essay on why animal testing is bad

Share full article

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

The article continues:

The practice of testing with animals has long prompted complex debates driven by passionate views on morality and scientific imperative. Reaction to Tuesday’s announcement was no different. “We are really excited as this has been something we’ve wanted for quite some time,” said Kitty Block, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal protection organization. “The alternatives are the future. They’re more efficient and save lives.” Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society, said the E.P.A.’s move is “broad-sweeping and significant.” “This is the first time a government agency has made such a commitment and timelined its specific goals along the way,” Ms. Conlee said. “There’s been a lot of positive action among other federal agencies, but we want to see all government agencies take this step.” Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s school of medicine, said current alternatives to animal testing are somewhat useful. But Dr. Woodruff, who worked at the E.P.A. from 1994 to 2007, said only animal testing — a process honed over decades — was robust enough to gauge chemicals’ impacts on people of various ages, genetics and health backgrounds. “I definitely think we should be investing more in this research,” she said, referring to alternative testing. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.” Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said she was very concerned by the announcement. Dr. Sass said animals were still necessary to study chronic conditions, like cancer and infertility. Cells in a petri dish cannot yet replace whole living systems, she said. “The E.P.A.’s deadline is arbitrary,” Dr. Sass said. “Our interest isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right. We want proper animal testing because we don’t want harmful chemicals to end up in our food, air and water.”

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you support the decision by the E.P.A. to move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals? Or do you think animal testing is still necessary to regulate harmful substances that can have adverse effects on humans?

How important is it to you that the toxicity of chemicals and other environmental contaminants is rigorously studied and regulated? Why? Do you think not testing on animals hinders those efforts?

The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the government agencies that still rely on animal testing. Do you think animal testing is important in these sectors or any others? Why or why not?

Do you think animal testing is ever justified? If so, what should be the criteria for when, how and on what animals testing is done?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

The failures of animal testing

Katy taylor, creative commons 4.0.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals.

We have all seen it. A front-page headline from a tabloid newspaper heralding a 'breakthrough' in the fight against a major disease. A common thread connects many of these reported developments - whether that be cancer or Alzheimer’s.

Namely, the false assumption that because of testing on animals in laboratories there have been new solutions that will revolutionise outcomes for human health.

The promise of clinical efficacy through animal testing is dangerous. It is often cited as the rationale behind the need to continue animal testing on a mass scale and is not always based on evidence.

Objectively, those who support the use of animal testing in medical research, do so on the basis that it is furthering advances in the treatment of humans.

However, the widely reported links between animal testing and advances in human medicine by the UK press have recently been found to contain widespread inaccuracies and exaggerations.

In research published in BMJ Open Science, it was shown that the majority of 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national print media inflated the value or success of animal testing.

In a study by Cruelty Free International, out of 27 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK media, twenty failed outright to translate into any human relevant benefit and only one resulted in clinical use.

The findings highlight that reports of animal research leading to human-relevant breakthroughs should be viewed with caution. The ramifications of misleading news are severe, they not only lead to a crisis in confidence relating to medical research more broadly but continue to propagate the notion that animals need to be subjected to extreme cruelty for science to progress.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals. This has serious implications for government policies, industry regulators, funding and public opinion.

It is important that the media are better educated about the limits and reality of animal research, so that they do not inflate its value, encouraging them to highlight the more effective clinical research being conducted using animal-free methods and report on the very real funding and regulatory barriers that human-relevant research currently faces.

A transition towards appropriate reporting of the value and successes of animal testing could have a dramatic impact on animal protection worldwide. Sadly, the most recent statistics show that between 2015 and 2017, the UK conducted the highest number of animal experiments in Europe.

In 2019, 3.4 million animal experiments were completed in the UK. This is in direct contrast to public opinion which increasingly opposes animal research.

A 2019 Ipsos MORI report revealed a growing shift in attitudes towards animal experiments in the UK with two thirds of those surveyed concerned about the use of animals in research, and more people disagreeing with the use of dogs (86 percent against), monkeys (86 percent against) and pigs (79 percent against) in tests, even if it benefits human health.

Under UK and EU regulation, animal testing should not be authorised or conducted if another alternative approach or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought is recognised. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case, with a pertinent example being that of botox testing.

Batch tests for the potency of vials of botulinum toxin products sold to beauty clinics continue to use mice, even though there is a recognised cell-based test that could and should be used in their place.

In these tests, mice are injected with the toxin and becoming increasingly paralysed over a period of three days. Half of the mice will die from the tests, those who survive will be killed anyway.

Not only would replacing animal tests with humane, human-relevant methods provide a great leap forward in the fight for animal rights, but animal-free methods are often cheaper, faster and more accurate than the animal tests they replace.

The use of human-relevant methods could therefore also lead to huge gains for both human health and the environment.

To achieve more effective testing methods and increased animal protection it is important that we address the information being disseminated on the topic.

Headlines sharing breakthroughs based on animal tests should be treated with extreme caution; the reliance of governments on animal testing will only begin to wane when its value is accurately reported in the media and is balanced against the public’s very real desire to protect animals from suffering.

This Author

Dr Katy Taylor is the Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs of Cruelty Free International.

Donate to The Ecologist and support high impact environmental journalism and analysis.

The failure of animal testing

Media speculation over Gatwick disruption

Badger Cull has brought out the best of British compassion

Resources for Journalists

Food & Farming Media Network
How to Pitch Us
Freelance Charter
Work With Us

Sentient Media

Environmental Policy
Code of Ethics
Testimonials

Explainer: What Is Animal Testing?

Vaccines, medications and cosmetics rely on animal testing even though the process is cruel, unreliable and often inaccurate.

Explainer • Animal Testing • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

The use of animals in experiments is so endemic that “guinea pig” is used as an alternative term for “test subject.” But underlying this ubiquity is a set of processes that harm animals unnecessarily: rats force-fed drugs designed to induce tumors, monkeys kept in tiny cages with chemicals irritating their skin and beagles euthanized without any anesthesia.

Critics say many of these experiments are unreliable and even unnecessary. Advocates for reduced animal testing earned a win in December 2022: the FDA announced that it would no longer require animal tests prior to approving a drug for human trials.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing, sometimes called in vivo testing, is a process of determining if certain medications, vaccines and cosmetics are safe for humans by first experimenting with them on animals. Animal testing is common in most countries and has been used in some forms throughout much of human history.

Cosmetic Testing

Cosmetic testing is a process of using animals to test any cosmetic product before human use, such as makeups, lotions, creams, fragrances, oils or facial masks.

Testing for Medicine

Medical testing involves using animals to examine new drugs, research biological systems, investigate genetic factors, delve into animal psychologies or test out surgical strategies. Nowadays, drugs are the most common form of medical testing on animals.

The History of Animal Testing

Animal testing is a long-documented practice, with some of the oldest instances dating back to around 300 B.C. in ancient Greece. Yet while animal testing was widespread in the form of vivisection and practice for operations, it wasn’t until the 20th century that medicines were commonly tested on animals. In fact, several laws were passed in this period, including the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the U.S., that encouraged or mandated the use of animals in testing before human consumption.

What Types of Animals Are Used in Animal Testing?

Invertebrates.

Common invertebrates used in animal testing include fruit flies and nematode worms. Unfortunately for these animals, no federal protections exist to minimize their pain or suffering in the U.S.

Vertebrates

There’s truth in the common phrase “lab rat” — 95 percent of animals used in animal testing are mice or rats. Dogs, cats, pigs, monkeys, other primates, rabbits and sheep are all used in addition to rodents.

How Many Animals Are Used in Experiments Each Year?

This is a difficult question to answer, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture only counts certain species of animals in its annual review of animal testing. Mice and rats specifically bred for testing purposes are not counted because they do not fall under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act.

However, it’s been estimated that at least 50 million animals are used in the U.S. every year. The real number is unknown and may be higher. Worldwide, exact numbers are unknown, but some estimate the number to be around 200 million experiments per year.

What’s Wrong With Animal Testing?

Is animal testing painful.

Some researchers attempt to reduce the pain for animal test subjects, but many do not. According to the USDA animal usage summary report , roughly 8 percent of animals were experimented on with no measures taken to ensure pain reduction. This report does not take into account animals that do not fall under the Animal Welfare Act, so the real number is unknowable and likely much higher.

Even animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act are often subjected to levels of pain that are hard to comprehend. Of all surgeries on animals, 40 percent do not report using anesthesia, and drugs are often force-fed to animals. Animals are also often killed after the experiments are completed, long before the end of their natural lifespan.

Are Animal Testing Results Reliable?

Animal tests do not catch all possible side effects before drugs move to a later phase of testing. According to a 2004 report from the USDA, 92 percent of medicines that pass an animal testing phase will not proceed to market, and a major cause of this failure is safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. More recent reports from scientists estimate an even higher number of 96 percent .

There are a variety of reasons why animal tests are considered unreliable. According to a 2015 review in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , these include the effects of laboratory conditions; the different ways that diseases impact animals and humans; and the differences in physiology and genetics across species, all of which lead to inaccuracies. Due to such factors, a breakthrough meta-analysis published in Alternatives to Laboratory Animals in 2015 argued that a lack of toxicity of a drug in any of the five species most commonly used in animal testing — dogs, rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys — was not able to indicate the likelihood of a similar lack of toxicity in humans. In other words, animal tests don’t work.

Advocates for animal testing often argue that the complexity of a living organism — the organs, circulatory system and genetic regulation — will affect drugs in a way that single tissue samples cannot. This argument fails to account for the fact that nonhuman systems are very different from human systems, which leads to inaccuracy.

Animal testing can also lead to banning drugs that would benefit humans. For example, tamoxifen , a drug used to treat breast cancer, can cause tumors in rodents. If this drug had been tested on animals in early phases of research, it is likely the benefits of tamoxifen would have remained untapped.

Is Animal Testing Cruel?

Due to the combination of low accuracy and high amounts of pain, it is difficult to argue that animal testing is not cruel. Animals such as rats, mice, dogs and chimpanzees are burned, poisoned, crippled, starved or abused in other ways via drugs, confinement or other invasive procedures.

Animals like these are sensitive to pain, emotionally empathetic and capable of forming social bonds. But to the researchers in charge of them, they are nothing more than tools.

Is Animal Testing Archaic?

Due to the inaccuracy of animal testing, voices have arisen to criticize its outdated methodology. Not only is animal testing an old-fashioned practice that hasn’t been brought into the 21st century, but evidence shows it is likely holding back medical research.

Is Animal Testing Wasteful?

Because of the inaccuracy of animal testing, many scientists and experts argue that its existence is inherently wasteful. British doctor Ian Roberts writes that “biased or imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically inert or even harmful substances, thus . . . wasting scarce research resources.”

Is Animal Testing Illegal?

Cosmetics testing has been banned in 42 countries and 10 U.S. states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, New York and Virginia). New York’s ban on cosmetic testing goes into effect in January 2023 , which makes it possible that more states will continue to follow their lead.

No countries currently ban medical animal testing, but this may soon change. This year, Switzerland held a referendum on medical animal testing. A large Swiss pharmaceutical lobby campaigned against the initiative, which was ultimately unsuccessful. But the fact that animal testing went from untouchable fact to subject of a national debate sparks doubt about its continued acceptance in the future.

Aren’t There Laws To Protect Animals Used in Experiments?

There do exist some laws to protect animals, such as the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. However, this law does very little to protect animals from pain, and doesn’t even count rats and mice as protected animals.

Cosmetic testing is far more controversial in the public sphere and therefore more heavily regulated. It is almost entirely banned in the European Union and other countries, including Guatemala, Colombia, India, Taiwan and the U.K. The U.S. has no federal cosmetics ban.

Why Are Animals Still Used in Experiments?

Despite the lack of sustained evidence for animal testing’s usefulness, and the possibility of cheaper alternatives (as discussed below), animal testing seems to be used far more often than it should be. Why?

First of all, the pharmaceutical industry has maintained a clear interest in preserving animal testing, and only very rarely review evidence about its actual usefulness. Another issue is scientific tradition and established practice. Scientists are likely to cite historical precedent as a reason for selecting an animal model, as opposed to the model’s similarity to human systems or effectiveness in predicting toxicity, according to a 2019 paper in Alternatives to Animal Experimentation .

Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

Calls to ban animal testing because of its ineffectiveness and cruelty have been getting louder in recent years. Entire conferences are held to discuss alternatives to animal testing, and many petitions and campaigns are igniting across the world. These voices don’t just originate from the animal liberation movement, either. Prominent scientists , pharmaceutical bosses and concerned citizens are joining the chorus.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Thankfully, there exist several alternatives to animal testing, some of which have become more popular and common in recent years.

In Vitro Testing

In vitro testing is a process of conducting an examination in a test tube using tissue samples.

Human Tissues

Real human tissue samples, which can be ethically donated to science as a result of surgeries or after death, are viable alternatives for testing localized drugs. For years, research has indicated that various in vitro methods can hypothetically outperform animal testing (and cost less too), although this form of testing is likely best used for understanding toxicity within a single organ or organ system, not the entire human body.

A new human tissue testing method has emerged recently that shows promise. An in vitro skin testing model called h-CLAT recently entered use in Europe and Japan, paving the way for more techniques that don’t require animal experimentation.

In Vitro Modeling Systems

Another form of in vitro testing involves a synthetic model that can replicate human systems. While less accurate, this method is cheaper and far easier to source, although it is best used for simpler human organs like the skin. One example, the EpiDerm technology , is already widespread for cosmetic purposes. This method is currently not used for large-scale medicinal approval, but instead to test if certain people are at risk for certain diseases.

Computer Modeling

Of all the alternatives, scientists are most excited about computer modeling techniques. Advanced computer modeling, sometimes called in silica testing, can create complex models of human body systems, even accounting for irregularities like prior diseases, as well as a vast array of genetic and demographic information.

And they work better than animal models. A 2018 study found an accuracy rate of between 89 percent and 96 percent , while a 2017 study estimated the accuracy rate of one method of analysis at 96 percent : in both studies the computer models beat the animal testing experiments.

Research Using Human Volunteers

Using human volunteers seems a bit dystopian, but science has progressed a long way since the unethical days of the 20th century. For starters, in some recent drug testing human volunteers only receive a microdose of the drug and are monitored in the presence of medical professionals to ensure safety. This microdosing method is promising, but still needs more research. Other forms of human volunteer research include the safe use of fMRI imaging, which has been shown to be very effective.

Of course, ethics regarding human volunteers are critical. Scientists and researchers must take great caution not to compel participants into doing something unsafe and must mitigate risks as much as possible. Using human volunteers is also best done after one other method, like computer modeling, has been completed to mitigate risk.

Animal Testing Facts and Statistics

The majority of animals used in animal testing are exempt from the Animal Welfare Act because they are rats or mice.
Rats have great memories and demonstrate empathy for other animals.
Every year, the NIH spends nearly $20 billion on animal testing-based research.
A majority of Americans disapprove of the continued use of animal testing.

What You Can Do

Consumers who want to avoid products tested on animals can look for a “vegan” or “cruelty-free” label when purchasing cosmetic products. They can also voice their support for policies to improve animal welfare in the medical industry like the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 , which passed the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

Beagles Are Bred by the Thousands on Factory Farms, and It’s Perfectly Legal

Justice • 4 min read

More Law & Policy

New Supreme Court Case Threatens Legal Protections for Animals

Law & Policy • 7 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

A new documentary chronicles the damage hog farm pollution has caused communities of Eastern North Carolina.

Justice • 5 min read

5 Ways Taxpayers Bail Out Factory Farms

The way we produce meat and dairy is responsible for all sorts of damage, and taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

New Climate Research Shows How Plants and Animals Face New Pressures in a Warming World

Climate • 6 min read

Why Plant-Based Burgers at Fast Food Chains Get So… Mushy

Diet • 8 min read

How Much Protein You Need to Be Healthy, Explained

Diet • 10 min read

Fish Feel Pain, Science Shows — But Humans Are Reluctant To Believe It

Science • 9 min read

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

Is animal research ethical?

Posted: by John Meredith on 16/02/22

Moral status of animals

In the past, the moral status of animals did not merit a great deal of consideration; raising questions about whether humans were entitled to exploit animals would have struck most people as quaint or absurd. The great moral philosopher Rene Descartes, for example, the man famous for the phrase cogito ergo sum - ‘I think therefore I am’ - believed that animals had no inner life at all, that they were essentially as lifeless as clockwork dolls, incapable of emotion, self-awareness, or even feeling pain.

Such ideas seem laughable to us now. We take it for granted that most animals experience pain and many have complex emotional lives that can depend on relationships with other animals and which can deliver feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Since Descartes’ day, the growing study of animal behaviour makes this seem obvious, and cleverly designed experiments have confirmed what has been learned from observation, forcing us to acknowledge that sentience – inner life – exists in a great number of other species and sometimes at a very high level.

But what implications does all this have for the moral consideration of animals? How should it affect the way we treat them? Philosopher Peter Singer, whose book Animal Liberation transformed the public debate on animal welfare, believes it should have deep and wide-reaching consequences. Singer argues that it is wrong to inflict harm on a person not because of any cosmic or biblical law about harm but because it is against that person’s interests as they themselves understand them. Considering moral questions in that light, he argues, explodes any idea that we can justify distinctions between individuals based on their sex or race, distinctions that have been passionately defended over many centuries. There are many differences between people of all kinds including, of course, both sexes, but they all have interests that are alike: an interest in avoiding pain or hunger for example. There is no rational basis for preferring the interests of any particular individual, or people of one race or sex class over those of another, that is simply racism and sexism. This is an idea has become widely accepted, if only recently, and it doesn’t seem particularly radical to us today, but Singer takes the idea a step further.

If there is no non-arbitrary reason to prefer the interests of one human animal over another, how can there be any good reason to prefer the interests of a human animal over a non-human animal? Claims that humans are of special moral interest because of their intelligence or capacity for language or any of the many other things that have been suggested cut no ice. A less intelligent human has as much interest in avoiding pain as a mathematical genius does, and the same goes for a dog, or a mouse, or a fish. To deny this, says Singer is to make a moral mistake akin to sexism or racism and he calls this way of thinking speciesism .

One objection to the argument from speciesism is that it implies that there can never be a reason to prefer the welfare of a human being over any other animal where considerations of interest are the same. This strikes most people as counter-intuitive to say the least. Jean Kazez, philosopher and animal rights activist, suggests a thought experiment. Imagine a dedicated vegan responsible for the care of ten young children. It so happens that famine strikes and the children are all in danger of starvation except that our vegan carer owns a cow. Would it be morally acceptable for the vegan to stick by her principles and refuse to slaughter the cow to save the children? If the answer is no, then there seems to be some problem with the speciesist position. It would probably not be considered acceptable to slaughter one of the children to feed the others, after all. So, our intuition is that there must be some foundation for our moral preference for a human over an animal, at least in some extreme conditions. Perhaps the intuition is that there is moral value in feelings of kinship because this is a necessary feeling in order to be a fully healthy human, to flourish as a human being. If that is the case, then, kinship, for humans, is a kind of interest in the Singer sense and one that overrides other interests. That may be why we don’t find it reprehensible when a mother prefers the welfare of her child over that of another.

The moral value of ‘kinship’ overrides speciesism

If kinship carries moral weight, then the speciesist argument loses ground and a possible justification for preferring animals over human beings in research emerges. Medical research is an attempt to save human lives and reduce human suffering (it has similar benefits for animal as well, of course, but we can set that aside for now, for the sake of simplicity). If, as scientists argue, this can only be achieved with the use of an animal model, then we are morally entitled to prefer the use of a non-human animal, so long as kinship has the moral value we are claiming for it and the suffering and distress of the animals is minimised as much as possible.

But what if this is all just a complicated exercise in justifying what we want to do anyway, what if our moral intuitions are just wrong? It is easy to imagine a Singerian arguing, in the case of our starving children and vegan nanny, that the cow has as much moral standing as any of the others: it has the same interest in living and not suffering the pain of hunger as the others and, what’s more, it may be better able to survive the famine given its ability to eat vegetation that cannot sustain humans. In that case, it seems the advocate of speciesism must argue that they all should starve together in the interests of admirable intellectual rigour, even if it feels a little hard on the children.

Using utility to resolve moral conflicts

As usual, though, the situation is more complicated. Peter Singer and his followers recognise that there is often a conflict of moral interests and so we need a framework for finding a resolution. This framework should not be ad hoc or arbitrary or based on scripture or any other culturally specific text or tradition but should be rational. Within Singer’s argument the rational moral grounding is provided by utilitarianism the ethical doctrine first proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. Utilitarianism argues that when two actions are in conflict, the morally correct one is the one that delivers the most happiness for the largest number (Bentham called this ‘utility’ for obscure reasons). In other words, the morality of an action is decided by its consequences, not by the intentions of the actor or anything else. Applied to the problem of our starving infants and their increasingly paranoid cow, a utilitarian might argue that killing the cow is justified despite it having a similar interest in living to the children because the slaughter would maximise future happiness (utility). If they all die, happiness would be at zero, and if a child was sacrificed to save the others, that would reduce overall happiness because of the distress of the survivors at their loss, the suffering endured by the child selected to die, and the indifference of the cow.

How do you measure happiness?

Problems with utilitarian ways of thinking immediately suggest themselves: how can happiness be measured? How can the ‘happiness’ of a mouse, for example, be weighed against a person, or any other animal? Must we consider a well-intentioned action that has bad outcomes immoral instead of just unfortunate? The literature goes into all these problems and more at great depth, but for our purposes, it is at least clear that a utilitarian moral framework allows for the use of research animals in some circumstances. The human happiness delivered by a successful medical treatment can be great and long lasting while any pain or distress caused to the experimental animals is kept to a minimum and is of very limited duration. In the utilitarian scales, this tips firmly towards an ethical justification of animal research. It is a surprise to many people that Peter Singer, the father of the modern animal rights movement, comes to the same conclusion, although he argues for stricter controls and more work to reduce and mitigate the use of animals. Even without appealing to concepts such as kinship, in other words, the concept of speciesism, perhaps the most formidable intellectual weapon aimed against animal research by protest groups, does not carry the day. It is perfectly possible to allow the moral value of an animal’s interests and still justify its use in research – even if that research causes the animal harm or distress – so long as the future outcomes maximise happiness.

Animal rights arguments

The only significant ethical argument against animal research that remains is based on the idea of rights. Just as humans have inalienable rights, the argument goes, so do animals. According to this view, the use of animals for research can never be justified for exactly the same reasons that we cannot justify using humans. But argument from rights has many more problems than argument from interests: from where are rights derived? What specific rights do animals have? Should rights be protected even when this is damaging to the welfare of the animal? This last point is perhaps the most salient. If we allow an animal has a right to its freedom, say, not to be kept in captivity (one of the key rights usually claimed by activists), then we are not only committed to ending all ownership of animals, but to the immediate release of all domestic animals into the wild even if that were to the detriment of the animals’ welfare as it surely would be. The problems mount at every step. How can it be possible to reconcile a vole’s right to life with a falcon’s right to eat? What possible mechanism could be constructed to resolve such conflicts and how much irreparable harm to natural ecosystems would follow if we built one? Without answers to questions like this it is hard to see animal rights arguments as much more than rhetoric.

Maximising future happiness and minimising present suffering is enough for an ethical justification of animal research

The case for ethical animal research, then, does not need as much building as it might at first appear. None of the major philosophical arguments for animal welfare exclude the possibility of ethical animal research. The harm that is done to animals in well-regulated research environments serves a higher moral purpose: the reduction of death and suffering by disease and other disorders. Of course, this is only true if pain, suffering and distress, are minimised – as they are through animal welfare regulations in the UK and EU for example. These regulations also require the application of the principles of the 3Rs – but it is quite obvious, all other things being equal, that the use of a mouse in an investigation into cancer development, for example, will create less suffering than using a person for the same purposes.

So, a utilitarian calculation of maximising future happiness and minimising present suffering is enough for an ethical justification of animal research even for tough minded opponents of animal exploitation such as Professor Singer. But maybe justification is the wrong word.

Are we not morally obliged to use animals in research?

If, as the biological sciences are almost unanimous in claiming, we cannot have new medicines without some animal research, and if there are hundreds of devastating human illnesses that will continue to cause misery, pain, and heartache without those new treatments, should we not think of animal research as a moral obligation instead? It is difficult science to do, both technically and emotionally, but if we choose not to carry it out, we are effectively choosing to allow human suffering to continue in the future that our efforts today have the potential to reduce or eliminate. We don’t know which suffering we will be successful in mitigating when, but we can be certain that progress is being made. Remove animal research and we don’t not remove suffering, we simply transfer it from the animals now (where it is carefully controlled and minimised, very often to nothing) to future humans. That is the heart of the ethical case for animal research and one that needs to be better addressed by those who oppose it.

Last edited: 7 April 2022 12:16

Back to News

The ethics of animal research

Animal rights activism and extremism

Animal Rights Extremism

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Get the latest articles and news from Understanding Animal Research in your email inbox every month. For more information, please see our privacy policy .

Five Reasons to End Animal Testing

Dr. Thomas Hartung, a well-known toxicologist at Johns Hopkins University and advocate for the development of alternatives to the use of animals, as well as a mentor to a current NAVS/IFER fellowship recipient , recently published an article in ALTEX summarizing the main limitations of experimenting on animals. As Hartung notes, “[Animal experiments] come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated.”

Following are five reasons why scientists should stop relying so heavily on animal models:

Animal experiments are not very reproducible . This often stems from lack of bias-reducing measures, poorly planned experiments, inappropriate statistical tests, poor reporting on animal attrition (why animals are dropped from studies) and poor reporting of pain relief in lab animals.
Animal experiments are expensive and time consuming. Hartung notes that “costs and duration of toxicological studies are clearly prohibitive to satisfy societal safety needs,” in large part because animals are experimented on over a long period of time, during which researchers collect and analyze a lot of data to ensure that they are not missing any harmful effects. Using other approaches, such as cell-based models, could help scientists get results faster and cheaper.
There are ethical concerns with animal experimentation. What entitles humans to experiment on animals and inflict pain upon them?
Animal experiments are not even predictive of other animal species, let alone humans. Experiments performed in rats do not predict what happens in mice. Experiments in one strain of mice may not predict what is seen in another strain. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that animals will be able to accurately predict what happens in humans.
Animal models do not reflect human diversity . Even if animals could be predictive, to which humans would the data be accurately applied, considering the differences among humans?

Some in the scientific community have suggested investing more time and effort to improve the design of animal experiments, or even the animal models themselves, to address some of the issues raised above. But these resources would pay much higher dividends if they were directed to more human-relevant research, including work with human cell lines, stem cells and tissues, computational models, and even humans themselves.

Help NAVS support the advancement of smarter, human-relevant science that does not harm animals by making a donation today.

Source: Hartung, T. “Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing,” ALTEX , 2017

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

Latest news and updates /
current page Ten reasons why we should turn our backs on animal testing

Ten reasons why we should turn our backs on animal testing

Published on 24 August 2017

Updated: 17 December 2021

Alternatives report calls on scientists to end cosmetics tests on animals

This week, our new report on the alternatives available to animal testing was presented to scientists at the 10th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences in Seattle.

The report, funded by The Body Shop, lists alternatives to cosmetics testing on animals, and outlines how they are not only more ethical but also more reliable, faster and cheaper than the animal tests they replace.

According to our report, here are TEN reasons why making animals suffer to bring a new eye shadow or cologne into the world belongs in the past:

Animal tests are already being replaced . Every year the development of alternatives to animal testing is growing. Thanks to advancements in science, animals are being replaced in the testing of cosmetics as well as chemicals and drugs.
There are simple alternatives available . Alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics include tests on simple organisms like bacteria, or tissue and skin cells donated from people. Some tests can even be carried out on computers or by using chemicals.
Millions of animals are suffering and dying . Half a million animals are used in cosmetics testing globally every year. It’s time for the cruelty to stop.
People want animal testing to end . This year Cruelty Free International and The Body Shop joined forces to launch a global campaign for a worldwide ban on animal testing on cosmetics products and ingredients. So far over two million people have signed our petition calling for an end to the cruelty everywhere and forever.
There is a global trend towards cruelty free cosmetics . Countries all around the world are phasing out animal testing for cosmetics and switching to innovative alternatives. Bans already exist in 39 countries (including the EU) and are being considered in Australia, Brazil and the US.
Shoppers prefer to buy cosmetics that have not been tested on animals . A whopping 79% of people said they would be likely to swap to a different brand if they discovered that animals were forced to suffer for the cosmetics they used.
The alternatives to animal testing are much quicker . Tests on tissue and cells in laboratories for skin and eye irritation can be carried out in one day. The same tests carried out on live rabbits takes from two to three weeks.
Alternatives to animal testing are much cheaper. Tests using computer models can be run at very little cost, saving thousands of pounds. Some cell-based tests cost as little as £500 compared to cruel tests on animals which take two years and cost approximately £1 million.
Alternatives to animal experiments are more effective . The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. While a combination of chemical and human cell tests has been shown to accurately predict human skin reactions 90% of the time, skin irritation tests on rabbits only predict human reactions 60% of the time.
Celebrities have joined the fight against animal testing . Our high-profile friends are telling the world it’s time to end cosmetics testing on animals, including Game of Thrones star Maisie Williams who is backing our campaign with the Body Shop for a global ban on cosmetics animal testing.

Dr Katy Taylor , Director of Science & Regulatory Affairs at Cruelty Free International , said: “The public desperately wants to see an end to the suffering of animals used to test cosmetics. With better and more sophisticated alternatives now available, governments and decision-makers should take action to end the horrific practice once and for all.”

Cruelty Free International and The Body Shop are aiming to deliver a petition – with a target of 8 million signatures – to the United Nations in 2018, to request an international convention banning cosmetics testing on animals everywhere and forever. If you agree that cosmetics experiments on animals are cruel and it’s time for them to stop, please sign the petition

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped

The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped

Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 1186 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

See expert comments

Words: 1186 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1634 words

1 pages / 603 words

2 pages / 1002 words

2 pages / 1134 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Good morning. I am here today to convince you all to oppose, stop, and disengage from the cruel and unnecessary animal testing.Did you know that the lipstick, the eye shadow and the mascara we use to make ourselves look more [...]

From rabbits to dogs, animals are commonly used in research studies as test subjects to advance scientific knowledge and develop new drugs. However, the ethical implications of using animals in research cannot be ignored. While [...]

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

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is a controversial practice that has been used for centuries to advance scientific knowledge and develop life-saving medical treatments. However, animal testing raises [...]

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

Since long time ago animals starting from mice to cows have been used for research. There are lots of examples of testing these or that phenomena on animals. But is it correct? Is it what a human should do? And what well-known [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
🐶 Essay: How to Write
🏆 Best Essay Examples
📌 Good Topics to Research
🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

What would life be like without animal testing?
Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
What if animals experimented on humans?
In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
Opposing animal testing: success stories.
Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
What have we gained from experiments on animals?
Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
Animal testing should (not) be banned
How animal testing affects endangered species
The history and consequences of animal testing
The controversy associated with animal testing
Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]
Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
Should Animals Be Used in Research?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
Does Animal Testing Really Work?
Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
Who Cares for Animals in Research?
How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Animal Abuse Research Topics
Cruelty to Animals Titles
Humanism Research Ideas
Animal Ethics Research Ideas
Meaning of Life Essay Ideas
Animal Rights Research Ideas
Cloning Questions
Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
Animal Welfare Ideas
Bioethics Titles
Wildlife Ideas
Extinction Research Topics
Hunting Questions
Genetic Engineering Topics
Zoo Research Ideas

IMAGES

Why animal testing is bad essay (300 Words)
😍 Speech against animal testing. Persuasive speech against animal
The Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing: A Comprehensive Examination Free
Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned: 7 Reasons It Has To Stop
Persuasive Essay About Animal Abuse
Animal testing is bad essay in 2021

VIDEO

Why Animal feels so DIFFERENT?
Will Young calls for ban on animal testing
essay on my pet animal || my pet animal essay in english || my pet animal essay ||
Animal Testing
1000 Crore Lading
A short video speech presentation for the topic "Why Animal Testing must be Banned"

COMMENTS

Arguments against animal testing
Arguments against animal testing. Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous. The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson's disease or ...
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
Abstract: Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific ...
Animal Testing
Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means," according to Humane Society ...
Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?
The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035 ...
Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed?
Animal Testing: Conclusion. Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs.
Animal Testing: History and Arguments
A significant milestone in the history of animal protection legislation was the introduction of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 in Great Britain. This law was promoted by Charles Darwin who, despite being a biologist and a scientist, was against vivisection. In the 1860s, the movements against animal testing occurred in the USA.
The failures of animal testing
Killed. A 2019 Ipsos MORI report revealed a growing shift in attitudes towards animal experiments in the UK with two thirds of those surveyed concerned about the use of animals in research, and more people disagreeing with the use of dogs (86 percent against), monkeys (86 percent against) and pigs (79 percent against) in tests, even if it ...
Explainer: What Is Animal Testing?
This is a difficult question to answer, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture only counts certain species of animals in its annual review of animal testing. Mice and rats specifically bred for testing purposes are not counted because they do not fall under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act.. However, it's been estimated that at least 50 million animals are used in the U.S. every year.
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing Argumentative Essay
As science develops with technology people need to stand up and fight for the rights of these animals, which will be condemned to the path of death where they have no voice to determine how they will be treated. This paper seeks to bring out the negative issues associated with animal testing. Animal testing should be abolished as it is immoral ...
Argumentative Essay The Ethics of Animal Testing
The debate over the ethics of animal testing is complex and multifaceted, with passionate arguments on both sides. In this essay, I will explore the ethical implications of animal testing and argue that it is not justifiable in most cases. By examining the historical context of animal testing, the current state of the debate, and the ethical ...
Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation
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 [].Most institutions for medical research around the world use non-human animals as experimental subjects [].
Is animal testing ethical?
Animal rights arguments. The only significant ethical argument against animal research that remains is based on the idea of rights. Just as humans have inalienable rights, the argument goes, so do animals. According to this view, the use of animals for research can never be justified for exactly the same reasons that we cannot justify using humans.
Why End Animal Testing?
As Hartung notes, " [Animal experiments] come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated.". Following are five reasons why scientists should stop relying so heavily on animal models: Animal experiments are not very reproducible. This often stems from lack of bias-reducing measures, poorly planned experiments ...
Argumentative Paper: Against Animal Testing
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is the use of non-human animals for scientific research purposes. It involves subjecting animals to various procedures, such as surgical operations, injections, and exposure to toxic substances, to study their physiological and behavioral responses. The topic of animal testing is of great ...
Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing
Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing. Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically unreliable. In this essay, we will explore the history and debates surrounding animal ...
Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing
Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). ). People have different feelings for animals ...
The Debate on Animal Testing
The Debate on Animal Testing Essay. Animal testing is described as a procedure involving vivisection and/or In vivo testing of animals for experimentation or research. In the pursuit of what is known as scientific progress, animals have fallen victims of distress in the process. Throughout history, human has employed animals in carrying out ...
Ten reasons why we should turn our backs on animal testing
According to our report, here are TEN reasons why making animals suffer to bring a new eye shadow or cologne into the world belongs in the past: Animal tests are already being replaced. Every year the development of alternatives to animal testing is growing. Thanks to advancements in science, animals are being replaced in the testing of ...
The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped
The essay "The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped" provides a clear and concise argument against animal testing. The organization is effective, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The focus is consistent throughout the essay, with each paragraph supporting the main argument. The sentence structure and grammar are ...
Why Animal Testing Is Bad
Reasons why animal testing should be banned One of the reasons as to why animal testing should be banned is because it is cruel and causes stress to the subject animals (Sharma et al, p.1). In most cases these animals are usually placed in cages and prodded for days on end. In as much as animals cannot be said to possess the same level of ...
Animal Testing Is Bad Essay
Animal Testing Is Bad Essay. "Nine out of ten drugs that pass animal studies fails in humans" (Moore 2). Many patients in the world of medicine need drugs with low risk factors. Animal experiment is becoming a thing of the past and for good reasons. The experiments are no longer answering the scientists questions, but when the products does ...
105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from: The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing. Animal testing should (not) be banned. How animal testing affects endangered species. The history and consequences of animal testing.
Why Animal Testing is Bad?
Animals have foreign chemicals poured onto shaved skin and into eyes. This causes them a lot of pain, suffering, and distress. These experiments can cause animals to become permanently brain damaged, blind, deaf, and ruins their ability to live normally. Although they are not humans, they have rights too.