Animal testing

DEFINITION: Use of nonhuman animals for research purposes, particularly medical research

Animal testing is an integral component of modern science, product testing, and education. Most significant developments in medicine directly or indirectly rely on animal testing. Public debate about the moral and legal status of animals in society has resulted in numerous regulations on animal testing, yet it continues to be a controversial subject.

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection, is used to advance both pure and applied research. Behavior, development, evolution, reproductive cloning, and genetic engineering research are all forms of pure research involving animals. Applied research includes medical research, defense research, and toxicology studies for drugs, food additives, pesticides, and cosmetics. The use of animals in medical education and training is typically considered to be a form of animal testing as well.

Rationale, Scope, and Regulations

The underlying rationale for the use of animal testing is that living organisms provide interactive, dynamic systems that scientists can observe and manipulate in order to understand normal and pathological functioning as well as the effectiveness of medical interventions. The vast majority of animal testing is for human benefit and relies on the physiological and anatomical similarities between humans and other animals. The term “animal model” refers to the use of live animals to study particular biological processes with the end of extrapolating that information to other animals, particularly humans.

Many species are used in animal testing. Nematode worms and fruit flies are commonly used invertebrates. Zebra fish and mice are commonly used vertebrates. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of animals used in research worldwide, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reported in 2021 that 797,546 laboratory animals were used for research, testing, and educational purposes in the United States in 2019. This represented an increase over the 2015 figure of 767,622 animals, which was the lowest number on record after years of decline. These statistics, however, do not include animals not protected by the 1966 Animal Welfare Act (AWA), a federal law that has been amended numerous times and regulates the treatment of animals in exhibition, research, and transport. Many rats, mice, and fish are not protected by the act, and it is impossible to know exactly how many are used in the US for testing.

In 2020, the European Union (EU) stated that nearly 8 million animals were used in research and testing across the EU and Norway, with mice and rats comprising the majority of utilized species. In 2015, the European Commission voted to strike down a proposed ban to stop laboratory experiments on animals, although animal testing of cosmetics was banned in the EU in 2004. Great Britain reported that 2.88 million experimental procedures using animals were conducted in 2020, with 92 percent of the procedures using either mice, fish, or rats.

A chief moral concern raised about animal testing is the pain and suffering it involves. Sentience, or subjective awareness, particularly of pain and pleasure, is common to all vertebrates. Evidence for sentience in invertebrates is generally absent, however, and for this reason research on invertebrates is largely unregulated. Cephalopods (the class of animals that includes octopi and squid) are notable exceptions and are covered by regulations in several countries owing to evidence of their sentience. Animal welfare regulations require those who use animals for research or educational purposes to report whether the animal experiences pain and whether pain-relieving medication was provided during procedures. Reporting on mice and rats is not required.

A societal consensus exists that animal testing for the advancement of science and medicine is often justified, provided that there are no alternatives, the use of animals is kept to a minimum, and that animal pain and distress is minimized. Supporters of animal testing commonly cite the number of major medical advances that have resulted from the practice.

Animal testing is heavily regulated in many countries. Regulations have changed significantly since the mid-twentieth century, and they differ in the numbers of species covered, the kinds of animal welfare protections offered, and the regulatory approaches taken. In the United States, animal testing is governed by two federal statutes: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966 and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, the provisions of which are carried out in the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy). AWA establishes the minimum acceptable standards of care and treatment for certain animals in research, testing, experimentation, exhibition purposes, and use as pets. AWA covers warm-blooded animals yet specifically excludes birds, mice, and rats bred for research purposes, as well as animals used for food, fiber, or many forms of agricultural research. PHS Policy, which applies to all research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), applies to all live vertebrates used for research purposes.

Opposition and Alternatives

Opposition to animal testing is diverse and the pros and cons of the use of animals for scientific testing are heavily debated. Disagreement with the practice is based on both scientific and ethical grounds, and it varies according to species and to purpose. Research using primates, cats, and dogs is particularly controversial.

The testing of cosmetics on animals is often especially criticized because many consider the benefit of yet another cosmetic product to be of dubious value when weighed against animals’ interests. Cosmetics testing on animals remains federally legal in the United States, though in June of 2014, the California Senate passed Joint Resolution 22, which urged the US Congress to pass federal legislation banning the use of all animals in cosmetics testing. The US Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced to Congress in the summer of 2015, but did not pass. It was reintroduced in 2019. Several US states passed their own legislation banning or limiting animal-tested cosmetics.

Cosmetics testing on animals has been outlawed in several other countries or jurisdictions, including Israel, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. In July 2014, China removed a requirement for "ordinary cosmetics," such as hair products and fragrances, to be tested on animals. The country still required, however, that imported and special-use products such as sunblock be animal tested. The next year, South Korea followed in the European Union's footsteps by proposing a five-year plan to phase out the use of cosmetics testing on animals, starting with the prohibition of the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products. New Zealand banned animal testing in cosmetics in 2015.

In the United States, federal laws for the most part do not protect farm animals from mistreatment in agricultural research experiments. This has at times led to sharp criticism and activist attention. For example, the US Meat Animal Research Center came under public scrutiny in early 2015 as a New York Times article exposed alleged animal cruelty in studies meant to increase the meat industry's bottom line. This investigation led to a review by the USDA, which funded the program, and the subsequent appointment of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service's first animal welfare ombudsman.

Those opposed to animal testing on scientific grounds cite the unreliability of predicting effects in humans based on animal models. Some argue that animal testing is not cost-effective; they assert that, given the substantial costs of conducting animal tests, which often last years and cost millions of dollars, the goal of improving human health would be more fully and efficiently realized through a reallocation of funding to implement existing medical technologies more widely. Some argue that much animal testing is immoral because the animal suffering caused is greater than the expected benefits to humans. The stronger animal rights view is that each animal has inherent moral worth, which prohibits humans from using them as experimental subjects for any reason.

First articulated by scientists William M. Russell and Rex L. Burch, the three Rs—replacement, reduction, and refinement—are influential guiding principles for the humane use of animals in research. Replacement involves seeking to increase alternatives to animal testing that generate the desired research data without the use of sentient animals. Examples of replacement include the use of computer models, epidemiological data, tissue cultures, isolated organs, and nonsentient animals. Reduction is the effort to obtain comparable data using fewer animals or to obtain more data using the same number of animals. Refinement involves favoring research protocols that alleviate or minimize animal pain and distress through the use of analgesics, veterinary care, improved living quarters, and enrichment. Further development and increased implementation of alternatives to and refinement of animal testing is an area of common ground between animal advocates and animal researchers.

A 2022 study performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) examined the effectiveness of animal testing alternatives and found that when compared to animal testing, the animal-free procedures were 77 percent as effective. The NIST was hopeful that the results of their study could lead to a renewed focus on effective alternatives to animal testing.

Bibliography

"About Animal Testing." Cruelty Free International, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/about-animal-testing. Accessed 17 July 2024.

"Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year, 2019." Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 27 Apr. 2021, www.aphis.usda.gov/animal‗welfare/annual-reports/2019/fy19-summary-report-column-F.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2024.

"Animal Research Numbers Continue Downward Trend According to Newly-Released Report." National Anti-Vivisection Society. Natl. Anti-Vivisection Soc., 6 July 2015. Web. 9 July 2015.

"Animal Testing & Cosmetics." US Food & Drug Administration, 4 Mar. 2022, www.fda.gov/cosmetics/product-testing-cosmetics/animal-testing-cosmetics. Accessed 17 July 2024.

"Animal Research and Testing." Gov.uk, Government of the United Kingdom, www.gov.uk/business-and-industry/animal-research-and-testing. Accessed 17 July 2024.

Aubrey, Allison. "Outrage Over Government's Animal Experiments Leads to USDA Review." NPR. NPR, 6 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 July 2015.

Bayne, Kathryn A. L., et al. Laboratory Animal Welfare. Academic Press, 2014.

Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford UP, 2004.

Goodman, Justin R., et al. "Mounting Opposition to Vivisection." Contexts 11.2 (2012): 68–69. Print.

Guerrini, Anita. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights. Johns Hopkins UP, 2003.

"Here's How China Is Moving Away From Animal Testing." Bloomberg, 16 Jan. 2018, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-16/ending-china-animal-tests-is-salve-for-big-beauty-quicktake-q-a. Accessed 27 Mar. 2018.

Liebsch, Manfred, et al. "Alternatives to Animal Testing: Current Status and Future Perspectives." Archives of Toxicology 85 (2011): 841–58. Print.

Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. 2nd ed. Cambridge UP, 2009.

Newton, David E. The Animal Experimentation Debate. ABC-CLIO, 2013.

"NIST Study Gives Animal Testing Alternatives a Confidence Boost." National Institute of Standards and Technology, 17 May 2022, www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/05/nist-study-gives-animal-testing-alternatives-confidence-boost. Accessed 7 June 2022.

Paul, Ellen Frankel, and Jeffrey Paul, eds. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Transaction, 2001.

"Section 1: Numbers of Animals Used for Research, Testing, Routine Production and Education and Training Purposes in the EU." European Commission, European Union, webgate.ec.europa.eu/envdataportal/content/alures/section1‗number-of-animals.html. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Wolfensohn, Sarah, and Maggie Lloyd. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare. 4th ed. Wiley, 2013.