Animal Experimentation: Overview

Introduction

Animal experimentation has been instrumental in many medical and pharmaceutical advances that have benefited humans. While most Americans value these achievements, modern understandings about the nature of animals have caused many people to reconsider the ethics of using animals for human gain, and so the debate over animal experimentation is primarily a philosophical one. The resulting increase in public awareness has resulted in some legislation around animal testing, and animal rights organizations continue to fight for additional changes to policies. Concern about the use of animal experimentation for cosmetics and other personal care items has increased the pressure from animal rights groups.

For decades, in the United States, all pharmaceuticals, food additives, and garden chemicals were legally required to be tested on animals before they can be tested on humans. A number of reforms reduced some of these legal requirements by the early 2020s, but testing on animals remained commonplace. One controversial test commonly employed is the LD50, which measures lethal toxicity. Products that are not required by law to be tested include household items, cosmetics, and personal care products, although the controversial Draize test on rabbits is commonly used in these industries to measure eye irritation. About 95 percent of the millions of animals used in experiments are rodents, generally mice and rats bred specifically for research. Along with most fish and birds, these mice and rats are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The small remaining percentage of test subjects covered under the AWA includes guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, non-human primates, dogs, pigs, cats, and sheep. Meanwhile, in addition to research conducted by professionals and scholars, millions of schoolchildren dissect frogs, earthworms, and other animals in biology classes.

Those who support animal rights and/or animal welfare, including members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the National Anti-Vivisection Society, have worked to raise awareness of animal suffering and animal testing they view as unnecessary. As a result, scientists now employ the "3Rs" in their research: replace, reduce, refine. In addition, by 2016, all medical schools in the United States and Canada had discontinued the use of live animals for training purposes.

Supporters of animal rights often oppose all animal experimentation and believe that animals should be entitled to the same respect for life and liberty provided to humans. They accuse scientists of "speciesism," a lack of compassion, and of being manipulated by corporate greed. Further, they maintain there are legitimate alternatives to using animal experimentation, and that human comparisons are necessary to truly understand the root causes of human diseases and to develop effective responses. In fact, critics assert that some animal testing has actually held back advancements in understanding of diseases, such as polio and lung cancer. In response, members of groups such as the Coalition for Animals and Animal Research, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Research Council, and Americans for Medical Progress sometimes accuse animal rights activists of being anti-scientific and perhaps even hostile toward humans. A 2023 Gallup poll found that Americans were split on the issue of medical testing on animals; 48 percent of those surveyed considered it "morally acceptable," while 48 percent considered it "morally wrong." 3 percent of those surveyed said their answer depended on the circumstances.

Understanding the Discussion

Animal testing: While this term is often interchangeable with "animal experimentation," it is usually used to refer to research conducted on animals by the cosmetic, household products, and personal care industries, for which testing is not mandated by the federal government.

Animal Welfare Act (AWA): Federal legislation enacted in 1966 and amended several times that regulates the sale and treatment of non- human primates, dogs, cats, and other animals used in research. A 1985 amendment established an information service to identify potential duplicate, unnecessary experiments.

Choice-in-dissection laws: Often referred to as "student choice" laws, these permit students to opt out of K-12 lessons that include dissection and other activities that are harmful to animals. Several states have choice-in-dissection laws and others continue debating the issue.

Dissection: The cutting up of non-living organs, tissue, or bodies for scientific or medical purposes.

Draize test: A laboratory test in which a cosmetic or drug is dropped into a rabbit's eyes, which are held open with clips, to determine the level of irritation. Named after John Henry Draize, a twentieth-century pharmacologist with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

LD50 Test: A toxicity test that determines the amount of a substance that kills 50 percent of test animals.

Speciesism: A term coined by Richard Ryder in 1973 that refers to humans discriminating against one or more animal species. Used by animal rights activists to refer to the attitude that humans are superior to all other animals.

Vivisection: The cutting-up or other invasion of a live animal for scientific or medical purposes.

History

A curiosity about the mechanics of life, the belief that animals do not experience pain, and the belief that humans have dominion over all other animals provided the foundation for centuries of animal experimentation. Beginning in ancient Rome and Greece, vivisection was a routine method of experimentation. Such methods contributed to many fundamental findings in biology, medicine, and related fields over the centuries. William Harvey, the eighteenth-century English physician who discovered the principle of circulation, was known for his matter-of-fact approach to vivisection, which he frequently conducted on rabbits, pigs, and other animals to demonstrate his discoveries.

Proponents long justified animal experimentation by the benefits it brought to humans. However, throughout history, some observers have expressed concern for the animals involved. In the late eighteenth century, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham initiated public debate over animal experimentation that greatly influenced the rise of the modern animal rights movement. Bentham's remark in reference to animals that "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'" is often cited by animal welfare activists.

After several decades of mostly philosophical debate, the issue of animal welfare attracted increased organization and action in the nineteenth century. In 1824, animal rights activists founded the Vivisection Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in England. In 1875, Frances Power Cobb founded the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals (SPCA). Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871) added fuel to the support for animal welfare laws. In 1876, the English parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act. Americans formed the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866, the American Humane Society in 1877, and the American Anti-Vivisection Society in 1883.

The animal welfare movement gained momentum during the twentieth century, although significant medical advances often continued to rely on animal experimentation. Some of the most notable achievements include the development of polio, smallpox, and hepatitis vaccines that were first tested on monkeys, and the development of penicillin, which was first tested on mice.

The United States passed the first Animal Welfare Act in 1966. The legislation regulated the sale, transportation, and handling of many animals used in research and the registration of research centers. The 1970s saw a further shift in attitudes about experimentation on animals, especially primates. Behavioral researchers had proved that primates had high intelligence levels, social skills, and a range of emotions, while other scientists had identified genetic similarities between humans and other primates. In 1975, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher who became professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote Animal Liberation, the "bible" of the contemporary animal rights movement. Singer promoted the idea of speciesism and defended animals as being as worthy as humans regardless of their intelligence and abilities.

Opposition to animal experimentation continued to gain attention as activists orchestrated increasingly high-profile awareness campaigns, protests, and other actions. In 1980, Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk founded PETA. A year later, the organization was responsible for the removal of monkeys from the Institute of Behavioral Research, a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded laboratory in Silver Springs, Maryland. The head researcher was convicted of providing inadequate care, and the case was well-publicized. Another case that received a great deal of media attention involved 150 brain-damaged baboons at the University of Pennsylvania's Head Injury Clinic in 1983. The Animal Liberation Front, a group known for using threats, sabotage, and other illegal means to draw attention to animal cruelty, claimed responsibility for a raid at the clinic, and worked with PETA to publicize the situation.

During the 1980s and 1990s, PETA and other organizations brought particular awareness to the use of animal testing in the cosmetics and personal care industries. In response to negative publicity, many companies sought out alternatives to animal testing. PETA and other groups also influenced the design of computer simulations and models that can be used in lieu of dissecting frogs in biology classes, and influenced choice-in-dissection laws that have been enacted by school districts and states.

There was also backlash to the animal rights movement, however. As a result of illegal acts committed by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Animal Liberation Front, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was then signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006. The bill gave the United States Department of Justice additional power to investigate and prosecute "eco-terror" cases.

In general, efforts to stop animal experimentation in non-critical situations such as the cosmetics industry and public schools earned wider public support and were more successful than efforts targeting medical science and other research with significant societal benefit. Still, opponents of animal experimentation did claim some broader victories, particularly involving charismatic species. For instance, pressure to phase out invasive experimentation on chimpanzees attracted considerable media attention, and President Bill Clinton signed the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection (CHIMP) Act into law in 2000, with the intent of providing care for former test subject chimpanzees. In 2005, the first animals that had been retired from research were moved into a facility known as Chimp Haven in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Animal rights organizations continued to push for the United States and other countries to join Sweden and New Zealand in completely banning the use of chimps in research. The 2015 designation of chimpanzees as an endangered species increased support for such a ban and led to a requirement for any laboratory wishing to experiment on chimps to obtain a permit. Researchers seeking permits would also have to prove that their research would benefit chimpanzees in the wild. Then, in November 2015, the NIH announced that it would no longer fund experiments on chimpanzees, and would be retiring the fifty chimpanzees it had been keeping for potential future research to wildlife sanctuaries. Over twenty pharmaceutical companies and contract laboratories also committed to ceasing experimentation on chimpanzees, though logistical hurdles meant some animals remained in laboratory settings rather than sanctuaries.

Animal Experimentation Today

According to the Humane Society of the United States, it is estimated that over 100 million vertebrate animals are used for research, testing, and education each year. Far greater numbers of invertebrates, such as flies and worms, are used than vertebrate animals. Some test subjects may be euthanized after the experiment. However, there are no consistent figures on exactly how many animals are used in experiments in the United States, except for certain species covered by the AWA.

Animal rights groups remain active in the US, advocating for various reforms and other efforts in opposition to animal testing. One common strategy is to pressure on businesses to further clarify their practices through the use of labels, namely designations of products being "vegan" or "cruelty-free." While vegan products do not contain animal products or by-products, cruelty-free products have never been tested on animals (the categories can also overlap). Advocates of this type of labeling argue that it helps consumers make more informed decisions.

Animal welfare activists also often advocate for epidemiological studies and research on human subjects, computerized models, and other methods as viable alternatives to animal testing. Such pressure led many US government agencies to reduce their animal experimentation. In September 2019, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was planning to phase out its requirement of testing potentially dangerous chemicals on animals in favor of using alternative scientific and technological methods. According to the agency's outlined strategy at the time, it aimed to ultimately end testing on mammals altogether by 2035. While animal activists praised the decision, some critics expressed concern that human health could be compromised as alternative methods were not yet as effective.

The ongoing debate over animal experimentation was highlighted amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that emerged in 2020, as many observers reported an uptick in animal testing as part of the fight to develop possible treatments and vaccines for the viral disease. While the successful development of several effective vaccines in record time was seen as a major scientific achievement, animal rights activists took issue with the development process. Additionally, in 2021 a report by the conservative watchdog group White Coat Waste found that since 2018 the NIH had substantially increased its funding of animal experimentation in foreign countries, including at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was under much scrutiny related to COVID-19, due to Wuhan's status as the place where the disease first emerged. While the report criticized this spending as wasteful and potentially inhumane, NIH spokespeople and other scientists argued that animal studies were crucial to protecting human health.

Further developments during the early 2020s added new dimensions to the debate surrounding experimentation on animals. Starting in February 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that healthy animals previously involved in lab experiments would be placed for adoption and transferred to shelters and sanctuaries once experimentation was complete. This was a drastic shift away from the FDA's longstanding policy of euthanizing most of these animals, and was considered a step in the right direction by some animal rights activists. Other changes at the FDA during this time proved even more far-reaching. Notably, in January 2023, the FDA announced that it would no longer require drugs in developmental stages to be tested on animals before being used on humans, as part of the changes enacted by the FDA Modernization Act 2.0. A number of animal rights organizations, including PETA, praised the move, and even some representatives of the pharmaceutical industry suggested it would save money and make the drug testing process more efficient without sacrificing safety. However, proponents of animal testing maintained that this type of experimentation remained the most effective way to test the safety of products before their use on human beings.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

"Animal Testing and Experiments FAQ." The Humane Society of the United States, www.humanesociety.org/resources/animals-used-experiments-faq. Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.

Becker, Carlin. "Zebrafish on Ecstasy and Feeding Mice Human Feces: NIH Hikes Funding for Animal Testing." Newsweek, 6 July 2021, www.newsweek.com/zebrafish-ecstasy-feeding-mice-human-feces-nih-hikes-funding-animal-testing-1607345. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

Brooks, Michael. "The Truth about Animal Testing." New Statesman, vol. 141, no. 5115, July 2012, p. 14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=77919724&site=pov-live. Accessed 21 Nov. 2012.

Bucchino, Rachel. "New FDA Policy Allows Lab Animals to be Adopted after Experiments." The Hill, 7 Feb. 2020, thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482074-new-fda-policy-allows-lab-animals-to-be-adopted-after-experiments/. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024.

Carbone, Larry. "The Utility of Basic Animal Research." Hastings Center Report, vol. 42, Nov. 2012, pp. S12–5, doi:10.1002/hast.101. Accessed 4 Feb. 2014.

Ericson, John. "Building the Better Lab Rat." Newsweek Global, vol. 162, no. 12, Mar. 2014, pp. 1–5. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=95014867&site=pov-live. Accessed 27 Oct. 2015.

Ericson, John. "Killing to Stay Alive." Newsweek Global, vol. 162, no. 8, Feb. 2014, pp. 106–109. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=94586532&site=pov-live. Accessed 27 Oct. 2015.

"Facts About FDA and Animal Welfare, Testing & Research." US Food & Drug Administration, 8 May 2024, www.fda.gov/news-events/rumor-control/facts-about-fda-and-animal-welfare-testing-research. Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.

Hernandez, Joe. "The FDA No Longer Requires All Drugs to be Tested on Animals Before Human Trials." NPR, 12 Jan. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148529799/fda-animal-testing-pharmaceuticals-drug-development. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024.

Kaiser, Jocelyn. "NIH to End All Support for Chimpanzee Research." Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 18 Nov. 2015, www.science.org/content/article/nih-end-all-support-chimpanzee-research. Accessed 12 Sept. 2016.

Kopp, Susan, and Charles C. Camosy. "Animals 2.0." America, vol. 212, no. 18, May 2015, p. 14. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=102754688&site=pov-live. Accessed 27 Oct. 2015.

Latham, Stephen R. "US Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer." Hastings Center Report, vol. 42, Nov. 2012, pp. S35-9, doi.org/10.1002/hast.107. Accessed 4 Feb. 2014.

"Policies and Laws." Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, US National Institutes of Health, olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws. Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.

Ranganatha, N., and I. J. Kuppast. "A Review on Alternatives to Animal Testing Methods in Drug Development." International Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 4, 2012, pp. 28–32.

Rudy, Kathy. "Ethics and Animals: An Introduction." Ethics and the Environment, vol. 18, no. 1, Indiana University Press, 2013, pp. 125–35. JSTOR, doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.18.1.125. Accessed 4 Feb. 2014.

Zaveri, Mihir, et al. "EPA Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing." The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/climate/epa-animal-testing.html. Accessed 8 Apr. 2020.