- Animal testing
A white Wistar lab rat
Description Around 50–100 million vertebrate animals are used in experiments annually. Subjects Animal testing, science, medicine, animal welfare, animal rights, ethics.
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Worldwide it is estimated that the number of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from the tens of millions to more than 100 million used annually. Invertebrates, mice, rats, birds, fish, frogs, and animals not yet weaned are not included in the figures; one estimate of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million. Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while others are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds.
The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioral studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research. The practice is regulated to various degrees in different countries.
Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas. Animal rights, and some animal welfare, organizations—such as PETA and BUAV—question the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.
- 1 Definitions
- 2 History
- 3 Care and use of animals
- 4 Research classification
- 5 Ethics
- 6 Alternatives to animal testing
- 7 See also
- 8 Notes
- 9 Further reading and external links
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals", although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work". The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death. The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".
The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BCE. Aristotle (Αριστοτέλης) (384–322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304–258 BCE) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals. Galen, a physician in 2nd-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection." Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.
Animals have been used repeatedly through the history of biomedical research. The founders, in 1831, of the Dublin Zoo—the fourth oldest zoo in Europe, after Vienna, Paris, and London—were members of the medical profession, interested in studying the animals both while they were alive and when they were dead. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning. Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. On November 3, 1957, a Russian dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then given to humans. The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took a large step forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from the SV40 virus into the genome of mice. This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.
Toxicology testing became important in the 20th century. In the 19th century, laws regulating drugs were more relaxed. For example, in the U.S., the government could only ban a drug after a company had been prosecuted for selling products that harmed customers. However, in response to the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 in which the eponymous drug killed more than 100 users, the U.S. congress passed laws that required safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed. Other countries enacted similar legislation. In the 1960s, in reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy, further laws were passed requiring safety testing on pregnant animals before a drug can be sold.
As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state." O'Meara and others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections on an ethical basis, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals. Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle — many people believed that animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.
On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the "prince of vivisectors" and the father of physiology—whose wife, Marie Françoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883—famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen". Arguing that "experiments on animals ... are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man...the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree," Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.
In 1896, the physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon said “The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, ‘Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.’ ” These divisions between pro- and anti- animal testing groups first came to public attention during the brown dog affair in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.
In 1822, the first animal protection law was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876), the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. The legislation was promoted by Charles Darwin, who wrote to Ray Lankester in March 1871: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." Opposition to the use of animals in medical research first arose in the United States during the 1860s, when Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), with America's first specifically anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS), founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spread of mercy was the great cause of civilization, and vivisection was cruel. However, in the USA the antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, overwhelmed by the superior organization and influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the passing of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, in 1966.
Care and use of animals
The regulations that apply to animals in laboratories vary across species. In the U.S., under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide), published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is scientifically justified. In general, researchers are required to consult with the institution's veterinarian and its Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which every research facility is obliged to maintain. The IACUC must ensure that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments are not unnecessarily duplicative, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. Larry Carbone, a laboratory animal veterinarian, writes that, in his experience, IACUCs take their work very seriously regardless of the species involved, though the use of non-human primates always raises what he calls a "red flag of special concern." A study published in Science magazine in July 2001 confirmed the low reliability of IACUC reviews of animal experiments. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the three-year study found that animal-use committees that do not know the specifics of the university and personnel do not make the same approval decisions as those made by animal-use committees that do know the university and personnel. Specifically, blinded committees more often ask for more information rather than approving studies.
The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. Although the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act do not include purpose-bred rodents and birds, these species are equally regulated under Public Health Service policies that govern the IACUCs. Animal Welfare Act regulations are enforced by the USDA, whereas Public Health Service regulations are enforced by OLAW and in many cases by AAALAC.
Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to obtain. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the European Union. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that global annual estimates range from 50 to 100 million animals. None of the figures include invertebrates such as shrimp and fruit flies. Animals bred for research then killed as surplus, animals used for breeding purposes, and animals not yet weaned are also not included in the figures.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total number of animals used in that country in 2005 was almost 1.2 million, but this does not include rats and mice, which make up about 90% of research animals. In 1995, researchers at Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 14–21 million animals were used in American laboratories in 1992, a reduction from a high of 50 million used in 1970. In 1986, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that estimates of the animals used in the U.S. range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million each year, and that their own best estimate was at least 17 million to 22 million.
In the UK, Home Office figures show that 3.2 million procedures were carried out in 2007, a rise of 189,500 since the previous year. Four thousand procedures used non-human primates, down 240 from 2006. A "procedure" refers to an experiment that might last minutes, several months, or years. Most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are euthanized afterwards.
Although many more invertebrates than vertebrates are used, these experiments are largely unregulated by law. The most used invertebrate species are Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode worm. In the case of C. elegans, the worm's body is completely transparent and the precise lineage of all the organism's cells is known, while studies in the fly D. melanogaster can use an amazing array of genetic tools. These animals offer great advantages over vertebrates, including their short life cycle and the ease with which large numbers may be studied, with thousands of flies or nematodes fitting into a single room. However, the lack of an adaptive immune system and their simple organs prevent worms from being used in medical research such as vaccine development. Similarly, flies are not widely used in applied medical research, as their immune system differs greatly from that of humans, and diseases in insects can be very different from diseases in vertebrates.
In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used is estimated at 20 million a year. Other rodents commonly used are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species because of their size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate. Mice are widely considered to be the best model of inherited human disease and share 99% of their genes with humans. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can provide models for a range of human diseases. Rats are also widely used for physiology, toxicology and cancer research, but genetic manipulation is much harder in rats than in mice, which limits the use of these rodents in basic science.
Nearly 200,000 fish and 20,000 amphibians were used in the UK in 2004. The main species used is the zebrafish, Danio rerio, which are translucent during their embryonic stage, and the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. Over 20,000 rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004. Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests because rabbits have less tear flow than other animals, and the lack of eye pigment in albinos make the effects easier to visualize. Rabbits are also frequently used for the production of polyclonal antibodies.
- Cats and dogs
Cats are most commonly used in neurological research. Over 25,500 cats were used in the U.S. in 2000, around half of whom were used in experiments which, according to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, had the potential to cause "pain and/or distress".
Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education — particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle. They are commonly used as models for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report for 2005 shows that 66,000 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in that year. In the U.S., some of the dogs are purpose-bred, while most are supplied by so-called Class B dealers licensed by the USDA to buy animals from auctions, shelters, newspaper ads, and who are sometimes accused of stealing pets.
- Non-human primates
Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. They are caught in the wild or purpose-bred. In the U.S. and China, most primates are domestically purpose-bred, whereas in Europe the majority are imported purpose-bred. Rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys, squirrel monkeys, and owl monkeys are imported; around 12,000 to 15,000 monkeys are imported into the U.S. annually. In total, around 70,000 NHPs are used each year in the United States and European Union. Most of the NHPs used are macaques; but marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys are also used, and baboons and chimpanzees are used in the U.S; in 2006 there were 1133 chimpanzees in U.S. primate centers. The first transgenic primate was produced in 2001, with the development of a method that could introduce new genes into a rhesus macaque. This transgenic technology is now being applied in the search for a treatment for the genetic disorder Huntington's disease. Notable studies on non-human primates have been part of the polio vaccine development, and development of Deep Brain Stimulation, and their current heaviest non-toxicological use occurs in the monkey AIDS model, SIV. In 2008 a proposal to ban all primates experiments in the EU has sparked a vigorous debate.
Animals used by laboratories are largely supplied by specialist dealers. Sources differ for vertebrate and invertebrate animals. Most laboratories breed and raise flies and worms themselves, using strains and mutants supplied from a few main stock centers. For vertebrates, sources include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters also supply the laboratories directly. Large centers also exist to distribute strains of genetically-modified animals; the National Institutes of Health Knockout Mouse Project, for example, aims to provide knockout mice for every gene in the mouse genome.
In the U.S., Class A breeders are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to buy animals from "random sources" such as auctions, pound seizure, and newspaper ads. Some Class B dealers have been accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping strays, a practice known as bunching. It was in part out of public concern over the sale of pets to research facilities that the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was ushered in — the Senate Committee on Commerce reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been retrieved from Veterans Administration facilities, the Mayo Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools. The USDA recovered at least a dozen stolen pets during a raid on a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.
Four states in the U.S. — Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa — require their shelters to provide animals to research facilities. Fourteen states explicitly prohibit the practice, while the remainder either allow it or have no relevant legislation.
In the European Union, animal sources are governed by Council Directive 86/609/EEC, which requires lab animals to be specially bred, unless the animal has been lawfully imported and is not a wild animal or a stray. The latter requirement may also be exempted by special arrangement. In the UK, most animals used in experiments are bred for the purpose under the 1988 Animal Protection Act, but wild-caught primates may be used if exceptional and specific justification can be established. The United States also allows the use of wild-caught primates; between 1995 and 1999, 1,580 wild baboons were imported into the U.S. Over half the primates imported between 1995 and 2000 were handled by Charles River Laboratories, Inc., or by Covance, which is the single largest importer of primates into the U.S.
Pain and suffering
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (57%) (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. About 420,000 (36%) were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 84,000 (7%) were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved.
In the UK, research projects are classified as mild, moderate, and substantial in terms of the suffering the researchers conducting the study say they may cause; a fourth category of "unclassified" means the animal was anesthetized and killed without recovering consciousness, according to the researchers. In December 2001, 1,296 (39%) of project licenses in force were classified as mild, 1,811 (55%) as moderate, 63 (2%) as substantial, and 139 (4%) as unclassified. There have, however, been suggestions of systemic underestimation of procedure severity.
The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17th-century French philosopher, René Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack consciousness. Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals, writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain. In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain. Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support, some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined. The ability of invertebrate species of animals, such as insects, to feel pain and suffering is also unclear.
The defining text on animal welfare regulation, "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" defines the parameters that govern animal testing in the USA. It states "The ability to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress and distress in animals." The Guide states that the ability to recognize the symptoms of pain in different species is vital in efficiently applying pain relief and that it is essential for the people caring for and using animals to be entirely familiar with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states "The selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol". Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval.
There is general agreement that animal life should not be taken wantonly, and regulations require that scientists use as few animals as possible. However, while policy makers consider suffering to be the central issue and see animal euthanasia as a way to reduce suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue that the lives of laboratory animals have intrinsic value. Regulations focus on whether particular methods cause pain and suffering, not whether their death is undesirable in itself. The animals are euthanized at the end of studies for sample collection or post-mortem examination; during studies if their pain or suffering falls into certain categories regarded as unacceptable, such as depression, infection that is unresponsive to treatment, or the failure of large animals to eat for five days; or when they are unsuitable for breeding or unwanted for some other reason.
Methods of euthanizing laboratory animals are chosen to induce rapid unconsciousness and death without pain or distress. The methods that are preferred are those published by councils of veterinarians. The animal can be made to inhale a gas, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, by being placed in a chamber, or by use of a face mask, with or without prior sedation or anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as barbiturates can be given intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics may be used. Amphibians and fish may be immersed in water containing an anesthetic such as tricaine. Physical methods are also used, with or without sedation or anesthesia depending on the method. Recommended methods include decapitation (beheading) for small rodents or rabbits. Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or spine) may be used for birds, mice, and immature rats and rabbits. Maceration (grinding into small pieces) is used on 1 day old chicks. High-intensity microwave irradiation of the brain can preserve brain tissue and induce death in less than 1 second, but this is currently only used on rodents. Captive bolts may be used, typically on dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. It causes death by a concussion to the brain. Gunshot may be used, but only in cases where a penetrating captive bolt may not be used. Some physical methods are only acceptable after the animal is unconscious. Electrocution may be used for cattle, sheep, swine, foxes, and mink after the animals are unconscious, often by a prior electrical stun. Pithing (inserting a tool into the base of the brain) is usable on animals already unconscious. Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing air embolism are acceptable only with prior anesthesia to induce unconsciousness.
Basic or pure research investigates how organisms behave, develop, and function. Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research—research that has a specific practical aim—unclear. Pure research uses larger numbers and a greater variety of animals than applied research. Fruit flies, nematode worms, mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs through to armadillos. Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:
- Studies on embryogenesis and developmental biology. Mutants are created by adding transposons into their genomes, or specific genes are deleted by gene targeting. By studying the changes in development these changes produce, scientists aim to understand both how organisms normally develop, and what can go wrong in this process. These studies are particularly powerful since the basic controls of development, such as the homeobox genes, have similar functions in organisms as diverse as fruit flies and man.
- Experiments into behavior, to understand how organisms detect and interact with each other and their environment, in which fruit flies, worms, mice, and rats are all widely used. Studies of brain function, such as memory and social behavior, often use rats and birds. For some species, behavioral research is combined with enrichment strategies for animals in captivity because it allows them to engage in a wider range of activities.
- Breeding experiments to study evolution and genetics. Laboratory mice, flies, fish, and worms are inbred through many generations to create strains with defined characteristics. These provide animals of a known genetic background, an important tool for genetic analyses. Larger mammals are rarely bred specifically for such studies due to their slow rate of reproduction, though some scientists take advantage of inbred domesticated animals, such as dog or cattle breeds, for comparative purposes. Scientists studying how animals evolve use many animal species to see how variations in where and how an organism lives (their niche) produce adaptations in their physiology and morphology. As an example, sticklebacks are now being used to study how many and which types of mutations are selected to produce adaptations in animals' morphology during the evolution of new species.
Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems. Compared to pure research, which is largely academic in origin, applied research is usually carried out in the pharmaceutical industry, or by universities in commercial partnerships. These may involve the use of animal models of diseases or conditions, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the drug discovery process. Examples include:
- Genetic modification of animals to study disease. Transgenic animals have specific genes inserted, modified or removed, to mimic specific conditions such as single gene disorders, such as Huntington's disease. Other models mimic complex, multifactorial diseases with genetic components, such as diabetes, or even transgenic mice that carry the same mutations that occur during the development of cancer. These models allow investigations on how and why the disease develops, as well as providing ways to develop and test new treatments. The vast majority of these transgenic models of human disease are lines of mice, the mammalian species in which genetic modification is most efficient. Smaller numbers of other animals are also used, including rats, pigs, sheep, fish, birds, and amphibians.
- Studies on models of naturally occurring disease and condition. Certain domestic and wild animals have a natural propensity or predisposition for certain conditions that are also found in humans. Cats are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines and to study leukemia because their natural predisposition to FIV and Feline leukemia virus. Certain breeds of dog suffer from narcolepsy making them the major model used to study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal species that naturally suffer from leprosy; as the bacteria responsible for this disease cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos are the primary source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines.
- Studies on induced animal models of human diseases. Here, an animal is treated so that it develops pathology and symptoms that resemble a human disease. Examples include restricting blood flow to the brain to induce stroke, or giving neurotoxins that cause damage similar to that seen in Parkinson's disease. Such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases. For example, although such models are now widely used to study Parkinson's disease, the British anti-vivisection interest group BUAV argues that these models only superficially resemble the disease symptoms, without the same time course or cellular pathology. In contrast, scientists assessing the usefulness of animal models of Parkinson's disease, as well as the medical research charity The Parkinson's Appeal, state that these models were invaluable and that they led to improved surgical treatments such as pallidotomy, new drug treatments such as levodopa, and later deep brain stimulation.
Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting tissues or organs from one species to another, as a way to overcome the shortage of human organs for use in organ transplants. Current research involves using primates as the recipients of organs from pigs that have been genetically-modified to reduce the primates' immune response against the pig tissue. Although transplant rejection remains a problem, recent clinical trials that involved implanting pig insulin-secreting cells into diabetics did reduce these people's need for insulin.
Documents released to the news media by the animal rights organization Uncaged Campaigns showed that, between 1994 and 2000, wild baboons imported to the UK from Africa by Imutran Ltd, a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma AG, in conjunction with Cambridge University and Huntingdon Life Sciences, to be used in experiments that involved grafting pig tissues, suffered serious and sometimes fatal injuries. A scandal occurred when it was revealed that the company had communicated with the British government in an attempt to avoid regulation.
Toxicology testing, also known as safety testing, is conducted by pharmaceutical companies testing drugs, or by contract animal testing facilities, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, on behalf of a wide variety of customers. According to 2005 EU figures, around one million animals are used every year in Europe in toxicology tests; which are about 10% of all procedures. According to Nature, 5,000 animals are used for each chemical being tested, with 12,000 needed to test pesticides. The tests are conducted without anesthesia, because interactions between drugs can affect how animals detoxify chemicals, and may interfere with the results.
Toxicology tests are used to examine finished products such as pesticides, medications, food additives, packing materials, and air freshener, or their chemical ingredients. Most tests involve testing ingredients rather than finished products, but according to BUAV, manufacturers believe these tests overestimate the toxic effects of substances; they therefore repeat the tests using their finished products to obtain a less toxic label.
The substances are applied to the skin or dripped into the eyes; injected intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by placing a mask over the animals and restraining them, or by placing them in an inhalation chamber; or administered orally, through a tube into the stomach, or simply in the animal's food. Doses may be given once, repeated regularly for many months, or for the lifespan of the animal.
There are several different types of acute toxicity tests. The LD50 ("Lethal Dose 50%") test is used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance by determining the dose required to kill 50% of the test animal population. This test was removed from OECD international guidelines in 2002, replaced by methods such as the fixed dose procedure, which use fewer animals and cause less suffering. Nature writes that, as of 2005, "the LD50 acute toxicity test ... still accounts for one-third of all animal [toxicity] tests worldwide." Irritancy can be measured using the Draize test, where a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino rabbit. For Draize eye testing, the test involves observing the effects of the substance at intervals and grading any damage or irritation, but the test should be halted and the animal killed if it shows "continuing signs of severe pain or distress". The Humane Society of the United States writes that the procedure can cause redness, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or even blindness. This test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, subjective, over-sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposures in the real world. Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results and this was adopted as the new standard in September 2009. However, the Draize test will still be used for substances that are not severe irritants.
The most stringent tests are reserved for drugs and foodstuffs. For these, a number of tests are performed, lasting less than a month (acute), one to three months (subchronic), and more than three months (chronic) to test general toxicity (damage to organs), eye and skin irritancy, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and reproductive problems. The cost of the full complement of tests is several million dollars per substance and it may take three or four years to complete.
These toxicity tests provide, in the words of a 2006 United States National Academy of Sciences report, "critical information for assessing hazard and risk potential". Nature reported that most animal tests either over- or underestimate risk, or do not reflect toxicity in humans particularly well, with false positive results being a particular problem. This variability stems from using the effects of high doses of chemicals in small numbers of laboratory animals to try to predict the effects of low doses in large numbers of humans. Although relationships do exist, opinion is divided on how to use data on one species to predict the exact level of risk in another.
Cosmetics testing on animals is particularly controversial. Such tests, which are still conducted in the U.S., involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy, phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.
Cosmetics testing is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.
Before the early 20th century, laws regulating drugs were lax. Currently, all new pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:
- metabolic tests, investigating pharmacokinetics – how drugs are absorbed, metabolized and excreted by the body when introduced orally, intravenously, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or transdermally.
- toxicology tests, which gauge acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Acute toxicity is studied by using a rising dose until signs of toxicity become apparent. Current European legislation demands that "acute toxicity tests must be carried out in two or more mammalian species" covering "at least two different routes of administration". Sub-acute toxicity is where the drug is given to the animals for four to six weeks in doses below the level at which it causes rapid poisoning, in order to discover if any toxic drug metabolites build up over time. Testing for chronic toxicity can last up to two years and, in the European Union, is required to involve two species of mammals, one of which must be non-rodent.
- efficacy studies, which test whether experimental drugs work by inducing the appropriate illness in animals. The drug is then administered in a double-blind controlled trial, which allows researchers to determine the effect of the drug and the dose-response curve.
- Specific tests on reproductive function, embryonic toxicity, or carcinogenic potential can all be required by law, depending on the result of other studies and the type of drug being tested.
Education, breeding, and defense
Animals are also used for education and training; are bred for use in laboratories; and are used by the military to develop weapons, vaccines, battlefield surgical techniques, and defensive clothing. For example, in 2008 the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency used live pigs to study the effects of improvised explosive device explosions on internal organs, especially the brain.
There are efforts in many countries to find alternatives to using animals in education. Horst Spielmann, German director of the Central Office for Collecting and Assessing Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, while describing Germany's progress in this area, told German broadcaster ARD in 2005: "Using animals in teaching curricula is already superfluous. In many countries, one can become a doctor, vet or biologist without ever having performed an experiment on an animal."
The ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century. There remain disagreements about which procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which species. The dominant ethical position worldwide is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal testing is desirable, so long as animal suffering and use is minimized. The British government has additionally required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge. Some medical schools and agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built cenotaphs for killed animals. In Japan there are also annual memorial services (Ireisai 慰霊祭) for animals sacrificed at medical school.
A wide range of minority viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights. Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research. In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal. Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations.
Although these arguments have not been widely accepted, governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to the concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the great apes.
Various specific cases of animal testing have drawn attention, including both instances of beneficial scientific research, and instances of alleged ethical violations by those performing the tests.
- Muscle physiology
The fundamental properties of muscle physiology were determined with on work done using frog muscles (including the force generating mechanism of all muscle, the length-tension relationship, and the force-velocity curve), and frogs are still the preferred model organism due to the long survival of muscles in vitro and the possibility of isolating intact single-fiber preparations (not possible in other organisms). Modern physical therapy and the understanding and treatment of muscular disorders is based on this work and subsequent work in mice (often engineered to express disease states such as muscular dystrophy).
- University of California, Riverside
1985 was a pivotal year in the debate about animal research in the United States, with the enactment of amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. Britches, a macaque monkey, was born that year inside the University of California, Riverside, removed from his mother at birth, and left alone with his eyelids sewn shut, and a sonar sensor on his head, as part of an experiment to test sensory substitution devices for blind people. The Animal Liberation Front raided the laboratory on April 20, 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals, and reportedly inflicting $700,000-worth of damage to equipment. A spokesman for the university said the allegations of mistreatment were false, and that the raid caused long-term damage to its research projects. The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded that no corrective action was necessary.
- Huntingdon Life Sciences
In 1997, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filmed staff inside Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in the UK, Europe's largest animal-testing facility, hitting puppies, shouting at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples. The company said the employees were dismissed. Two pleaded guilty to "cruelly terrifying dogs," and were given community service orders and ordered to pay £250 costs, the first lab technicians to have been prosecuted for animal cruelty in the UK. The broadcast of the video on Britain's Channel 4 Television in March 1997 triggered the formation of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an international leaderless resistance campaign to close HLS, which has been criticized for its sometimes violent tactics. In January 2009, several British SHAC activists were jailed for blackmailing companies linked to HLS.
- Roslin Institute
In February 1997 a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, a ewe that had been cloned from tissue taken from another adult sheep. Dolly was produced through nuclear transfer to an unfertilised oocyte, and was the only lamb that survived from 277 attempts at this technique. Dolly appeared to be a normal sheep, living for six years and giving birth to several lambs, but was euthanized in 2003 after contracting a progressive lung disease. Although the production of Dolly was a scientific breakthrough, it was controversial, since it showed that not only could cloned animals be produced for use in farming, but also that it would now be, in principle, possible to clone a human being.
- University of Cambridge
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) raised concerns about primate experiments at the University of Cambridge in 2002. In a series of court cases, the BUAV alleged that monkeys had undergone surgery to induce a stroke, and were left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight. Researchers had trained the monkeys to perform certain tasks before inflicting brain damage and re-testing them. The monkeys were only given food and water for two hours a day, to encourage them to perform the tasks. The judge hearing BUAV's application for a judicial review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a license. The British government's chief inspector of animals conducted a review of the facilities and experiments. It concluded the veterinary input at Cambridge was "exemplary"; the facility "seems adequately staffed"; and the animals afforded "appropriate standards of accommodation and care."
- Columbia University
CNN reported in October 2003 that Catherine Dell'Orto, a veterinarian at Columbia University, had approached the university's Institute of Comparative Medicine about the treatment of baboons who were undergoing surgery as part of an experiment into stroke treatment. She said the baboons, who were in some cases having an eyeball removed, were left to suffer in their cages after the surgery. She alleged there was systemic maltreatment, poor record-keeping, and other violations of regulations, according to CNN. She presented her evidence in October 2002 and, dissatisfied with the response, contacted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals two months later.
In March 2003, a lab technician shot video inside the lab, which according to The New York Daily News showed primates in cages without pain medication; the video included one baboon with a metal cylinder screwed into its head, according to the newspaper. Dell'Orto told the newspaper that primates were often not euthanized or given painkillers after surgery; she said other primates had torn their fingers off out of fear. The U.S. Department of Agriculture upheld Dell'Orto's complaint that there was shoddy record-keeping, and that 11 animals had been provided with "inadequate or questionable care." They found no evidence that the experiments violated federal guidelines or that there had been retaliation against Dell'Orto. CNN reported that Columbia responded by ordering better record-keeping, a review of the veterinary care program, and tighter criteria for euthanasia of laboratory animals.
In 2004, German journalist Friedrich Mülln shot undercover footage of staff in Covance, Münster, Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them. The monkeys were kept isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light, no environmental enrichment, and high noise levels from staff shouting and playing the radio (video). Primatologist Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as horrendous. Another primatologist, Stephen Brend, told BUAV that using monkeys in such a stressed state is bad science, and trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances is what he called an untenable proposition. In 2004 and 2005, PETA shot footage inside the company in the United States. According to The Washington Post, PETA said an employee of the group filmed primates being choked, hit, and denied medical attention when badly injured. The U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Covance $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment.
Threats to researchers
In 2006, a primate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shut down the experiments in his lab after threats from animal rights activists. The researcher had received a grant to use 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized for a single physiological experiment lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized. The researcher's name, phone number, and address were posted on the website of the Primate Freedom Project. Demonstrations were held in front of his home. A Molotov cocktail was placed on the porch of what was believed to be the home of another UCLA primate researcher; instead, it was accidentally left on the porch of an elderly woman unrelated to the university. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the attack. As a result of the campaign, the researcher sent an email to the Primate Freedom Project stating "you win," and "please don’t bother my family anymore." In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the Animal Liberation Brigade placed a bomb under the car of a UCLA children's ophthalmologist who experiments on cats and rhesus monkeys; the bomb had a faulty fuse and did not detonate. UCLA is now refusing Freedom of Information Act requests for animal medical records.
These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Such legislation, and the arrest and imprisonment of extremists may have decreased the incidence of attacks.
Alternatives to animal testing
Scientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs" are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries:
- Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
- Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
- Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.
Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups, they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.
- Bateson's cube
- Human subject research
- Krogh's principle
- Preclinical imaging
- The People's Petition
- Women and animal advocacy
- ^ Meredith Cohn, "Alternatives to Animal Testing Gaining Ground," The Baltimore Sun 26 August 2010.
- ^ Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 26.
- ^ Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 22.
- ^ "Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research", Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, The National Academies Press, 1988. Also see Cooper, Sylvia. "Pets crowd animal shelter", The Augusta Chronicle, August 1, 1999; and Gillham, Christina. "Bought to be sold", Newsweek, February 17, 2006.
- ^ "Introduction", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament.
- ^ a b The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists The Royal Society, 2004, page 1
- ^ "Science, Medicine, and Animals", Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Published by the National Research Council of the National Academies 2004; page 2
- "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, accessed July 5, 2010.
- "UK Legislation: A Criticism", accessed July 5, 2010, and "FAQs: Vivisection", British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
- "Biomedical research", The Humane Society of the United States, accessed July 5, 2010.
- "Animal experimentation issues", Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
- Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. Zed Books, 1999.
- Langley, Gill. Animal research is poor science, Peter Tatchell interviews Gill Langley of the Dr Hadwen Trust, accessed July 5, 2010. Langley argues that animal research is holding back medical progress at circa 07:16 minutes, and that some of the tests are outdated at circa 11:15 minutes.
- ^ "Vivisection", Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007. Also see Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. Zed Books, 1999, and "FAQs: Vivisection", British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
- ^ Definitions in:
- ^ Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 22.
- ^ Paixão, RL; Schramm, FR (1999). "Ethics and animal experimentation: what is debated?". Cadernos de saude publica / Ministerio da Saude, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Escola Nacional de Saude Publica 15 (Suppl 1): 99–110. PMID 10089552.
- ^ Yarri, Donna. The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, Oxford University Press U.S., 2005
- ^ Cohen and Loew 1984.
- ^ "History of nonhuman animal research", Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group.
- ^ Abdel-Halim, RE (2005). "Contributions of Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) to the progress of surgery: a study and translations from his book Al-Taisir.". Saudi medical journal 26 (9): 1333–9. PMID 16155644.
- ^ Abdel-Halim, RE (2006). "Contributions of Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi to the progress of medicine and urology. A study and translations from his book Al-Mukhtar.". Saudi medical journal 27 (11): 1631–41. PMID 17106533.
- ^ http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-great-zoos-who-2669960.html
- ^ Mock M, Fouet A (2001). "Anthrax". Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: 647–71. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.647. PMID 11544370.
- ^ Windholz G (1987). "Pavlov as a psychologist. A reappraisal". Pavlov J Biol Sci 22 (3): 103–12. PMID 3309839.
- ^ Gorden P (1997). "Non-insulin dependent diabetes—the past, present and future". Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 26 (3): 326–30. PMID 9285027.
- ^ Walgate R (1981). "Armadillos fight leprosy". Nature 291 (5816): 527. doi:10.1038/291527a0. PMID 7242665.
- ^ Scollard DM, Adams LB, Gillis TP, Krahenbuhl JL, Truman RW, Williams DL (2006). "The Continuing Challenges of Leprosy". Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 19 (2): 338–81. doi:10.1128/CMR.19.2.338-381.2006. PMC 1471987. PMID 16614253. http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16614253.
- ^ Jaenisch, R; Mintz, B (1974). "Simian Virus 40 DNA Sequences in DNA of Healthy Adult Mice Derived from Preimplantation Blastocysts Injected with Viral DNA". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 71 (4): 1250–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.71.4.1250. PMC 388203. PMID 4364530. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=388203.
- ^ a b Wilmut, I; Schnieke, AE; McWhir, J; Kind, AJ; Campbell, KH (1997). "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells". Nature 385 (6619): 810–3. Bibcode 1997Natur.385..810W. doi:10.1038/385810a0. PMID 9039911.
- ^ Taste of Raspberries, Taste of Death. The 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide Incident, FDA Consumer magazine June 1981.
- ^ Burkholz, Herbert (1997-09-01). "Giving Thalidomide a Second Chance". FDA Consumer (US Food and Drug Administration). http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/697_thal.html. Retrieved 2006-09-21.
- ^ a b Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. Zed Books, 1999, p. 11.
- ^ a b Bernard, Claude An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865. First English translation by Henry Copley Greene, published by Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1927; reprinted in 1949, p. 125.
- ^ Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg Publishers, 2000, p. 54.
- ^ a b c "Animal Experimentation: A Student Guide to Balancing the Issues", Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), accessed December 12, 2007, cites original reference in Maehle, A-H. and Tr6hler, U. Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments. In N. A. Rupke (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. Croom Helm, London, 1987, p. 22.
- ^ Rudacille, Deborah. The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict, Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000, p. 19.
- ^ "In sickness and in health: vivisection's undoing", The Daily Telegraph, November 2003.
- ^ LaFollette, H., Shanks, N., Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science (1994) pp. 195–210.
- ^ The Physiologist at the-aps.org A Physiologist’s Views on the Animal Rights/Liberation Movement by Charles S. Nicoll The Physiologist 34(6): December 1991
- ^ Mason, Peter. The Brown Dog Affair. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997.
- ^ The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II, fullbooks.com.
- ^ Bowlby, John. Charles Darwin: A New Life, W. W. Norton & Company, 1991. p. 420.
- ^ Buettinger, Craig Antivivisection and the charge of zoophil-psychosis in the early twentieth century. The Historian 1 January 1993
- ^ Carbone, Larry. '"What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 68–69.
- ^ Carbone 2004, p. 94.
- ^ Science 27 July 2001: Vol. 293. no. 5530, pp. 608 – 609 doi:10.1126/science.1061621 PMID 11474086
- ^  OLAW policies governing IACUCs
- ^  Animal Welfare Act definitions
- ^ a b c Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union Commission of the European Communities, published November 2007
- ^ "Vivisection FAQ, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.
- ^ a b c d The Ethics of research involving animals Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ Carbone, 2004, p. 26.
- ^ a b c d 2005 Report on Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 8, 2008.
- ^ The humane care and treatment of laboratory animals National Association of Biomedical Research. Retrieved February 8, 2008.
- ^ a b Trull, F. L. (1999). "More Regulation of Rodents". Science 284 (5419): 1463. doi:10.1126/science.284.5419.1463.
- ^ Rowan, A., Loew, F., and Weer, J. (1995) "The Animal Research Controversy. Protest, Process and Public Policy: An Analysis of Strategic Issues." Tufts University, North Grafton. cited in Carbone 2004, p. 26.
- ^ Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing and Education, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1986, p. 64. In 1966, the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association estimated in testimony before Congress that the number of mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits used in 1965 was around 60 million. (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, 1966, p. 63.) In 2004, the Department of Agriculture listed 64,932 dogs, 23,640 cats, 54,998 non-human primates, 244,104 guinea pigs, 175,721 hamsters, 261,573 rabbits, 105,678 farm animals, and 171,312 other mammals, a total of 1,101,958, a figure that includes all mammals except purpose-bred mice and rats. The use of dogs and cats in research in the U.S. decreased from 1973 to 2004 from 195,157 to 64,932, and from 66,165 to 23,640, respectively. ("Foundation for Biomedical Research, Quick Facts)
- ^ "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Home Office, July 21, 2008, p. 5.
- ^ AntosheAntoshechkin, I; Sternberg, PW (2007). "The versatile worm: genetic and genomic resources for Caenorhabditis elegans research". Nature reviews. Genetics 8 (7): 518–32. doi:10.1038/nrg2105. PMID 17549065.
- ^ Matthews, KA; Kaufman, TC; Gelbart, WM (2005). "Research resources for Drosophila: the expanding universe". Nature reviews. Genetics 6 (3): 179–93. doi:10.1038/nrg1554. PMID 15738962.
- ^ Schulenburg, H; Kurz, CL; Ewbank, JJ (2004). "Evolution of the innate immune system: the worm perspective". Immunological reviews 198: 36–58. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0125.x. PMID 15199953.
- ^ Leclerc, V; Reichhart, JM (2004). "The immune response of Drosophila melanogaster". Immunological reviews 198: 59–71. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0130.x. PMID 15199954.
- ^ Mylonakis, E; Aballay, A (2005). "Worms and Flies as Genetically Tractable Animal Models To Study Host-Pathogen Interactions". Infection and immunity 73 (7): 3833–41. doi:10.1128/IAI.73.7.3833-3841.2005. PMC 1168613. PMID 15972468. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1168613.
- ^ a b c d Rosenthal, N; Brown, S (2007). "The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models". Nature cell biology 9 (9): 993–9. doi:10.1038/ncb437. PMID 17762889.
- ^ Aitman, Timothy J; Critser, John K; Cuppen, Edwin; Dominiczak, Anna; Fernandez-Suarez, Xose M; Flint, Jonathan; Gauguier, Dominique; Geurts, Aron M et al. (2008). "Progress and prospects in rat genetics: a community view". Nature Genetics 40 (5): 516–22. doi:10.1038/ng.147. PMID 18443588.
- ^ a b c "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2004, British government.
- ^ Cat madness: human research using cats AAVS newsletter Winter 2003
- ^ Dog profile, The Humane Society of the United States.
- ^ Gillham, Christina. "Bought to be sold", Newsweek, February 17, 2006.
- ^ International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources, Proceedings of the Workshop Held April 17–19, pages 36–45, 46–48, 63–69, 197–200.
- ^ Primatology FAQ
- ^ a b Kathleen M. Conlee, Erika H. Hoffeld and Martin L. Stephens Demographic Analysis of Primate Research in the United States ATLA 32, Supplement 1, 315–322, 2004
- ^ Science article on chimps in the USA
- ^ Chan AW, Chong KY, Martinovich C, Simerly C, Schatten G (January 2001). "Transgenic monkeys produced by retroviral gene transfer into mature oocytes". Science 291 (5502): 309–12. doi:10.1126/science.291.5502.309. PMID 11209082.
- ^ Yang SH, Cheng PH, Banta H, et al. (June 2008). "Towards a transgenic model of Huntington's disease in a non-human primate". Nature 453 (7197): 921–4. doi:10.1038/nature06975. PMC 2652570. PMID 18488016. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2652570.
- ^ a b Emborg, ME (2007). "Nonhuman primate models of Parkinson's disease". ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 48 (4): 339–55. PMID 17712221.
- ^ McKie, Robin (2 November 2008). "Ban on primate experiments would be devastating, scientists warn". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/02/primate-monkey-animal-testing-drugs.
- ^ Invertebrate Animal Resources National Center for Research Resources. Retrieved December 15, 2007.
- ^ "Who's Who of Federal Oversight of Animal Issues", Aesop Project.
- ^ International Mouse Knockout Consortium; Collins, FS; Rossant, J; Wurst, W (2007). "A mouse for all reasons". Cell 128 (1): 9–13. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.018. PMID 17218247.
- Class B dealers, Humane Society of the United States.
- Gillham, Christina. "Bought to be sold", Newsweek, February 17, 2006.
- "Who's Who of Federal Oversight of Animal Issues", Aesop Project;
- Salinger, Lawrence and Teddlie, Patricia. "Stealing Pets for Research and Profit: The Enforcement (?) of the Animal Welfare Act", paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto, October 15, 2006;
- Class B dealers, Humane Society of the United States;
- Reitman, Judith. Stolen for Profit, Zebra 1995.
- Moran, Julio. "Three Sentenced to Prison for Stealing Pets for Research," L.A. Times, September 12, 1991.
- ^ Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995, p. 192; Magnuson, Warren G., Chairman. "Opening remarks in hearings prior to enactment of Pub. L. 89-544, the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act," U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, March 25, 1966.
- ^ Notorious Animal Dealer Loses License and Pays Record Fine, The Humane Society of the United States.
- ^ Animal Testing: Where Do the Animals Come From? American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. According to the ASPCA, the following states prohibit shelters from providing animals for research: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.
- ^ Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986
- ^ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- ^ a b "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Home Office, 2004, p. 87.
- ^ U.S. Primate Imports Spike International Primate Protection League April 2007
- ^ Duncan, IJ; Petherick, JC (1991). "The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare". Journal of animal science 69 (12): 5017–22. PMID 1808195.
- ^ Curtis, SE; Stricklin, WR (1991). "The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal production systems: an overview". Journal of animal science 69 (12): 5001–7. PMID 1808193.
- ^ Ryder, Richard D. "Speciesism in the laboratory," in Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Blackwell, 2006. p. 99.
- ^ a b Townsend, Mark. "Exposed: secrets of the animal organ lab", The Observer, April 20, 2003. The Home Office response to these allegations is Imutran Ltd: Response to the Home Affairs Committee – licensing and regulating the xenotransplantation research, 14 October 2003
- ^ Carbone, Larry. '"What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 149.
- ^ Rollin drafted the 1985 Health Research Extension Act and an animal welfare amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act: see Rollin, Bernard. "Animal research: a moral science. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research", EMBO reports 8, 6, 2007, pp. 521–525
- ^ a b Rollin, Bernard. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. xii, 117–118, cited in Carbone 2004, p. 150.
- ^ Griffin, DR; Speck, GB (2004). "New evidence of animal consciousness". Animal cognition 7 (1): 5–18. doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0203-x. PMID 14658059.
- ^ Allen, C (1998). "Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives". Journal of animal science 76 (1): 42–7. PMID 9464883.
- ^ Lockwood, J. A. (1987). "The Moral Standing of Insects and the Ethics of Extinction". The Florida Entomologist 70 (1): 70–89. doi:10.2307/3495093. JSTOR 3495093.
- ^ Degrazia, David; Rowan, Andrew (1991). "Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans". Theoretical Medicine 12 (3): 193–211. doi:10.1007/BF00489606. PMID 1754965.
- ^ Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, ILAR, National Research Council, 1996 copyright, pg 64
- ^ a b Flecknell P (2002). "Replacement, reduction and refinement". ALTEX 19 (2): 73–8. PMID 12098013.
- ^ Animal Procedures Committee: review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research The Animal Procedures Committee, June 2003 p46-7
- ^ Carbone, Larry. "Euthanasia," in Bekoff, M. and Meaney, C. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Welfare. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 164–166, cited in Carbone 2004, pp. 189–190.
- ^ "Euthanasia Guidelines", Research animal resources, University of Minnesota.
- ^ Close, Bryonyl et al. "Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1", Laboratory Animals, Volume 30, Number 4, October 1996, p. 295.
- ^ Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals, 1996 Edition, Euthanasia section on pg 65
- ^ AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia, June 2007 edition, Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Retrieved February 8, 2008.
- ^ a b "Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures Report", House of Lords, July 16, 2002. See chapter 3: "The purpose and nature of animal experiments." Retrieved July 6, 2010.
- ^ a b Job, CK (2003). "Nine-banded armadillo and leprosy research". Indian journal of pathology & microbiology 46 (4): 541–50. PMID 15025339.
- ^ Venken, KJ; Bellen, HJ (2005). "Emerging technologies for gene manipulation in Drosophila melanogaster". Nature reviews. Genetics 6 (3): 167–78. doi:10.1038/nrg1553. PMID 15738961.
- ^ Sung, YH; Song, J; Lee, HW (2004). "Functional genomics approach using mice". Journal of biochemistry and molecular biology 37 (1): 122–32. doi:10.5483/BMBRep.2004.37.1.122. PMID 14761310.
- ^ Janies, D; Desalle, R (1999). "Development, evolution, and corroboration". The Anatomical record 257 (1): 6–14. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19990215)257:1<6::AID-AR4>3.0.CO;2-I. PMID 10333399.
- ^ Akam, M (1995). "Hox genes and the evolution of diverse body plans". Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 349 (1329): 313–9. doi:10.1098/rstb.1995.0119. PMID 8577843.
- ^ Prasad B., Reed R., "Chemosensation: molecular mechanisms in worms and mammals", Trends in Genetics Volume 15, pp. 150–153. 1999
- ^ Schafer, WR (2006). "Neurophysiological methods in C. elegans: an introduction". WormBook : the online review of C. elegans biology: 1–4. doi:10.1895/wormbook.1.113.1. PMID 18050439.
- ^ Yamamuro, Yutaka (2006). "Social behavior in laboratory rats: Applications for psycho-neuroethology studies". Animal Science Journal 77 (4): 386–94. doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00363.x.
- ^ Marler P., Slabbekoorn H, Nature's Music: The Science of Birdsong, Academic Press, 2004. ISBN 0-12-473070-1[page needed]
- ^ For example "in addition to providing the chimpanzees with enrichment, the termite mound is also the focal point of a tool-use study being conducted", from the web page of the Lincoln Park Zoo. Retrieved April 25, 2007.
- ^ Festing, M., "Inbred Strains of Mice and their Characteristics", The Jackson Laboratory . Retrieved January 30, 2008.
- ^ Peichel, Catherine L. (2005). "Fishing for the secrets of vertebrate evolution in threespine sticklebacks". Developmental Dynamics 234 (4): 815–23. doi:10.1002/dvdy.20564. PMID 16252286.
- ^ Peichel, Catherine L.; Nereng, Kirsten S.; Ohgi, Kenneth A.; Cole, Bonnie L. E.; Colosimo, Pamela F.; Buerkle, C. Alex; Schluter, Dolph; Kingsley, David M. (2001). "The genetic architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species". Nature 414 (6866): 901–5. doi:10.1038/414901a. PMID 11780061.
- ^ Ramaswamy, S; McBride, JL; Kordower, JH (2007). "Animal models of Huntington's disease". ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 48 (4): 356–73. PMID 17712222.
- ^ Rees, DA; Alcolado, JC (2005). "Animal models of diabetes mellitus". Diabetic Medicine 22 (4): 359–70. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01499.x. PMID 15787657.
- ^ Iwakuma, T; Lozano, G (2007). "Crippling p53 activities via knock-in mutations in mouse models". Oncogene 26 (15): 2177–84. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210278. PMID 17401426.
- ^ Frese, KK; Tuveson, DA (2007). "Maximizing mouse cancer models". Nature reviews. Cancer 7 (9): 645–58. doi:10.1038/nrc2192. PMID 17687385.
- ^ Dunham, SP (2006). "Lessons from the cat: development of vaccines against lentiviruses". Veterinary immunology and immunopathology 112 (1–2): 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.03.013. PMID 16678276.
- ^ Vail, DM; MacEwen, EG (2000). "Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion animals as models for human cancer". Cancer investigation 18 (8): 781–92. doi:10.3109/07357900009012210. PMID 11107448.
- ^ a b Tolwani, RJ; Jakowec, MW; Petzinger, GM; Green, S; Waggie, K (1999). "Experimental models of Parkinson's disease: insights from many models". Laboratory animal science 49 (4): 363–71. PMID 10480640.
- ^ Pound, P; Ebrahim, S; Sandercock, P; Bracken, MB; Roberts, I; Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group (2004). "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?". BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 328 (7438): 514–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514. PMC 351856. PMID 14988196. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=351856.
- ^ Langley, Gill next of kin...A report on the use of primates in experiments, BUAV, 2006
- ^ The History of Deep Brain Stimulation The Parkinson's Appeal. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ Platt, JL; Lin, SS (1998). "The future promises of xenotransplantation". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 862: 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09112.x. PMID 9928201.
- ^ a b Schuurman, HJ; Pierson Rn, 3rd (2008). "Progress towards clinical xenotransplantation". Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library 13 (13): 204–20. doi:10.2741/2671. PMID 17981539.
- ^ Valdés-González, RA; Dorantes, LM; Garibay, GN; Bracho-Blanchet, E; Mendez, AJ; Dávila-Pérez, R; Elliott, RB; Terán, L et al. (2005). "Xenotransplantation of porcine neonatal islets of Langerhans and Sertoli cells: a 4-year study". European Journal of Endocrinology 153 (3): 419–27. doi:10.1530/eje.1.01982. PMID 16131605.
- ^ Valdés-González, RA; White, DJ; Dorantes, LM; Terán, L; Garibay-Nieto, GN; Bracho-Blanchet, E; Dávila-Pérez, R; Evia-Viscarra, L et al. (2007). "Three-yr follow-up of a type 1 diabetes mellitus patient with an islet xenotransplant". Clinical transplantation 21 (3): 352–7. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00648.x. PMID 17488384.
- ^ Curtis, Polly. "Home Office under renewed fire in animal rights row", The Guardian, July 11, 2003.
- ^ a b Household Product Tests BUAV
- ^ a b c Abbott, Alison. "Animal testing: More than a cosmetic change" Nature 438, 144–146, November 10, 2005.
- ^ Watkins Jb, 3rd (1989). "Exposure of rats to inhalational anesthetics alters the hepatobiliary clearance of cholephilic xenobiotics". The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics 250 (2): 421–7. PMID 2760837.
- ^ Watt, JA; Dickinson, RG (1990). "The effect of diethyl ether, pentobarbitone and urethane anaesthesia on diflunisal conjugation and disposition in rats". Xenobiotica 20 (3): 289–301. doi:10.3109/00498259009046848. PMID 2336839.
- ^ Walum, E (1998). "Acute oral toxicity". Environmental health perspectives 106 (Suppl 2): 497–503. doi:10.2307/3433801. PMC 1533392. PMID 9599698. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1533392.
- ^ Inter-Governmental Organization Eliminates the LD50 Test, The Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved January 17, 2008.
- ^ OECD guideline 405 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved January 19, 2008.
- ^ Species Used in Research: Rabbit Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved January 19, 2008.
- ^ Wilhelmus, KR (2001). "The Draize eye test". Survey of ophthalmology 45 (6): 493–515. doi:10.1016/S0039-6257(01)00211-9. PMID 11425356.
- ^ Secchi, A; Deligianni, V (2006). "Ocular toxicology: the Draize eye test". Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology 6 (5): 367–72. doi:10.1097/01.all.0000244798.26110.00. PMID 16954791.
- ^ a b Draize rabbit eye test replacement milestone welcomed Dr Hadwen Trust 21 September 2009
- ^ Toxicity Testing for Assessment of Environmental Agents" National Academies Press, (2006), p21. Retrieved July 6, 2010.
- ^ Hartung T (July 2009). "Toxicology for the twenty-first century". Nature 460 (7252): 208–12. doi:10.1038/460208a. PMID 19587762.
- ^ Smith LL (2001). "Key challenges for toxicologists in the 21st century". Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22 (6): 281–5. doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01714-4. PMID 11395155.
- ^ Brown SL, Brett SM, Gough M, Rodricks JV, Tardiff RG, Turnbull D (1988). "Review of interspecies risk comparisons". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8 (2): 191–206. doi:10.1016/0273-2300(88)90028-1. PMID 3051142.
- ^ An overview of Animal Testing Issues, Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ a b Osborn, Andrew & Gentleman, Amelia."Secret French move to block animal-testing ban", The Guardian, August 19, 2003. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ EU Directive 2001/83/EC, p.44. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ EU Directive 2001/83/EC, p. 45. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ Brook, Tom Vanden, "Brain Study, Animal Rights Collide", USA Today, April 7, 2009, p. 1.
- ^ Dalal, Rooshin et al. Replacement Alternatives in Education: Animal-Free Teaching abstract from Fifth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Berlin, August 2005.
- ^ Seeking an End to Animal Experimentation, Deutsche Welle, August 23, 2005. Retrieved December 16, 2007.
- ^ Rollin, Bernard E. (2006). "The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History". Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4): 285–304. doi:10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8. PMID 16937023.
- ^ 1985 Amendment to Animal Welfare Act. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ Summary of House of Lords Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures. Retrieved February 27, 2008.
- ^ 韓国・食薬庁で「実験動物慰霊祭」挙行
- ^ Singer, Peter (ed.). "A Companion to Ethics". Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 1991.
- ^ a b Page 244, Chapter 14, Discussion of ethical issues in: The ethics of research involving animals at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Published 25 05 2005
- ^ Rollin, Bernard E. "The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects," in Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter. "A Companion to Bioethics". Blackwell Publishing, 1998.
- ^ Gagneux, P; Moore, JJ; Varki, A (2005). "The ethics of research on great apes". Nature 437 (7055): 27–9. doi:10.1038/437027a. PMID 16136111.
- ^ Vermij, P (2003). "Europe's last research chimps to retire". Nature medicine 9 (8): 981. doi:10.1038/nm0803-981b. PMID 12894144.
- ^ Nature. "Access : Proposed Mechanism of Force Generation in Striated Muscle". Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v233/n5321/pdf/233533a0.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-31. (subscription required)
- ^ http://jp.physoc.org/content/184/1/170.full.pdf
- ^ http://jp.physoc.org/content/361/1/131.full.pdf
- ^ 2000: Lutz G J; Lieber R L Myosin isoforms in anuran skeletal muscle: their influence on contractile properties and in vivo muscle function. Microscopy research and technique 2000;50(6):443-57.
- ^ Liber, R. L. 2002. Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation, 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 978-0-7817-3061-7, http://books.google.com/books?id=T0fbq_b89cAC&dq=lieber+skeletal+muscle+physiology&source=gbs_navlinks_s
- ^ Holden, C (1986). "A pivotal year for lab animal welfare". Science 232 (4747): 147–50. doi:10.1126/science.3952503. PMID 3952503.
- ^ Franklin, Ben A. " Going to Extremes for 'Animal Rights'", The New York Times, August 30, 1987.
- ^ "Group Says It 'Rescued' 260 Animals From Lab," Associated Press, April 21, 1985.
- ^ Holden, Constance. "A pivotal year for lab animal welfare," Science April 11, 1986.
- For a video of the ALF raid and aftermath, see "Britches", PeTA TV on Google Video, accessed July 6, 2010; for more on PeTa's perspective, see Newkirk, Ingrid. Free the Animals, Lantern Books, 2000, pp. 271–294.
- For the researchers' perspective, see "Abstract: Trisensor rearing with infant macaques," Behavioral Neuroscience. 1987 Oct;101(5):738-41: "The ability of neonate macaque monkeys to learn to respond to artificial spatial sensory information was studied through the use of compact, head-worn, electronic spatial sonars with audible displays, which translate spatial information into auditory dimensions specifying distance, direction, and surface characteristics. Three animals were born in the dark and raised without vision for 1 to 3 months while wearing either the Binaural Sensory Aid (Animal 1; Kay, 1974) or the Trisensor (Animals 2 and 3; Easton & Jackson, 1983) airborne sonars. Each animal demonstrated alertness to information transmitted by the devices in spontaneous reaching or reinforced discrimination tasks, and more device-related, perceptual-motor activities were observed when the sensors were switched on than when they were switched off. The results show that neonate monkeys can learn effective use of information obtained from sensory substitution devices through unstructured interaction with the environment."
- ^ "It's a Dog's Life," Countryside Undercover, Channel Four Television, UK, March 26, 1997; also see "It's a dog's life", Small World Productions, 2005. Retrieved July 6, 2010.
- ^ "A controversial laboratory", BBC News, January 28, 2001.
- ^ Broughton, Zoe. "Seeing Is Believing – cruelty to dogs at Huntingdon Life Sciences", The Ecologist, March 2001.
- ^ "Six Animal Rights Advocates Are Convicted of Terrorism", The New York Times, March 3, 2006.
- ^ Bowcott, Owen. "Court jails Huntingdon animal test lab blackmailers" The Guardian, January 21, 2009.
- ^ The Perils of Cloning Alice Park Time magazine, published July 5, 2006. Retrieved February 24, 2008.
- ^ Dolly's final illness Roslin Institute. Retrieved February 21, 2008.
- ^ Exploring the Moral and Ethical Aspects of Genetically Engineered and Cloned Animals The Pew Charitable Trusts, published October 2005. Retrieved February 24, 2008.
- ^ Should we clone humans? Church of Scotland Society, Religion and Technology Project. published 19 November 1998. Retrieved February 24, 2007.
- Laville, Sandra. "Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests", The Guardian, February 8, 2005.
- "Aspects of Non-human Primate Research at Cambridge University. A Review by the Chief Inspector", British Home Office, October 1, 2002.
- "The Queen on the application of THE CAMPAIGN TO END ALL ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS (trading as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), High Court, April 12, 2005.
- ^ PDF (170 KB), review by the British government's chief inspector of animals, October 2002, p. 56.
- ^ "Columbia in animal cruelty dispute", CNN, October 12, 2003.
- ^ Herman, Eric. "PETA video depicts Columbia 'atrocities'",New York Daily News, October 21, 2003.
- ^ "Columbia in animal cruelty dispute", CNN, October 12, 2003.
- According to the Columbia Spectator, the university committee that investigated the allegations included a report of one baboon, B777: “Surgery was performed on September 18, 2001. The records show that the animal did well on September 19, but that on September 20 the animal lacked physical alertness, was unable to sit upright, or to eat. On September 21, the records indicate that the animal was awake and motionless but unable to eat, and could only drink water if squeezed into its mouth. It had vomited in the morning. The animal died while in its cage on September 21, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.” See Chandna, Alka. "Cruelty at Columbia", Columbia Spectator, October 7, 2009. *For another newspaper report, see "Animal Handling Probed At Columbia University", The Washington Post, October 13, 2003.
- For the researchers' perspective, see Huang Judy et al. (2000). "A Modified Transorbital Baboon Model of Reperfused Stroke". Stroke 31 (12): 3054–63. PMID 11108772. http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/12/3054. and Erickson Amy K. (2004). "Collaboration may be the cure for what ails drug development". Nature Medicine 10 (6): 558. doi:10.1038/nm0604-558b. PMID 15170189. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v10/n6/full/nm0604-558b.html.
- For the PeTA perspective, see "E. Sander Connolly", PeTA, accessed July 6, 2010; and "Letter fromPeninsula Neurological Associates", PeTA, January 20, 2003, accessed July 6, 2010.
- For Sander Connolly's homepage at Columbia, see Sander Connolly. Retrieved July 6, 2010.
- ^ a b Undercover footage of staff in Covance screaming at and mocking monkeys
- ^ Buske, Jennifer. "PETA Urges Withdrawal Of Support for Drug-Test Lab", The Washington Post, August 3, 2008.
- ^ Benz, Kathy and McManus, Michael. PETA accuses lab of animal cruelty, CNN, May 17, 2005. Also see Scott, Luci. "Probe leads to Covance fine", The Arizona Republic, April 1, 2006.
- For the PETA perspective, see Video footage from inside Covance, PETA, and "Covance fined for violations of the Animal Welfare Act", PETA; accessed June 28, 2010.
- For the Covance perspective, see Covance Announces Conclusion Of U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture Inspections of Its Vienna, VA Facility, Covance press release, March 31, 2008. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
- ^ Malone, B. J.; Kumar, V. R.; Ringach, D. L. (2007). "Dynamics of Receptive Field Size in Primary Visual Cortex". Journal of Neurophysiology 97 (1): 407–14. doi:10.1152/jn.00830.2006. PMID 17021020.
- ^ Throwing in the Towel David Epstein Inside Higher Education, August 22, 2006
- ^ Predators Unleashed Investor's Business Daily 24 August 2006
- ^ McDonald, Patrick Range. UCLA Monkey Madness LA Weekly, August 8, 2007.
- ^ Huggett, B (2008). "When animal rights turns ugly". Nature Biotechnology 26 (6): 603–5. doi:10.1038/nbt0608-603. PMID 18536673.
- ^ Ian Herbert "Collapse in support for animal rights extremist attacks", The Independent, January 27, 2007.
- ^ The 3Rs The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. Retrieved December 12, 2007.
- ^ Kolar R (2002). "ECVAM: desperately needed or superfluous? An animal welfare perspective". Altern Lab Anim 30 Suppl 2: 169–74. PMID 12513669.
- ^ Schuppli CA, Fraser D, McDonald M (2004). "Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation". Altern Lab Anim 32 (5): 525–32. PMID 15656775.
- ^ Rusche B (2003). "The 3Rs and animal welfare – conflict or the way forward?". ALTEX 20 (Suppl 1): 63–76. PMID 14671703.
- Conn, P. Michael and Parker, James V (2008). The Animal Research War, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-60014-0
- Guerrini, Anita (2003). Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal rights. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7197-2.
- Stephens, Martin & Rowan, Andrew. PDF (129 KB), Humane Society of the United States, accessed October 29, 2005
- 1940 American/Soviet film of dog resurrection experiments
- "Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report", Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, British House of Lords, July 16, 2002, accessed October 27, 2005.
- "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Great Britain, 2004.
- "Why use animals?" and other FAQ, North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research, accessed October 23, 2005
- "Basic statement", Aërzte gegen Tierversuche (Doctors against Animal Experiments), accessed October 23, 2005.
- "Biomed for the layperson", Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group, accessed February 24, 2006.
- In Focus "Animal Experiments in Research" (German Reference Centre for Ethics in the Life Sciences)
- Encyclopedia of Earth: Animal testing alternatives
- Go3R: semantic search to avoid animal experiments
Animal testing Main articlesAnimal testing · Alternatives to animal testing · Animal testing on invertebrates · Animal testing on frogs · Animal testing on non-human primates · Animal testing on rabbits · Animal testing on rodents · Animal testing regulations · History of animal testing · History of model organisms · Laboratory animal sources · Toxicology testing Issues Controversial experiments Companies Groups/campaignsAmericans for Medical Progress · American Association for Laboratory Animal Science · American Association for the Advancement of Science · Boyd Group · British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection · Dr Hadwen Trust · Foundation For Biomedical Research · National Anti-Vivisection Society · People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) · ALF · Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine · Primate Freedom Project · Pro-Test · SPEAK · Research Defence Society · SHAC · Stop Sequani Animal Testing Writers/activists Categories Biomedical research: Clinical study design / Design of experiments Overview Controlled study
(EBM I to II-1; A to B)
(EBM II-2 to II-3; B to C)
occurrence: Incidence (Cumulative incidence) · Prevalence (Point prevalence, Period prevalence)
association: absolute (Absolute risk reduction, Attributable risk, Attributable risk percent) · relative (Relative risk, Odds ratio, Hazard ratio)
other: Virulence · Infectivity · Mortality rate · Morbidity · Case fatality · Specificity and sensitivity · Likelihood-ratios · Pre/post-test probability
Trial/test types Analysis of clinical trials
Interpretation of results
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.