the use of animals in scientific research argumentative essay

Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay

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

Should animals be used in research? This argumentative essay aims to answer the question. It focuses on pros and cons of animal testing for scientific and medical goals.

Introduction

The Arguments

Works Cited

All over the world, animal activists and institutions have argued whether or not research should be used on animals or should be outlawed. Philosophers believe that experiments on animals are not morally justified because they cause pain or harm the animals. A group of these philosophers believe that other alternatives are available, thus they claim that because we have other alternatives, the use of animals in research should be outlawed.

Should Animals Be Used in Research? The Arguments

In my opinion, I support the line of argument that animals should not be used in research. Since the discovery of knowing through science (research), the use of animals in research has elicited mixed reactions among different scholars. Philosophers are against the idea citing the availability of other options for toxicological tests on animals and the harsh treatments the scientists have accorded these animals in the medical tests. Unless scientists discover other ways of testing medicines, I think tests on animals are unethical.

Scientists use these creatures to validate a theory and then revise or change their theories depending on the new facts or information gained from every test performed. Animal rights lobby groups believe that animals are used for no reasons in these experiments as the animals endure pain inflicted on them during these tests (Singer 2). They tend to overlook the fact that animals have moral existence, social and religious values. Thousands of animals on this planet contribute largely to the aesthetic appeal of the land.

On the other hand, scientists only see the positive contributions of animal tests to the medical field and ignore the side effects of the tests on the animals’ lives. They overlook the idea that animals are hurt and thus suffer tremendously.

To them the impact of the research on the lives of their families and friends by coming up with vaccines and drugs is the inspiration. Research on animals should be banned because it inflicts pain, harms the culprits and morally it is unjustified. Has man ever wondered whether or not animals feel similar pain that humans feel? (Singer 2).

Human beings know very well that they themselves feel pain. For example, you will know that a metal rod is hot by touching it with bare hands. It is believed that pain is mental; in other words it cannot be seen. We feel pain and we realize that other creatures also feel pain from observations like jerking away from an event or even yelling.

Since the reactions are the same as those of man, philosophers say that animals feel similar pain just like humans. Animal activists reaffirm that the major undoing of tests involving animals is the manner in which the animals are treated arguing that anesthesia for suppressing the pain is never used.

However, as many people are opposed to the use of animals in research, many lives have been saved every year due to their death. I think that instead of refuting that taking away the life of a rat is unethical, harms the animal; I believe it is a bold step in improving the welfare of millions of people for thousands of years to come. Tests on animals are the most common toxicological tests used by scientists; the findings help to better lives for hundreds of people across the universe (Fox 12).

Fox, Michael A. The Case for Animal Experimentation. California: University of California Press, 1986.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1975.

An Argumentative Essay: How to Write
Writing Argumentative Essay With Computer Aided Formulation
Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay
Ethical Problems of the Animal Abuse
The Debate About Animal Rights
Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies
Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved
Experimentation on Animals
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 27). Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/

"Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 27 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay'. 27 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

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.

READ FREE ONLINE

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.

Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

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

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Introduction.

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

Benefits of Using Animals in Research

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

Downsides of Animal Research

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

Alternatives to Animal Research

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

250 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

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

Why Some People Support Animal Research

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

Why Some People Are Against Animal Research

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

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

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

500 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Why animals are used for research.

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

Benefits of Animal Research

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

Arguments Against Animal Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

Theme Science
Grades 9-12

Scientist performing cosmetics test on a rabbit

Introduction

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

Learning Objectives

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

For the full writing prompt, download the PDF.

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

the use of animals in scientific research argumentative essay

Related Writing Prompts

Natural Disasters

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

Two hands holding the earth and a plant in dirt

The Future of the Planet

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

High school students working with chemicals wearing lab equipment

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

Two high school students at a desk writing

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

The Use of Animals in Scientific Research

Significance of the research based on animal samples, opinions supporting the use of animals for scientific purposes, threatening behavior of animal rights activists, works cited.

The question of animal rights is a rather controversial issue of the twenty-first century. Some people believe that “animals have feelings, too,” while others are convinced that animal testing is essential to future scientific research. The opinions are entirely different, and one side of the conflict does not want to listen to another. The advancement in technology and science has made it possible to find the cure for many diseases, but without proper material gained from animal samples, some of the scientists’ future endeavors are doomed to failure. While experimentation of animals does bring them harm, the significance of the outcomes of such experiments for humans cannot be overestimated.

As animal research has a great importance for the people’s welfare through medical progress, it does not seem possible to refuse from using animals for research purposes. It should be borne in mind that the scientists have no intention to hurt animals or exploit them without a beneficial prospect for the humanity (Festing and Wilkinson 526). Therefore, they take measures to control the animal exploitation in the studies. Bioscience specialists agree that there should be an ethical framework outlining the proper approaches to the use of animals in research. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, implemented in the UK, was a pioneer in the animal protection against experimentation (Festing and Wilkinson 526). According to this Act, the research proposals engaging animals need to be thoroughly evaluated in terms of causing any damage to the animals. An exhaustive investigation of the planned experiments and procedures along with the types and number of animals needed should be submitted and approved before starting the research (Festing and Wilkinson 526). By doing this, the scientists eliminate the harm caused to animals while obtaining necessary material for relieving people’s suffering from dangerous diseases.

While animal rights activists put the welfare of animals in the first place, their opponents try to prove that the use of animals in scientific research is highly beneficial for humans. The scientists face a complicated issue of balancing between satisfying the animal rights defenders and inventing cure for human diseases based on animal research (Gannon 519). One area of research where experimentation on animals cannot be replaced yet is testing for “teratogenicity” and “endocrine-disrupting activity” (Gannon 519). Such study involves animal-based study comprising several generations. Regrettably, the tissue and cell cultures are not able to replace the animal-based samples in a short time. Under these circumstances, the scholars consider the cost-benefit analysis the most crucial issue (Gannon 520). This approach justifies some research types while condemning the others. For instance, employing animals in biomedical research is generally accepted by the society whereas using them in cosmetics testing is not tolerated. Such approach allows to weigh the advantages for the society (medicine safety) against the disadvantages for the animals (pain and death) (Gannon 520).

In the light of current animal rights movements, some activists note that not all campaigns are at their core the “animal rights” but rather the “animal welfare” campaigns (Wise para. 1). One of the causes of such differentiation is that animals are often regarded as “legal things” as opposed to people who are “legal persons” (Wise para. 2). Thus, animals are not empowered with any rights and are considered as property items. Humans, on the contrary, have an inherent value and many juridical rights allowing them to use the “legal things” however they wish (Wise para. 2). Another cause is concerned with the fact that the term “animal” comprises immensely divergent biological kingdom with over 1.25 million species (Wise para. 2). Each of these species has a different level of autonomy, perception, general intelligence, and sensibility. Thus, the activists say, it is unfair to treat all animals as suitable subjects for experimentation (Wise para. 2). The supporters of this approach defend an opinion that animals should not just be given “animal rights” in general but each kind of animals should be given their own rights (Wise para. 9).

Not all activities aimed at defending the animals’ rights bear the peaceful character of negotiations. While some defenders express their dissatisfaction of the use of animals for scientific research by signing petitions and promoting governmental Acts, others make themselves heard by employing totally different methods. Animal rights terrorism is a dangerous movement directed against the innocent people who merely do their job by inventing better cure techniques for the humanity. There have been a number of cases of attacks on the scientists by the animal rights terrorists (Hadley 363). People may get hurt or escape the violent actions, but in any case, they are morally devastated and frightened. There have been instances when after such attacks the scientists refused to proceed with their work (“Fighting Animal Rights Terrorism”). In 2006, the Animal Liberation Front tried to firebomb the home of Lynn Fairbanks, who worked as a researcher at a university. Their attempt was not successful, but Fairbanks’ colleague Dario Ringach refused to continue his neuroscientific research, being afraid for the lives of his children (“Fighting Animal Rights Terrorism”). Such attacks by animal rights terrorists are not rare. Their actions frighten the research workers, and they stop working on vital research the outcomes of which could save many people’s lives.

Punishment measures presupposed by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) does not stop the activists. They break into the farmhouses and cause huge losses to the owners while releasing the animals and considering their actions noble (Pilkington para. 2-3). In 2015, two activists argued that the concept of terrorism is “inappropriately used,” and that the law “threatens to stop free speech across the animal rights movement” (Pilkington para. 3). This occasion proves that the animal rights terrorists are trying to obtain more power and possibilities which would enable them to expand their illegal activity against the farmers and researchers.

The debate about using animals for experiment research involves many issues and cannot be resolved in one day. However, people should come to some agreement in order to eliminate the adverse outcomes for animals as well as for the research workers. A thorough consideration of benefits and limitations of each particular study is necessary for the most suitable results. The researchers should only employ animals when it is absolutely necessary. On the other hand, the animal rights activists should realize that without proper experimentation on animals, humans will suffer. The cost-benefit analysis should be applied to achieve the most constructive solutions. While animals may be hurt during the experiments, their suffering can be justified by the elimination of the effects of serious illnesses experienced by people.

Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. “The Ethics of Animal Research.” EMBO Reports, vol. 8, no. 6, 2007, pp. 526-530.

“Fighting Animal Rights Terrorism.” Editorial. Nature Neuroscience, vol. 9, no. 10, 2006, p. 1195.

Gannon, Frank. “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs?” EMBO Reports, vol. 8, no. 6, 2007, pp. 519-520.

Hadley, John. “Animal Rights Extremism and the Terrorism Question.” Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 40, no. 3, 2009, pp. 363-378.

Pilkington, Ed. “Animal Rights ‘Terrorists’? Legality of Industry-Friendly Law to Be Challenged.” The Guardian. 2015.

Wise, Steven M. “Animal Rights, Animal Wrongs: The Case for Nonhuman Personhood.” Foreign Affairs . 2015. Web.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, September 1). The Use of Animals in Scientific Research. https://studycorgi.com/the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/

"The Use of Animals in Scientific Research." StudyCorgi , 1 Sept. 2020, studycorgi.com/the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'The Use of Animals in Scientific Research'. 1 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Use of Animals in Scientific Research." September 1, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Use of Animals in Scientific Research." September 1, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "The Use of Animals in Scientific Research." September 1, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/the-use-of-animals-in-scientific-research/.

This paper, “The Use of Animals in Scientific Research”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 10, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
JME Commentaries
BMJ Journals

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

L Grayson. The British Library, 2000, £35, pp 300. ISBN 071230858X

The use of animals for the purpose of scientific research is an emotive subject. The moral arguments often exhibit polarised positions: the scientific demand for absolute freedom of research, and the abolitionist demand for a total ban on all animal experiments. At one extreme are those who argue that research on animals is essential in the battle against disease, and on the other extreme it is argued that the cost in terms of animal suffering is too high and that if experiments were prohibited medical researchers would find some other means of ensuring scientific progress. The rhetoric employed is also suggestive of a polarity: experimenters are accused of cruelty and indifference, whereas campaigners on behalf of animals are accused of irresponsibility and insensitivity towards the wellbeing of humans. Yet to ask …

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Ray Greek 1 &
Jean Greek 1

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine volume 5 , Article number: 14 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

30k Accesses

30 Citations

53 Altmetric

Metrics details

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of sentient animals in basic research. (We realize humans are animals but will use the word animal to mean nonhuman animal in this review.) We ask the question, "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" The reason we ask the question this way is that there is evidence that society has decided that if sentient animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and disease, then using them is acceptable. However, such use is not scientifically tenable, as animals cannot predict human response [ 1 – 27 ]. (See references 1 and 2 for reviews that include the theory behind this position and the empirical evidence supporting it. See references 3-27 for analysis of selected examples. We fully understand the contentious nature of our statement that animals cannot predict human response to drugs and disease but our defense of that statement is in references 1 and 2, not in this paper.) As a result, the questions that arise are: "What of using sentient animals in research that is recognized as curiosity-driven rather than goal-oriented? What factors should be considered when using sentient animals in such an endeavour? What would an informed society think justifies the use of sentient animals in research in general?"

In this essay, we show that: 1) basic research by definition is not designed to lead to cures; 2) in a vast majority of cases it does not; and 3) we show that society is not comfortable with this situation. We view this paper as a syllogism. IF society is not comfortable, or does not condone, using sentient animals in research that does not lead to cures and IF basic research is just that kind of research THEN society does not condone using sentient animals in basic research.

If basic research is defined as research that is not designed to predict human response to drugs or disease and is curiosity-driven, then what is purpose of taking the readers' time to explore the use of sentient animals in basic research? Is not the outcome already known? In reality, the previous points are very contentious, as is the conclusion, and thus the point of this essay is to take the reader through the major considerations. The authors started this discussion along with Niall Shanks in the article, " Are animal models predictive for humans? " [ 1 ] This essay is part two of our examination of the issue of using animals in research and in science in general.

This entire topic is very emotional and contentious and has many facets. There are many additional questions that can and eventually should be addressed. For example:

What kind of basic research can be performed without using animals and what are relative benefits and costs?

What was the role of animals in past scientific and medical breakthroughs? (This is not an easy question to answer. The exact history of how breakthroughs and discoveries happened is more similar to assembling a jigsaw puzzle than a straightforward example of A led to B led to C.)

Could breakthroughs that used animals have happened without using animals? If such breakthroughs could not have occurred without animals, during that particular era in history, why was this the case? Did advances in science and or engineering subsequently occur that would have allowed the discovery or breakthrough to have been made later without the use of animals? What would the consequences have been of a later date for the breakthrough?

How are animals used in the totality of research and science and what are the scientific merits of these uses? For example, in the review article " Are animal models predictive for humans? " [ 1 ] and the book Animal Models in Light of Evolution [ 2 ] the authors outline nine ways animals are used in science and advocate for the position that seven out of the nine ways are scientifically viable. By dividing the use of animals into categories, as we are doing in this essay, the topic is not only made more manageable but also allows for more precision in the arguments. Also, sweeping generalizations are avoided. Scientifically viable use of animals in one of the nine categories cannot be used to justify the ways animals are used in other categories.

Should there be a concerted effort by scientists to explain the value of basic research for knowledge sake alone ? Would the position of society on using sentient animals in basic research change if society believed, like many scientists, that research with sentient animals is justified solely on the basis of achieving more knowledge?

What barriers exist to replacing animals in research? What role do Institutional Review Boards and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee play in this? Do they help or hinder? How available is human tissue as opposed to animal tissue and why?

What does research about research reveal? It is the opinion of the authors that society needs much more research about research. What works and what does not? What has the highest rate of return? Is the division between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) working out as planned or should the process be changed? What types of research are under funded and what types are over funded?

Last in this list (but this is by no means an exhaustive list) is the issue of ethics. Can humans use animals in whatever way we see fit? Why do European counties requires more justification of the ethical cost:benefit ratio than the US? Are some sentient animals more worthy of consideration than others?

All of the above are part and parcel of the general topic of using animals in research and science. As we did in the essay " Are animal models predictive for humans? " [ 1 ], in this essay we break the problem down into one manageable question while acknowledging that the issue per se is much larger and that this essay is but one component of many.

Societal Norms

Philosophies of life vary considerably, especially where using animals in research is concerned. Some hold that animals should be used regardless of sentience or societal concerns. Derbyshire is representative of many in the basic research community when he states:

Ultimately, we cannot have it both ways. It is not possible to advocate animal welfare and at the same time give animals untested drugs or diseases, or slice them open to test a new surgical procedure. The three Rs [the notion that the number of animals used should be R educed, the procedures R efined to decrease pain, and animals as a whole should ultimately R eplaced with nonanimals] encourage a focus on animal welfare that is both unrealistic and dishonest. Regardless of any beliefs about the value of animals, if you engage in activities that are invasive or lethal to animals or if you control their reproduction, their living space and their habits, you are expressing a de facto belief that animals are sufficiently different from humans to make such activities justifiable. Scientists are keen to defend themselves against accusations of cruelty by promoting their allegiance to the three Rs but forget that the real reason for animal experimentation is to advance the welfare and understanding of humanity. Advancing human understanding requires the freedom to do more animal research, and often with higher species, and is incompatible with continued support for the three Rs [ 28 ].

Others hold a different view. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and released on July 9, 2009 revealed that only 52% of the nonscientist general public supported the use of animals in scientific research [ 29 ]. (It should be noted here that most polls on this subject, like the Pew/AAAS poll have been of the either or variety: "Do you support or reject the use of animals in research?" Such polls have thus not allowed the respondent any flexibility in the response or any nuance in his position. From our perspective these polls are suboptimal hence should be used as an acknowledged inexact metric or for tracking purposes. We will not be relying on them here. Suffice it to say, more polls that allow for a division of the use of animals in science and research are needed.) Better polls have asked more specific questions and have consistently revealed that society in general condones using animals in research when they think it will lead to life-saving treatments but not when they think it curiosity-driven. For example, in 1999, MORI conducted a poll in association with New Scientist that was published in New Scientist on May 22, 1999 [ 30 ]. When respondents were asked whether they favored using animals, 24% answered yes while 64% said no. But the pollsters then broke the questions down into several categories. For example, when respondents were questioned about experiments in which mice would be subject to pain, illness or surgery, 61% disapproved using them in order to study how the sense of hearing works, but only 32% disapproved of using the mice to ensure a new drug to cure childhood leukemia is safe and effective. When monkeys were substituted for mice the disapproval went from 64% to 75% and 32% to 44%, respectively.

The above suggests that more detailed questions reveal more about society's attitudes than simple either or questions. It appears to us that the more informed society is-- vis-à-vis more precise questions--the more uncomfortable they are over using sentient animals for non-goal oriented research. Anecdotally, we see the most discomfort using animals like nonhuman primates, dogs, and cats--animals that society is ether exposed to on a daily basis or relates to as being like us . This raises many questions, one of which is: "How important is current biomedical basic research is in leading to treatments?"

Societies built on the principles of so-called Western philosophy (the United States, Europe and so forth) appear to be uncomfortable with sentient animals being used in basic research; basic being defined as research not designed to lead to cures. This theme continues with Giles writing in Nature :

In the contentious world of animal research, one question surfaces time and again: how useful are animal experiments as a way to prepare for trials of medical treatments in humans? The issue is crucial, as public opinion is behind animal research only if it helps develop better drugs . Consequently, scientists defending animal experiments insist they are essential for safe clinical trials, whereas animal-rights activists vehemently maintain that they are useless [ 31 ]. (Emphasis added.)

The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research [[ 32 ]a] and other proponents of using animals in research [ 33 ] have views similar to Giles. An editorial in Nature in 2009 reinforced the above stating: "Animal-research policies need to be guided by a moral compass--a consensus of what people find acceptable and unacceptable." [ 34 ] It should be noted here that this position is somewhat at odds with what the late animal campaigner Henry Spira claimed. Spira thought that as long as society accepted eating animals as morally proper, it would have no problem with experimenting on them. This is important to our discussion as, in making his claim, Spira ignored the fact that many of the founders of the various antivivisection societies ate meat and that members of antivivisection societies today do as well. The Nature comment is closer to the mark--people can be and are inconsistent and some things bother them more than others. Such is the reality of life.

Many if not most in our Western society allow that sentient animals deserve some moral consideration when discussing their use in research and journals like Nature acknowledge this. (We realize that society is not monolithic and that opinions vary on almost all issues including this one. Nevertheless, judging from polls and comments in scientific journals it appears that the US and Europe, at least, are composed of individuals that, on the whole, are not comfortable with sentient animals being used in curiosity driven research.) There is a cost:benefit analysis to be done here--the cost being the suffering of sentient animal--and some in society have performed this analysis and are not comfortable with using animals in basic research but are comfortable with using them in other ways. (There is another cost and that is the relative merit of basic research on the whole, using animals or not, as opposed to spending our limited research budget on clinical research or other areas of research. However, as this is not our topic, we will leave it for another.) It is this view--the cost:benefit analysis that values cures but not curiosity-driven research--that we will assume when discussing animal use for basic science.

Definitions

Since we are concerned with two concepts, sentience and basic research, we will take a moment to better define or describe them. We have already referred to basic research as being research that is not designed to lead to cures but we need to lend some support to this definition. Basic research has also been called basic science research, curiosity-driven, blue-sky research, pure research, and fundamental research [ 32 , 35 – 38 ]. We will refer to it as basic research. Basic research can be variously defined and what researchers mean when they say basic research varies considerably, but the following definition is representative. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said basic research is:

Experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of phenomena and observable facts without any particular application or use in view. It is usually undertaken by scientists who may set their own agenda and to a large extent organise their own work [ 39 ].

Francis Bacon [ 40 ], Claude Bernard[ 41 ], and JJ Thompson[[ 42 ], the discoverer of the electron, The National Environment Research Council [ 38 ], Braben [ 43 ], and others [[ 32 ]b], [ 35 ] agree with the thrust of the above. Arthur Kornberg stated in an Editorial in Science in 1995:

We are urged: Do strategic basic research! Do targeted basic research! How can we make clear the oxymoronic nature of these terms? [ 44 ]

While the above does not ensure that the definition we are using is universally acceptable, it does make clear the distinction between applied, goal-oriented research that, in our view, is synonymous with predictive research and research that is not , by its nature, predictive for humans.

Let us be very clear on the importance of basic research in science, historically. Because of basic research, many of the most important breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, and biology happened. Basic research has been very important to scientific advancement.

Discoveries and inventions derived from basic science research include:

The discovery of DNA

Basic biochemistry, such as the Krebs cycle

The periodic table of the elements

The mass spectrometer

Transistors

Computer circuits

Electrons, protons, and neutrons

Nuclear power

Electromagnetic waves

Induction coils in automobiles

Global Positioning Satellite system

Basic research does not, however, necessarily involve using sentient animals. Basic research can be conducted using nonsentient animals, on a computer, in a physics or chemistry lab, doing thought experiments, or in myriad other ways. Virtually all basic research in chemistry and physics (that led to the discoveries listed above) does not involve using sentient animals and many of the greatest discoveries that reduced the burdens of illness and disability came from these two fields. For example, CT scans, PET scans, radiographs, cathode rays, thermionic valves, x-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance and MRI scanners, radioactive implants, the ultracentrifuge, methods for preparing pure enzymes and viruses, the chemistry of hormones, protein electrophoresis, chromatography, electron microscopy, mass spectroscopy, and many more were all the results of basic research in physics and chemistry. These discoveries and the technology represented by these discoveries have probably gone further to alleviate suffering than most other breakthroughs.

We are by no means questioning the value of basic research per se in science in general. (We do discuss the fact that the relative importance of basic research in the biomedical sciences is being questioned with regard to how much money should be directed to it as opposed to more clinically oriented research.) By definition, anything that leads to more knowledge is valuable if one values more knowledge. Many argue that any knowledge gained is worthwhile and no one can deny that even today knowledge is being gained from using sentient animals. There are certainly experiments currently conducted on, for example, nonhuman primates for the purposes of studying neurophysiology that cannot be performed upon humans. We acknowledge that scientific knowledge can be and is being advanced by studying sentient animals in laboratories. This fact is not in dispute in the paper. Rather, we are discussing the necessity or the cost:benefit ratio, as appreciated by society , of using sentient animals in such research in the biomedical sciences.

Basic biological research has traditionally studied life at the most basic level; what the cell is, what it is made of, what distinguishes life from nonlife, what everything is built of and so forth. In applied research, the scientists usually want to make something commercially viable. There is no doubt that research is a continuum ranging from basic to applied and it is not always easy to categorize a specific research project. But, based on the definitions above, one thing remains certain: Basic research makes no claims of applicability .

Historically, animal use in research was synonymous with basic research. It was easy to dissect or vivisect animals without any particular end in mind. If you were curious about a phenomenon or wanted to learn more about life in general, animals could be used. For example, Claude Bernard's research with animals was largely basic science research. This approach was largely successful when scientists wanted to learn the very fundamentals of life. After all, monkeys, frogs, mice, and humans have much in common. But research today and the practice of medicine today focuses on the differences between individual humans [ 45 – 61 ] not the commonalities between humans and other animals. This has implications for our theme.

The second term that needs to be defined is sentience. Sentient , like basic research , can be variously defined, including:

having sense perception;

consciousness;

experiencing sensation or feeling;

responsive to or conscious of sense impressions;

finely sensitive in perception or feeling;

able to experience physical and possibly emotional feelings;

having the capacity to receive sensations;

able to perceive.

For the purposes of this paper, exactly which animals are sentient and which are not is immaterial. Most people will agree that dogs, chimpanzees, and mice are sentient while most will also agree that fruit flies, worms, and members of Cnidarian are not. The controversy we are addressing is whether society approves of sentient organisms per se being used in basic research, not exactly which animals occupy this category. Exactly which animals are sentient can be discussed after the concept we are exploring has been settled and indeed is already being discussed in many books and journals.

The issue of whether sentience confers moral consideration has also been addressed elsewhere and we refer the reader to those arguments [ 62 – 66 ]. Very briefly, such arguments state that sentience is the only morally relevant trait that all current recipients of moral consideration have in common; hence any sentient individual should be a moral recipient. This is called the argument for moral consistency . While society per se cannot articulate the argument for moral consistency, they certainly have a sense of the concept.

Julius Comroe and Robert Dripps

Using animals in basic research is a division of basic research in general. Examining the value of basic research in biomedical research is a good place to begin our discussion.

Susan Hockfield, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in an editorial for Science :

U.S. federal investments in basic research transformed life and commerce in the 20th century. They sent us to the Moon and beyond, revolutionized, helped to feed the planet, reinvented work processes, and drove the remarkable economic growth of the post-1950 s era in the United States. These advances and more grew out of the convergence between engineering and the early 20th-century discoveries in the physical sciences. The United States can anticipate comparable world-changing innovations in the 21st century if we adapt our education and research funding strategies to capitalize on new opportunities emerging at the convergence of the life sciences with the physical sciences and engineering [ 67 ].

Basic research in the United States began in earnest after World War II. This was due at least in part to the engineer Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Bush wrote a report for president Roosevelt stating that "new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research." [ 68 ]

This marked a turning point in research funding. In the 19th century, most research had been privately funded, with industrial and government funding increasing in the 20th century. After this report, government funded research, as opposed to privately funded research, became the norm. In the 19th century, research was expected to produce results. Not all did, and some was funded without such expectations, but overall the funders expected practical results. As a result of this report, the US government, in 1950, formed the National Science Foundation which has funded basic research ever since. (Today, NIH as well as other government agencies and charities also fund a large amount of basic research.) This emphasis on basic research spread across the Atlantic and has been the standard worldwide ever since.

Has the value of basic research in current-day medicine been proven? Everyone has anecdotes, sometimes many, to support their view that basic research, especially basic research using sentient animals, is vital for medical science to advance. But are there scientific data to support this view? The current emphasis on basic research in medicine, as opposed to applied research, grew out of a U.S. Defense Department study published in 1967 in Science that concluded that research performed with an end in mind was far more effective in improving a technology than research performed with no goal in mind, e.g., basic research [ 69 ]. This study led then-president Johnson to state: "[A] great deal of basic research [in medicine] has been done ... but I think the time has come to zero in on the targets -- by trying to get our knowledge fully applied ... We must make sure that no life-saving discovery is locked up in the laboratory [ 70 ]."

This perceived negative attitude about basic research led respiratory physiologist Julius Comroe and anesthesiologist Robert Dripps to conduct a survey concerning medical discoveries. The classic justification for basic research comes from that study published in 1976 [ 71 ]. Their paper "Scientific Basis for the Support of Biomedical Science," purported that 41 percent of all articles judged to be essential for later clinical advances in cardiovascular and pulmonary medicine and surgery, were not clinically oriented at the time they were conducted and that 62 percent of key articles were the fruits of basic research. This appears to be strong evidence that basic and translational research with animals is key to finding cures and was in fact seized upon by other countries. As noted by Grant et al.:

Since that analysis, support for basic research has increased in the G7 countries. In the UK, Research Council expenditure on basic research has increased from a low of £444 million (or 42 per cent of total civil R&D) in 1991/1992 to £769 million (or 61 per cent of total civil R&D). Although it would be difficult to argue that Comroe and Dripps were directly responsible for a strategic shift (or drift) in the type of science supported by research funders, their arguments are often cited (albeit at times implicitly) in support of increased funding for basic biomedical research [ 72 ].

A PubMed search (conducted on August 17, 2010) revealed 22 citations for the 1976 Comroe-Dripps paper. We believe this is very significant. Our claim that basic research, specifically basic research using sentient animals, is the accepted standard for advancing knowledge that will eventually be used to develop treatments, is supported by the paucity of references. The value of Comroe-Dripps is simply not questioned despite the far-reaching ramification as noted by Grant et al. above. Only recently [ 72 ] has the conclusion of Comroe-Dripps begun to be seriously questioned.

At this point in time we begin to see a dichotomy in how scientists explain the value of basic science research to society. Because of comments by Johnson and others and the great advances in applied research, some in the basic research community began feeling pressure from society to justify their research on grounds other than knowledge for knowledge sake. This break from the past has direct implications for our discussion. Society was already hinting that there are limits to what it would fund in terms of knowledge for knowledge sake. It is our contention that much current basic research is done under the guise of applied research because it increases the likelihood that the project will be funded by a granting institution [ 2 ]. For example, Freeman and St. Johnston in 2008:

Many scientists who work on model organisms, including both of us, have been known to contrive a connection to human disease to boost a grant or paper. It's fair: after all, the parallels are genuine, but the connection is often rather indirect [ 73 ].

Using animals as causal analogical models [ 74 ] or predictive models is not basic research; it is applied research. The real crux of the argument for some seems to be: "Give us money for basic science research using sentient animals because our research is predictive for humans" [[ 2 ]b]. When such research turns out not to be predictive, however, they state: "Our research is basic research so it is not supposed to be predictive." Even those who admit that basic research using sentient animals is not predictive hide under the umbrella of "animal models really are predictive" to increase their likelihood of obtaining grant money [[ 2 ]b].

(We should here point out that we do not believe the scientist-reader so naïve as to not understand what we are referring to. We, and we feel sure the scientist-reader, are very aware that in order to gain funding from institutions like NIH, the applicant is under pressure to show that the research in question ties in directly with a human disease [unpublished observations]. The applicant is under pressure to turn, what has been considered basic research, into applied research. The problems with this condition are numerous, nevertheless are not part of our considerations at present. Suffice it to say we are attempting to use words and phrases, like basic research , that have meaning consistent with reality as opposed to the meanings attributed to them in the grant-funding process.)

Comroe and Dripps were basic research and animal testing enthusiasts. They had criticized President Johnson's administration for coming out in favor of applied, not basic, research. They also criticized the first heart transplant surgeons for failing to publicly state that the operation, in their opinion, was only possible secondary to the use of animals in basic research [ 71 , 75 – 77 ]. Comroe had also written a critique of medical progress stating that all major discoveries had been a result of basic research involving animals [ 76 , 77 ]. Comroe was also critical of clinical research:

Let's not live in constant fear of the great god Randomization [clinical research], his (or her) appetite is huge, and, if fed continuously, could consume much of the nation's research dollars and personnel, and even the lives of patients [ 78 ].

The above statement is still quoted as a reminder that many have historically held and still hold clinical research in disdain. Silverman in 2004:

At the time of the 1969 debate [regarding optimal oxygen levels in premature babies], I found it hard to understand why those who spoke against a formal controlled trial won the "methods" debate so easily (the power of RCT [randomized controlled trial] format had been firmly and widely established following the famous clinical trials in Britain in the 1940 s and 1950s). But I had underestimated the influence of the counteroffensive mounted in the U.S. by prominent laboratory-oriented researchers. For example, one celebrated leader wrote ...

Here, Silverman quotes Comroe (the "great god Randomization" quote referenced above) then continues:

These dismissive comments concerning the use of statistical methods in clinical studies was a reminder of the disturbing split in outlook about how the medical profession should go about solving puzzles that turn up on the wards [ 79 ].

Comroe and Dripps surveyed the "scientific community" to determine which discoveries were important. They sent a number of surveys (some have estimated approximately one-half) to scientists performing basic science experiments. Not surprisingly, these scientists concluded that basic science animal studies had been invaluable. As the then-assistant editor and future editor of the British Medical Journal pointed out, the report entirely left out the clinical discovery of the effects of smoking on heart and lung disease, though this link was the " most important therapeutic maneuver for most doctors treating lung and heart disorders ." [ 80 ] (Emphasis added.) Clinicians, in all likelihood, would not have left out that discovery, lending credence to the notion that Comroe and Dripps favored basic researchers when sending out their survey.

The Comroe Dripps Report is still cited as essential by those who wish to justify the use of sentient animals in basic research. (It has been the authors experience that these discussions usually occur outside the scientific literature hence another reason for the low number of citations for Comroe Dripps.) However, it was (in 1987, Smith questioned their conclusions [ 80 ]) and still is criticized by numerous scientists and clinicians for faults of methodology and bias. How reliable is the Comroe-Dripps analysis? Grant et al. observe that due to methodological flaws, the work by Comroe and Dripps

... would probably not meet today's standards for peer review. As Farrar observed, among the methodological problems " ... was a lack of clarity over whose opinions had been surveyed, how clinical advances were assessed and how a key article was defined." [ 81 ]

Grant et al. concluded that it takes about 17 years for basic research to have a clinical impact. More importantly:

Using the revised bibliometric protocol, we have shown in this study that ... between 2 per cent and 21 per cent of research was basic. This corroborates the findings of the clinical guidelines study that showed ... only 8 per cent of research was basic. These two findings are at odds with Comroe and Dripps finding that 40 per cent of all research articles judged to be essential for later clinical advance were not clinically oriented at the time of the study, thus undermining the evidence base that has, in the past, supported the increased funding of basic research. [[ 72 ]b]

Grant et al. concluded that Comroe Dripps was "not repeatable, reliable, or valid [ 82 ]." Strong words indeed. Additionally, Grant et al. did not address whether the basic science breakthroughs that were instrumental and were made using sentient animals could have been made without using them. If one is analyzing the importance of using sentient animals (Grant et al. were not), this is not an unimportant point.

More recently, others have also questioned the translation rate of basic research in general into clinically useful treatments. In 2003, Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al. quantified the translation rate of "highly promising" basic research into clinical applications. They published a study in the American Journal of Medicine that revealed of 101 basic research papers published in the high-profile journals Nature, Cell, Science, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the Journal of Clinical Investigation , and the Journal Experimental Medicine between 1979 and 1983, twenty-seven led to randomized clinical trials and only five eventually gave rise to licensed clinical application [ 83 , 84 ]. They concluded that "[e]ven the most promising findings of basic research take a long time to translate into clinical experimentation, and adoption in clinical practice is rare [ 83 ]."

Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al. actually searched all the articles published in the above-mentioned journals between 1979 and 1983; a total of around 25,000. Crowley commented on this:

Of the 25,000 articles searched, about 500 (2%) contained some potential claim to future applicability in humans, about 100 (0.4%) resulted in a clinical trial, and, according to the authors, only 1 (0.004%) led to the development of a clinically useful class of drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in the 30 years following their publication of the basic science finding . They also found that the presence of industrial support increased the likelihood of translating a basic finding into a clinical trial by eightfold. Still, regardless of the study's limitations, and even if the authors were to underestimate the frequency of successful translation into clinical use by 10-fold, their findings strongly suggest that, as most observers suspected, the transfer rate of basic research into clinical use is very low [ 85 ]. Emphasis added.

The above casts severe doubt on the value of basic research in finding treatments and cures.

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) studied citation rates of papers published in journals indexed by the Institute between 1981 and 1985 and found that 55% of all articles were not cited within five years after publication [ 86 ]. The journals that ISI index are only the top ranked journals. The articles that appear in the lower ranked journals are not thought to receive as many citations as articles that appear in the top ranked ones. So the 55% figure is probably very high if all journals were considered. ISI also found that self-citation accounted for between 5% and 20% of all citations. The number of journals (science and nonscience) now numbers over 108,000 [ 86 ].

The actual results from years of rich funding to basic research is forcing some within the research community to acknowledge the failure of basic research to deliver on its promises [ 87 ]. Driven largely by this recognition, translational medicine has become a more frequent phrase in medical literature. Ioannidis, writing in the Journal of Translational Medicine presents a good example of this mindset: "There is considerable evidence that the translation rate of major basic science promises to clinical applications has been inefficient and disappointing [ 88 ]."

How is progress measured?

Grant et al. expressed the expectations of funding medical research when they stated:

The United Kingdom spends over £1600 million a year on non-commercial biomedical and health services research. This research is funded either from the public purse, such as the NHS and the Medical Research Council, or medical research charities, such as the Wellcome Trust. The tacit understanding is that the biomedical research these bodies support will lead to an eventual improvement in health [ 89 ]. (Emphasis added.)

Many have questioned, however, if this funding is being properly directed and are asking for objective criteria for measuring the source of progress in medical practice [ 89 – 93 ].

Outgoing president Dwight Eisenhower seemed prescient when he warned in his last speech as president that the military-industrial complex was exerting too much influence in America's politics. The phrase military-industrial complex (meaning the marriage of the military with industry in general in order to obtain government money to fund projects the military desires) has been around ever since and currently most everyone understands what it means. What has been forgotten about Eisenhower's speech that day was that he had a similar warning about the influence the government had on scientific research [ 94 ]. A similar warning/analysis of government funded basic research is presented in Nature 2008:

There is a growing disparity at the heart of biomedicine. In some ways, the field is experiencing a golden age: the quantity of basic research is shooting off the charts and budgets are far higher than they were two decades ago. Yet the impact of this research is growing at a much more modest rate: new cures and therapies are ever more expensive to develop and worryingly thin on the ground [ 95 ].

NIH has come under fire for funding basic research instead of more goal-oriented research [ 87 , 96 – 98 ]. Huge strides in basic research are not resulting in corresponding advances in the stated goal of NIH, which is "to reduce the burdens of illness and disability [ 99 ]." From 1998 to 2003, the budget of the National Institutes of Health doubled. The 2004 budget request was $27.9 billion. It is estimated that roughly 70% of NIH's research budget goes to basic science [ 97 , 98 ]. The percentage in the UK is about the same [ 100 ] and more recent numbers suggest the ratio has not changed [ 101 – 104 ].

But despite this infusion of cash, new chemical entities, the supposed fruits of basic research, went from having a 14% chance of success upon entering phase 1 trials to having an 8% chance of reaching the market [ 103 ]. Based on the conclusions of Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al [ 83 ] and Grant et al. [ 72 ] one might question the large percentage of research funds directed to a modality the results of which are responsible for such a small percentage of clinical breakthroughs. Chalmers:

Basic and applied research are both needed to find ways of protecting health, but the longstanding imbalance in the funding for these two broad spheres of biomedical research cannot be defended in the light of what we know about their relative payback [ 105 ]. (Emphasis added.)

In 2003, JAMA published a report prepared by a Clinical Research Roundtable (CCR) at the Institute of Medicine. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science convened a Clinical Research Roundtable in 2000 to analyze the success of basic research. They reported in 2003 that there is a "disconnection between the promise of basic science and the delivery of better health [ 102 ]." Rosenberg echoed the CRR when he called the notion that that the rapid growth in scientific publications and the increase in information about disease is resulting in better human health an "illusion." [ 104 ] The CRR also pointed out that clinical research receives about half the money that basic science receives [ 102 ], which is consistent with the 70% figure for basic research funding cited above. Similarly, a working group formed by the United Kingdom-based Academy of Medical Sciences expressed concern that clinical research, including large clinical trials, cohort studies, and meta-analyses was being ignored in favor of laboratory-based research [ 106 ].

Ioannidis has questioned the importance of basic research in resulting in better treatments [ 107 ]. Ioannidis addressed animal models and stroke. A study concluded that out of 1026 chemicals tested in animals, those chosen for clinical trials were not significantly different from the ones not chosen in terms of effect on infarct size [ 108 ]. In other words, the results from animal studies did not inform the choice for continuing to clinical trials. Ioannidis then states: "Evidence-based medicine does not seem to have penetrated basic and preclinical science, while basic and preclinical research is often performed in a clinical and methodological vacuum." [ 107 ]

There is clearly a great divide between the cold assessment of the current basic research paradigm's delivery on its promises and the rhetoric aimed at the public and lawmakers by the animal model community. For example, Sigma Xi: "An end to animal research would mean an end to our best hope for finding treatments that still elude us." [ 109 ]

Basic research and the use of sentient animals

All of the above must be placed in the context of basic research using sentient animals. If basic research in the life sciences is questionable for finding cures, what about the questionable practice of using sentient animals in basic research? Rothwell:

In the current difficult financial environment for UK universities, only substantial increases in funding for practice-oriented research, preferably with full economic costing, will persuade them to take the research needs of the NHS more seriously. The intellectual and economic cases are strong, and the potential benefits are huge. Indeed, most major therapeutic developments over the past few decades have been due to simple clinical innovation coupled with advances in physics and engineering rather than to laboratory-based medical research . The clinical benefits of advances in surgery, for example, such as joint replacement, cataract removal, endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal or urological disease, endovascular interventions (eg, coronary and peripheral angioplasty/stenting or coiling of cerebral aneurysms), minimally invasive surgery, and stereotactic neurosurgery, to name but a few, have been incalculable. Yet only a fraction of non-industry research funding has been targeted at such clinical innovation. How much more might otherwise have been achieved? [ 93 ] (Emphasis added.)

Rothwell goes on to say that much of the failure of basic research can be attributed to the use of animal models. He is not alone. Sydney Brenner who won a Nobel prize for research on Caenorhabditis elegans advocated for more research using Homo sapiens and called Homo sapiens "the model organism." [ 110 ]

Even the media has recognized the disconnect between basic research and treatments. Sharon Begley, writing in the Wall Street Journal :

"Patients," says immunologist Ralph Steinman of Rockefeller University, New York, "have been too patient with basic research."...Many of the brightest scientists have, therefore, plunged into the minutiae of roundworm genes and fruit-fly receptors, instead of human diseases. "Most of our best people work in lab animals, not people," says Dr. Steinman, who presents his case in a recent issue of the journal Cerebrum. "But this has not resulted in cures or even significantly helped most patients."... "Human experiments are much more time-consuming and more difficult than animal studies," says Rockefeller's James Krueger, whose human research includes trying to correlate gene activity and changes in immune-system cells with the progression of psoriasis. "There are also funding issues. It's much easier to write a successful grant proposal for animal experiments. Animals are homogeneous, and let you say 'aha!' in a neat, clean experiment." Humans, in contrast, are genetically and behaviorally diverse, making it hard to tell whether some aspect of their disease reflects the disease alone, their DNA, how they live -- or some messy permutation of all three [ 98 ].

It is difficult to say what percentage of basic biomedical research involves sentient animals as rats, birds, and mice need not be counted in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act. The best estimate we could find was from a 1985 publication from the Committee on Models for Biomedical Research, Board on Basic Biology (see figure 1 [ 111 ]). (Despite the NIH's public funding, more recent numbers are not readily available). [Table 1 ]

It appears that, on average greater than or equal to 50% of NIH extramural research dollars went to research involving sentient animals. According to the table, at least 45% went to research on mammals (most people consider mammals sentient and many even consider all vertebrates sentient [ 112 – 123 ]) and another 30% to research involving nonmammalian vertebrates and so forth (it appears that most people think at least some of these animals are sentient). Assuming some of the nonmammalian vertebrates are sentient, then the total is easily over 50%. Based on these numbers and NIH's predisposition to fund basic research, it appears feasible that at least 50% of extramural funding went to basic research on sentient animals.

In 1997, it was estimated that between 18 and 22 million animals were used in basic biomedical research in the U.S. and that about 85% of animals used were mice, rats, and birds [ 124 ]. In retrospect, that was probably a vast underestimate. Regardless, by 2000, this estimate had grown. A report prepared by the Library of Congress Federal Research Division estimated that the number of mice, rats, and birds used annually in the U.S. (in all areas) was more than 500 million [ 125 ]. The exact number of animals used in research is today, as was the case in 1997, unknown but the skyrocketing growth in the use of transgenic and otherwise genetically modified strains of mice alone suggests that the number must be very large. Madhusree Mukerjee, a former editor of Scientific American , stated that over 100 million transgenic mice were being used as of 2004 [ 124 ]. Five hundred million may in fact be on the low side. Has this apparently very significant increase in the use of animals yielded significant improvements or breakthroughs in the treatment of human illness? Apparently not. This has implications for using sentient animals in basic research

Possible Objections

When the above is discussed with basic researchers who use sentient animals, several objections are forthcoming.

Discovering something new is very difficult and to describe it as "inefficient" implies there is a more efficient way of doing it. This is false. We must use animals.

This is fallacious for several reasons. First, just because something new is discovered does not mean the new discovery will have any meaning in terms of curing human disease. New discoveries are made everyday but, as the above studies report, that does not equate with new treatments. Second, there are numerous ways of conducting basic research and research designed to learn fundamental properties of living organisms such as humans. Using human tissue seems a very good methodology and has an excellent track record of leading to more knowledge about humans.

Third, perhaps the most damning analogy of inefficient basic research that uses sentient animals is the glass bead game popularized in Herman Hesse's book of the same name. Horrobin recently wrote an article about that very topic including the use of animals to search for knowledge about human drug and disease response.

A wonderful metaphor of much modern medical and pharmaceutical research can be found in the book entitled The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse. In this story, the leaders of the real world conspire with the brightest of scholars to create a magical state within a state, the isolated world of Castalia. Castalia recruits the most thoughtful and scholarly youths, educates them wonderfully well, and persuades them that the highest achievement of the human mind is to play the almost infinitely complicated and subtle 'glass bead game', an intellectual Olympics which challenges and stretches the most exceptional. The world of the game is beautifully refined and internally self-consistent. The only problems are that Castalia makes almost no contact with the real world, and that playing the game makes no contribution to real world issues [ 126 ].

Using sentient animals in basic research makes use of many resources. Funds that could go elsewhere, and researchers themselves, are commodities that are consumed.

Fourth, the question lumps together all kinds of basic research. Basic research in physics, for example, is hard and the best way to make new discoveries certainly appears to be doing basic research in the traditional way. But this does not imply that discovering new things about humans can or should be accomplished using sentient animals in basic research.

And finally, the claim that we cannot do it any other way is like Pascal's wager. "What do we have to lose by using animals?" The answer is, we lose what society would have received from research using the basic research modalities that do not include sentient animals; human tissue, in silico research, gene arrays, and so forth. Based on the above, it appears society has more to potentially gain from those nonanimal modalities than from using animals.

Your definition of basic research is wrong. Basic research is goal-oriented.

Based on the definition with which we began this paper, we respectfully disagree. But if basic research is synonymous with achieving goals then this points us back toward using animals as predictive surrogates for humans. We again direct the reader to a previous paper [ 1 ] and book [ 2 ] that address this issue in detail. If by goal , our critics mean increasing the amount of knowledge on the world, then this is a pointless tautology.

Society accepts using sentient animals as food, so to object to using animals in research is inconsistent.

We touched on this in when we discussed Spira's argument but will go into more detail here. The critic will get no argument from us that society is inconsistent. In fact society has been inconsistent in many ways in many different times. If society and the government waited for consistency nothing would ever change. However, the point we are making is that there are, at times, things that society, in sufficient numbers, objects to and is sufficiently disturbed by, that necessitate change regardless of the other inconsistencies implied by this. One obvious example is the abolition of slavery in the Deep South of the U.S. while simultaneously denying most blacks and women the right to vote. While eradication of the greater wrong should not be used to allow perpetuation of a lesser wrong, in fact, this is often the case. Yet it is equally important to note that the process of rectification is frequently iterative, and, as such, occurs as a series of changes over time.

The fact remains that society values certain resources, and some of those are not even sentient. The yew tree Taxus brevifolia is but one example. The anticancer medication Taxol was originally derived from the species of yew tree that was endangered and hence led to much discussion in society as to the value of the tree and its possible extinction versus using it to treat cancer. Robert Holton of Florida State University and Bristol Meyers solved the problem by discovering a way to use the common yew tree Taxus baccata to obtain a chemical that could then be modified to the active drug. Currently, the drug is produced by cell culture.

But prior to these breakthroughs, the issue was so contentious that the Native Yew Conservation Council (YewCon) was formed in the 1980's to address the problem. Some compared harvesting the endangered tree to slaughtering the buffalo [ 127 – 129 ]. (For the record, the authors disagree with the concern that values plants over cancer patients, but this simply illustrates the fact that different elements of society value things differently and that society as a whole may value something that individual members do not.)

Clinical research using humans is also flawed, as, frequently, the basic principles underlying the disease in question are not known.

Granted. But this assumes the basic principles can only be learned from using animals, as opposed to human tissues.

All research builds upon previous research that used animals; hence animals have been essential in all discoveries to date.

Fallacious. Just because A preceded B does not mean A caused B. There is a difference between animals being necessary for an advance as opposed to merely being sufficient for that advance. We touched on this when discussing further questions that need to be addressed. Moreover, even if animals used in basic research decades ago proved necessary , it does follow that the same is true today, with all the new technology and advances in science. If our critics want to take that line, then the burden of proof is on them to prove animals are currently necessary.

Regardless of how many breakthroughs of the past relied on animals, some did and that alone justifies the use of sentient animals in basic research.

There can be no doubt that some breakthroughs of the past were incumbent upon sentient animals. However, this objection does not consider current knowledge and technology available today that was not available in the past; the differences between questions asked in the past and those being asked today; the probability of finding treatments using sentient animals as opposed to other modalities; and the value society currently places on sentient animals as opposed to centuries or even decades ago.

When Thomas Edison was asked about all his failures in trying to invent a light bulb, he supposedly said that he had not failed 100 times (or 1000 times, sources vary on the exact number) but that he had succeeded in finding 100 ways that would not work and that when he had eliminated the ways that would not work, he will have found the one way that will work. That is what basic research is.

This is a cute little story and might even be true (again sources vary), but it has essentially nothing to do with our discussion. First, Edison was not spending resources that society valued beyond their monetary face value. Society values children more than orange juice and endangered plants more than those not endangered. Society does have a hierarchy of value. Scientists can spend resources that are largely of no or very little value to society, like common chemicals in a beaker, on the off chance something will result from it. But society mandates that researchers cannot spend, with impunity, resources it does value. Society values sentient animals more than inorganic materials.

Second, Edison was spending his own time and his own funds, and using resources society did not find to have inherent value. Therefore, society had essentially no legitimate grounds for telling Edison what to do with any of the above. Third, society did not fund Edison over other options. Fourth, Edison made no promises to society in exchange for its resources. His failures were largely irrelevant in that regard.

Alternatives

There is nothing scientifically sacred about using sentient animals in basic research. Nonetheless, whenever we question the efficacy of such use we are met with the inevitable question: "How will we do basic research without using sentient animals?" Were this question not posed so seriously, we would suspect cynicism. But the questioner is serious so we will very briefly outline other methods available for basic research.

The time-honored study of chemistry and physics has led to breakthroughs without which today we would still be practicing medicine circa the 19th century. Basic research in engineering and the physical sciences has historically led to advances in technology.

In vitro research using human tissue.

Bacteria, viruses, and fungi can be studied in order to discover basic cellular and genetic properties. Research using nonsentient, less complex organisms like Drosophila have given us the entire field of evo devo. As we mentioned, other organisms that could be studied include E. coli, C. elegans , Brassica rapa, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Phage Phi-X174, Dictyostelium discoideum . This is a very partial list.

Autopsies could be funded as non-goal oriented research as autopsies have historically led to many unsought discoveries and facts about the human body. New knowledge is still being generated by autopsies [ 130 , 131 ].

The fields of mathematical and computer modeling offer ways to study complex systems but need funding.

Basic research using human stem cells.

Another important but oft-overlooked area of study is evolutionary biology. More emphasis needs to be placed on the study of evolution, the place of evolution in disease, and the implications of evolution for disease research and treatment.

The above is a very partial list. Eliminating the use of sentient animals in basic research would not lead to a dearth of basic research that needs funding. Ceasing to fund basic research using sentient animals would not help the NIH increase their application-funded to application-received ratio.

Sir Ernst Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin, stated in 1970:

Science, as long as it limits itself to the descriptive study of Nature, has no moral or ethical quality, and this applies to the physical as well as the biological sciences. No quality of good or evil is attached to results of research aimed at determining natural constants, such as that of gravity or the velocity of light, or measuring the movements of stars, describing the kinetic properties of an enzyme, or describing the behaviour of animals (whatever our emotional attitude towards it may be) or studying the metabolic activity of a microbe, whether harmful or beneficial to mankind, or studying physiological function or pharmacological and toxic action. No quality of good or evil can be ascribed to studies aimed at the elucidation [of such questions] [ 132 ].

There can be no doubt that basic research has resulted in great breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, and biology. Almost by definition, in the early days of science, basic research was responsible for many, if not most, of the great discoveries. Today, we still see basic research generating a plethora of facts. The question we have posed is whether the controversial practice of using sentient animals in basic biomedical research is justifiable given society's distress about using such animals in such ways.

Sir Ernst's statement must be viewed in light of moral responsibilities that lie outside of science. Slavery, for example, is wrong even if slaves were to be used in scientific pursuits. Other issues also arise when one contemplates basic research. Philosopher Mary Midgley:

Sanctimonious obsessiveness needs to be publicly unmasked. It needs to be spelt out why an attempt understand desertification in Africa in order to resist it is not, just as such, at some deep level academically inferior to advance in theoretical physics. Something needs to be done here about the tendentious current use of words like 'basic' and 'fundamental' to describe any research which is not intended be useful. Trivial questions are still trivial, even when their answers are useless. Their uselessness cannot of itself transform them into fundamental ones [ 133 ].

Basic research is valuable for its own sake, even when treatments are not forthcoming. However, this value must be weighed against 1) other research that could be funded; 2) the cost, other than financial of performing the research; and 3) the value society places on sentient animals, even if society is at times inconsistent in applying that value.

In conclusion, we have shown that:

Society has expressed in open forums and via well-conducted surveys, its view that sentient animals should only be used in biomedical research that is likely to add treatments and cures or decrease the suffering of human patients. This position has been acknowledged by respected science journals.

Basic research has historically been justified based on its value in adding new knowledge to the world not on the basis of decreasing human suffering.

In the mid 20th century, this justification was threatened and researchers responded by connecting basic research to advances in medical science vis-à-vis the Comroe Dripps report.

Current research reexamining Comroe Dripps and the contribution of basic research in general to discovering new treatments and cures has revealed that there currently exists a low probability that basic research in general will lead to cures for human disease. This does not contradict the fact that historically basic science research in general and basic science research using sentient animals specifically resulted in breakthroughs in biomedical research. The times, available methods, and questions have changed.

According to figures from the NIH, basic biomedical research receives more funding than all other forms of research, uses animals more often than not, and many if not most of these animals would be classified by society in general as sentient. There is a high probability that such use will, by the very fact that the animals will be confined in an unnatural environment, cause pain and suffering.

Based upon our interpretation of data gained from research published in peer reviewed journals, public opinion polls, and comments reflecting the aforementioned in the scientific literature, we conclude that society does not condone using sentient animals in basic research.

Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J: Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2009, 4: 2. 10.1186/1747-5341-4-2 10.1186/1747-5341-4-2

Google Scholar

Shanks N, Greek R: Animal Models in Light of Evolution . Boca Rotan: Brown Walker; 2009. (2b, see Appendix 3)

Calabrese EJ: Suitability of animal models for predictive toxicology: theoretical and practical considerations. Drug Metab Rev 1984, 15: 505-523. 10.3109/03602538409029971 10.3109/03602538409029971

Calabrese EJ: Principles of Animal Extrapolation . Boca Rotan: CRC Press; 1991.

Collins JM: Inter-species differences in drug properties. Chem Biol Interact 2001, 134: 237-242. 10.1016/S0009-2797(01)00158-2 10.1016/S0009-2797(01)00158-2

Fletcher AP: Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience. J R Soc Med 1978, 71: 693-696.

Garattini S: Toxic effects of chemicals: difficulties in extrapolating data from animals to man. Crit Rev Toxicol 1985, 16: 1-29. 10.3109/10408448509041323 10.3109/10408448509041323

Hackam DG: Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 2007, 334: 163-164. 10.1136/bmj.39104.362951.80 10.1136/bmj.39104.362951.80

Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA: Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA 2006, 296: 1731-1732. 10.1001/jama.296.14.1731 10.1001/jama.296.14.1731

Heywood R: Target organ toxicity II. Toxicol Lett 1983, 18: 83-88. 10.1016/0378-4274(83)90075-9 10.1016/0378-4274(83)90075-9

Heywood R: Clinical Toxicity--Could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience. In Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man . Edited by: Lumley CE, Walker S. Lancaster: Quay; 1990:57-67.

Igarashi T: The duration of toxicity studies required to support repeated dosing in clinical investigation--A toxicologists opinion. In CMR Workshop: The Timing of Toxicological Studies to Support Clinical Trials . Edited by: C Parkinson NM, Lumley C, Walker SR. Boston: Kluwer; 1994:67-74.

Igarashi T, Nakane S, Kitagawa T: Predictability of clinical adverse reactions of drugs by general pharmacology studies. J Toxicol Sci 1995, 20: 77-92.

Igarashi T, Yabe T, Noda K: Study design and statistical analysis of toxicokinetics: a report of JPMA investigation of case studies. J Toxicol Sci 1996, 21: 497-504.

Igarashi Y: Report from the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 1994 Seiyakukyo data. Translation of: Report from the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association 1994 Seiyakukyo data

Knight A: Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Altern Lab Anim 2007, 35: 641-659.

Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J: Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity. Altern Lab Anim 2006, 34: 19-27.

Koppanyi T, Avery MA: Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: a review. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1966, 7: 250-270.

Lindl T, Voelkel M, Kolar R: [Animal experiments in biomedical research. An evaluation of the clinical relevance of approved animal experimental projects]. ALTEX 2005, 22: 143-151.

Lindl T, Völkel M, Kolar R: Animal experiments in biomedical research. An evaluation of the clinical relevance of approved animal experimental projects: No evident implementation in human medicine within more than 10 years. ALTEX 2006, 23: 111.

Litchfield JT Jr: Symposium on clinical drug evaluation and human pharmacology. XVI. Evaluation of the safety of new drugs by means of tests in animals. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962, 3: 665-672.

Lumley C: Clinical toxicity: could it have been predicted? Premarketing experience. In Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man . Edited by: Lumley C, Walker S. Quay; 1990:49-56.

Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, Macleod M, Mignini LE, Jayaram P, Khan KS: Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2007, 334: 197. 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE

Salsburg D: The lifetime feeding study in mice and rats--an examination of its validity as a bioassay for human carcinogens. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1983, 3: 63-67. 10.1016/S0272-0590(83)80174-2 10.1016/S0272-0590(83)80174-2

Shanks N, Pyles RA: Evolution and medicine: the long reach of "Dr. Darwin". Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2007, 2: 4. 10.1186/1747-5341-2-4 10.1186/1747-5341-2-4

Spriet-Pourra C, Auriche M, (Eds): SCRIP Reports . PJB; 1994.

Wall RJ, Shani M: Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008, 69: 2-9. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.09.030 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.09.030

Derbyshire SWG: Time to Abandon the Three Rs. The Scientist 2006, 20: 23.

Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. Public praises science; scientists fault public, media [ http://people-press.org/report/528/ ]

Aldhous P, Coghlan A, Copley J: Let the people speak. New Scientist 1999.

Giles J: Animal experiments under fire for poor design. Nature 2006, 444: 981. 10.1038/444981a 10.1038/444981a

ILAR: Science, Medicine, and Animals . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004. (32a, P1. 32b, P20.)

Frey RG: Vivisection, morals and medicine. J Med Ethics 1983, 9: 94-97. 10.1136/jme.9.2.94 10.1136/jme.9.2.94

Editorial: A slippery slope. Nature 2009, 462: 699.

House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology: Book Blue Skies Research Tenth Report . London: House of Commons. Session 2006-2007; 2007.

Bosch X: New European funding agency backs "blue-skies" research. JAMA 2007, 297: 1644. 10.1001/jama.297.15.1644 10.1001/jama.297.15.1644

Vance DE: Phosphatidylethanolamine N-methyltransferase: unexpected findings from curiosity-driven research. Eur J Med Res 1996, 1: 182-188.

National Environment Research Council: Blue Skies Review Final Report . London: NERC; 2007.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: The Measurement of Scientific and Technical activities: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development. Paris . 1963.

Bacon F: The Great Instauration and the Novum Organum 1620 . Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, LLC; 2010.

Bernard C: An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine . New York: Dover; 1973:P156.

Lord Ralyleigh: The Life of Sir J.J. Thomson . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1942:P198.

Braben D: Pioneering Research: A Risk Worth Taking . Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.

Kornberg A: Science in the stationary phase. Science 1995, 269: 1799. 10.1126/science.7569906 10.1126/science.7569906

General Accounting Office: GAO-01-286R Drugs Withdrawn From Market . Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 2001.

Holden C: Race and medicine. Science 2003, 302: 594-596. 10.1126/science.302.5645.594 10.1126/science.302.5645.594

Weinshilboum R: Inheritance and drug response. N Engl J Med 2003, 348: 529-537. 10.1056/NEJMra020021 10.1056/NEJMra020021

Kaiser J: Gender in the pharmacy: does it matter? Science 2005, 308: 1572. 10.1126/science.308.5728.1572 10.1126/science.308.5728.1572

Penny MA, McHale D: Pharmacogenomics and the drug discovery pipeline: when should it be implemented? Am J Pharmacogenomics 2005, 5: 53-62. 10.2165/00129785-200505010-00005 10.2165/00129785-200505010-00005

Simon V: Wanted: women in clinical trials. Science 2005, 308: 1517. 10.1126/science.1115616 10.1126/science.1115616

Mann DL: Targeted cancer therapeutics: the heartbreak of success. Nat Med 2006, 12: 881-882. 10.1038/nm0806-881 10.1038/nm0806-881

Risch N: Dissecting racial and ethnic differences. N Engl J Med 2006, 354: 408-411. 10.1056/NEJMe058265 10.1056/NEJMe058265

Couzin J: Cancer research. Probing the roots of race and cancer. Science 2007, 315: 592-594. 10.1126/science.315.5812.592 10.1126/science.315.5812.592

Couzin J: Human genetics. In Asians and whites, gene expression varies by race. Science 2007, 315: 173-174. 10.1126/science.315.5809.173a 10.1126/science.315.5809.173a

Spielman RS, Bastone LA, Burdick JT, Morley M, Ewens WJ, Cheung VG: Common genetic variants account for differences in gene expression among ethnic groups. Nat Genet 2007, 39: 226-231. 10.1038/ng1955 10.1038/ng1955

Willyard C: Blue's clues. Nat Med 2007, 13: 1272-1273. 10.1038/nm1107-1272 10.1038/nm1107-1272

Weiss ST, McLeod HL, Flockhart DA, Dolan ME, Benowitz NL, Johnson JA, Ratain MJ, Giacomini KM: Creating and evaluating genetic tests predictive of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008, 7: 568-574. 10.1038/nrd2520 10.1038/nrd2520

Bhatt DL: Tailoring Antiplatelet Therapy Based on Pharmacogenomics: How Well Do the Data Fit? JAMA 2009, 302: 896-897. 10.1001/jama.2009.1249 10.1001/jama.2009.1249

Cosio MG, Saetta M, Agusti A: Immunologic aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2009, 360: 2445-2454. 10.1056/NEJMra0804752 10.1056/NEJMra0804752

Shuldiner AR, O'Connell JR, Bliden KP, Gandhi A, Ryan K, Horenstein RB, Damcott CM, Pakyz R, Tantry US, Gibson Q, et al .: Association of Cytochrome P450 2C19 Genotype With the Antiplatelet Effect and Clinical Efficacy of Clopidogrel Therapy. JAMA 2009, 302: 849-857. 10.1001/jama.2009.1232 10.1001/jama.2009.1232

Willyard C: HIV gender clues emerge. Nat Med 2009, 15: 830. 10.1038/nm0809-830b 10.1038/nm0809-830b

Dombrowski D: Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases . Springfield. University of Illinois Press; 1997.

Dombrowski DA: Is the argument from marginal cases obtuse? J Appl Philos 2006, 23: 223-232. 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00334.x 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00334.x

Cohen C, Regan T: The Animal Rights Debate . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc; 2001.

Rachels J: Created From Animals . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.

Regan T, Singer P: Animal Rights and Human Obligations . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1989.

Hockfield S: The next innovation revolution. Science 2009, 323: 1147. 10.1126/science.1170834 10.1126/science.1170834

Bush V: Science The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development . Washington, DC; Office of Scientific researc and Development; 1945.

Sherwin CW, Isenson RS: Project hindsight. A Defense Department study of the utility of research. Science 1967, 156: 1571-1577. 10.1126/science.156.3782.1571 10.1126/science.156.3782.1571

Johnson LB: June 15 meeting with US medical and hospital leaders. Quoted in CA Cancer J Clin 1966, 16: 256-257. 10.3322/canjclin.16.6.256 10.3322/canjclin.16.6.256

Comroe JH Jr, Dripps RD: Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Science 1976, 192: 105-111. 10.1126/science.769161 10.1126/science.769161

Grant J, Green L, Mason B: From Bedside to Bench: Comroe and Dripps Revisited . Uxbridge: Health Economics Research Group; 2003. (72b, P40.)

Freeman M, St Johnston D: Wherefore DMM? Disease Models & Mechanisms 2008, 1: 6-7.

LaFollette H, Shanks N: Brute Science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation . New York: Routledge; 1996.

Comroe JH Jr, Dripps RD: Ben Franklin and Open Heart Surgery. Cardiovasc Dis 1975, 2: 361-375.

Comroe JH: Answers to a congressman's questions. Circ Res 1969, 25: 501-503.

Comroe JH Jr, Dripps RD: Ben Franklin and open heart surgery. Circ Res 1974, 35: 661-669.

Comroe JH: Retrospectroscope: Insights into Medical Discovery . Van Gehr Press; 1977.

Silverman WA: The unresolved oxygen-level issue: hijacked by anti-trialists. J Perinatol 2004, 24: 109-111. 10.1038/sj.jp.7211029 10.1038/sj.jp.7211029

Smith R: Comroe and Dripps revisited. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987, 295: 1404-1407. 10.1136/bmj.295.6610.1404 10.1136/bmj.295.6610.1404

Farrar S: Key basic research study proves fatally ambiguous. The Times Higher Education 2003. [ http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=181279%26;sectioncode=26 ]

Grant J, Green L, Mason B: Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Research Evaluation 2003, 12: 217-224. 10.3152/147154403781776618 10.3152/147154403781776618

Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani E, Ioannidis JP: Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med 2003, 114: 477-484. 10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00013-5 10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00013-5

Lost in clinical translation Nat Med 2004, 10: 879. 10.1038/nm0904-879 10.1038/nm0904-879

Crowley WF Jr: Translation of basic research into useful treatments: how often does it occur? Am J Med 2003, 114: 503-505. 10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00119-0 10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00119-0

Hamilton DP: Publishing by--and for?--the numbers. Science 1990, 250: 1331-1332. 10.1126/science.2255902 10.1126/science.2255902

Steinman R, Szalavitz M: Patients Have Been Too Patient With Basic Research. Cerebrum 2002., 4:

Ioannidis JP: Materializing research promises: opportunities, priorities and conflicts in translational medicine. J Transl Med 2004, 2: 5. 10.1186/1479-5876-2-5 10.1186/1479-5876-2-5

Grant J, Cottrell R, Cluzeau F, Fawcett G: Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study. BMJ 2000, 320: 1107-1111. 10.1136/bmj.320.7242.1107 10.1136/bmj.320.7242.1107

Chalmers I: Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research. Biomedical funding decisions should be audited. BMJ 2000, 321: 566. 10.1136/bmj.321.7260.566 10.1136/bmj.321.7260.566

Buxton M, Hanney S: How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996, 1: 35-43.

Silverman WA: Snobbery and gamesmanship in medical research. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2005, 19: 2-3. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2004.00547.x 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2004.00547.x

Rothwell PM: Funding for practice-oriented clinical research. Lancet 2006, 368: 262-266. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69010-7 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69010-7

Farewell Address [ http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech ]

News Feature: Translational research: getting the message across. Nature 2008, 453: 839. 10.1038/453839a 10.1038/453839a

Butler D: Translational research: crossing the valley of death. Nature 2008, 453: 840-842. 10.1038/453840a 10.1038/453840a

Begley S: Financial Obstacles Help Keep Doctors From Patient Research. Wall Street Journal 2003.

Begley S: Physician-Researchers Needed To Get Cures Out of Rat's Cage. Wall Street Journal; 2003.

Mission Statement [ http://www.nida.nih.gov/mediaguide/othergovernment.html ]

UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Health Research Analysis. London 2006.

Nathan DG, Schechter AN: NIH support for basic and clinical research: biomedical researcher angst in 2006. JAMA 2006, 295: 2656-2658. 10.1001/jama.295.22.2656 10.1001/jama.295.22.2656

Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Getz K, et al .: Central Challenges Facing the National Clinical Research Enterprise. JAMA 2003, 289: 1278-1287. 10.1001/jama.289.10.1278 10.1001/jama.289.10.1278

Hampton T: Targeted cancer therapies lagging: better trial design could boost success rate. JAMA 2006, 296: 1951-1952. 10.1001/jama.296.16.1951 10.1001/jama.296.16.1951

Rosenberg RN: Translating biomedical research to the bedside: a national crisis and a call to action. JAMA 2003, 289: 1305-1306. 10.1001/jama.289.10.1305 10.1001/jama.289.10.1305

Chalmers I: Biomedical research: Are we getting value for money? Significance 2006, 3: 172-175. 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00200.x 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00200.x

Bell J: Resuscitating clinical research in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2003, 327: 1041-1043. 10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1041 10.1136/bmj.327.7422.1041

Ioannidis JP: Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? PLoS Clin Trials 2006, 1: e36. 10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036 10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036

O'Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW: 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2006, 59: 467-477. 10.1002/ana.20741 10.1002/ana.20741

Sigma_Xi: Sigma Xi Statements of the Use of Animals in Research. American Scientist 1992, 80: 73-76.

Ledford H: Translational research: the full cycle. Nature 2008, 453: 843-845. 10.1038/453843a 10.1038/453843a

Committee on Models for Biomedical Research. Board on Basic Biology: Commission on Life Science. National Research Council. Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective . Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985.

Panksepp J: Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions (Series in Affective Science) . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

Panksepp J: At the interface of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive neurosciences: decoding the emotional feelings of the brain. Brain Cogn 2003, 52: 4-14. 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00003-4 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00003-4

Panksepp J: Toward a science of ultimate concern. Conscious Cogn 2005, 14: 22-29. 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.002 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.002

Panksepp J: Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn 2005, 14: 30-80. 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004

Panksepp J, Burgdorf J, Beinfeld MC, Kroes RA, Moskal JR: Regional brain cholecystokinin changes as a function of friendly and aggressive social interactions in rats. Brain Res 2004, 1025: 75-84. 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.07.076 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.07.076

Panksepp J, Nocjar C, Burgdorf J, Panksepp JB, Huber R: The role of emotional systems in addiction. A neuroethological perspective. In 50th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Motivational factors in the etiology of drug abuse. Lincoln Edited by: Bevins RA. 2004, 85-126.

Panksepp JB, Huber R: Ethological analyses of crayfish behavior: a new invertebrate system for measuring the rewarding properties of psychostimulants. Behav Brain Res 2004, 153: 171-180. 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.11.014 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.11.014

Baldwin A, Bekoff M: Too Stressed to Work. New Scientist 2007, 24. 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61358-X

Bekoff M: The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our Compassion Footprint . Novato: New World Library; 2010.

Bekoff M: Aquatic animals, cognitive ethology, and ethics: questions about sentience and other troubling issues that lurk in turbid water. Dis Aquat Organ 2007, 75: 87-98. 10.3354/dao075087 10.3354/dao075087

Bekoff M: Are You Feeling What I'm Feeling? New Scientist 2007, 42-47. 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)61316-5

Broom DM: Cognitive ability and sentience: which aquatic animals should be protected? Dis Aquat Organ 2007, 75: 99-108. 10.3354/dao075099 10.3354/dao075099

Mukerjee M: Book Review of Speaking for the Animals Scientific American . 2004, 96-97.

APHIS: Rats/Mice/and Birds Database: Researchers, Breeders, Transporters, and Exhibitors. A Database Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. Washington, DC: APHIS; 2000.

Horrobin DF: Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003, 2: 151-154. 10.1038/nrd1012 10.1038/nrd1012

YewCon [ http://www.yewconservation.org/YewCon/YewCon_Advocacy.html ]

Pennisi E: Beyond yew: chemists boost taxol yield - cancer treatment from yew tree. Science News 1992.

Hartzell H, Rust J: The Yew Tree: A Thousand Whispers: Biography of a Species . Cottage Grove:Hulogosi Communications Inc; 1990.

Blosser SA, Zimmerman HE, Stauffer JL: Do autopsies of critically ill patients reveal important findings that were clinically undetected? Crit Care Med 1998, 26: 1332-1336. 10.1097/00003246-199808000-00015 10.1097/00003246-199808000-00015

Perkins GD, McAuley DF, Davies S, Gao F: Discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses in critically ill patients: an observational study. Crit Care 2003, 7: R129-132. 10.1186/cc2359 10.1186/cc2359

Chain E: Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society. Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture . London: The Council of Christians and Jews; 1970:P24.

Midgley M: Wisdom Information and Wonder: What is Knowledge For? . London: Routledge; 1991:P58.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mark Rice, Larry Hansen, Stephen Baird and Clayton Wiley for reading and commenting on the manuscript. Americans For Medical Advancement is a not-for-profit educational organization that focuses on the scientific value of using animals in medical research. The opinions expressed by the authors are theirs alone and do not represent Americans For Medical Advancement.

About the authors

Ray Greek, MD completed medical school at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and a residency in anesthesiology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He taught at the University of Wisconsin and Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. He is now the president of the not-for-profit Americans For Medical Advancement http://www.AFMA-curedisease.org .

Jean Greek, DVM completed veterinary school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a residency in dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania. She taught at the University of Missouri and is now in private practice.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Americans For Medical Advancement, 2251 Refugio Rd, Goleta, CA, 93117, USA

Ray Greek & Jean Greek

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Greek .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors contributed equally and have read and approved this manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Greek, R., Greek, J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 5 , 14 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-5-14

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2009

Accepted : 08 September 2010

Published : 08 September 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-5-14

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

Basic Science Research
Sentient Animal
Nonmammalian Vertebrate
Informed Society
Basic Biomedical Research

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

ISSN: 1747-5341

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

News/Events
Arts and Sciences
Design and the Arts
Engineering
Global Futures
Health Solutions
Nursing and Health Innovation
Public Service and Community Solutions
University College
Thunderbird School of Global Management
Polytechnic
Downtown Phoenix
Online and Extended
Lake Havasu
Research Park
Washington D.C.
Biology Bits
Bird Finder
Coloring Pages
Experiments and Activities
Games and Simulations
Quizzes in Other Languages
Virtual Reality (VR)
World of Biology
Meet Our Biologists
Listen and Watch
PLOSable Biology
All About Autism
Xs and Ys: How Our Sex Is Decided
When Blood Types Shouldn’t Mix: Rh and Pregnancy
What Is the Menstrual Cycle?
Understanding Intersex
The Mysterious Case of the Missing Periods
Summarizing Sex Traits
Shedding Light on Endometriosis
Periods: What Should You Expect?
Menstruation Matters
Investigating In Vitro Fertilization
Introducing the IUD
How Fast Do Embryos Grow?
Helpful Sex Hormones
Getting to Know the Germ Layers
Gender versus Biological Sex: What’s the Difference?
Gender Identities and Expression
Focusing on Female Infertility
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Pregnancy
Ectopic Pregnancy: An Unexpected Path
Creating Chimeras
Confronting Human Chimerism
Cells, Frozen in Time
EvMed Edits
Stories in Other Languages
Virtual Reality
Zoom Gallery
Ugly Bug Galleries
Ask a Question
Top Questions
Question Guidelines
Permissions
Information Collected
Author and Artist Notes
Share Ask A Biologist
Articles & News
Our Volunteers
Teacher Toolbox

show/hide words to know

Computer model: a computer program designed to predict what might happen based off of collected data.

Ethical: relating to a person's moral principles.

Morals: a person's beliefs concerning what is right and wrong.

Zoologist: a person who studies animals.

Scientists learn a lot about snakes and other animals through basic research. Image by the Virginia State Park staff.

“Don’t worry, they aren’t dangerous” you hear the zoologist say as she leads you and a group of others toward an area with a number of different snakes. She removes a long snake from a larger glass enclosure and asks who would like to hold it. You take a step back, certain that holding a snake is the last thing you’d like to do.

"But how do you know they aren’t dangerous?” you ask. The zoologist looks up and smiles. She explains that scientists have studied this type of snake, and so we actually know quite a bit about it. This type of snake rarely bites and does not produce venom, so it isn’t dangerous to people. You nod along as she talks about the snakes, their natural habitats, and other details like what they eat.

Animals in the Research Process

How do we know so much about snakes or other animals? Animals are all unique, and scientists study them to learn more about them. For example, by studying snakes we have learned that they stick their tongues out because they are trying to pick up odors around them. This helps them sense food, predators, and other things that may be nearby. When research is performed to expand our understanding of something, like an animal, we call it basic research .

Scientists study animals for other reasons too. What we learn about animals can actually help us find solutions to other problems or to help people. For example, studying snakes helps us understand which ones are venomous so that humans know what kinds of snakes they shouldn't touch. Scientists also study animals to find new treatments to diseases and other ailments that affect both people and animals. If we learn what is in snake venom, we can create a medicine to give to people that have been bitten as a treatment to help them feel better. Using what we know about an animal or thing to help us solve problems or treat disease is called applied research .

Scientists use many other tools, such as computer models, in addition to animals to study different topics. Image by Andreas Horn.

No matter what type of research is being performed, scientists must consider many things when they study animals.

Do Scientists Need to Study Animals?

Of course we can learn a lot from using animals for research, but are there alternative options? Sometimes there are. For example, scientists could use some other method, like cells or computer models, to study a particular topic instead of using animals. However, for a number of reasons , scientists have found that using animals is sometimes the best way to study certain topics.

What If Scientists Harm Animals for Research?

Some research using animals only requires scientists to watch behavior or to take a few samples (like blood or saliva) from the animal. These activities may cause the animals some stress, but they are unlikely to harm the animals in any long-term way. Studies of the behavior or physiology of an animal in its natural environment is an example of such research.

In other cases, scientists may need to harm or kill an animal in order to answer a research question. For example, a study could involve removing a brain to study it more closely or giving an animal a treatment without knowing what effects it may have. While the intention is never to purposely harm animals, harm can be necessary to answer a research question.

How Do Scientists Decide When It’s OK to Study Animals?

Many animals are used in research. But there is still debate on whether they should be used for this purpose. Image by the United States Department of Agriculture.

There are many guidelines for when it’s ok to use animals in research. Scientists must write a detailed plan of why and how they plan to use animals for a research project. This information is then reviewed by other scientists and members of the public to make sure that the research animals will be used for has an important purpose. Whatever the animals are used for, the scientists also make sure to take care of animal research subjects as best as they can.

Even with rules in place about using animals for research, many people (both scientists and non-scientists) continue to debate whether animals should be used in research. This is an ethical question, or one that depends on a person's morals. Because the way each person feels about both research and animals may be different, there is a range of views on this matter.

Some people argue that it doesn’t matter that there are rules in place to protect animals. Animals should never be used for research at all, for any reason.
Others say we should be able to use animals for any kind of research because moving science forward is more important than the rights or well-being of animals.
Lastly, there are people whose opinions sit somewhere in the middle. They might argue that it’s ok to use animals for research, but only in some cases. For example, if the results of the research are very likely to help treat something that affects people, then it may be okay to use animals.

Along with this debate, there are many advantages and disadvantages of doing animal research . Scientists must weigh these options when performing their research.

Additional Images via Wikimedia Commons. White rat image by Alexandroff Pogrebnoj.

Chicago Manual of Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "Using Animals in Research". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 December, 2016. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

MLA 2017 Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "Using Animals in Research". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 Dec 2016. ASU - Ask A Biologist, Web. 10 Jun 2024. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

Animals are an important part of research. But many argue about whether it's ethical to use animals to help advance scientific progress.

Using Animals in Research

Be part of ask a biologist.

By volunteering, or simply sending us feedback on the site. Scientists, teachers, writers, illustrators, and translators are all important to the program. If you are interested in helping with the website we have a Volunteers page to get the process started.

Share to Google Classroom

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

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

Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation

Aysha karim kiani.

1 Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, Pakistan

2 MAGI EUREGIO, Bolzano, Italy

DEREK PHEBY

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

GARY HENEHAN

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

RICHARD BROWN

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

PAUL SIEVING

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

PETER SYKORA

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

ROBERT MARKS

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

BENEDETTO FALSINI

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

NATALE CAPODICASA

10 MAGI BALKANS, Tirana, Albania

STANISLAV MIERTUS

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

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

LORENZO LORUSSO

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

DANIELE DONDOSSOLA

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

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

GIANLUCA MARTINO TARTAGLIA

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

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

MAHMUT CERKEZ ERGOREN

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

MUNIS DUNDAR

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

SANDRO MICHELINI

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

DANIELE MALACARNE

21 MAGI’S LAB, Rovereto (TN), Italy

GABRIELE BONETTI

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

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

MICHELE SAMAJA

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

STEPHEN THADDEUS CONNELLY

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

DONALD MARTIN

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

ASSUNTA MORRESI

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

ARIOLA BACU

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

KAREN L. HERBST

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

MYKHAYLO KAPUSTIN

29 Federation of the Jewish Communities of Slovakia

LIBORIO STUPPIA

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

LUDOVICA LUMER

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

GIAMPIETRO FARRONATO

Matteo bertelli.

32 MAGISNAT, Peachtree Corners (GA), USA

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

COVID-19 AND THE NEED FOR ANIMAL MODELS

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

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

Pros and cons of animal experimentation

Arguments against animal experimentation.

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

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

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

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

Impact of experimentations on animals

Ability to feel pain and distress.

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

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

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

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES OF ANIMALS

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

Ethics, principles and legislation in animal experimentation

Ethics in animal experimentation.

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

PRINCIPLE OF THE 4 RS

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER ASPECTS OF ANIMAL RESEARCH ETHICS

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

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

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

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

INVESTIGATORS’ ETHICS

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

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

ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS

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

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

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

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

Living conditions of animals

Choice of the animal model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance of animal experimentations and possible alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN SILICO SIMULATIONS AND INFORMATICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL-DERIVED ANTIBODIES

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

Conclusions

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Conflicts of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author's contributions

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

Contributor Information

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

Home / Essay Samples / Social Issues / Animal Testing / Argumentative Discussion on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Argumentative Discussion on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Category: Sociology , Social Issues , Science
Topic: Animal Ethics , Animal Testing , Animal Welfare

Pages: 6 (2868 words)

Downloads: -->

Introduction

Us statists of animal testing in 2018, facts of animal testing.

Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year.
92% of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.
Labs that use mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are exempted from the minimal protections under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
Up to 90% of animals used in U.S. labs are not counted in the official statistics of animals tested. Take a stand by kidnapping your friends’ products that were tested on animals.
Europe, the world’s largest cosmetic market, Israel and India have already banned animal testing for cosmetics and the sale or import of newly animal-tested beauty products.
Even animals that are protected under the AWA can be abused and tortured. And the law doesn’t require the use of valid alternatives to animals, even if they are available.
According to the Humane Society, registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as many as 12,000 animals.
In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day for 2 years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses.
The real-life applications for some of the tested substances are as trivial as an “improved” laundry detergent, new eye shadow, or copycat drugs to replace a profitable pharmaceutical whose patent expired.
Alternative tests achieve one or more of the “3 R’s:” replaces a procedure that uses animals with a procedure that doesn’t, reduces the number of animals used in a procedure, refines a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain.
Several cosmetic tests commonly performed on mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dripped into the eyes without any pain relief.

Rules of Animal Testing

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Ocean Essays

Photosynthesis Essays

Stem Cell Essays

Microbiology Essays

Cell Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

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

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->

Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay

Introduction

Works Cited

Should Animals Be Used in Research? The Arguments

Science, Medicine, and Animals (1991)

Welcome to OpenBook!

Get Email Updates

Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

100 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Benefits of Using Animals in Research

Downsides of Animal Research

Alternatives to Animal Research

250 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Why Some People Support Animal Research

Why Some People Are Against Animal Research

500 Words Essay on Should Animals Be Used For Research

Benefits of Animal Research

Arguments Against Animal Research

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

Introduction

Learning Objectives

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

Related Writing Prompts

Natural Disasters

The Future of the Planet

The Use of Animals in Scientific Research

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Statistics from Altmetric.com

L Grayson. The British Library, 2000, £35, pp 300. ISBN 071230858X

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Introduction

Societal Norms

Definitions

Julius Comroe and Robert Dripps

How is progress measured?

Basic research and the use of sentient animals

Possible Objections

Alternatives

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Authors' contributions

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Authors’ original file for figure 1

About this article

Share this article

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

show/hide words to know

Animals in the Research Process

Do Scientists Need to Study Animals?

What If Scientists Harm Animals for Research?

How Do Scientists Decide When It’s OK to Study Animals?

Read more about: Using Animals in Research

Chicago Manual of Style

MLA 2017 Style

Using Animals in Research

Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation

DEREK PHEBY

GARY HENEHAN

RICHARD BROWN

PAUL SIEVING

PETER SYKORA

ROBERT MARKS

BENEDETTO FALSINI

NATALE CAPODICASA

STANISLAV MIERTUS

LORENZO LORUSSO

DANIELE DONDOSSOLA

GIANLUCA MARTINO TARTAGLIA

MAHMUT CERKEZ ERGOREN

MUNIS DUNDAR

SANDRO MICHELINI

DANIELE MALACARNE

GABRIELE BONETTI

MICHELE SAMAJA