should animals be used for scientific experiments essay

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

• History of Animal Testing

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

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

Pro & Con Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

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

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

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

Cite This Page

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

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

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

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

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Indigenous Counsellor

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

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
• Science and Society
• Published: 01 February 2002

Animal experimentation: the continuing debate

• Mark Matfield 1  

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume  1 ,  pages 149–152 ( 2002 ) Cite this article

2716 Accesses

10 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

The use of animals in research and development has remained a subject of public debate for over a century. Although there is good evidence from opinion surveys that the public accepts the use of animals in research, they are poorly informed about the way in which it is regulated, and are increasingly concerned about laboratory-animal welfare. This article will review how public concerns about animal experimentation developed, the recent activities of animal-rights groups, and the opportunities and challenges facing the scientific community.

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

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

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

French, R. D. Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1975).

Google Scholar  

Lederer, S. E. in Vivisection in Historical Perspective (ed. Rupke, N. A.) 236–258 (Croon Helm Ltd, Beckenham, Kent, 1987).

Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1983).

Matfield, M. The ALF: terrorist attacks on medical research. Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci. 23 , 31–35 (1996).

Matfield, M. Addressing the two basic questions — is it necessary and is it cruel? Res. Def. Soc. News 8–9 (April 1996).

Coghlan, A., Copley, J. & Aldhous, P. Let the people speak. New Scientist 26–31 (22 May 1999).

Davies, B. In-depth survey of public attitudes shows surprising degree of acceptance. Res. Def. Soc. News 8–11 (April 2000).

Davies, B. Hillgrove farm closes down. Res. Def. Soc. News 1 (October 1999).

Anon. Lessons from Huntingdon. Nature 409 , 439 (2001).

Davies, B. Government gets tough on animal rights extremism. Res. Def. Soc. News 1–3 (April 2001).

Anon. Animal-lab director injured in attack. Nature 410 , 8 (2001).

Morrison, A. R. in Animal Research and Human Health: Advancing Human Welfare Through Behavioral Science (eds Carroll, M. E. & Jovermier, J. B.) 361–384 (American Psychological Association, Washington, 2001).

Guillermo, K. S. Monkey Business: the Disturbing Case that Launched the Animal Rights Movement (National Press Books, Washington, 1993).

Liepert, J., Bauder, H., Miltner, W. H. R., Taub, E. & Weiller, C. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 31 , 1210–1216 (2000).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Defence Society, 58 Great Marlborough Street, London, W1F 7JY, UK

Mark Matfield

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Related links

Further information.

The American Physiological Society

American Psychological Society

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Americans for Medical Progress

Animals in Medicines Research Information Centre

Association of Medical Research Charities

Biomedical Research Education Trust

Foundation for Biomedical Research

Research Defence Society

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Seriously Ill for Medical Research

Society for Neuroscience

UKLSC Animal Science Group

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Matfield, M. Animal experimentation: the continuing debate. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1 , 149–152 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd727

Download citation

Issue Date : 01 February 2002

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd727

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

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Essay Editor

Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay

1. introduction.

Animal experimentation or animal testing is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It's regulated by the Home Office in the United Kingdom, where it is intended to test potential human and veterinary medicines, tests which affect the functioning of the central nervous system, and the breeding of genetically altered animals. At the time of writing, the number of animals used for research in the UK is falling. The same cannot be said for the world. Worldwide, more than 115 million animals are used in laboratory testing each year. It is this process that provides the backdrop to the current debate of whether animals should be used in research. This debate, also known as the "animal testing" or "animal research" debate, is front and centre in the disputes about the ethics of animal testing as cited by providing the explanation that it has led to inhumane treatment of animals as well as there being no real way of testing the product they are using. Early in his essay, Nathan Nobis characterises the debate as being "Join us or die" on both sides. This displays the extent of polarisation that one finds within this debate and reflects the complex questions that any exploration of the topic must aim to confront. Such language heightens the rhetoric surrounding the issue, giving it a more emotional quality, one which might take us away from a rational consideration of the facts. Another definition is given by the charity Cruelty Free International as "any scientific or educational research which harms animals or causes them distress." "Cruelty Free International". By talking about the distress of animals, this allows for a broader definition of what the public might consider valid reasons for causing potentially harmful effects on animals for scientific research, lending support to the stance that there are better alternatives than causing physical harm or suffering. There are three main aspects that are linked to the current debate: animal testing is a moral and ethical issue, and so there is the co-existence of "caring" for the welfare of creatures and providing researchers with the tools to develop tests that are less complex, more reliable, and less costly; consumerism, basically begetting the question that, do multi-billion industries really care about animals or is it all about profit? and finally, the differing opinions based not on lab research, but on its applications in real society. Answering the call "Should animals be used in research?" is much more complex than in terms of going to university and becoming a researcher.

1.1 Background

Animals have been used in medical research for centuries. Most of the animals used for research are rodents – rats, mice, hamsters, and gerbils. Some dogs, cats, and a variety of goats, ferrets, pigeons, monkeys, and rabbits are also used. The struggle against diseases is a significant factor for the development of our civilization. However, there is a question whether using animals for scientific research is humane. Personally, I agree with the fact that animals should be used for scientific research. It is understandable that many people are against this activity. However, it is impossible not to emphasize the significant contribution this kind of research has had in the world. For example, the study of heart disease, which has led to such treatments as open-heart surgery, scanning techniques, and medications, was a direct result of studies on animals, which have quite a similar heart to a human. In this case, it is clear that the development of human society depends, to a great extent, on scientific research. However, the researchers are not the ones to decide if the usage of animals in scientific research. They have to answer such important questions as 'Is there any other alternative?', 'How does it benefit humans?' and 'How much suffering can be potentially caused?'. No one could meet such important and reasonable requirements. Indeed, animal research has played a significant role in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade. For example, the research and the study of a new leukemia treatment has been tested with the cells that originally have been found in mice. Such treatment is used not just for mice, but for humans as well. Besides, the modern-day chickens are the descendants of the wild red Jungle Fowl from India and Science has helped us to develop such a great variety of birds by cross-breeding. So much has been discovered through the help of these animals in Science. However, it is crucially important for scientists to utilize the advanced methods of research. This can definitely minimize the chances of suffering and pain, which in turn make a huge effect on Science. I believe that the usage of animal research should be based on the concept of moral standard. After all, we as humans share this planet and it is our moral obligation to preserve the rights and the habitat of other creatures. On the other hand, I might be considered to be cruel, but I do believe that many people underestimate the fact that animals do not have the right to life; they don't have souls, feelings, values, etc. That is why they can be used for the good of humankind, progress, and science. On the contrary, do many people ever think of the billions and millions of souls that are sacrificed over the years when they have a nice dinner, stroll along the park, or maybe when they travel to test out medicines? In the end, I don't think that is fair to the animals as well. The animals are cleaner than humans in many behaviors and how most animals only use violence to defend themselves, while all those behaviors are far more common in every single animal - humans. We only share some minor actions that animals make. For example, over 90% of the mammal behaviors that have been listed as 'repertoire' in the Royal College of Psychiatrists resource are only present in humans. It clearly shows that Science has found that most animals are far more intellectually than we have expected.

1.2 Purpose of the Essay

This study is meant to provide truthful information about animal testing, offering not only the writer's views, but also those of medical professionals and other people who are working in the medical industry, in the name of providing a proper direction and medical information literacy through such writings. The aim of this writing is to outline the disadvantages and advantages of animal testing in the fields of medical and scientific research. This text is written for the general population, students, professionals, as well as people in the medical industry who have the curiosity. I understand that people may have different views, but I just want to provide a fair and objective review of the present situation which is supported by different case studies and trusted references. Throughout this essay, several problems in the practice of animal testing as well as some formal limitations or unescapable disadvantages will be addressed through different case studies and expert opinions. Also, some alternative methods of experiments and academic scholars will be introduced in this report. By introducing such information in the essay, people can make a light on the future direction of the medical development, if the society will show support in the new methods, like tests by using human cells or DNA. Finally, as a researcher, a writer, and an animal rights activist, as many opinions from different groups of people will be presented in this report, in order to provide a strong critical review on the present situation and forecast on the future development on the medical and science research. By doing so, this essay can be well recognized and accepted by different parties. Last but not least, several examples of good and bad research will be presented in this essay, in order to examine the validity and reliability of the experimental method using some typical cases as an illustration. This will help to identify which type of research will be used as a perfect example of the potential benefits of animal experimentation and which is invalid and can be harmful to human health.

2. Arguments in Favor of Animal Research

Animal research has brought about many medical benefits. This is the primary reason many scientists and researchers advocate for the use of animals in scientific research. Laboratories and facilities in 90% of countries and on every continent have used animals to perform a wide range of biological, physiological, and pathological research. Firstly, many discoveries and innovations in medical treatments have been made possible by research on animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. Medical research has also been carried out on animals, and as a result, the lifespan of humans has increased. For example, in 1952, the first "kidney transplants" were conducted with the technique being perfected through research on animals. The other medical benefit is the improvement of the well-being of pets and other animals. Many animal medicines have been developed through research on animals. This has helped to alleviate the suffering of many animals. The same medications, treatments, procedures, and surgical techniques used in clinical...

2.1 Advancement of Medical Knowledge

Today, medical researchers have a deep understanding of the physiological, pathological, and pharmacological processes of living organisms. They also have knowledge on how genes and the environment affect the development of diseases. Additionally, they have even greater knowledge on how different species can be used as models for diseases in humans. This is all thanks to the continuous effort, time, and money invested in the animal research field. The knowledge central to current clinical practice and drug development has been obtained using animal research. For example, the classic research of Claude Bernard in the 19th century on animals formed the basis of our understanding of metabolism. It is only recently that the concept-driven technological advances have permitted real-time study of metabolic control in humans using invasive techniques. In the area of genetics, animal research has resulted in dramatic discoveries that have translated into identification of genes implicated in many inherited diseases and genetic prognostic testing. These genetic loci are often localized by studying their phenotypes in animals. The availability of the entire human genome sequence and revolutionary biomedical technologies have permitted these animal-based discoveries to be quickly translated into understanding the molecular genetic basis of complex human diseases. Research in the field of science and medicine knows no boundaries because as technologies advance, more breakthroughs rely on the collective knowledge of the global research community. By working together and sharing successes as well as failures, researchers will get closer to cures for killer diseases and new management strategies for illnesses that debilitate lives. This principle of shared knowledge and combined resources is evident in multinational and multidisciplinary research initiatives such as the International Knockout Mouse Consortium, which is aimed at accelerating functional annotation of the mammalian genome. Every day, we benefit from the continuous improvement of animal welfare standards in the UK and in the world. These standards are driven by scientific discoveries and the incorporation of '3Rs' principles to refine, reduce, and replace animal use in the study where appropriate. The advanced knowledge in the development of alternative methods and the application of new technologies not only provide more human-relevant data and improve the quality of the science but also serve to raise further questions. This expands future scientific discoveries and ultimately benefits the health and well-being of both humans and animals.

2.2 Development of Life-Saving Treatments

To consider an example of the progress made to deal with coronary heart disease, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) funded research into heart disease has developed various treatments, which include beta-blockers, improved surgical procedures, and even heart transplants. The BHF actively promotes heart research, and states on its website that "BHF research has led the discovery of many treatments that we now take for granted". These treatments would not have been possible without research on animals. In the late 18th century, for example, the English doctor Edward Jenner discovered the first vaccine, the smallpox vaccination. Throughout the 20th century and continuing today, a variety of treatments have been developed for human diseases through work on animal models, which offer both short-term and long-term benefits. For example, new anaesthetics, such as halothane, have only been developed and introduced into clinical practice by testing their safety and effectiveness in animals, avoiding the need for complex trials on patients before they can be introduced. Furthermore, animal heart transplants in the 1960s helped researchers to understand the problems with organ rejection, and paved the way for human heart transplants in the years that followed. More recently, animal research has led to the development of the new advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), which offer groundbreaking new avenues for the treatment of serious diseases and for regenerative medicine. For example, a therapy known as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment has been developed using animal research and is now used to modify a patient's own white blood cells so that they recognise and attack the cancer. Every year in England, between 1995 and 2017, the number of procedures conducted on animals for the first time has been over 3.24 million overall. The species with the highest numbers of procedures were fish, rats and mice, which together accounted for around 85% of all procedures. However, in the same year, 45% expressed they were actually opposed to the use of animals in research, and only 8% strongly supported the use of animals in research. These statistics show that there is a lack of understanding as to how important animal research is for developing life-saving and life-improving treatments. This could be due to not fully understanding the process or, internal and external groups and organisations that miscommunicate what the animal research is actually being used for. However, something important to consider is the continued decrease in animal research of 5% over the years from 2015 until 2017 and the fact that animal research is strictly regulated, often changing the social perspectives.

2.3 Potential Benefits for Human Health

Another significant impact of animal research on human health is the new possibilities that it offers to cure previously untreatable diseases. Many medical conditions for which there is currently no treatment available have the hope of being cured thanks to the continuous work in understanding the disease and improving its treatments. Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Huntington's disease are a group of debilitating disorders that are common in the elderly but have no effective treatments available. However, due to recent scientific advances and increasing knowledge of the genetic and molecular basis of these diseases, it is now possible to consider new different therapies and modes of treatment that previously would not be thought of. This new era of possibility for finding a treatment and conquering these diseases is very much credited to the use of animals in conducting the research. In fact, one of the most recent areas of research that has shown positive steps towards finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease is the use of genetically altered animals. These animals have been specifically designed to mimic the symptoms of the disease and enable researchers to test the new potential drugs and treatment interventions in a living brain. This would ultimately lead to new therapeutic interventions in actual healthcare practice. The biggest fear is that, should the research with animals not be allowed and the animal rights groups get their way, we will never find cures or treatments for many of these diseases. Instead, we will be left to suffer and endure with the current situations, whereas those who develop the diseases in years to come will continuously pass away without a glimmer of hope that a cure might be established. So, on this occasion, animal research not only is justifiable in the improvement of overall human health and well-being but also to the possible saving of our own lives or those of our close family and friends.

3. Arguments Against Animal Research

The ethical concerns of animal research are the focus of many positions against it. What is meant by "ethical concern" is a question about ethics: what is good and what is bad. Ethical views differ from person to person. But everyone in the debate of animal research holds this view: humans are of a higher moral status than animals. We as people have rights; animals have only life. It is believed by many that it is not our responsibility to preserve the life of an animal or to make it happy because the animal is below us. Under the ethical view of the rights of animals, some may think that an animal has some moral worth that has to be taken into account. This may be called the "pro-animal" position. Second-hand suffering—for example, a human suffering because of the death of an animal in a research project—is also invoked as an argument against animal research. The theory here is that there will be deaths and suffering of animals and that suffering will transfer and cause an additional amount of suffering in humans. There are already a number of more effective, efficient, and successful ways to stop the need for animal testing. These include methods of testing on cell cultures and microorganisms, via computer simulation, by "physiologically equivalent" substitutes such as the use of human hemoglobin made in yeast and studies on volunteer patients. More than 100 million animals are being subjected to xenotransplantation research every year. Such animal science has completely exposed its uselessness and cruelty. The scientist team, including Sir Ian Kennedy, Prof. Ray Greek, and Andrew Rowan, has made it clear that the use of animals in medical research just slows down the progress of science and the development of human lives, even at the temperatures when the cell cultures cannot survive. Such progress is furthered by the modern cell research in tissue cultures and non-human cells and should not be hindered by practices that, in relative terms, are as intellectually advanced as a witch hunt. The human heart, that most intangible, valueless, indefinite human essence, is what drives animal research. This is because anything that affects the human heart, the way we feel or the way we think, serves as more emotional and convincing evidence for the anti-vivisectionists to continue their campaign. We need to take a radical perspective in determining the importance of human health when set against other values. We may need to start at changing the practice and public attitudes whereby animals are seen as commodities by our society and to build an awareness that animals are entitled to their own lives as well. Such evidence is yet to be seen for the claims makers that animal research is for human health excellence. Only when human culture has evolved beyond the uses of animals for human gain can we feel we have achieved our true human potential. Any method to improve the lives of human beings is justified as long as someone is not violated and someone is not suffering. In particular, arbitrary and needless suffering should be avoided. But, as many top public health service doctors state, there are simply no other alternatives with the same depth of understanding, the same potential, and the same strength. All together, what is driving animal research is the probable success, the chance that things will work. Every year thousands of compounds are found to be effective against harmful diseases within animals and are also proved safe.

3.1 Ethical Concerns

Some philosophers and animal rights organizations argue that it is morally wrong to use animals in experiments, as they are not capable of giving their consent, and that animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. In the words of the famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham, animals should not be used as a means to an end, but as ends in themselves. Using animals in research is morally wrong, and any benefits to humanity do not make up for the harm that the animals endure. It is an ongoing debate, as different people have different views, but two things are clear: in the short term, public opinion would probably not be swayed by rational argument, and in the longer term, the issue of public acceptability will be one which researchers cannot avoid. Ethical concerns can therefore pose a real challenge to the acceptability of animal research. Professions such as the medical profession, veterinary profession, and other professions utilizing animal research have developed ethical codes to foster a standard and alternative to common practices with the purpose of minimizing the potential for discomfort and distress in laboratory animals. The laws and governing bodies created under certain laws lay out the required steps that need to be taken and protocols that have to be followed in regard to the use of animals in research. These rules are typically enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture in the United States. However, effective ethical review requires knowledgeable and experienced reviewers who understand both the scientific aims of a study as well as the potential impacts on animal welfare. Ethical review also necessitates that reviewers be familiar with the law, the best practices as dictated by law, and the latest ethical issues and advancements in animal welfare philosophy. All these requirements make ethical review time-consuming and potentially cumbersome on the work of researchers, thus posing an indirect challenge to animal research as well. On the main, valid consent is such in which a person is competent and informed, and not coerced. In the case of using animals in research, can they be said to be given the freedom to exercise such a right of valid consent? This leads to the idea that animals could be treated as mere means to ends for humans. The Kantian view is that we have a duty to animals because cruelty to them can lead to cruelty to humans.

3.2 Alternatives to Animal Testing

Animal testing is still widely used in scientific research, despite the growing alternative methods that are available now. These new and innovative methods are becoming more and more popular around the world. There are many different alternatives to animal testing and in this essay I will discuss a few of them. The first alternative to animal testing I will mention is the case study. This is a computer-based model that takes a real-life scenario, that could have been a laboratory test on a dog for example, and gives students the opportunity to remove it and see what happens. The students can track the progress of the patient over time and try and diagnose the problem. The second type of alternative to animal testing is 'in vitro' methods. This is a Latin phrase meaning 'in glass'. This is a method that takes place in a test tube and is one of the most well-known alternatives to animal testing. Each individual cell is effectively 'grown' and used to test new drugs, vaccines or surgery methods. This means that very few animals are hurt, or even none at all, depending on the method used. A further alternative to animal testing is micro-dosing, which is where healthy human volunteers are used to test new drugs. These tests are known as human trials and are extremely useful as what happens to the drug within the body can be seen much more clearly due to the fact it is actually inside a living thing. The amount of the drug ingested by the patient is a fraction of the amount that is being tested on the animals, in the UK for example it is around 1%. With modern technology, this small amount of drug can easily be traced and minor effects can be monitored. A 'replacement' alternative is one that doesn't use animals at all - computer mod. These are models and simulations that are designed to be a true representation of the body and its internal workings. New drugs and treatment options are entered into the virtual patient and doctors can monitor the progress. This type of alternative to animal testing is the most reliable and effective, the only problem is the expense; as this technology is so advanced, it is often costly to newly developing scientists and their projects. There are, however, many difficulties with the alternative methods, especially as scientists have been using animals to gain further understanding and proof of these theories for over half a century. Adapting to the quicker, more reliable and less costly methods is a challenge to those who may not be confident with using the alternatives. The more traditional scientists tend to stick to what they know, even if the more modern and animal-friendly method is almost guaranteed to provide a better overall result.

3.3 Validity and Reliability of Animal Models

Thinking of validity and reliability, it is important to focus on the concept of an animal model and its uses. An animal model is defined as a living, non-human animal used during the research and investigation of human disease to help in the understanding of that particular disease. Animal models have been used in various areas in medicine for the purpose of drug development and biomedical research. They have been used in studying different medical conditions including to model the disease process for human diseases such as cardiovascular illness, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. In the case of psychological illness for example, animal models have long been used to study the genetic and neurobiological basis of certain psychiatric disorders, like autism and schizophrenia. Although animal models have been used in a wide variety of ways in the study of different types of human illness and conditions, some researchers have stressed the fact that there are limits in the value of these models in certain areas of medical study. This is true; different types of exercise of an animal model provide different types of knowledge such as knowledge of anatomy, the pathological features of disease, response to treatment etc. While animal models have shown certain success in such areas, evidence suggests that the predictive success from animal models is still very low. Also, evidence shows that for many major diseases, the ability of these models by themselves to replicate and predict the human disease is still very limited. Thus, although research via animals have led for the possible development of successful treatments and have contributed to the understanding of the disease process, the fact that many treatments and interventions that have succeeded via animal models can and have failed human studies demonstrates that these models can obviously be improved and developed further. Also, the low predictive success given the method and data used, already question the validity of the use of these models. In summary, it is evident that the use of such animal models are important in medical research for certain types of disease but it is crucial to understand the limits and in any case, very importantly, such uses must be complemented with proof of clinical validity to truly show the model is a good step for potential clinical findings and relevance.

Related articles

The impact of socioeconomic status on bienestar en la salud mental.

1. Introduction Recent research shows the ongoing importance of social status to bienestar en la salud mental (mental health). Analysis of the National Survey of American Life data reveals an association between socioeconomic status and both impulsive aggression and serious mental illness that varies both across racial-ethnic groups and gender. The implication drawn from these findings is that emerging post-racial discourses promoting the decline of race/ethnic differences in American society p ...

The Influence of Exterior Design and Environment on Mental Health and Well-being

1. Introduction In the context of healthcare, mental health and well-being are increasingly perceived holistically and not just through the improvement of existing healthcare facilities, but also by directly addressing issues of the built environment that affect areas of everyday life where humans of profoundly different optical, sensory, and cognitive abilities and disabilities interact. From a design perspective, the environment primarily consists of the physical shell and surroundings such a ...

Analyzing the Study Impact of Social Media on Teenagers' Mental Health and Academic Performance

1. Introduction As the technology has developed tremendously in recent years, a new generation has been affected by the internet. In the age of technology, social media has created an opportunity for more communication. The development of information and communication technologies, and in particular, social media, is rapidly changing human communication. Users can evaluate information from TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines, reach information quickly, and comment on this information through s ...

The Impact of Technology on Modern Society

1. Introduction The unanticipated appearance of technology into modern society has redefined, to a degree, what it means to be human. Over the course of history, technology has had an effect on not only individuals, but cultures and entire nations as well. In the most general sense, this includes the exploration of tools, or artifacts, that enhance human abilities, adaptations, and experiences. Within this process, technology has been evolutionarily driven across economic, political, and social ...

The Impact and Ethical Implications of Using AI in Various Industries

1. Introduction The field of artificial intelligence (AI) has always been one that is rife with interesting ethical implications. From the ethics of the so-called "singularity" - the idea that a single AI that exceeds human intelligence will someday both exist and be a massive threat to humanity - to the use of predictive models to determine who should and shouldn't go to jail, ethical questions have been at the forefront of nearly every major AI breakthrough. The massive growth in data from ne ...

The Impact of Hepatitis B on Public Health and the Importance of Vaccination Programs

1. Introduction to Hepatitis B Hepatitis B virus infection is a public health problem both in developing and developed countries. The virus is transmitted through the parenteral and sexual routes, which are common in societies with harmful health behaviors. Neonatal infection occurs in high prevalences in population with active hepatitis B virus infection. The illness can cause fatal results such as fulminate hepatitis, acute and chronic hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although hepatit ...

The Impact of Social Media on the Mental Health of Young People

1. Introduction The mental health of young people has declined in recent years. The reasons behind this are complex, involving economic hardship, health, education, and the use of social media. The issues are often highly interconnected, and the use of social media by young people is a hotly debated issue. Despite the research, there are many gaps in our understanding about the connections between the use of social media and mental health, and more investigation is needed to ascertain the natur ...

The Impact of Brain Tumors on Cognitive Function and Quality of Life

1. Introduction Neoplastic brain diseases are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. This condition comprises a wide range of pathophysiologies, from typical primary brain neoplasms, which appear more frequently in childhood and early adulthood, to secondary tumors, whose incidence increases along with population aging, success in cancer treatments, and consequently, increased long-term survival. However, regardless of etiology, brain neoplasms are associated with high social ...

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. 

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Discussion: Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Research

Discussion: Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Research

• Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 1012 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 1012 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1657 words

2 pages / 1002 words

1 pages / 603 words

2 pages / 752 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

The issue of whether animal testing should be banned has sparked intense debate among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights advocates. This essay aims to analyze the arguments both for and against banning animal [...]

Animals have been an integral part of human existence for centuries. They have served as companions, sources of food, and even as subjects for scientific experiments. However, as our understanding of their complex cognitive [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

Animal testing is a controversial topic that has sparked heated debates among scientists, ethicists, and the general public. The ethical implications of using animals in scientific research are complex and multifaceted, with [...]

Animal testing is a debated issue over the previous decades. Animal testing in simple words is the use of animals in researches in order to determine the safety of various products such as foods, drugs and cosmetics. People have [...]

Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

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

Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation

Aysha karim kiani.

1 Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan

2 MAGI EUREGIO, Bolzano, Italy

DEREK PHEBY

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

GARY HENEHAN

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

RICHARD BROWN

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

PAUL SIEVING

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

PETER SYKORA

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

ROBERT MARKS

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

BENEDETTO FALSINI

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

NATALE CAPODICASA

10 MAGI BALKANS, Tirana, Albania

STANISLAV MIERTUS

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

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

LORENZO LORUSSO

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

DANIELE DONDOSSOLA

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

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

GIANLUCA MARTINO TARTAGLIA

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

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

MAHMUT CERKEZ ERGOREN

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

MUNIS DUNDAR

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

SANDRO MICHELINI

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

DANIELE MALACARNE

21 MAGI’S LAB, Rovereto (TN), Italy

GABRIELE BONETTI

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

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

MICHELE SAMAJA

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

STEPHEN THADDEUS CONNELLY

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

DONALD MARTIN

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

ASSUNTA MORRESI

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

ARIOLA BACU

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

KAREN L. HERBST

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

MYKHAYLO KAPUSTIN

29 Federation of the Jewish Communities of Slovakia

LIBORIO STUPPIA

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

LUDOVICA LUMER

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

GIAMPIETRO FARRONATO

Matteo bertelli.

32 MAGISNAT, Peachtree Corners (GA), USA

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

COVID-19 AND THE NEED FOR ANIMAL MODELS

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

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

Pros and cons of animal experimentation

Arguments against animal experimentation.

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

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

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

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

Impact of experimentations on animals

Ability to feel pain and distress.

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

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

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

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF ANIMALS

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

Ethics, principles and legislation in animal experimentation

Ethics in animal experimentation.

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

PRINCIPLE OF THE 4 RS

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER ASPECTS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ETHICS

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

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

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

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

INVESTIGATORS’ ETHICS

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

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

ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS

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

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

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

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

Living conditions of animals

Choice of the animal model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance of animal experimentations and possible alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN SILICO SIMULATIONS AND INFORMATICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL-DERIVED ANTIBODIES

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

Conclusions

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Conflicts of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author's contributions

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

Contributor Information

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

Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Students are often asked to write an essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Introduction.

Animals are often used in research, but is this right? This topic is important to discuss because it involves ethics and science. We will look at the pros and cons of using animals in research.

Benefits of Using Animals in Research

Animals help scientists learn about health and disease. They can test medicines on animals before humans to see if they are safe. This has led to many medical breakthroughs that save human lives.

Downsides of Animal Research

On the other hand, many animals suffer in research. They might feel pain or fear. Also, animal bodies can be different from human bodies, so the results may not always apply to humans.

Alternatives to Animal Research

There are other ways to do research without using animals. Scientists can use cells in a lab, computer models, or human volunteers. These methods can be just as useful and do not harm animals.

250 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Animal research is a topic that causes many debates. Some people think it’s okay to use animals for research, while others think it’s not fair to the animals. This essay will look at both sides of the argument.

Why Some People Support Animal Research

Scientists use animals in research to learn about diseases and find ways to cure them. They argue this is necessary to save human lives. For example, testing medicines on animals before giving them to humans can make sure they are safe.

Why Some People Are Against Animal Research

On the other side, people who love animals say it’s not right to use them for experiments. They believe animals have feelings too, and it’s wrong to make them suffer for our benefit. There are also other ways to do research, like using cells in a lab, that don’t harm animals.

In conclusion, there are strong arguments on both sides. Some people think animal research is important to help humans, while others think it’s not fair to the animals. It is a tough decision to make. We should remember to treat animals with kindness, whether we use them for research or not.

This is a complex issue, and it’s important for each of us to think about it and make up our own minds. We can also look for ways to do research that causes less harm to animals, like using lab-grown cells or computer simulations.

500 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Why animals are used for research.

Animals, like mice and rabbits, are often used in labs because their bodies work in ways similar to ours. This means that by studying them, scientists can get a good idea of how human bodies might react to new drugs or treatments.

Benefits of Animal Research

Many medical breakthroughs have come from animal research. Vaccines for polio, insulin for diabetes, and treatments for cancer were all tested on animals first. These tests helped make sure that the treatments were safe and effective.

Arguments Against Animal Research

Many people who are against animal testing suggest other ways to do research. They say we can use human cells in a lab, or computer models, instead of animals. These methods can give us information without causing harm to animals.

The question of whether animals should be used for research is not easy to answer. On one hand, it has led to important medical advances. On the other hand, it raises serious ethical concerns. As we move forward, it’s important to keep looking for ways to reduce animal suffering and find alternatives to animal testing. This way, we can continue to make medical progress without causing harm to our animal friends.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Line Graph: Governments Expenditure on Research

Jul 23, 24 01:27 PM

House History Essay

Jul 16, 24 04:06 PM

Paraphrasing Activity for IELTS Reading

Jul 13, 24 07:48 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

• Theme Science
• Grades 9-12

Introduction

Animal rights and the use of them in scientific research is something that has been heavily debated. The students will write a persuasive/argumentative essay regarding whether or not animals should be used for scientific experimentation.

Learning Objectives

• Write arguments with sufficient evidence to support a claim. ( W.11-12.1 )
• Conduct research to answer a question. ( W.11-12.7 )

For the full writing prompt, download the PDF.

Download Full Writing Prompt: Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

Related Writing Prompts

Natural Disasters

Students research natural disasters and become one in this fun writing prompt

The Future of the Planet

Students research conservation and create a compelling story about saving the Earth.

Students examine and write an essay about the importance of lab safety.

Genetics and DNA are major topics in high school sciences. This prompt poses a difficult question and makes students really think about whether or not they would want to know if they suffered from a genetic disease.

Experimentation on Animals Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Presenting the case, author’s rebuttal, works cited.

The debate about experimentation on animals, though well documented in literature, is still endeavoring to free itself from past controversies and current challenges.

This particular debate have attracted many advocates and critics, each advancing valid reasons as to whether it is morally, scientifically and logically right to subject animals to experimentation (Horner & Minifie 304). Experimentation on animals has indeed been very beneficial in medical fields.

However, it has been observed that animals suffer a great deal in the course of these experiments. It is against this background that this essay aims to expand on the debate about experimentation on animals with an aim to come up with a well-reasoned framework that could be used to offer direction on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of these experiments in modern times.

One of the reasons used by those who advocate for the use of animals in experiments is that these experiments progress important scientific knowledge that will in the long-term benefit humans as well as animals (Horner & Minifie 316). Indeed, supporters have for a very long time recognized the intrinsic value of conducting medical research with animals, especially in finding solutions to medical conditions that continue to affect mankind.

From a moral standpoint, advocates of using animals for biomedical research suggests that it is indeed morally wrong to permit people and animals to succumb to various forms of injuries and ailments when remedies and cures can be easily discovered through animal research (ILAR 1; Horner & Minifie 317).

However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.

In this perspective, the critics argue that it is morally and spiritually wrong to cause pain and suffering for the benefit of mankind (Festing 569). In addition, the critics argue that universally acceptable benchmarks to adequately measure and control pain while subjecting animals to scientific experiments are non-existent.

Another reason espoused by supporters of experimenting with animals is that humans are susceptible to many of the same disease-causing organisms that affect animals. Current literature indeed demonstrates that “…humans have 65 infectious diseases in common with dogs, 50 with cattle, 46 with sheep and goats, 42 with pigs, 35 with horses, and 26 with fowl” (ILAR 4).

In addition, some communicable diseases such as rabies and malaria can be transmitted between animals and humans, not mentioning that other diseases such as hemophilia, diabetes, and epilepsy are common in both humans and animals. Animals are also vulnerable to a multiplicity of the same bacterial or viral infections as humans, such as anthrax and smallpox (ILAR 6).

Indeed, current literature reveals that some of the “…medical advances that have been dependent on the use of animals in their development include safe anesthetics, blood transfusions, penicillin and other antibiotics, vaccines against polio, measles and meningitis, and drugs to treat asthma, hypertension and leukemia” (Festing 570).

As such, advocates argue that it is imperative to use animals in biomedical experiments to have a better understanding of how these diseases evolve as well as their prevention and treatment modalities.

To expand on the above point, advocates of experimenting with animals propose that an animal is selected as an ‘animal model’ for biomedical studies only if it inherently shares similar characteristics with humans that are of relevance to the study (ILAR 6).

This, according to the advocates, should remove any pragmatic or moral concerns related to subjecting animals to the experiments for futile outcomes. Louis Pasteur, for instance, made use of dogs as an animal model for the purposes of studying rabies – a disease that is common in both humans and dogs.

His scientific experiment facilitated the development of a rabies vaccine primarily because dogs and humans can both develop rabies, not mentioning the fact that the immune systems of dogs and humans display similar reactions when exposed to the rabies vaccine (ILAR 6).

Critics, however, have argued that it serves no purpose to use animals as research subjects merely because they share the same diseases with humans (Horner & Minifie 318). On the contrary, scientists should use available knowledge on such diseases to search for treatment procedures using other non-animal or computer-generated models instead of struggling for a cure by subjecting another living creature to untold pain and suffering.

In addition, critics argue that the western, reductionist, scientific world is not necessary interested in discovering new forms of treatment through subjecting animals to biomedical research for the sake of mankind; rather, many scientists and organizations engage in animal experimentation in the pursuit of profit (Van Roten 539). This, according to the critics, is morally, legally and scientifically wrong.

The last reason advanced by proponents as to why experimentation on animals should continue is that animals pose minimal risks as compared to humans when it comes to testing the efficacy or efficiency of the scientific discoveries (Van Roten 538). This assertion goes hand in hand with the religious perspective of creation, which offers man dominion over all animal and plant species.

The argument also draws its strength from the moral paradigm that insinuates that it is not in the best interests of man to cause harm to fellow humans for the purpose of developing a treatment strategy aimed primarily at avoiding harm or destruction to penetrate through the realms of mankind.

In layman’s term, this assertion means that it serves no purpose to harm humans for the sake of coming up with a strategy aimed at preventing such harm. In consequence, animals come into the equation as the worthy alternatives not necessarily for man’s progression, but also for their own (Horner & Minifie 319). However, critics are quick to reject the notion of dominion of people over nature and animals, further stressing that animals have their own intrinsic value and rights that should be respected by all humans (Von Roten 539).

It is wrong to abandon experimenting on animals merely because critics and other animal activists argue that experimenting with animals in scientific research subjects them to a lot of pain and suffering. This is because the benefits accruing from such research not only benefit humans but also the animals that become inflicted by the same diseases that affect humans.

As much as it is known that some animals do suffer in research, the issue really should revolve around refining experimental processes aimed at curtailing animal pain and suffering through the use of proper restraint techniques, effective anesthetics, and acceptable dosing and euthanasia methodologies, among others (Horner & Minifie 319). It is important to note that animal experimentation progresses significant scientific knowledge aimed at benefiting both humans and animals.

The assertion by critics that it serves no purpose to use animals as research subjects merely because they share the same diseases with humans simply does not hold water. A world without vaccines, anesthetics and antibiotics is unimaginable, and these scientific breakthroughs came as a direct result of the interaction between scientists and animal research subjects (ILAR 6).

In addition, it should be realized that just as an individual undergo suffering when they become inflicted with diseases such as malaria or rabies, animals also do undergo a lot of suffering when they get inflicted by the same or common diseases. The best way forward, therefore, is to use the animals to come up with better treatment procedures for both animals and humans while maintaining the highest animal welfare standards to curtail suffering.

Lastly, it clearly serves no purpose for critics to equate animal rights with human rights in addition to rejecting the assertion on man’s domination over the animals (Von Roten 539). It is indeed true that animals have their own intrinsic values and rights which should of course be respected.

One of such right is that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary or avoidable pain and suffering, particularly for profit gain. But just as it is a violation of animal rights to cause pain and suffering to animals for profit gain on the part of humans, it is also morally unacceptable to let people suffer the consequences of diseases by not making use of animals in experiments aimed at developing superior treatment regimens to cure the ailments.

Claims and counterclaims have been floated in this paper in regards to the broad topic of experimentation on animals. From the discussion, it is evidently clear that the merits for undertaking animal experimentation for scientific gain, especially in-terms of developing treatments and cures for diseases that continue to affect both humans and animals, far outweighs the merits provided by critics against the practice.

The fact that animals should be treated with care, respect and dignity is unquestionable, and so is the fact that they should be used for bio-medical reasons so as to counteract the various forms of medical conditions affecting both humans and animals.

This conclusion synchronizes well with many public opinion polls that have dependably revealed that a majority of people around the world endorse the use of animals for scientific as well as medical gains (ILAR 1). However, it should be noted that such use should not cause unnecessary or avoidable pain and suffering to animals.

Festing, S. The Animal Research Debate. Political Quarterly 76.4 (2005): 568-572. Web.

Horner, J., & Minifie, F.D. Research Ethics 1: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) – Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 54.1 (2011): 303-329. Web.

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Science, Medicine, and Animals. 2004. Web.

Von Roten, F.C. Mapping Perceptions of Animal Experimentation: Trend and Explanatory Factors. Social Science Quarterly 89.2 (2008): 537-549. Web.

• Defining and Enforcing Laws Against Animal Abuse
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved
• Ethics and Self-Experimentation Argument
• Louis Pasteur's Epidemiology and Vaccinations
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against
• The Singer Solution to World Poverty
• The Dangers of Using Cell Phone While Driving
• Save the Children (UNICEF)
• What the Founders Meant by the First Amendment?
• Performative Culture: Taiwan Pride
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 12). Experimentation on Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/

"Experimentation on Animals." IvyPanda , 12 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Experimentation on Animals'. 12 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

1. IvyPanda . "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Experimentation on Animals." October 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/experimentation-on-animals/.

• TOEFL Writing Correction Topics
• OET Mock Tests
• Writing Correction
• Speaking Mock Test
• Reading Course
• Listening Practice Tests
• FREE Practice Tests
• IELTS Writing Correction
• IELTS Speaking Practice
• OET Writing Correction
• OET Reading Course
• OET Speaking Mock Test
• TOEFL Writing Correction
• PTE Writing Correction
• OET Listening Practice Tests
• OET (Occupational English Test)
• PTE (Pearson Test of English)
• PTE Sample Essay 6 – Scientific Animal Experimentation

Do you believe that experimentation on animals for scientific purposes is justified? Are there any alternatives to animal experimentation? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

There is no doubt that animals are vital in the scientific research on the ground that they are used in order to advance the medical knowledge. Some people believe that animals should be a part of research, while others think that animals’ lives should be respected. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss both views in detail.

The supporters of animal testing provide a variety of points in favor of their point of view. Initially, it is essential to study new drugs and test them before revealing them. Thus, animals play a valuable role in order to examine the new therapies with no threats causing damage to humans. In exemplification, the last few weeks witnessed the testing of new Ebola drugs on some monkeys, which was successful. It can be concluded that the outbreak of many diseases can have serious threats toward humanity. Hence, the best way is to use animals in order not to lose humans.

Nevertheless, the opponents of above-mentioned opinion offer their respective reasons as well. The lives of animals should be respected by human beings due to the fact that we all must have decent lives with no violations. In addition, the benefits of research using animals do not justify the suffering caused. Animals are harshly used in some valueless trials such as experimentation for cosmetics industry. Thus, government should introduce laws with the aim of supporting animal rights so as not to push animals for more dangers. Eventually, it is clearly unacceptable for humans to violate animals on the ground that people have no right to do so.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that testing on animals violates the lives of wild animals. Yet, on condition that governments and animal rights supporters work together, then animal conservation is more likely to be achieved.

• 7 Steps to Prepare for the PTE Academic Test
• PTE Writing Essay
• PTE Writing: A Box of Tricks for Checking and Editing
• PTE Essay Writing: Scoring and Structure Guide
• High Scoring PTE Writing Templates With Tips
• 20+ Easy Tips for PTE Writing
• Typing Speed for IELTS Computer Based Test
• PTE Written Summaries: Become a Successful Summarizer in 6 Easy Steps!
• PTE Sample Essay 1 – Family History Research
• PTE Sample Essay 2 – Happiest Times of People’s Lives
• PTE Sample Essay 3 – Forced Retirement Age
• PTE Sample Essay 5 – Payment of College or University Fees
• PTE Sample Essay 4 – Judging Person’s Worth
• PTE Sample Essay 7 – Factors Measuring A Country’s Success
• PTE Sample Essay 8 – Marry For Love or Money
• PTE Sample Essay 9 – Competition: Good or Bad for Children’s Development
• PTE Sample Essay 10 – Child Obesity Health Issue
• PTE Sample Essay 11 – Free Health Services Recipient
• PTE Sample Essay 12 – The Reality of Crime
• PTE Sample Essay 13 – Gender Pay Gap in European Countries
• PTE Sample Essay 14 – Influence of Advertising
• PTE Sample Essay 15 – Children’s Standard Behaviour
• PTE Sample Essay 16 – Invitation of Large Foreign Companies
• PTE Sample Essay 17 – Ambition: Good or Bad
• PTE Sample Essay 18 – 21st Century Developments
• PTE Sample Essay 19 – The Use of Computer
• PTE Sample Essay 20 – Mobile Phone Problems

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

• PTE Sample Essays
• PTE Practice Test
• PTE-IELTS Calculator
• pte test format
• pte writing
• pte reading
• pte speaking
• pte listening
• pte vs ielts

Verification Email

Remember to check Spam/Junk folders for account verification email. Also, check “Promotions” tab if you are a Gmail user.

Recent PTE Posts

• PTE Core Test for Canada
• PTE Academic Test Dates 2024 – India, Australia, New Zealand
• New PTE Exam Format Changes
• PTE Preparation Tips – How to Make Study Plan for PTE Success?
• PTE Reading Tips And Strategies For First-Time Examinees