flourishing beyond mere welfare.

Keywords: animal welfare; human-animal bonds; laboratory mentorship; practical wisdom; translational science; virtue ethics.

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].

• Animal Experimentation*
• Animal Welfare
• Animals, Laboratory
• Laboratories

Research using animals: an overview

Around half the diseases in the world have no treatment. Understanding how the body works and how diseases progress, and finding cures, vaccines or treatments, can take many years of painstaking work using a wide range of research techniques. There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress.

Animal research in the UK is strictly regulated. For more details on the regulations governing research using animals, go to the UK regulations page .

Why is animal research necessary?

There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some animals are still needed in order to make medical progress.

Where animals are used in research projects, they are used as part of a range of scientific techniques. These might include human trials, computer modelling, cell culture, statistical techniques, and others. Animals are only used for parts of research where no other techniques can deliver the answer.

A living body is an extraordinarily complex system. You cannot reproduce a beating heart in a test tube or a stroke on a computer. While we know a lot about how a living body works, there is an enormous amount we simply don’t know: the interaction between all the different parts of a living system, from molecules to cells to systems like respiration and circulation, is incredibly complex. Even if we knew how every element worked and interacted with every other element, which we are a long way from understanding, a computer hasn’t been invented that has the power to reproduce all of those complex interactions - while clearly you cannot reproduce them all in a test tube.

While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse (like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup) that you could not control in human subjects.

Is it morally right to use animals for research?

Most people believe that in order to achieve medical progress that will save and improve lives, perhaps millions of lives, limited and very strictly regulated animal use is justified. That belief is reflected in the law, which allows for animal research only under specific circumstances, and which sets out strict regulations on the use and care of animals. It is right that this continues to be something society discusses and debates, but there has to be an understanding that without animals we can only make very limited progress against diseases like cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and HIV.

It’s worth noting that animal research benefits animals too: more than half the drugs used by vets were developed originally for human medicine. 

Aren’t animals too different from humans to tell us anything useful?

No. Just by being very complex living, moving organisms they share a huge amount of similarities with humans. Humans and other animals have much more in common than they have differences. Mice share over 90% of their genes with humans. A mouse has the same organs as a human, in the same places, doing the same things. Most of their basic chemistry, cell structure and bodily organisation are the same as ours. Fish and tadpoles share enough characteristics with humans to make them very useful in research. Even flies and worms are used in research extensively and have led to research breakthroughs (though these species are not regulated by the Home Office and are not in the Biomedical Sciences Building).

What does research using animals actually involve?

The sorts of procedures research animals undergo vary, depending on the research. Breeding a genetically modified mouse counts as a procedure and this represents a large proportion of all procedures carried out. So does having an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan, something which is painless and which humans undergo for health checks. In some circumstances, being trained to go through a maze or being trained at a computer game also counts as a procedure. Taking blood or receiving medication are minor procedures that many species of animal can be trained to do voluntarily for a food reward. Surgery accounts for only a small minority of procedures. All of these are examples of procedures that go on in Oxford's Biomedical Sciences Building. 

How many animals are used?

Figures for 2023 show numbers of animals that completed procedures, as declared to the Home Office using their five categories for the severity of the procedure.

# NHPs - Non Human Primates

Oxford also maintains breeding colonies to provide animals for use in experiments, reducing the need for unnecessary transportation of animals.

Figures for 2017 show numbers of animals bred for procedures that were killed or died without being used in procedures:

Why must primates be used?

Primates account for under half of one per cent (0.5%) of all animals housed in the Biomedical Sciences Building. They are only used where no other species can deliver the research answer, and we continually seek ways to replace primates with lower orders of animal, to reduce numbers used, and to refine their housing conditions and research procedures to maximise welfare.

However, there are elements of research that can only be carried out using primates because their brains are closer to human brains than mice or rats. They are used at Oxford in vital research into brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Some are used in studies to develop vaccines for HIV and other major infections.

What is done to primates?

The primates at Oxford spend most of their time in their housing. They are housed in groups with access to play areas where they can groom, forage for food, climb and swing.

Primates at Oxford involved in neuroscience studies would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work. This is sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. No suffering is involved and indeed many of the primates appear to find the games stimulating. They come into the transport cage that takes them to the computer room entirely voluntarily.

After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery to remove a very small amount of brain tissue under anaesthetic. A full course of painkillers is given under veterinary guidance in the same way as any human surgical procedure, and the animals are up and about again within hours, and back with their group within a day. The brain damage is minor and unnoticeable in normal behaviour: the animal interacts normally with its group and exhibits the usual natural behaviours. In order to find out about how a disease affects the brain it is not necessary to induce the equivalent of full-blown disease. Indeed, the more specific and minor the brain area affected, the more focussed and valuable the research findings are.

The primate goes back to behavioural testing with the computers and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed games, are monitored.

At the end of its life the animal is humanely killed and its brain is studied and compared directly with the brains of deceased human patients. 

Primates at Oxford involved in vaccine studies would simply have a vaccination and then have monthly blood samples taken.

How many primates does Oxford hold?

* From 2014 the Home Office changed the way in which animals/ procedures were counted. Figures up to and including 2013 were recorded when procedures began. Figures from 2014 are recorded when procedures end.

What’s the difference between ‘total held’ and ‘on procedure’?

Primates (macaques) at Oxford would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work, sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. This is non-invasive and done voluntarily for food rewards and does not count as a procedure. After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery under anaesthetic to remove a very small amount of brain tissue. The primate quickly returns to behavioural testing with the computers, and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed puzzles, are monitored. A primate which has had this surgery is counted as ‘on procedure’. Both stages are essential for research into understanding brain function which is necessary to develop treatments for conditions including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and schizophrenia.

Why has the overall number held gone down?

Numbers vary year on year depending on the research that is currently undertaken. In general, the University is committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research.

You say primates account for under 0.5% of animals, so that means you have at least 16,000 animals in the Biomedical Sciences Building in total - is that right?

Numbers change daily so we cannot give a fixed figure, but it is in that order.

Aren’t there alternative research methods?

There are very many non-animal research methods, all of which are used at the University of Oxford and many of which were pioneered here. These include research using humans; computer models and simulations; cell cultures and other in vitro work; statistical modelling; and large-scale epidemiology. Every research project which uses animals will also use other research methods in addition. Wherever possible non-animal research methods are used. For many projects, of course, this will mean no animals are needed at all. For others, there will be an element of the research which is essential for medical progress and for which there is no alternative means of getting the relevant information.

How have humans benefited from research using animals?

As the Department of Health states, research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century.

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. It has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections (which were developed in Oxford laboratories), vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses, and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities.

Life expectancy in this country has increased, on average, by almost three months for every year of the past century. Within the living memory of many people diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, leukaemia and diphtheria killed or crippled thousands every year. But now, doctors are able to prevent or treat many more diseases or carry out life-saving operations - all thanks to research which at some stage involved animals.

Each year, millions of people in the UK benefit from treatments that have been developed and tested on animals. Animals have been used for the development of blood transfusions, insulin for diabetes, anaesthetics, anticoagulants, antibiotics, heart and lung machines for open heart surgery, hip replacement surgery, transplantation, high blood pressure medication, replacement heart valves, chemotherapy for leukaemia and life support systems for premature babies. More than 50 million prescriptions are written annually for antibiotics. 

We may have used animals in the past to develop medical treatments, but are they really needed in the 21st century?

Yes. While we are committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research as new techniques make it possible to reduce the number of animals needed, there is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress. It only forms one element of a whole research programme which will use a range of other techniques to find out whatever possible without animals. Animals would be used for a specific element of the research that cannot be conducted in any alternative way.

How will humans benefit in future?

The development of drugs and medical technologies that help to reduce suffering among humans and animals depends on the carefully regulated use of animals for research. In the 21st century scientists are continuing to work on treatments for cancer, stroke, heart disease, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s, and very many more diseases that cause suffering and death. Genetically modified mice play a crucial role in future medical progress as understanding of how genes are involved in illness is constantly increasing. 

Why caring for laboratory animals is a rewarding career

Posted: by Mia Rozenbaum on 24/03/21

More on these Topics:

Loving animals and working in an animal research facility is not paradoxical. We talked to John, a senior animal care technician at Newcastle University , about what it is like to be a lab technician working with animals. He stands by the idea that good animal technicians are those that love animals and want to care for them, otherwise they aren’t doing their job.

At 19, John had just finished college and was eager to work with animals:

“I became an animal tech for the simple reason that I wanted to work with animals . I’ve always had an affinity with animals, probably more than with people. I think it’s good for the soul to be around them so I wanted to find a job where I cared for them and was in contact with them .”

John was very rapidly drawn to becoming an animal technician in a research facility. For him, loving animals and working in a research facility where experiments on animals are conducted is not a contradiction, on the contrary.

“ We have to do tests on animals by law. It is going to happen whether I’m here or not. I think it is better the job is done by someone like me, that loves and cares for the animals and makes sure they have the best life, rather than someone who isn’t that bothered .”

“ People think that to do animal testing, you’ve got to be cruel to animals. But on the contrary, you’ve got to love them. That’s the precursor, everything else is secondary. In fact, 99.9% of techs I know are absolute animal lovers and have animals at home. I know colleagues that own chickens, goats and even lizards .”

“ Of course, it’s not always easy . There are some difficult times and you can sometimes get upset. But at the end of the day, I remember that I am here for the animals and it is worth it. That’s why I get up in the morning. I mean, I get paid to play with and care for animals. We treat them like pets. It’s the best, I love my job.”

Working as an animal technician you also get a chance to be part of something bigger than you, according to John:

“ We are also a part of the science and it can be mind blowing. It feels like what you’re doing is worth something. This can also be quite stressful because the animals have a scientific purpose and are part of someone’s life work. There is no room for error. But at Newcastle, the relationship between the techs and the scientists is just amazing. It’s mutual trust. It’s a fantastic working relationship. The scientists listen to the techs and their advice in terms of animal welfare and replacement, reduction or refinement strategies.”

Animal technicians receive special training regarding the implementation of the 3Rs – the ethical framework designed to protect animal welfare.

“ It’s engrained in every technician. The ethics of animal research, why we use the animals and how we can reduce the numbers, better care for them and make sure they don’t suffer are a big part of our training .”

The whole day of an animal technician in a research facility is focused around the wellbeing of the animals.

“ It is on our mind first thing in the morning and last thing in the evening. We start and end our day by checking for food and water, making sure every animal is well and in good conditions. We take pictures of the animals to prove that everything is in order. The afternoon is often dedicated to dealing with researcher requests. We do things like genotyping, injections or even assisting surgical procedures, and of course paperwork .”

For John, this work is beyond rewarding:

 “ The work is fascinating and there’s great scope to progress and get involved in the science. Anybody who’s thought about getting into the industry should give it a chance .”

Last edited: 24 May 2023 10:28

Back to News

Related articles

Animal Technicians

A career devoted to caring for lab animals

What does Will Young have to do with animal testing?

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Get the latest articles and news from Understanding Animal Research in your email inbox every month. For more information, please see our  privacy policy .

Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research Essay

Introduction, laboratory rodents, 3r’s concept, neurosis studies, current methodologies, works cited.

One of the most common forms of pathology of the nervous system is neuroses. The term neurosis is used to refer to functional disorders of the nervous system. Neuroses are associated with “diseases of civilization” and associate their widespread prevalence with the growing urbanization of the population, information overloads, reducing the impact on human life, affecting both social factors and psycho-traumatic factors. It must be emphasized that the experiments cannot be carried out with the use of mice if there are other replacement methods for obtaining relevant results. It is ethically correct to strive to improve the conditions of experimental animals in a vivarium.

The neurosis studies were chosen due to the fact that they mainly use rodent model organisms, such as mice due to their mammalian feature. In addition, the symptoms of neurosis are highly similar to human ones, thus, laboratory rodents serve as an outstanding template for laboratory studies (Varela et al. 17). Neurosis is among the most prevalent diseases of the nervous systems, where pathological features are present across all mammals (Castellano et al. 491).

In addition, the mice and rats possess short life spans and gestational periods compared to other mammalians. Their larger litter size is another key advantage of conducting experiments in the mice (Castellano et al. 490). Thus, rodents serve as a highly useful model organism due to their genealogical closeness to humans and shorter life spans.

The concept of 3R’s is an essential idea, which helps to significantly increase the productivity of the experimental procedures. The principle of reduction is aimed at reducing the number of animals involved in the experiment. It is possible with a careful preliminary study of the “design” of the research, including taking into account the preliminary results of in vitro experiments and computer modeling. The refinement principle possesses an optimal minimum required for a specific study of animals is established by statistical analysis (Konger et al. 687). Thus, the variability of individuals within a species as a basic problem of a biological experiment can be solved by using genetically identical animals.

The principle of replacement involves conducting an experiment using scientific technology without using animals in all possible cases. For example, insulin testing can be carried out not by a biological method on animals, but by laboratory chromatographic analysis. Complete replacement of animals in the experiment is unlikely, so the idea of developing alternative models is bioethically attractive. Therefore, reduction, refinement, and replacement allow to easily navigate and structure the research data and its variables, which make a significant impact on the accuracy and precision of the experimental studies in neurosis (Konger et al. 690). In addition, the study flow becomes more fast-paced due to the orderliness of the research tasks.

Neurosis studies in mice determine the key underlying changes occurring in the body. Epidemiological studies of neurosis are due not only to the great medical but also to the socio-economic significance of this problem: the incidence of the symptom is the central part. Therefore, the development and preclinical evaluation of the effectiveness of new anti-neurotic agents (Leung et al. 2). Pathogenetic aspects of the formation of experimental neuroses.

The clinical picture of almost all forms of neuronal sepsis includes sleep disorders, emotional state, and autonomic-visceral, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal disorders. Recently, indications of an essential role in the pathogenesis of neuroses in the structural limbic-reticular complex, with which the main symptoms of the disease are associated, are becoming increasingly common. These changes resemble human neurosis symptoms due to the mammalian resemblance.

In addition, the study should follow the rules in order to avoid violations of conditioned-reflex activity after neurotic effects observed in all laboratory mice. The given model organism was used as a template for neurosis studies because both humans and rodents are mammals. They are expressed in different ways: in the form of an increase in the number of latent periods and disturbances of power relations, and decreases or loss of conditioned reflexes. These changes in the state of the autonomic and reflex nervous activity are not only a manifestation of the incipient disease but the most likely mobilization of the body’s defenses (Kim et al. 4).

When neurotic disorders are caused by prolonged stress, depletion of catecholamine systems occurs, which can lead to a decrease in the rate of metabolic processes. The deep phases of sleep are an increase in the number of awakenings, defectiveness, and functional inferiority. Neurotransmitter, vascular, and glioneuronal disorders were identified, indicating the development of hypoxia and a decrease in the rate of local cerebral blood flow. The given symptoms can indicate the opportunities for targeted medical aid among humans.

At present, the following methodological approaches to the modeling of neurosis-like states in laboratory mice are encountered in research practice: limiting the reflex, changing the daily light rhythm and sleep rhythms, and asthenia of the nervous system. An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various methodological approaches to experimental neuroticization of laboratory animals showed intricate results (Varela et al. 19).

In the absence of additional special requirements, a path to the conflict of afferent excitations and the formation of desynchronizes in laboratory mice can be considered adequate to the tasks of psychopharmacological studies. Thus, it is important to determine the methodological approaches in mice-based experiments.

It should also be noted that in the literature there is no single view on the information content of various methods for assessing the state of mice in the process of neuroticism, as well as the criteria for the formation of neurosis. The state of neuronal sepsis is usually judged on the basis of qualitative signs, while quantitative assessments of its severity are either absent altogether, or affect only individual symptoms, but not their totality. Nor are quantitative data on the effect of such factors as seasonality, sex, and age of laboratory mice that are significant for the state of rodents on the efficiency of neurosis formation (Kim et al. 3).

The study showed that experimental neurosis in laboratory animals (white mice) could be obtained with chronic stress effects, forming a conflict of afferent excitations. An effective model of neurotic states in animals can be considered a model in which, for at least four weeks, animals are exposed to complex stress effects, combining alternating light, sound, and electrodermal afferent irritations. The functional state of the animals that are formed reflects both the stress response and the adaptation to chronic stress.

In conclusion, it was demonstrated that for the formation of experimental neurosis in rats, the spring-summer period is more optimal. The concept 3R’s is also relevant for the conductance of the research. In the autumn-winter period, animals experience differences in the phase of the neurotic process and its severity, which complicates the process of biomodelling. The shown biomedical model of experimental neurosis can be used in the development and preclinical studies of the effectiveness of new anti-neurotic drugs. Various methodological approaches identify the key symptomatic features of human neurosis.

Castellano, Joseph M., et al. “Human umbilical cord plasma proteins revitalize hippocampal function in aged mice”. Nature, vol. 544, no. 7651, 2017, pp. 488-492.

Kim, Won H., et al. “BACE1 elevation engendered by GGA3 deletion increases β amyloid pathology in association with APP elevation and decreased CHL1 processing in 5XFAD mice”. Molecular neurodegeneration, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-5.

Konger, Raymond L., et al. “Comparison of the acute ultraviolet photoresponse in congenic albino hairless C57BL/6J mice relative to outbred SKH1 hairless mice”. Experimental dermatology, vol. 25, no. 9, 2016, pp. 688-693.

Leung, Jacqueline M., et al. “Rapid environmental effects on gut nematode susceptibility in rewilded mice”. PLoS biology, vol. 16, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1-3.

Varela, Elisa et al. “Generation of mice with longer and better preserved telomeres in the absence of genetic manipulations”. Nature communications, vol. 7, no. 11739, 2016, pp. 3-21.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 3). Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/

"Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." IvyPanda , 3 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research'. 3 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

1. IvyPanda . "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Laboratory Animals in Neurosis Research." June 3, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/laboratory-animals-in-neurosis-research/.

• Freud’s Anxiety Neurosis - Psychology
• Schizophrenia & Neurosis and Lifespan Development
• Experimental Neurosis: Shenger-Krestovnikova Experiment and Pavlov's Theory
• Women in Psychology: Karen Horney
• Analysis of Ego Depending On the Case of Rat Man
• Sigmund Freud and His Major Psychological Works
• Environmental Health in the Workplace
• "Black Swan" by Darren Aronofsky: Film Analysis
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Joseph Wolpe Treatment Theory
• Music Therapy as Experiential Activity
• Human Inheritance and Disorders Prevention
• Managed Care Tools for Patient Relationships
• Stem Cell Therapies Evaluation
• Female Smokers Study: Inferential Statistics Article
• Risperidone in Children With Autism: ANOVA Article

EssayEmpire

Lab animals essay.

This Lab Animals Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

I n vertebrate a nd ver tebrate animals are vivisected for a wide range of laboratory research, testing, and teaching purposes. Vertebrates, however, serve as the primary experimental lab subjects for toxicity testing, as well as for pure and applied research by universities, corporate pharmaceutical testing labs, governmental health agencies, and the military. The number of vertebrates used annually as laboratory animals is estimated at approximately 100 million. Mice and rats are the most frequently used lab animals, but any animal may be bred, captured from the wild, or procured from pounds and specialized dealers for use in experimentation. While most lab animals are purposely bred, previously many wild animals were used in laboratories and this resulted in the depopulation of some species. For instance, population estimates for Indian rhesus macaques neared 10 million monkeys in the 1930s but, after a vivisection trade erupted for the animal due to its use in producing a polio vaccine and other experiments, their number was reduced to fewer than 200,000 by the late 1970s and India was forced to enact conservationist protections.

Vivisection of nonhuman animals has a long history dating back to early Greek manuscripts from the 5th century B.C.E. The Roman physician Galen first conducted experiments on dogs, monkeys, and pigs during the 2nd century C.E., utilizing vivisection to test biomedical hypotheses and study biological anatomical structures. Experimental surgery on animals in the context of modern science dates back to the work of Vesalius in the 17th century, but it was not until the 19th century that modern lab experimentation on animals became truly systematic and widespread through the work of scientists such as Claude Bernard, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Koch. Bernard, who is regarded as the founder of modern experimental medicine, held that laboratory experimentation on animals was essential for biomedical advances and he disparaged clinically based studies made by practicing physicians. By the late 1800s, scientists such as Pasteur and Koch made highly popularized advances in immunology and microbiology based on their own lab animal studies.

Anesthetics for animal experimentations were unknown until well into the 1800s and are not always used on animals even today. As a result, vivisected animals have often suffered greatly from experiments and therefore there has always been controversy surrounding the practice. During the19th century, a strong anti-vivisection movement arose alongside animal research and its legacy currently lives on in animal welfare and rights organizations, humane societies, and more radical animal liberation groups. Largely because of their political action, laws governing the code and conduct of animal research now exist, but activists continue to argue that they are frequently not enforced and need to be broadened.

Alternatives to animal tests such as in vitro testing of cell and tissue cultures, epidemiology, and computer modeling exist; but many researchers insist that while they are useful, lab animal studies are also required to effectively monitor the thousands of drugs and tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals now on the market.

Researchers are promoting new forms of animal experimentation such as genetic modification of animals and xenotransplantation as necessary for achieving a new age of scientific breakthroughs. Many fear that these experiments unethically threaten society and the environment and should be regulated as a precaution. Yet, some genetic experiments on animals could result in improved animal and environmental welfare. For instance, Australian scientists have attempted to produce genetically modified sheep that would be resistant to flies and parasites. If successful, the inhumane act of mulesing sheep-surgically removing strips of skin from near the tail-and the heavy use of pesticides by the sheep industry would become unnecessary in the future. Therefore, while alternatives to laboratory animal science exist and should be increasingly utilized, some forms of lab animal experimentation could lead to environmental and societal improvements.

Bibliography:

• Pietro Croce, V ivisection or Science?: An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health (Zed Books, 2000);
• Anita Guerrini, Experi menting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003);
• Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science: Dilem mas of Animal Experimentation (Routledge, 1996).
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Topics
• Essay Examples

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Special offer!

GET 10% OFF WITH  24START  DISCOUNT CODE

Related posts.

Divers with gloved hands gently nestled the first self-bred corals from the World Coral Conservatory project amongst their cousins in Europe’s largest coral reef at the Burgers’ Zoo in Arnhem, eastern Netherlands, Monday, April 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

A fish swims in a coral reef as divers with gloved hands gently nestled the first self-bred corals from the World Coral Conservatory project amongst their cousins in Europe’s largest coral reef at the Burgers’ Zoo in Arnhem, eastern Netherlands, Monday, April 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

• Copy Link copied

ARNHEM, Netherlands (AP) — Just like the animals on Noah’s Ark, the corals arrived in a pair.

On Monday, divers with gloved hands gently nestled the self-bred corals from the World Coral Conservatory project among their cousins in Europe’s largest coral reef at the Burgers’ Zoo in the Netherlands.

“This is the first project where we started to keep these corals with a known origin. As we know exactly where they’re coming from, they have the potential to be placed back into the wild. … So it is very important to keep these corals, as it’s going not very well in the wild,” Nienke Klerks, a biologist at the Royal Burgers’ Zoo in Arnhem, told The Associated Press.

It’s among several projects worldwide seeking to address the decline of coral reef populations, which are suffering from bleaching caused by rising sea temperatures . Corals are central to marine ecosystems, and while these projects won’t stem the tide of damage from human-caused climate change , they are seen as part of broader solutions.

The World Coral Conservatory hopes to create a bank of corals in aquariums across Europe that could be used to repopulate wild coral reefs if they succumb to the stress of climate change or pollution.

Along with two zoos in France and the originator of the project — the Monaco Scientific Center — the zoo in the east of the Netherlands took in more than a dozen coral fragments from off the coast of Seychelles in east Africa.

The Dutch zoo has been propagating the corals since 2022, allowing them to grow in a highly regulated environment before they were large enough to join the rest of the reef.

“We test it behind the scenes … what works for these corals. In that way, we know where to place them and how to keep them,” zookeeper Pascal Kik said.

Each diver held up a coral — one that resembled a large mushroom, the other a decorative cookie — to be photographed by reporters before placing them on a ledge near the center of the 8-million-liter (2.1-million-gallon) tank.

Few of the other corals at the zoo come from the wild. They are either shared by other zoos or turned over by Dutch customs officers after being confiscated. Coral poaching is a major threat to coral reefs in parts of Asia.

That would make it difficult to return the corals to the wild. But the team knows exactly where their 14 corals came from, making it more likely they could be successfully reintroduced if needed.

Corals area keystone marine species, according to Mark Eakin, executive secretary for the International Coral Reef Society. Eakin, retired coral monitoring chief at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says that around 25% of marine animals spend some part of their lives dependent on coral reefs.

That makes projects such as the one in Arnhem all the more important to pursue, he said.

“We are in a situation where we really need to be taking any possible action we can,” Eakin told AP.

Earlier in April, scientists from the NOAA and International Coral Reef Initiative said that coral reefs around the world are experiencing global bleaching for the fourth time.

Bleaching occurs when coral under stress expels the algae that gives them their vibrant colors. The algae is also a coral’s food source, and if the bleaching lasts for too long or is too severe, the coral could die.

In the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef , bleaching affected 90% of the coral assessed in 2022. The Florida Coral Reef, the third-largest, experienced significant bleaching last year .

Terry Hughes of Australia’s James Cook University, an expert on the Great Barrier Reef, argues that the world needs faster, bolder efforts to stop the damage from climate change , instead of small-scale restoration projects like this one.

“You can’t replace a magnificent ecosystem with an aquarium,” he said.

Others say every little bit helps.

“Coral reefs would be one of the first systems to totally collapse due to climate change,’’ said Ronald Osinga, a marine biologist who specializes in corals at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

“It’s sad that it has to be like this,” said Osinga, who is not involved in the Dutch zoo initiative. But projects like this are a “good backup plan.”

Follow AP climate coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/climate-change

• Search the site GO Please fill out this field.
• Newsletters
• Nutrition Basics

What Is Lab-Grown Meat?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved lab-grown meat—also called cell-cultured meat or cultivated meat—for human consumption in 2022. Meat grown in a lab is food created from cultivating animal cells. The FDA stated that it had "no further questions" regarding the production of cell-cultured chicken meat by California's Upside Foods.

There are several possible benefits of cultivated meat. Research has shown that meat grown in a lab is more environmentally friendly than conventional meat. Lab-grown meat is also cruelty-free and does not involve killing animals. Plenty of people have speculated about why lab-grown meat may be bad, including worries about microbial contamination and allergens.

As of April 2024, lab-grown meat was not widely available for purchase. There are still plenty of questions surrounding its production, safety, and availability. Read on to learn about lab-grown meat, including how it's made and its possible benefits.

Upside Foods

How Is Lab-Grown Meat Made?

Growing meat in a lab is a different process than traditional farming, to say the least. The meat it creates is biologically the same as "real" animals. The FDA has granted approval to several companies that manufacture lab-grown livestock, poultry, and seafood . It's important to note that cultured meat is biologically identical to regular meat, so it's not technically vegetarian .

The process starts with a cell sample from a live animal. Scientists extract the cells that have the ability to grow into animal tissue or meat. They place these cells into a cultivator, a large stainless steel tank where the cells receive the nutrients they need to grow and multiply.

Cultivating meat is similar to the biological process that naturally happens inside an animal. The cultivated cells get warmth and the basic elements needed to build muscle and fat: water, proteins, carbohydrates , fats, vitamins, and minerals.

What Are the Benefits?

The FDA's ruling means that Upside Food's lab-grown chicken is safe for humans to eat. The meat doesn't differ from regular chicken on a cellular level, according to the FDA.

More research is needed, but benefits of lab-grown may include:

• Can reduce the risk of foodborne illness: About three out of four new or emerging infectious diseases in humans come from animals. Growing meat in a lab rather than on a farm could offer a solution. Scientists carefully screen and confirm that cells used in cultivated meat are free of infectious pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, and other microbes.
• Is cruelty-free: Cultivated meat also provides a cruelty-free way to enjoy animal protein . The process does not require killing living animals, so some people may even find it suitable for consumption.
• May be more sustainable : Growing meat in a lab uses far fewer resources than raising live chickens on a factory farm. Some evidence suggests that cultivated meat can generate a fraction of the emissions and require a fraction of the land and water of conventional meat production.

Safety Considerations

The FDA has approved some lab-grown meat as safe for human consumption. Eating meat created in a lab may still sound a little odd. You're not alone if you're skeptical about the prospect of lab-grown poultry . Some people have expressed concern that cell-cultured meat could pose unforeseen health risks.

It's unknown whether lab-grown meat poses more risks or fewer safety concerns than traditional meat. The United Nations (UN) World Health Organization (WHO) says there may be some concerns with microbial contamination and allergens. Keep in mind that conventional meat also carries these risks.

When Will Lab-Grown Meat Be Available To Buy?

The FDA has approved lab-grown meat, but it's unclear when it will become widely available for everyday consumption. As of April 2024, no lab-grown meat was available in grocery stores in the United States.

It likely will not be clear how much lab-grown meat costs until it hits the market, but cultivating meat comes with high production costs. Research has shown that the first lab-grown beef burger cost $333,000 in 2013, and a meatball cultivated in a lab in 2016 cost $1,200.

A Quick Review

Lab-grown meat may be one key to solving issues of animal welfare, resource usage, and food safety associated with farmed meat. More research is needed to learn the benefits of lab-grown meat, but some studies suggest it can reduce the risk of foodborne illness. It is cruelty-free and may be more sustainable than raising livestock.

The FDA approved Upside Food's lab-grown chicken meat for human consumption in 2022. It's unclear when it'll become widely available as of April 2024. High production costs, as well as concerns with microbial contamination and allergens, are a few obstacles.

Food and Drug Administration. FDA completes first pre-market consultation for human food made using animal cell culture technology .

Rodríguez Escobar MI, Cadena E, Nhu TT, et al. Analysis of the cultured meat production system in function of its environmental footprint: Current status, gaps and recommendations .  Foods . 2021;10(12):2941. doi:10.3390/foods10122941

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Food safety aspects of cell-based food .

Food and Drug Administration. Human food made with cultured animal cells .

Morris AL, Mohiuddin SS. Biochemistry, nutrients . In:  StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing; 2024.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Zoonotic diseases .

Fernandes AM, de Souza Teixeira O, Palma Revillion JP, et al. Conceptual evolution and scientific approaches about synthetic meat .  J Food Sci Technol . 2020;57(6):1991-1999. doi:10.1007/s13197-019-04155-0

Related Articles

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals

Animal studies have been an essential component of every field of medical research and have been crucial for the acquisition of basic knowledge in biology. In this chapter a few of the contributions of such studies in biomedical and behavioral research will be chronicled. These descriptions should be viewed within the context of the vast improvements in human health and understanding that have occurred in the past 150 years. For example, since 1900 the average life expectancy in the United States has increased by 25 years (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 1988). This remarkable increase cannot be attributed solely to animal research, as much of it is the result of improved hygiene and nutrition, but animal research has clearly been an important contributor to improved human health.

Despite the many advances and the projected results that will come through the use of animals, some individuals question the value of using animal models to study human disease, contending that the knowledge thus gained is insufficiently applicable to humans. Although experiments performed on humans would provide the most relevant information (and are used in clinical research conducted on humans when appropriate), it is not possible by commonly accepted ethical and moral standards or by law to perform most experiments on humans initially. It is true that not every experiment using animals yields immediate and practical results, but the advances that will be described in this chapter provide evidence that this means of research has contributed enormously to the well-being of humankind.

As a result of the acquisition of information and the development of techniques achieved through the use of animals, poliomyelitis is no longer a major threat to health in the United States. The number of cases of paralytic polio in the United States has declined as a result of vaccinations from 58,000 in 1952 to only 4 in 1984 (Office of Technology Assessment, 1986). Unfortunately, polio is still a major threat to health where the vaccine is not used. Indeed, in a number of African, Asian, and South American countries, the incidence of the disease has been rising, despite the availability of the vaccine (Cockburn and Drozdov, 1970). An estimated 500,000 cases occur around the world each year (Salk, 1983).

The use of rhesus monkeys for the study of polio began when Landsteiner and Popper (1909) showed that injection of spinal cord material from patients dying of polio caused paralysis in the animals. Flexner and Lewis (1909) promptly confirmed this result. To learn how to immunize monkeys to protect them against infection, researchers first used live virus, then formalin-inactivated virus from infected brain suspensions, and eventually modified live virus. A major breakthrough occurred when Enders, Weller, and Robbins (1949) showed that the virus could be propagated in cultured cells of non-neural origin. That set the stage for mass production of viruses that could be made into formalin-inactivated Salk vaccine or the modified live-virus Sabin vaccine (Salk, 1983).

Although the use of monkeys in polio research has decreased considerably, they are still essential to the production of both live and killed polio vaccines, which are routinely produced in monkey kidney cell cultures. The live vaccine is tested for neurovirulence in monkeys, and the killed vaccine is routinely tested for safety in monkeys.

• Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

The recent emergence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as a major health threat exemplifies not only the unpredictability of research needs, but also the criticality of animals in research. The similarity of simian AIDS, identified in rhesus monkeys at two primate centers, to human AIDS has allowed the disease in monkeys to serve as a model for the human disease. In monkeys, the virus that causes the disease has been isolated, infectibility studies have been conducted, and some experiments have provided preliminary indications of the possibility of vaccine development. This animal model might prove useful for testing the efficacy and safety of vaccines and therapeutic agents developed to prevent or treat the human disease (Institute of Medicine, 1986).

Recently, a new virus called feline T-lymphotropic lentivirus has been discovered. It resembles morphologically the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS, although differing antigenically, and causes a disease naturally in cats similar to AIDS. Thus, infected cats might prove useful as animal models for the study of certain aspects of human AIDS (Pedersen et al., 1987).

• Transplantation

The transplantation of skin, corneas, and various internal organs could not have become a safe and standard procedure without the knowledge of the biology of transplantation immunology acquired through the use of experimental animals. Some 30,000 Americans now alive have transplanted kidneys, and others survive with transplanted hearts and livers or retain their sight because of corneal transplants.

The treatment of burn victims was of particular importance to the British during World War II, and British biologist P. B. Medawar (1944) undertook to find relief for them through the transplantation of skin. For one of his models, he used freemartin cattle. A freemartin is a sexually maldeveloped female calf that is born as a twin of a normal male calf; male hormones that reach it through placental vessels usually make it sterile (Lillie, 1917). Experimentation showed that skin and other tissues could be transplanted with good, lasting success between the male and freemartin twins at any stage in their lives (Anderson et al., 1961). They were "tolerant" of each other's tissues because of prenatal exposure to each other's tissue antigens. Medawar and his colleagues sought to induce such tolerance in newborn mice. When newborns received skin transplants or received bone marrow from unrelated animals, they became forever "tolerant" of the new tissue (Brent et al., 1976). That discovery signaled a new era in immunology, with wide ramifications for health and the treatment of disease not only in humans, but also in animals.

Through a systematic study of the surface immune markers of specially bred strains of mice, Snell and Benacerraf provided the basis for much of the understanding that has led to the success of organ transplantation (Benacerraf, 1981).

In the past, young women with chronic pyelonephritis, patients with genetic polycystic disease, and people suffering from the aftermath of streptococcal infections were all vulnerable to chronic renal failure and death. Those people benefited from the invention of "artificial kidneys," which periodically washed blood and removed poisonous substances from it. The recipients of the benefit, however, had to undergo frequent, laborious, and uncomfortable procedures and had to rely on hospitals and mechanical devices.

The first extensive work with renal transplantation was reported in 1955 (Hume et al., 1955). At first, transplanted kidneys were rejected unless they were exchanged between identical twins. However, studies in dogs showed that administration of the drug 6-mercaptopurine after transplantation would prolong the survival of a transplanted organ from an unrelated person. This use of immunosuppressants ushered in the modern era of transplantation (Starzl and Holmes, 1964). These compounds, having been studied first in animals and proved to be effective, are now used in human transplant recipients.

The study of tissue antigens proceeded at the same time as transplantation work, first in mice and then in humans. Inbred (isogeneic) strains of mice had been created by repeated brother-sister matings. Ultimately, these strains became genetically identical, and the exchange of tissues and organs became possible. In the study of minor genetic differences between such strains, it became clear that some genes specify the cell-surface structures responsible for tissue recognition and rejection. "Transplantation antigens" can now be identified by tissue typing, and the most appropriate donors can be chosen for transplantation in both humans and animals.

A second revolution in transplantation was ushered in by the development of cyclosporin. This immunosuppressive agent was first used successfully in humans in 1983, after five years of toxicity and efficacy testing in mice, rats, and other animals. Since it became available for heart transplantation, survival after transplantation has improved significantly (Kupiec-Weglinski et al., 1984). Further progress is now occurring with monoclonal antibodies that seem to immobilize the cell-surface markers responsible for recognition and rejection. The hope is that such monoclonal antibodies, which have been developed and maintained in animals, will make it unnecessary to resort to complete immunosuppression of a transplant recipient. This would reduce the occurrence of infection and increase the rates of survival of transplanted organs.

• Cardiovascular-Renal Systems

Dogs have traditionally been used in cardiovascular-renal studies because of their relatively large size, which facilitates experimental procedures. For example, an early model of hypertension was produced by partially occluding the renal artery in dogs. Studies of renal function that use clearance techniques in unanesthetized animals are most often done in dogs. In the last two decades, however, some mutant rats have proved exceedingly valuable as animal models of human disease. The Brattleboro rat is an excellent example. It has diabetes insipidus and must drink 70 percent of its body weight in water each day. It cannot produce vasopressin, a hormone that plays an essential role in the kidneys' ability to regulate water excretion and blood pressure. Research on the Brattleboro rat has greatly increased our understanding of vasopressin's role in kidney and cardiovascular function, and that understanding might lead to the development of better drugs (and drugs with fewer side effects) for the treatment of clinical disorders (Sokol and Valtin, 1982).

The development of open-heart surgery is but one of many examples of the value of using laboratory animals. Working with cats and dogs, Gibbon built the forerunner of the present-day heart-lung machine (Deaton, 1974), which makes open-heart surgery possible. His research in the early 1930s included clamping off more and more of an animal's vasculature and detouring its blood through the heart-lung machine. The machine was further improved by the incorporation of a roller pump developed by DeBakey (DeBakey and Henly, 1961), which allowed the entire circulation to be shunted through the machine, which added oxygen to the animal's blood. The pump was first used and perfected in the animal laboratory and is now a standard, essential component of the heart-lung machine. As a result of these developments, more than 80 percent of infants born with congenital cardiac abnormalities now can be treated surgically and can lead normal lives.

Replacement of heart valves and segments of large arteries in the treatment of valvular heart disease was made feasible by dog studies done in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Gay, 1984). Before diseased heart valves could be replaced in patients, scientists had to study their design and use in animals. As with so many other drugs and operations, physicians and surgeons would not consider applying them to patients until they had proved safe and effective in animals, nor would the public accept them until their safety was proved. Each decade since then has seen improvements in the design, installation, and performance of these valves and other prosthetic devices. Because the ideal valve has not yet been developed, research is still in progress in many laboratories to further improve its capacities.

• Nervous System

The human brain is a structure of extraordinary complexity. Each of its 200 billion neurons (nerve cells) makes a few thousand to several hundred thousand connections with other neurons, muscles, or glands. Neurons use large amounts of metabolic energy to carry out a host of functions: the generation and conduction of impulses; the synthesis, transport, secretion, and uptake of transmitters; and the modification of structure and synaptic efficacy in response to activity and environmental perturbations (Kandel and Schwartz, 1985).

Many basic aspects of neuronal development can be studied in cell and tissue cultures, in brain slices, and in simple invertebrate neuronal systems. Computer simulations and noninvasive human studies can also provide important data on fundamental mechanisms of learning and memory. Yet there is no adequate substitute for animal studies in attempts to understand the complex behavioral and cognitive functions of the brain in health and disease.

Movement and Function

Our understanding of the nervous system and approaches to rational therapy of its disorders could not have come about without animal studies initiated by the physiologist Charles Sherrington (Eccles and Gibson, 1979). His studies on reflex mechanisms of the spinal cord in cats were continued by Eccles (1957), who described how excitatory and inhibitory processes work in the central nervous system. Today, neurosurgeons can remove some brain tumors with minimal damage to the motor system in part because scientists such as Sherrington discovered that localized electrical stimulation of the exposed brain of the dog could elicit discrete movements of the limbs.

Neurologists and neurosurgeons now examine electrical signals from the brain to diagnose and treat epilepsy, study levels of consciousness, localize brain tumors, diagnose multiple sclerosis, and study learning disabilities in children. Moreover, the applications of such essential tools for diagnosis and therapy as computed axial tomographic (CAT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were developed with research animals (Kandel and Schwartz, 1985).

The study of the nervous system and behavior is one of the major frontiers of modern science. A good deal is known about the anatomy and physiology of the brain and nervous system, but much remains to be learned about it as an organized assemblage of neurons and about how it is affected by environmental stimulation. The following examples provide an idea of how animals are used in studies of such subjects.

Postnatal Development of the Visual Cortex and the Influence of Environment

Hubel and Wiesel shared the Nobel Prize in 1981 for their studies of vision in cats and monkeys, including the development of visual functions in young animals (Barlow, 1982). The visual cortex of monkeys is not fully developed at birth; nerve cells are still growing and making connections with other nerve cells. In this process, normal development depends on visual stimulation during a critical period in early postnatal life.

As in humans, each eye of a monkey sees a slightly different view of the same object; normal binocular vision gives the impression of depth. If early in postnatal life one eye is occluded, the nerve cells for that eye in the visual cortex do not develop normally. Most of the nerve cells become responsive only to the open eye, as shown in recordings from cells of the visual cortex of anesthetized animals. In normal development, the visual cortex consists of alternating bands of reactive neurons from the right and left eyes; but in a monkey with an occluded eye, the regular alternation is weakened, and most neurons react only to the normal eye. These anatomical and physiological changes are the basis of blindness in the occluded eye.

Children with congenital cataracts or clouding of the ocular media for other reasons demonstrate a similar dependence of human vision on visual stimulation. Testing after restoration of normal vision has shown that the acuity of the previously occluded eye is reduced; the earlier in life the eye was occluded, the greater the degree of deficit. Animal experiments have also shown that correction of strabismus (squint) by surgery should be performed early in, or certainly before the end of, the critical period of eye-brain development to ensure normal vision (Wiesel, 1982).

The close correlation between the effects of visual deprivation observed in animals and the effects observed in the clinic suggests that they are based on similar physiological mechanisms. This correlation has been helpful in developing appropriate measures of prevention and treatment of neural eye disorders.

Another subject of behavioral research is memory. An estimated 5 percent of people over the age of 65 have severe limitations or even failures of memory and cognition; another 10 percent of the people over 65 have mild to moderate cognitive problems (Coyle et al., 1985). Specific conditions, such as Korsakoff's syndrome and Alzheimer's disease, affect mental functions and can cause extreme memory loss. Research on animals is improving the understanding of the mechanisms of such losses. In turn, this increased understanding has led to the discovery of some drugs that show promise of counteracting the losses. Most of the knowledge about the neurotransmitters involved in these diseases has also been derived from studies of the brains and nervous systems of animals.

Primates are phylogenetically closer to humans than are other mammals. Their behavioral capabilities are in keeping with the greater development and complexity of their brains. Primates also have age-related decrements in memory function. Generally, memory impairment with advancing age first appears as a failure of immediate memory, the recall of events that have just occurred. Transmitter chemicals of the α-adrenergic class, like clonidine, were first found to improve memory performance in macaques and aged rodents. Clonidine has now also proved effective in improving the memory of patients with Korsakoff's syndrome. Those findings suggest a new approach to the treatment of patients with memory disorders, and they have provided a new option for clinical trials with patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (Arnsten and Goldman-Rakic, 1985).

Pain is a common symptom of disease in humans and animals. It is important that medical science develop more effective methods of pain management than are now available. Much pharmacological research has focused on the production of drugs with potent analgesic properties, and much research on pain—particularly that concerned with analgesics, acupuncture efficacy, hypnosis, and so on—has been carried out on human subjects for over a century. Research using animals is necessary, however, if unsolved problems are to be adequately addressed.

Although many experiments that study pain must involve pain for the animal, researchers have developed methods that are as humane as possible within the context of the experiment. For example, the slightest reflex movement of the tail of a rat or mouse is objective evidence that a noxious stimulus applied to the skin of the tail has attained threshold intensity. Reflex behavior, such as the tail-flick, is a useful index of the comparative effectiveness of analgesics, as well as of the effects of manipulating chemical messengers in the central pain pathways (Willis, 1985).

The understanding of intrinsic brain mechanisms of pain and its modification will require the use of modern techniques for cell marking and pathway tracing, immunocytochemical and microphysiological methods, and sophisticated behavioral studies. Paradoxically, many investigations of pain can be explored in anesthetized animals. Thanks to psychophysical studies in humans that were replicated in animals, neuroscientists have been able to trace the nerve fibers from skin, muscle, and internal organs that are specific carriers of ''pain signals.'' With such a powerful handle on the input end of the pain system, the passage and transformation of pain signals can be explored in complex neuronal organizations in anesthetized animals. It is also possible to study the central systems that control the passage of pain signals to higher levels of the central nervous system. Finally, isolation and identification of the transmitters, structure, and other components of the neurochemical machinery of the brain involved in pain perception and its modification can be elucidated (Willis, 1985).

Increasing recognition that behavioral factors play a significant role in many current health problems—for example, drugs and alcohol abuse, eating disorders, effects of stress, cardiovascular disease, and mental and psychiatric ailments—has led to the development of animal models for experimental and biological analysis as part of the emerging field of behavioral medicine (Hamburg et al., 1982).

• Other Benefits for Humans

The preceding examples provide a sampling of the contributions that research using animals has made to the improvement of human health and the acquisition of knowledge. Many others could be cited—for example, the development of medicinals such as the sulfonamides (Hubbard, 1976); the development of life-support systems for premature infants (Coalson et al., 1982; deLemos et al., 1985; Escobedo et al., 1982); and the increase in understanding of learning (Miller, 1985; Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1898), nonlinguistic communication (Gardner and Gardner, 1969; Romski et al., 1984), drug abuse (Deneau et al., 1969; National Institute of Drug Abuse, 1984; Seevers, 1968), and nervous system regeneration. Many examples of such benefits are also chronicled in publications such as those by Gay (1986), Leader and Stark (1987), and Paton (1984).

• Benefits for Animals

One might have the impression that animal research is conducted only with the aim of alleviating human suffering. The conduct of extensive research in veterinary schools and other institutions indicates that that is not the case. Most research on domestic farm animals is undertaken to increase the productivity and quality of animal products. Research is also undertaken to reduce the suffering and increase the overall well-being of animals, particularly companion animals. Examples include current research on Potomac fever in horses, the development of ivermectin to eradicate parasitic diseases in a variety of animals, and the development of vaccines for feline leukemia virus and canine parvovirus.

Research aimed at human illnesses has also had immeasurable benefits for animals. A host of immunizations and antibiotics have proven applicable to the therapy of animal diseases (Paton, 1984). Kidney transplantation, cardiovascular treatments, chemotherapeutics, and narcotics are widely applicable, as are the insights gained from genetic research (Gorman, 1988).

One example of the benefits of biomedical research for animals can be found in the propagation of endangered species. The ability to transfer embryos, eliminate parasitism, treat illnesses, and use anesthetic advances has improved the health and survival of many species. The knowledge gained from genetic studies has allowed appropriate management of species that are endangered or have disappeared in the wild. For example, the ability to identify the sex of birds has been essential in the management of the whooping crane and the California condor. Research into obstacles to successful breeding in captivity has markedly reduced the need for importation of many species, especially monkeys. For example, among nonhuman primate species used in research, there were 7,908 births in 1984 in the United States, compared with 2,198 in 1973 (Johnsen and Whitehair, 1986).

Animal research has resulted in enormous benefits for humans and animals. The searching and systematic methods of scientific inquiry have greatly reduced the incidence of human disease and have substantially increased life expectancy. Those results have come largely through experimental methods based in part on the use of animals, as illustrated by the many examples cited in this chapter.

At the same time, much obviously remains to be learned. Further studies in such areas as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, dementias, and the development of vaccines and chemotherapeutic agents will continue to require the use of animals.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988. 3, Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals.
• PDF version of this title (664K)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedic... Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers