today the use of animals in medical research is

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

Science, Medicine, and Animals (1991)

Chapter: why are animals used in research, why are animals used in research.

Human beings use animals for a wide variety of purposes, including research. The approximately 260 million people in the United States keep about 110 million dogs and cats as pets. More than 5 billion animals are killed in the United States each year as a source of food. Animals are used for transportation, for sport, for recreation, and for companionship. 7

Animals are also used to learn more about living things and about the illnesses that afflict human beings and other animals. By studying animals, it is possible to obtain information that cannot be learned in any other way. When a new drug or surgical technique is developed, society deems it unethical to use that drug or technique first in human beings because of the possibility that it would cause harm rather than good. Instead, the drug or technique is tested in animals to make sure that it is safe and effective.

Animals also offer experimental models that would be impossible to replicate using human subjects. Animals can be fed identical and closely monitored diets. As with inbred mice, members of some animal species are genetically identical, enabling researchers to compare different procedures on identical animals. Some animals have biological similarities to humans that make them particularly good models for specific diseases, such as rabbits for atherosclerosis or monkeys for polio. (The polio vaccine was developed, and its safety is still tested, in monkeys.) Animals are also indispensable to the rapidly growing field of biotechnology, where they are used to develop, test, and make new products such as monoclonal antibodies.

Researchers draw upon the full range of living things to study life, from bacteria to human beings. 8 Many basic biological processes are best studied in single cells, tissue cultures, or plants, because they are the easiest to grow or examine. But researchers also investigate a wide range of animal species, from insects and nematodes to dogs, cats, and monkeys. In particular, mammals are essential to researchers because they are the closest to us in evolutionary terms. For example, many diseases that affect human beings also affect other mammals, but they do not occur in insects, plants, or bacteria.

Far fewer animals are used in research than are used for other purposes. An estimated 17 to 22 million vertebrate animals are used each year in research, education, and testing—less than 1 percent of the number killed for food. 9 About 85 percent of these animals are rats and mice that have been bred for research. In fiscal year 1988, about 142,000 dogs and 52,000 cats were used in experimentation, with 40,000 to 50,000 of those dogs being bred specifically for research and the others being acquired from pounds. 10 Between 50,000 and 60,000 nonhuman primates, such as monkeys and chimpanzees, are studied each year, many of them coming from breeding colonies in the United States. 11

The necessity for animal use in biomedical research is a hotly debated topic in classrooms throughout the country. Frequently teachers and students do not have access to balanced, factual material to foster an informed discussion on the topic. This colorful, 50-page booklet is designed to educate teenagers about the role of animal research in combating disease, past and present; the perspective of animal use within the whole spectrum of biomedical research; the regulations and oversight that govern animal research; and the continuing efforts to use animals more efficiently and humanely.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

We mightn’t like it, but there are ethical reasons to use animals in medical research

Professor, Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences and Melbourne Neuroscience Institute, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Trichur Vidyasagar receives/has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian Government) and Australian Research Council (Australian Government). He is employed by the University of Melbourne. He is also a member of the Board of Administration of the National Vision Research Institute.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The media regularly report impressive medical advances. However, in most cases, there is a reluctance by scientists, the universities, or research institutions they work for, and the media to mention animals used in that research, let alone non-human primates. Such omission misleads the public and works against long-term sustainability of a very important means of advancing knowledge about health and disease.

Consider the recent report by Ali Rezai and colleagues, in the journal Nature, of a patient with quadriplegia who was able to use his hands by just thinking about the action. The signals in the brain recorded by implanted electrodes were analysed and fed into the muscles of the arm to activate the hand directly.

When journalists report on such bionic devices, rarely is there mention of the decades of research using macaques that eventually made these early brain-machine interfaces a reality for human patients. The public is shielded from this fact, thereby lending false credence to claims by animal rights groups that medical breakthroughs come from human trials with animal experiments playing no part.

Development of such brain-machine interfaces requires detailed understanding of how the primate brain processes information and many experiments on macaques using different interfaces and computing algorithms. Human ethics committees will not let you try this on a patient until such animal research is done.

These devices are still not perfect and our understanding of brain function at a neuronal level needs more sophistication. In some cases, the macaque neural circuitry one discovers may not quite match the human’s, but usually it is as close as we can get to the human scenario, needing further fine-tuning in direct human trials. However, to eliminate all animal research and try everything out on humans without much inkling of their effects is dangerous and therefore highly unethical.

The technique Dr Rezai’s team used on human patients draws heavily upon work done on monkeys by many groups . This can be seen by looking at the paper and the references it cites.

Another case in point is the technique of deep brain stimulation using implanted electrodes, which is becoming an effective means of treating symptoms in many Parkinson’s patients. This is now possible largely due to the decades of work on macaques to understand in detail the complex circuitry involved in motor control. Macaques continue to be used to refine deep brain stimulation in humans.

Ethical choices

The number of monkeys used for such long-term neuroscience experiments is relatively small, with just two used in the study above. Many more are used for understanding disease processes and developing treatment methods or vaccines in the case of infectious diseases such as malaria, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and Zika.

Approximately 60,000 monkeys are used for experiments for all purposes each year in the United States , Europe and Australia .

However, if one looks at what is at stake without these experiments on non-human primates, one must acknowledge a stark reality. In many cases, the situation is similar to that which once existed with polio. Nearly 100,000 monkeys were used in the 1950s to develop the polio vaccine. Before that, millions of people worldwide, mostly children, were infected with polio every year. Around 10% died and many were left crippled.

Now, thanks to the vaccine, polio is almost eradicated.

Similarly, about 200 million people contract malaria every year, of whom 600,000 (75% being children) die, despite all efforts to control the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Development of a vaccine is our best chance, but again primates are necessary for this, as other species are not similarly susceptible to the parasitic infection.

Circumstances are similar with other devastating ailments such as Ebola, HIV and Zika. The ethical choice is often between using a few hundred monkeys or condemning thousands or more humans to suffer or die from each one of these diseases year after year.

In the popular press and in protests against primate research, there is sometimes no distinction made between great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas) and monkeys such as macaques, leading to misplaced emotional reactions. To my knowledge, invasive experiments on great apes are not done anywhere, because of the recognition of their cognitive proximity to humans.

While the ape and human lineages separated six million years ago, there is an additional 20 to 35 million years of evolutionary distance from monkeys, which clearly lack the sophisticated cognitive capacities of the apes.

With urgent medical issues of today such as HIV, Ebola, malaria, Zika, diabetes and neurological conditions such as stroke and Parkinson’s disease, monkeys are adequate to study the basic physiology and pathology and to develop treatment methods. There is nothing extra to be gained from studying apes.

Alternatives have limitations

Opponents of animal research often cite the impressive developments of computer modelling, in-vitro techniques and non-invasive experiments in humans as alternatives to animal experiments. These have indeed given us great insights and are frequently used also by the very same scientists who use animals.

However, there are still critical areas where animal experimentation will be required for a long time to come.

Modelling can be done only on data already obtained and therefore can only build upon the hypotheses such data supported. The modelling also needs validation by going back to the lab to know whether the model’s predictions are correct.

Real science cannot work in a virtual world. It is the synergy between computation and real experiments that advances computational research.

In-vitro studies on isolated cells from a cell line cultured in the lab or directly taken from an animal are useful alternatives. This approach is widely used in medical research. However, these cells are not the same as the complex system provided by the whole animal. Unless one delves into the physiology and pathology of various body functions and tries to understand how they relate to each other and to the environment, any insights gained from studying single cells in in-vitro systems will be limited.

Though many studies can be done non-invasively on humans and we have indeed gained much knowledge on various questions, invasive experiments on animals are necessary. In many human experiments we can study the input to the system and the output, but we are fairly limited in understanding what goes on in between. For example, interactions between diet, the microbiome, the digestive system and disease are so complex that important relationships that have to be understood to advance therapy can only be worked out in animal models.

Of course, animals are not perfect models for the human body. They can never be. Species evolve and change.

However, many parts of our bodies have remained the same over millions of years of evolution. In fact, much of our basic knowledge about how impulses are transmitted along a nerve fibre has come from studying the squid , but our understanding also gets gradually modified by more recent experiments in mammals .

Higher cognitive functions and the complex operations of the motor system have to be studied in mammals. For a small number of these studies, nothing less than a non-human primate is adequate.

The choice of species for every experiment is usually carefully considered by investigators, funding bodies and ethics committees, from both ethical and scientific viewpoints. That is why the use of non-human primates is usually a small percentage of all animals used for research. In the state of Victoria, this constitutes only 0.02% .

Medical history can vouch for the fact that the benefits from undertaking animal experiments are worth the effort in the long run and that such experimentation is sometimes the only ethical choice. Taken overall, the principle of least harm should and does prevail. There may come a day when non-invasive experiments in humans may be able to tell us almost everything that animal experiments do today, but that is probably still a long way off.

Priorities in animal use

The ethical pressure put on research seems to be in stark contrast to that on the food industry. It is hypocritical for a society to contemplate seriously restricting the use of the relatively small number of animals for research that could save lives when far more animals are allowed to be slaughtered just to satisfy the palate. This is despite meat being a health and environmental concern.

To put this in perspective, for every animal used in research (mostly mice, fish and rats), approximately 2,000 animals are used for food, with actual numbers varying between countries and the organisations that collect the data.

The ratio becomes even more dramatic when you consider the use of non-human primates alone. In Victoria, for every monkey used in research, more than one million animals are used for meat production. However, the monitoring of the welfare of farm animals is not in any way comparable to that which experimental animals receive.

Reduced use of livestock can greatly reduce mankind’s ecological footprint and also improve our health. This is an ethical, health and environmental imperative. Animal experiments, including some on non-human primates, are also an ethical and medical imperative.

• Medical research
• Animals in research
• Non-human primates

Biocloud Project Manager - Australian Biocommons

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Deputy Editor - Technology

Animals in Medical Education and Research

The AAMC's current policy statement was approved by the AAMC Executive Council on September 25, 2008, following extensive discussion by various AAMC Councils, Organizations, and Groups. It is the first revision of AAMC's policy on the issue since 1985. The major change is to recognize that animal use in education spans the medical curriculum and the medical education continuum, and that animals are not utilized by all institutions in all phases of medical education. The statement now also explicitly condemns violence against scientists and educators who use animals in their research and teaching.

AAMC Policy on the Use of Animals in Medical Research and Education

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) strongly affirms the essential and irreplaceable role of research involving live animals in the advancement of biological knowledge, human health, and animal welfare. In addition, as animals continue to be vital in segments of the medical education continuum (undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education), the AAMC supports this use of animals to meet essential educational objectives.

The AAMC affirms the responsibility of the academic medical community to ensure that the use of animals in laboratory research and medical education is judicious, responsible, humane, and that the care provided to these animals fully meets accreditation standards and regulatory and legislative requirements. It is the Association's firm belief that further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.

Therefore, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the continued availability and humane use of animals in scientific research and the education of physicians.  The AAMC strongly condemns violence and the threat of violence against scientists, educators, and institutions that use animals in research and teaching. AAMC member institutions are encouraged to work closely with local, state and federal law officials in order to protect students, residents, faculty, staff, animals, and facilities.

Related Organizations

Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care

Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBMR)

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research

National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR)

NIH Animals in Research

USDA Animal Welfare

• Research & Technology
• Basic Science

The use of animals in medical research - a historical perspective

Affiliation.

• 1 Faculty of Medicine, University of Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland.
• PMID: 28409996
• DOI: 10.1177/026119291704500110

Publication types

• Historical Article
• Biomedical Research / ethics
• Biomedical Research / history*
• History, 19th Century
• History, 20th Century

Quick links

• Climate change
• COVID-19 research
• Staff profiles

We won’t always have to use animals for medical research. Here’s what we can do instead

As well as the important ethical reasons for minimising animal use in research, the reality is sometimes animals just aren’t that good at predicting human responses.

By  Greg Williams ,  Laura Thomas 31 August 2023 3 min read

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Animals have been used for medical research for thousands of years, dating back to ancient Greece where the first dissections were performed.

These days, one of the main uses of animals is to ensure the safety of medical products before they’re trialled in humans.

But in addition to the important ethical reasons for minimising animal use, the reality is sometimes animals just aren’t that good at predicting human responses. No animal model, for example, has captured all the human characteristics of complex illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (a neuromuscular disease). This makes is hard to develop effective treatments and cures.

Thankfully, researchers are making progress in developing a collection of alternative approaches, called “non-animal models”. A new report from our team at CSIRO Futures examines the potential of non-animal models and the actions Australia will need to take to pursue their use.

What are non-animal models?

Non-animal models are an alternative set of models that use human cells, tissues and data.

These have the potential to better mimic human responses. In doing so, this can more accurately predict if a medical product is likely to fail, allowing reinvestment in products that are more likely to succeed.

Computer simulations or “in silico models” are one example. These can be used across the medical product development process to complement – and in time potentially replace – other model types. They can be used in drug studies to model a drug’s behaviour within the body, from cellular interactions to processes that involve multiple organs.

Complex three-dimensional biological models are also maturing quickly. Examples include:

• organoids – organ “buds” that can be propagated from stem cells or taken from biopsies
• organs-on-chips – cells cultured in a miniature engineered chip. These attempt to replicate the physical environment of human organs.

What can we use non-animal models for?

In theory, we can use non-animal models for everything we use animal models for – and more.

Simple non-animal models (human cells cultured over a flat surface) are already used to help identify drug targets due to their ability to test a large number of compounds and experimental conditions.

In the future, non-animal models will reduce – and eventually replace – animal use across a range of applications:

• screening potential drugs to see how well they work
• toxicology (safety) testing
• helping to screen, select and stratify shortlisted participants for clinical trials. This might include an assessment of their unique response to a potential drug.
• using patient cells to identify the treatment most likely to help that individual.

Outside of medical products designed for humans, non-animal models can also support innovation in veterinary and agricultural medicines, cosmetic testing and eco-toxicology.

An export opportunity for Australia

Non-animal models present an economic opportunity for Australia, where the models, their components, and surrounding services could be exported to the world.

Our novel economic analysis sized the potential Australian market for two non-animal models: organoids and organs-on-chips. Other models were unable to be sized due to a lack of global market data.

We estimate the Australian organoid market could be worth A$1.3 billion annually by 2040 and create 4,200 new jobs.

The organs-on-chips market could be worth A$300 million annually by 2040 and create 1,000 new jobs. This estimate is lower as this technology is currently less advanced but holds the potential to grow significantly beyond 2040.

Several Australian entities are already contributing to these opportunities. The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, for example, provides stem cell and modelling expertise as part of reNEW , a €300 million international collaboration.

Another example is from Schott Minifab , an international biotech and medical device company with Australian roots, which has successfully established scaled production of non-animal model components in Australia for domestic and export markets.

Making it a reality

Non-animal models have already begun to complement and replace animal use in some areas, such as identifying drug targets.

However, accelerating their development and adoption across a wider range of applications will require further technical advances to lower cost and validate their performance as superior models.

Australia has several research strengths in this field but we need a concentrated effort to help our research make it through to real world impact.

Our report makes ten recommendations for supporting Australia’s pursuit of these opportunities. Critical activities over the next five years include:

• coordinating local capabilities
• investing in upgraded infrastructure
• creating and collating data that compares animal and non-animal model performance.

Governments, industry and research must collaborate to deliver against these actions. Success will only come from collective efforts.

Find out how we can help you and your business. Get in touch using the form below and our experts will get in contact soon!

CSIRO will handle your personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and our Privacy Policy .

Enter a valid email address, for example [email protected]

A Country value must be provided

First name must be filled in

Surname must be filled in

Please choose an option

Organisation must be filled in

Please provide a subject for the enquriy

We'll need to know what you want to contact us about so we can give you an answer

We have received your enquiry and will reply soon.

We're Sorry

The contact form is currently unavailable. Please try again later. If this problem persists, please call us with your enquiry on 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176. We are available from 9.00 am to 4.00 pm AEST Monday - Friday.

Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?

Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems that affect both humans and animals, and to assure the safety of new medical treatments. Some of these problems involve processes that can only be studied in a living organism. Scientists study animals when there is no alternative and it is impractical or unethical to study humans.

Animals are good research subjects for a variety of reasons. They are biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems. Also, they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations. In addition, scientists can control the environment around the animal (diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.

Animals are needed in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover such drugs and procedures using research methods that do not involve animals. If the new therapy seems promising, it is then tested in animals to see whether it seems to be safe and effective. If the results of the animal studies are favorable, human volunteers are asked to take part in a clinical trial. The animal studies are done first to give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.

Animal Research 101

• Why Animal Research
• How Animal Research is Regulated
• Are There Alternatives to Animal Research?

Stay Connected

Get Advocacy Alerts and the latest news by connecting with the Society’s Science Policy Team around the web

•    Sign up for Action Alerts
•   @SciPolAPS
•    [email protected]

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Privacy Policy

Animal Behavior

On using animals in medical research, musings on a neal miller quote.

Posted September 3, 2016

The American Psychological Association ranked Neal Miller the 8th most influential psychologist of the 20th century.

I had the privilege of being Neal Miller's research assistant at the Rockefeller University on the first research that proved that biofeedback works.

In that research, we used a number of research rats, and animal rights activists attacked Miller for that. Here was his response:

There is sacredness of all life. But where do we draw the line? That's the problem. Cats kill birds and mice. Dogs exploit other animals by killing and eating them. Humans have to draw the line somewhere in animal rights, or we're dead.

I'm not sure that would convince vegans but perhaps this expansion of his argument will:

Research animals would never come into existence if not for their need in research. And research animals' lives are superior to that of wild ones. For example, wild rats and mice constantly must escape predators and rat/mouse traps, endlessly search for literal crumbs and water, and live in sewers, walls, basements and outdoors with temperatures ranging from frigid to sweltering. In contrast, a research animal, from birth, lives in a home that's warm, safe, and without predator. They get a ready diet of perfect food and water, and sleep on soft bedding. In adulthood, they die in the service of improving humankind.

Let's even assume that some of the animals experience pain before dying, as alas many people do. Let's weigh that against the fact that without research animals, medical research would have to be done using computer simulations or conducted earlier on humans, which would entail greater risk to people.

Computer simulations usually are inferior to animal-based research because no matter how many human characteristics are simulated--at great cost and time--the computer modeling can't as accurately represent how a treatment would work in humans.

Particular emphasis must be placed on the time element. Research animals are available immediately. In contrast, developing even that inferior computer model takes months or even years. As any patient with a serious, let alone life-threatening disease knows. every day without a better treatment, can well be a day of pain, fear , and perhaps avoidable death.

When the animal rights activists--many of whom eat animals!-- stop medical research and the computer modeling simply is inadequate, the researchers are forced into one of two choices, both inferior to animal-based research: In cases in which post-mortem analysis is required to see a treatment's benefits and side effects, of course, the research must be stopped thereby eliminating all chance of helping people with their disease. In other cases, the researchers must prematurely conduct the research on human beings, making people rather than the animals the first-line guinea pigs, at significant risk. Is that ethical?

Of course, most treatments tested on animals never come to market let alone dramatically improve human life. But a small percentage do. Treatments from blood transfusions to MRI diagnosis to deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's, and yes biofeedback, were made possible only because of animal research.

For animal rights activists to oppose using research animals is to argue for those animals never living to enjoy a well-above-average childhood and adolescence while delaying or prohibiting humans from getting potentially life-saving treatment. Such treatments not only improves their lives but that of their families.

In addition, those research discoveries relieve our already overtaxed medical system of unnecessarily long treatment.

Medical research even helps pets. When sick pet owners are helped, they're better able to care for their pets.

I love animals. I really do. My doggie Einstein truly is a member of our family and we treat him as such, even going to the butcher to get splinter-free bones cut into Einstein-friendly pieces.

But like Neal Miller, I cannot accept the arguments of extremist animal activist groups. How about you?

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia. His newest book, his 8th, is The Best of Marty Nemko.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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
• Book Review
• Published: 01 November 2001

Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research

• Judith K Blackshaw 1  

Heredity volume  87 ,  page 609 ( 2001 ) Cite this article

2091 Accesses

Metrics details

Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research.

E. F. Paul and J. Paul. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, USA. 2001. Pp. 224. Price $49.95, hardback. ISBN 0-7658-0025-X

This thought-provoking book comes out of the Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation, an independent corporation established to promote advanced research in political philosophy and in philosophical analysis of public policy questions. The use of animals for medical research is being threatened by animal rights activists who propose severe restrictions or abolition of experimental work.

In their essays, the eleven American authors challenge many flawed perceptions promoted by animal rights groups. These include misrepresentation of historical facts, and the contributions to human and animal health, by the use of experimental animals. Fortunately, activists efforts so far have not slowed down progress of biomedical and pharmacological research. In much of the world with epidemiological and nutritional challenges any animal activist agenda to shut down or hinder animal research is, as one author comments “fanatical, even suicidal”. Several authors go further and argue that to deny much of the world's population hope for vaccines and other medical cures is inhumanity towards humans.

Some animal rights groups concede that applied research is justifiable but that basic research should be prohibited. As the author of one essay points out, this view jeopardises both the advancement of knowledge and the remediation of human disease.

The question is raised of how human and animal interests can be balanced. The European view gives greater significance to animal interests than the American approach. However, both are closer to the human-priority view than either the UK or German statutes, which are more towards equality in human and animal interests.

Several authors argue from the evolutionary perspective in defending animal experimentation. They suggest that to disallow the acquisition of medical and agricultural knowledge would be a maladaptive strategy, that may endanger human survival. The philosophical bases of the animal rights groups are discussed and the reader is required to carefully follow often unfamiliar arguments. However the end result is well worthwhile.

At the end of the book's introduction the hope is expressed that, ‘these essays will advance public debate on this vital issue.’ It is hard to imagine that the general public will read such a book, but hopefully the scientists and students who carry out animal based research will use the arguments when explaining and justifying their research.

There is a useful index and I found the endnotes for each chapter interesting. I would have liked an alphabetical list of literature references at the end of the book.

It becomes evident after reading this book that animal rights movements are only sustainable in affluent societies. It is the responsibility of these societies to work towards the alleviation of diseases, which much of the world suffers. This book should be welcomed by the research communities in all countries where animal based research is conducted.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Veterinary Science The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia

Judith K Blackshaw

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Blackshaw, J. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Heredity 87 , 609 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.0809a.x

Download citation

Published : 01 November 2001

Issue Date : 01 November 2001

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.0809a.x

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

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

August 31, 2023

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

written by researcher(s)

We won't always have to use animals for medical research: Here's what we can do instead

by Greg Williams and Laura Anne Thomas, The Conversation

Animals have been used for medical research for thousands of years, dating back to ancient Greece where the first dissections were performed.

These days, one of the main uses of animals is to ensure the safety of medical products before they're trialed in humans.

But in addition to the important ethical reasons for minimizing animal use, the reality is sometimes animals just aren't that good at predicting human responses. No animal model, for example, has captured all the human characteristics of complex illnesses like Alzheimer's disease or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (a neuromuscular disease). This makes is hard to develop effective treatments and cures.

Thankfully, researchers are making progress in developing a collection of alternative approaches, called "non-animal models." A new report from our team at CSIRO Futures examines the potential of non-animal models and the actions Australia will need to take to pursue their use.

What are non-animal models?

Non-animal models are an alternative set of models that use human cells, tissues and data.

These have the potential to better mimic human responses. In doing so, this can more accurately predict if a medical product is likely to fail, allowing reinvestment in products that are more likely to succeed.

Computer simulations or "in silico models" are one example. These can be used across the medical product development process to complement—and in time potentially replace—other model types. They can be used in drug studies to model a drug's behavior within the body, from cellular interactions to processes that involve multiple organs.

Complex three-dimensional biological models are also maturing quickly. Examples include:

organoids —organ "buds" that can be propagated from stem cells or taken from biopsies

organs-on-chips —cells cultured in a miniature engineered chip. These attempt to replicate the physical environment of human organs.

What can we use non-animal models for?

In theory, we can use non-animal models for everything we use animal models for—and more.

Simple non-animal models ( human cells cultured over a flat surface) are already used to help identify drug targets due to their ability to test a large number of compounds and experimental conditions.

In the future, non-animal models will reduce—and eventually replace—animal use across a range of applications:

• screening potential drugs to see how well they work
• toxicology (safety) testing
• helping to screen, select and stratify shortlisted participants for clinical trials. This might include an assessment of their unique response to a potential drug.
• using patient cells to identify the treatment most likely to help that individual.

Outside of medical products designed for humans, non-animal models can also support innovation in veterinary and agricultural medicines, cosmetic testing and eco-toxicology.

An export opportunity for Australia

Non-animal models present an economic opportunity for Australia, where the models, their components, and surrounding services could be exported to the world.

Our novel economic analysis sized the potential Australian market for two non-animal models: organoids and organs-on-chips. Other models were unable to be sized due to a lack of global market data.

We estimate the Australian organoid market could be worth A$1.3 billion annually by 2040 and create 4,200 new jobs.

The organs-on-chips market could be worth A$300 million annually by 2040 and create 1,000 new jobs. This estimate is lower as this technology is currently less advanced but holds the potential to grow significantly beyond 2040.

Several Australian entities are already contributing to these opportunities. The Murdoch Children's Research Institute, for example, provides stem cell and modeling expertise as part of reNEW , a €300 million international collaboration .

Another example is from Schott Minifab , an international biotech and medical device company with Australian roots, which has successfully established scaled production of non-animal model components in Australia for domestic and export markets.

Making it a reality

Non-animal models have already begun to complement and replace animal use in some areas, such as identifying drug targets.

However, accelerating their development and adoption across a wider range of applications will require further technical advances to lower cost and validate their performance as superior models.

Australia has several research strengths in this field but we need a concentrated effort to help our research make it through to real world impact.

Our report makes ten recommendations for supporting Australia's pursuit of these opportunities. Critical activities over the next five years include:

• coordinating local capabilities
• investing in upgraded infrastructure
• creating and collating data that compares animal and non- animal model performance.

Governments, industry and research must collaborate to deliver against these actions. Success will only come from collective efforts.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers produce grafts that replicate the human ear

Mar 30, 2024

An infamous 'inflammasome'—a rogue protein complex—appears to underlie a rare and disabling autoimmune disorder

Mar 29, 2024

Researchers discover skin biomarkers in infants that predict early development of food allergies

Veterans help provide greater insight into Klinefelter and Jacobs syndromes

High-resolution images reveal similarities in protein structures between Alzheimer's disease and Down syndrome

How blocking a neural receptor responsible for addiction could reduce alcohol use

Study finds few hospitals promoting potentially predatory medical payment products

COVID-19 research: Study reveals new details about potentially deadly inflammation

Enhanced melanoma vaccine offers improved survival for men

How music choices can affect productivity

Related stories.

Lung organoids could replace animal testing and boost success in clinical trials

Apr 12, 2023

From a fish to a dish, how animal alternatives are advancing stroke research

Aug 4, 2023

Organ-on-a-chip models allow researchers to conduct studies closer to real-life conditions

Jan 11, 2023

FDA takes steps away from animal testing requirement

Aug 10, 2022

UK must not fall behind in race to 'humanize' drug discovery

Nov 16, 2018

Reproducing a retinal disease on a chip

Jun 15, 2017

Recommended for you

Micro-patterning: A new system to induce alveolar and airway epithelial cells

Study discovers how a magnesium cellular transport 'pump' plays a vital role in cardiac function

Mar 28, 2024

Familial Alzheimer's disease transferred via bone marrow transplant in mice

Cell phone video technology unveils new method for analyzing walking and gait

Single genomic test promises accelerated diagnoses for rare genetic diseases

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals

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

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

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

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

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

• Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

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

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

• Transplantation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cardiovascular-Renal Systems

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

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

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

• Nervous System

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

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

Movement and Function

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

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

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

Postnatal Development of the Visual Cortex and the Influence of Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Other Benefits for Humans

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

• Benefits for Animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

Recent activity.

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Top Myths About Animal Research

The University of Texas at Austin is dedicated to informing the public about why research with animals is essential to advancing scientific knowledge.

MYTH: Animal research is a waste of money because it cannot predict how drugs will affect humans.

FACT: There are many similarities between humans and animals.

The physiological systems of humans and other species of animals are very similar and as a result, research studies involving animals have led to critical contributions to the treatment of a wide variety of diseases. Vaccinations for polio, tuberculosis and diphtheria as well as pacemakers and cochlear implants have all been developed through research on animals. In fact, 188 of the 225 Nobel Prize award recipients in the Physiology or Medicine category used animal models in their research! (Foundation for Biomedical Research, Nobel Prizes in Medicine, 2023)

MYTH: Animal research only benefits humans.

FACT: Animal research saves human and animal lives!

Animal research not only benefits humans. It also plays a key role in the development of veterinary medicine for our pets. These discoveries include the feline leukemia vaccine and flea control methods. These advances would not have been possible without the use of laboratory animals.

MYTH: There are no laws or regulations governing the use of animals in research.

FACT: Animal research is highly regulated in the United States on the federal and local levels.

Scientists who wish to perform research with animals must receive prior approval from their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The IACUC reviews proposals while focusing on the ethical care and use of animals. The IACUC is comprised of veterinarians, scientists, non-scientists and members of the community.

Scientists and IACUCs must both comply with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Both federal agencies have set strict policies and regulations regarding the care and use of animals. UT Austin is also accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), a voluntary accreditation organization that sets the gold standard for the care and use of animals.

MYTH: Most experiments are performed on monkeys, dogs and cats.

FACT: Only 1% of animal research is conducted with monkeys, dogs and cats.

99% of animal research around the world is conducted with other animals, including rodents, fruit flies, fish or other species. However dogs, cats and monkeys have and continue to contribute greatly to our understanding of the way the body works and treating diseases affecting humans and animals.

MYTH: Research animals are abused and mistreated.

FACT: The laws to protect laboratory animals in the United States are among the strictest on the planet.

The University of Texas at Austin complies with all laws and regulations set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). UT is voluntarily accredited by AAALAC and utilizes standards set forth by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Animal research cannot occur unless it receives prior approval from an animal welfare and ethics committee, known as an IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). UT employs three full-time veterinarians with specialty in laboratory animal medicine who provide around-the clock medical care. Animals are provided with clean housing, nutritious food,and environmental enrichment. A procedure that is painful in humans is assumed to be painful in animals. The use of anesthetics for potentially painful procedures plus painkillers after surgery are always provided unless the clinical study specifically disallows it. In this case, researchers must have a strong justification for why these cannot be provided.

MYTH: No scientific benefits have resulted from animal research.

FACT: Countless scientific benefits have resulted from animal research.

Without animal research, we would not have chemotherapy drugs for cancer, high blood pressure medication, the ability to perform organ transplants, insulin drugs for the diabetic, artificial joint replacements, drugs such as penicillin and other antibiotics, heart pacemakers, vaccines for polio, measles, rubella, smalli diphtheria and tetanus, and so many more medical advances.

MYTH: Animal research is no longer necessary because there are non-animal alternatives to animal experiments.

FACT: Although the scientific community has become more sophisticated with using non-animal alternatives, they cannot completely replace experiments that need to be performed in a living being.

In some cases, non-animal alternatives such as computers have been used to replace research animals. Nevertheless, while computers provide terrific resources for researchers, they do have limitations. For instance, computers are only able to provide information or models of known phenomena. Because research consistently seeks answers to unknowns, a computer is unable to simulate how a particular cell might interact or react with a medical compound, or how a complex biological system such as the circulatory system will react to a new drug directed to improve organ function.

Studies using isolated cells or tissues almost always precede animal-based research, but researchers must study whole living systems to understand the effectiveness of treatments and their potential benefits and dangers.

U.S. law requires that all new drugs, medical devices and procedures first be evaluated in animals for safety and efficacy before clinical (human) trials can begin.

MYTH: It is immoral to use animals in research.

FACT: Animal research is necessary to treat and prevent disease, and the animals are treated with the utmost respect.

The use of animals in research is a privilege that must be preserved to ensure human and animal relief from disease and suffering. Researchers seek to relieve suffering in both humans and animals by enhancing our ability to prevent, diagnose and treat disease.

A large number of major medical advances in the 20th century have occurred largely because of research with animals. Our best hope for developing preventions, treatments and cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, AIDS and cancer will also involve biomedical research using animals.

MYTH: Animals are an unnecessary part of the drug development process.

FACT: Animal involvement is often a necessary part of developing and testing the efficacy of drugs.

According to the Nuremburg Code, developed after World War II as a result of Nazi atrocities, any experiments on humans “should be designed and based on the results of animal experimentation.” The Nazis had outlawed animal experimentation but allowed experiments on Jews and “asocial persons.” The Declaration of Helsinki, adopted in 1964 by the 18th World Medical Assembly and revised in 1975, also states that medical research on human subjects “should be based on adequately performed laboratory and animal experimentation.”

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are multiple steps that must be taken before a drug is determined safe and made available for humans to use. This process can take between 10-15 years.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

• School and College News
• Arts & Culture
• Community Impact
• Entrepreneurship
• Health & Well-Being
• Research & Discovery
• UConn Health
• University Life
• UConn Voices
• University News

March 29, 2024 | Combined Reports - UConn Communications

Global Wildlife Study During COVID-19 Shows Rural Animals are More Sensitive to Human Activity

Plant-eating animals are more active, carnivores are more cautious around humans

(Adobe stock)

One of the largest studies on wildlife activity—involving more than 220 researchers, 163 mammal species, and 5,000 camera traps worldwide—reveals that wild animals react differently to humans depending on where the animals live and what they eat.

Bigger herbivores—plant-eating animals like deer or moose—tend to become more active when humans are around, while meat-eaters like wolves or wolverines tend to be less active, preferring to avoid risky encounters.

Urban animals like deer or raccoons may become more active around people, as they get used to human presence and find food like garbage or plants, which they can access at night. But animals living farther from cities and other developed areas are more wary of encountering people.

The new study, a collaboration of researchers from 161 institutions, including CT State Museum of Natural History Curator, Collections Manager, and Engagement Specialist, and UConn Biodiversity Research Collection Vertebrate Collections Manager Erin Kuprewicz , used comparative camera trapping data from pre-lockdown and post-lockdown from sites across the globe, including study sites in Storrs to track how animals responded to the COVID-19 ‘anthropause.’

“COVID-19 mobility restrictions gave researchers a truly unique opportunity to study how animals responded when the number of people sharing their landscape changed drastically over a relatively short period,” says lead author Cole Burton, an associate professor of forest resources management at the University of British Columbia. “And contrary to the popular narratives that emerged around that time, we did not see an overall pattern of ‘wildlife running free’ while humans sheltered in place. Rather, we saw great variation in activity patterns of people and wildlife, with the most striking trends being that animal responses depended on landscape conditions and their position in the food chain.”

In Canada, researchers monitoring areas such as Banff and Pacific Rim national parks, Cathedral, Golden Ears, and South Chilcotin Mountains provincial parks, and the Sea-to-Sky corridor in B.C. found that carnivores like wolverines, wolves, and cougars were generally less active when human activity was higher.

In several of these parks, and in cities such as Edmonton, large herbivores often increased their activity but became more nocturnal with the presence of more humans. Large carnivores were notably absent from the most human-dominated landscapes.

Kuprewicz collaborates with researchers and citizen scientists across the country in a coordinated national survey called Snapshot USA which tracks and inventories animal activity. As a participant in Snapshot USA, Kuprewicz leads a long-term mammal census project studying the mammals of rural Connecticut. This massively collaborative project involves over 100 collaborators from every state in the US and has been running in Storrs every fall for the past five years.

Around UConn, Kuprewicz saw similar patterns to those observed in Canada.

“Some of the highlights specific to my dataset were that we noticed woodchucks significantly increased their activity at Storrs sites when humans are active, but bobcats and skunks significantly decreased their activity,” Kuprewicz said. “These local trends match up with the global patterns we present in the paper.”

Why it Matters

These findings highlight the importance of measures to minimize any detrimental effects of human disturbance on wildlife, including reducing overlaps that might lead to conflict.

“In remote areas with limited human infrastructure, the effects of our actual presence on wildlife may be particularly strong. To give wild animals the space they need, we may consider setting aside protected areas or movement corridors free of human activity, or consider seasonal restrictions, like temporary closures of campsites or hiking trails during migratory or breeding seasons,” says study co-author and UBC biologist Kaitlyn Gaynor.

She adds that strategies must also fit specific species and locations. In more remote areas, keeping human activity low will be necessary to protect sensitive species. In areas where people and animals overlap more, such as cities, nighttime is an important refuge for wildlife, and keeping it that way can help species survive. Efforts may focus on reducing human-wildlife conflict after dark, such as more secure storage of trash bins to reduce the number of animals getting into human food sources, or use of road mitigation measures to reduce vehicle collisions.

“Being aware of what mammals are active and when around UConn allows us to be thoughtful in campus planning to avoid detrimental human-wildlife conflict,” says Kuprewicz. “My cameras have shown that green spaces throughout campus are surprisingly rich in carnivore species ( e.g. , bobcats and fishers). The potential to evaluate these spaces as effective wildlife corridors in a human-dominated college campus landscape is exciting.”

The findings are particularly useful amid the surge in global travel and outdoor recreation post-pandemic, Burton adds.

“Understanding how wildlife responds to human activity in various contexts helps us develop effective conservation plans that have local and global impact. For that reason, we are working to improve wildlife monitoring systems using tools like the camera traps that made it possible to observe animal behaviors during the pandemic.”

Kuprewicz says collaborations and data sets like these are vital for navigating our future:

“As we accrue more census years for our long-term mammal dataset and devise interesting ways to use these data, the story of shifting species activity patterns and ranges will become clearer in the ever-changing Anthropocene.”

Recent Articles

March 29, 2024

Professor Receives a $3M RO1 Grant From the National Institutes of Health

Read the article

Meet the Researcher: Haiying Tao, CAHNR

March 28, 2024

HRI Faculty Spotlight, César Abadía-Barrero

New study shows a link between alcohol and heart disease in women

Teens seeking help for substance abuse turn to drugs and alcohol to de-stress

Hidden cholesterol risk could affect millions of Americans

NBC investigates how HCA hospitals put profits before patients 

'Essential eight' behaviors that may slow biological aging

Exploring rarities of cardiac arrest in young athletes after Bronny James' collapse

LeBron James' son Bronny in stable condition after suffering cardiac arrest

How to recognize heart attack symptoms and save a life

Heart attack survivor thanks women who saved her on dance floor

Young cardiac arrest survivor spreads life-saving CPR message

Comedian Phoebe Robinson on walking the runway for a good cause

What if you could take three heart medications in one pill?

3 exercises to improve heart health

What toll has the pandemic taken on heart health?

‘Broken heart syndrome’ spikes during COVID-19: What is it?

Watch: Woman begs for water and medical attention, later dies from heart infection

How a rare condition can cause heart attacks in healthy young women

Meet the couple teaching tai chi to the homeless

Mom who survived 2 heart attacks by age 32 sheds light on heart health

3 products that give back to heart-health organizations

Nbc news now.

A new study from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California is showing a link between alcohol use and heart disease in women. The research found that women who drink more than one drink a day are up to 50% more likely to develop heart disease. NBC News’ Medical Fellow, Dr. Akshay Syal, explains the results of the new study. March 29, 2024

Best of NBC News

’SNL’ dives into politics and religion with Ramy Youseff's monologue and Trump selling Bibles

Meet the Press

Clyburn says he didn’t work with republicans on gerrymandered map: ‘i offered my suggestions’.

March 31 — Rep. Clyburn, Rep. Bacon and Savannah Guthrie

Rep. Clyburn defends U.S. aid to Israel: ‘Leverage has to be used’ but ‘we have to keep our word’

‘At this point, there’s not a specific crime’ to impeach Biden over, says GOP congressman

GOP Rep. Bacon says federal government has a ‘role’ in Baltimore bridge rebuild: Full interview

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What the data says about abortion in the u.s..

Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions.

In a  Center survey  conducted nearly a year after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision that  ended the constitutional right to abortion , 62% of U.S. adults said the practice should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% said it should be illegal in all or most cases. Another survey conducted a few months before the decision showed that relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the issue .

Find answers to common questions about abortion in America, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, which have tracked these patterns for several decades:

How many abortions are there in the U.S. each year?

How has the number of abortions in the u.s. changed over time, what is the abortion rate among women in the u.s. how has it changed over time, what are the most common types of abortion, how many abortion providers are there in the u.s., and how has that number changed, what percentage of abortions are for women who live in a different state from the abortion provider, what are the demographics of women who have had abortions, when during pregnancy do most abortions occur, how often are there medical complications from abortion.

This compilation of data on abortion in the United States draws mainly from two sources: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, both of which have regularly compiled national abortion data for approximately half a century, and which collect their data in different ways.

The CDC data that is highlighted in this post comes from the agency’s “abortion surveillance” reports, which have been published annually since 1974 (and which have included data from 1969). Its figures from 1973 through 1996 include data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City – 52 “reporting areas” in all. Since 1997, the CDC’s totals have lacked data from some states (most notably California) for the years that those states did not report data to the agency. The four reporting areas that did not submit data to the CDC in 2021 – California, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey – accounted for approximately 25% of all legal induced abortions in the U.S. in 2020, according to Guttmacher’s data. Most states, though,  do  have data in the reports, and the figures for the vast majority of them came from each state’s central health agency, while for some states, the figures came from hospitals and other medical facilities.

Discussion of CDC abortion data involving women’s state of residence, marital status, race, ethnicity, age, abortion history and the number of previous live births excludes the low share of abortions where that information was not supplied. Read the methodology for the CDC’s latest abortion surveillance report , which includes data from 2021, for more details. Previous reports can be found at  stacks.cdc.gov  by entering “abortion surveillance” into the search box.

For the numbers of deaths caused by induced abortions in 1963 and 1965, this analysis looks at reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. In computing those figures, we excluded abortions listed in the report under the categories “spontaneous or unspecified” or as “other.” (“Spontaneous abortion” is another way of referring to miscarriages.)

Guttmacher data in this post comes from national surveys of abortion providers that Guttmacher has conducted 19 times since 1973. Guttmacher compiles its figures after contacting every known provider of abortions – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, and it provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond to its inquiries. (In 2020, the last year for which it has released data on the number of abortions in the U.S., it used estimates for 12% of abortions.) For most of the 2000s, Guttmacher has conducted these national surveys every three years, each time getting abortion data for the prior two years. For each interim year, Guttmacher has calculated estimates based on trends from its own figures and from other data.

The latest full summary of Guttmacher data came in the institute’s report titled “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2020.” It includes figures for 2020 and 2019 and estimates for 2018. The report includes a methods section.

In addition, this post uses data from StatPearls, an online health care resource, on complications from abortion.

An exact answer is hard to come by. The CDC and the Guttmacher Institute have each tried to measure this for around half a century, but they use different methods and publish different figures.

The last year for which the CDC reported a yearly national total for abortions is 2021. It found there were 625,978 abortions in the District of Columbia and the 46 states with available data that year, up from 597,355 in those states and D.C. in 2020. The corresponding figure for 2019 was 607,720.

The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019.

• How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. ( Read the methodology from the latest CDC report .)
• How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. ( Read the institute’s latest full report and methodology .)

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by  groups  and  publications  across the political spectrum, including by a  number of those  that  disagree with its positions .

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months , based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained  outside of clinical settings .

(Back to top)

The annual number of U.S. abortions rose for years after Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973, reaching its highest levels around the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. Since then, abortions have generally decreased at what a CDC analysis called  “a slow yet steady pace.”

Guttmacher says the number of abortions occurring in the U.S. in 2020 was 40% lower than it was in 1991. According to the CDC, the number was 36% lower in 2021 than in 1991, looking just at the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported both of those years.

(The corresponding line graph shows the long-term trend in the number of legal abortions reported by both organizations. To allow for consistent comparisons over time, the CDC figures in the chart have been adjusted to ensure that the same states are counted from one year to the next. Using that approach, the CDC figure for 2021 is 622,108 legal abortions.)

There have been occasional breaks in this long-term pattern of decline – during the middle of the first decade of the 2000s, and then again in the late 2010s. The CDC reported modest 1% and 2% increases in abortions in 2018 and 2019, and then, after a 2% decrease in 2020, a 5% increase in 2021. Guttmacher reported an 8% increase over the three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

As noted above, these figures do not include abortions that use pills obtained outside of clinical settings.

Guttmacher says that in 2020 there were 14.4 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Its data shows that the rate of abortions among women has generally been declining in the U.S. since 1981, when it reported there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in that age range.

The CDC says that in 2021, there were 11.6 abortions in the U.S. per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. (That figure excludes data from California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.) Like Guttmacher’s data, the CDC’s figures also suggest a general decline in the abortion rate over time. In 1980, when the CDC reported on all 50 states and D.C., it said there were 25 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

That said, both Guttmacher and the CDC say there were slight increases in the rate of abortions during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Guttmacher says the abortion rate per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 rose from 13.5 in 2017 to 14.4 in 2020. The CDC says it rose from 11.2 per 1,000 in 2017 to 11.4 in 2019, before falling back to 11.1 in 2020 and then rising again to 11.6 in 2021. (The CDC’s figures for those years exclude data from California, D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey.)

The CDC broadly divides abortions into two categories: surgical abortions and medication abortions, which involve pills. Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved abortion pills in 2000, their use has increased over time as a share of abortions nationally, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher.

The majority of abortions in the U.S. now involve pills, according to both the CDC and Guttmacher. The CDC says 56% of U.S. abortions in 2021 involved pills, up from 53% in 2020 and 44% in 2019. Its figures for 2021 include the District of Columbia and 44 states that provided this data; its figures for 2020 include D.C. and 44 states (though not all of the same states as in 2021), and its figures for 2019 include D.C. and 45 states.

Guttmacher, which measures this every three years, says 53% of U.S. abortions involved pills in 2020, up from 39% in 2017.

Two pills commonly used together for medication abortions are mifepristone, which, taken first, blocks hormones that support a pregnancy, and misoprostol, which then causes the uterus to empty. According to the FDA, medication abortions are safe  until 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Surgical abortions conducted  during the first trimester  of pregnancy typically use a suction process, while the relatively few surgical abortions that occur  during the second trimester  of a pregnancy typically use a process called dilation and evacuation, according to the UCLA School of Medicine.

In 2020, there were 1,603 facilities in the U.S. that provided abortions,  according to Guttmacher . This included 807 clinics, 530 hospitals and 266 physicians’ offices.

While clinics make up half of the facilities that provide abortions, they are the sites where the vast majority (96%) of abortions are administered, either through procedures or the distribution of pills, according to Guttmacher’s 2020 data. (This includes 54% of abortions that are administered at specialized abortion clinics and 43% at nonspecialized clinics.) Hospitals made up 33% of the facilities that provided abortions in 2020 but accounted for only 3% of abortions that year, while just 1% of abortions were conducted by physicians’ offices.

Looking just at clinics – that is, the total number of specialized abortion clinics and nonspecialized clinics in the U.S. – Guttmacher found the total virtually unchanged between 2017 (808 clinics) and 2020 (807 clinics). However, there were regional differences. In the Midwest, the number of clinics that provide abortions increased by 11% during those years, and in the West by 6%. The number of clinics  decreased  during those years by 9% in the Northeast and 3% in the South.

The total number of abortion providers has declined dramatically since the 1980s. In 1982, according to Guttmacher, there were 2,908 facilities providing abortions in the U.S., including 789 clinics, 1,405 hospitals and 714 physicians’ offices.

The CDC does not track the number of abortion providers.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that provided abortion and residency information to the CDC in 2021, 10.9% of all abortions were performed on women known to live outside the state where the abortion occurred – slightly higher than the percentage in 2020 (9.7%). That year, D.C. and 46 states (though not the same ones as in 2021) reported abortion and residency data. (The total number of abortions used in these calculations included figures for women with both known and unknown residential status.)

The share of reported abortions performed on women outside their state of residence was much higher before the 1973 Roe decision that stopped states from banning abortion. In 1972, 41% of all abortions in D.C. and the 20 states that provided this information to the CDC that year were performed on women outside their state of residence. In 1973, the corresponding figure was 21% in the District of Columbia and the 41 states that provided this information, and in 1974 it was 11% in D.C. and the 43 states that provided data.

In the District of Columbia and the 46 states that reported age data to  the CDC in 2021, the majority of women who had abortions (57%) were in their 20s, while about three-in-ten (31%) were in their 30s. Teens ages 13 to 19 accounted for 8% of those who had abortions, while women ages 40 to 44 accounted for about 4%.

The vast majority of women who had abortions in 2021 were unmarried (87%), while married women accounted for 13%, according to  the CDC , which had data on this from 37 states.

In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to  the CDC , 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races.

Looking at abortion rates among those ages 15 to 44, there were 28.6 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic Black women in 2021; 12.3 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; 6.4 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic White women; and 9.2 abortions per 1,000 women of other races, the  CDC reported  from those same 31 states, D.C. and New York City.

For 57% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2021, it was the first time they had ever had one,  according to the CDC.  For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women who had an abortion that year, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or more. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion,  according to the CDC . Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation,  according to the CDC . An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 40 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman , according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article.

The CDC calculates  case-fatality rates for women from induced abortions – that is, how many women die from abortion-related complications, for every 100,000 legal abortions that occur in the U.S .  The rate was lowest during the most recent period examined by the agency (2013 to 2020), when there were 0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. The case-fatality rate reported by the CDC was highest during the first period examined by the agency (1973 to 1977), when it was 2.09 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions. During the five-year periods in between, the figure ranged from 0.52 (from 1993 to 1997) to 0.78 (from 1978 to 1982).

The CDC calculates death rates by five-year and seven-year periods because of year-to-year fluctuation in the numbers and due to the relatively low number of women who die from legal induced abortions.

In 2020, the last year for which the CDC has information , six women in the U.S. died due to complications from induced abortions. Four women died in this way in 2019, two in 2018, and three in 2017. (These deaths all followed legal abortions.) Since 1990, the annual number of deaths among women due to legal induced abortion has ranged from two to 12.

The annual number of reported deaths from induced abortions (legal and illegal) tended to be higher in the 1980s, when it ranged from nine to 16, and from 1972 to 1979, when it ranged from 13 to 63. One driver of the decline was the drop in deaths from illegal abortions. There were 39 deaths from illegal abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade. The total fell to 19 in 1973 and to single digits or zero every year after that. (The number of deaths from legal abortions has also declined since then, though with some slight variation over time.)

The number of deaths from induced abortions was considerably higher in the 1960s than afterward. For instance, there were 119 deaths from induced abortions in  1963  and 99 in  1965 , according to reports by the then-U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a precursor to the Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a division of Health and Human Services.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 27, 2022, and first updated June 24, 2022.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

Public opinion on abortion, three-in-ten or more democrats and republicans don’t agree with their party on abortion, partisanship a bigger factor than geography in views of abortion access locally, do state laws on abortion reflect public opinion, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .