A European Informational Website
learn more
Language: da de en fi fr it nl pt
Animal testing, or animal research, refers to the use of animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide [1][2][3] — from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates — are used annually and either killed during the experiments or subsequently euthanised. The research is carried out inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense-research establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. [4] The vast majority of laboratory animals are bred for research purposes, while a small number are caught in the wild or supplied by pounds. [5]
The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American interest group supporting animal research, writes, "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century." [6] Many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). [7][8][9]
The topic is controversial. Opponents argue that animal testing is unnecessary, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation. [10][11]
The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the second and fourth centuries BC. Aristotle (Αριστοτέλης) (384-322 BC) and Erasistratus (304-258 BC) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals (Cohen and Loew 1984). Galen, a physician in second-century Rome, opened watson and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection."[12]
Animals have played a role in numerous well-known experiments. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by giving anthrax to 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, leprosy multi-drug antibiotic treatments were developed first in armadillos, then in humans. In 1996 Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.
Experiments on vertebrate animals in the European Union are subject to Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific purposes, adopted in 1986. [13] There is considerable variation in the manner member countries choose to exercise the directive: compare, for example, legislation from Sweden, [14] The Netherlands, [15] and Germany. [16]
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 [20] requires experiments to be regulated by three licences: a project licence for the scientist in charge of the project, which details the numbers and types of animals to be used, the experiments to be performed, and the purpose of them; a certificate for the institution to ensure it has adequate facilities and staff; and a personal licence for each scientist or technician who carries out any procedure. In deciding whether to grant a licence, the Home Office refers to the Act's cost-benefit analysis, which is defined as "the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence" (Section 5(4)). A licence should not be granted if there is a "reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of protected animals" (Section 5(5) (a)). The experiments must use "the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering distress or lasting harm, and [be the] most likely to produce satisfactory results" (Section 5(5) (b)). [19]
During a 2002 House of Lords select committee inquiry into animal testing in the UK, witnesses stated that the UK has the tightest regulatory system in the world, and is the only country to require a cost-benefit assessment of every licence application. [20] There are 29 qualified inspectors covering 230 establishments, which are visited on average 11-12 times a year. [21] (See also Animal Procedures Committee.) A report by Animal Aid alleges that the law governing animal research in the UK, The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, is a "vivisectors' charter," allowing researchers to do as they please and making them practically immune from prosecution. The report says that licences to perform experiments are obtained on the basis of a "nod of approval" from the Home Office Inspectorate, and that the Home Office relies on the researchers' own opinions of the cost-benefit assessment regarding the value of the experiment versus the amount of suffering it will cause.[21]
The system in Japan is one of self-regulation. Animal experiments are regulated by one clause in the 2000 Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals , which requires those using animals to cause minimal distress and suffering. There are no inspections, and there is no reporting requirement for the numbers of animals used. [23] A 1988 survey published by the Japanese Association for Laboratory Animal Science reported that eight million had been used that year.[22]
In the United States, animal testing is primarily regulated by the 1966 Animal Welfare Act (AWA),[23] which is enforced by the Animal Care division[24] of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The AWA contains provisions to ensure that individuals of covered species used in research receive a certain standard of care and treatment, provided that the standard of care and treatment does not interfere with "the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation."[25][26] Currently, AWA only protects mammals. In 2002, the Farm Security Act of 2002, the fifth amendment to the AWA, specifically excluded purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice (as opposed to wild-captured mice, rats, and birds) from regulations.[27] Thus, relatively few animals used in research in the U.S. are covered by this legislation.[29] The AWA requires each institution conducting animal testing using covered species to maintain an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which is responsible for enforcing the act. Institutions are subject to unannounced annual inspections. There are over 100 inspectors[28] monitoring around 1100 research institutions.[29] The inspectors also conduct pre-licensing checks for sites that do not engage in animal research or transportation, of which more than 4000 exist (e.g. dog kennels).[30]
APHIS has been criticized by its own inspectors and the USDA Inspector General's office (OIG). Marshall Smith, an APHIS inspector for twelve years, resigned in 1997 recounting a litany of problems at the agency that impeded his duties. In a prepared statement, Smith made note of a 1992 OIG report citing the agency's inability to ensure the humane care of animals at dealers.[31] In 2000, Isis Johnson-Brown D.V.M. - another APHIS inspector - quit because of problems she documented at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, in Beaverton, Oregon. In a prepared statement Dr. Johnson said, "More than once, I was instructed by a supervisor to make a personal list of violations of the law, cut that list in half, and then cut that list in half again before writing up my inspection reports. My willingness to uphold the law during my site visits at the Primate Center led to me being 'retrained' several times by higher-ups in the USDA.[32] In 2005, the USDA OIG issued another report on APHIS:<blockquote> Of particular concern, AC management in the Eastern Region is not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of the AWA. The Eastern Region significantly reduced its referrals of suspected violators to the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) unit—from an average of 209 cases in fiscal years (FYs) 2002-2003 to 82 cases in FY 2004. When the region did refer cases to IES, management declined to take enforcement action against 126 of 475 violators (27 percent).<br /> When violators are assessed stipulated fines, the fines are usually minimal and not always effective in preventing subsequent violations. Under current APHIS policy, AC gives an automatic 75-percent discount to almost all violators as a means of amicably reaching an agreement on the amount of the fines and avoiding court. <br /> Finally, we noted that some VMOs when inspecting research facilities do not verify the number of animals used in medical research or adequately review the facilities’ protocols and other records.[33] </blockquote>
Another regulatory instrument is the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, which became statutory with the Health Research Extension Act 1985, and which is enforced by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). This Act applies to any individual scientist or institution in receipt of federal funds and requires each institution to have an IACUC. OLAW enforces the standards of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals[36] published by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research,[37] which includes all vertebrate species in its care protocols, including rodents and birds[38] (Introduction, p.1). In 2004, the National Institutes of Health provided funds to 3,180 different research institutions and universities.[39] This means that IACUCs oversee the use of all vertebrate species in research at facilities receiving federal funds, even if the species are not covered by the AWA. OLAW does not carry out scheduled inspections, but requires that "As a condition of receipt of PHS support for research involving laboratory animals, awardee institutions must provide a written Animal Welfare Assurance of Compliance (Assurance) to OLAW describing the means they will employ to comply with the PHS Policy."[34] OLAW conducts inspections only when there is a suspected or alleged violation that cannot be resolved through written correspondence. Accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC),[35] a non-governmental, nonprofit association, is regarded by the industry as the "gold standard" of accreditation.[36] Accreditation is maintained through a prearranged AAALAC site visit and program evaluation hosted by the member institution once every three years.[37] Accreditation is intended to ensure compliance with the standards in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, as well as any other national or local laws on animal welfare.
Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to collect. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million animals are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the European Union and 1,101,958 mammals (not including rats and mice) in the United States in 2004 p.3). The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that "[e]stimates of the total number of animals used annually in research around the world are difficult to obtain and range from between 50 to 100 million animals."[3] Animals bred for research then killed as surplus, or used for breeding purposes, are not included in the figures.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total number of animals used in that country in 2002 was 1,137,718, not counting birds, mice, and rats, which make up around 85% of research animals excluding invertebrates. Other sources estimate the percentage of all lab animals that are rats, mice, or birds at 85-90%,[38] or 95%[39] The Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group has used these figures to estimate that 23-25 million animals are used in research each year in America. [45] In 1986, a report produced by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that "estimates of the animals used in the United States each year range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million," and that their own best estimate was "at least 17 million to 22 million."[40] 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.[41] 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. Of that total, 615,000 were listed on experiments that did not include more than momentary pain or distress, 399,000 were associated with experiments in which pain or distress was relieved by drugs, and over 86,000 were listed on experiments that planned to cause pain and distress that could not be relieved.[42] The use of dogs and cats in research in the USA decreased from 1973 to 2004 from 195,157 to 64,932, and from 66,165 to 23,640, respectively[42][43]
Figures released by the British Home Office show that, in 2004, 2,854,944 procedures were carried out on 2,778,692 animals[44], an increase of 63,000 from 2003,[44] the third consecutive annual rise and the highest figure since 1992.[45] In 2005, the BBC reported that the UK figures continued to "creep up...mainly due to the growing use of genetically modified mice"[46] with 2,896,198 procedures carried out on 2,812,850 animals in that year.[47]
The term "procedure" refers to an experiment, which might last several months or even years. The figures show that most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are killed and dissected afterwards.[48]
Over half the experiments in Britain in 2004 — 1,710,760 — either did not require anesthetic (e.g. behavioral tests, breeding stock, controlled dietary intake) or anesthesia was not used because this would interfere with the experimental results; 880,897 experiments were conducted in connection with pure research; 114,081 were toxicology tests, 982,640 were for breeding, and most of the rest were for applied studies in human medicine, veterinary medicine or dentistry. 9,035 involved the deliberate infliction of "psychological stress".
Listed in descending order of numbers of individual animals used:
With the exception of some cephalopods, invertebrate species are not protected under most animal research legislation, and therefore the total number of invertebrates used remains unknown.
<blockquote>Production of Transgenic Mice
The Transgenic Animal Production service consists of injecting each construct into 300-350 eggs, typically representing three days work. Twenty to fifty mice will normally be born from this number of injected eggs. These animals are screened for the presence of the transgene by a polymerase chain reaction genotyping assay. The number of transgenic animals typically varies from two to eight.<br /><br />
Production of Chimeric Mice
The chimeric mouse production service consists of injecting embryonic stem cells provided by the investigator into 150-175 blastocysts, representing three days of work. Thirty to fifty live mice are normally born from this number of injected blastocysts. Normally, the skin color of the mice from which the host blastocysts are derived is different from that of the strain used to produce the embryonic stem cells. Typically two to six mice will have skin and hair with greater than seventy percent ES cell contribution, indicating a good chance for embryonic stem cell contribution to the germline.<br /><br /> </blockquote>
In the UK in 2004, 1,910,110 mice, 464,727 rats and 37,475 other rodents were used (84.5% of the total animals used that year). In 2005 the total number of rodents used was similar to the previous year: 1,955,035 mice, 414,335 rats and 40,856 other rodents.[47]
In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used are not reported, but have been estimated at 15-20 million. [52] In 2000, the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, published the results of an analysis of its Rats/Mice/and Birds Database: Researchers, Breeders, Transporters, and Exhibitors. [53] <blockquote>
Over 2,000 research organizations are listed in the database, of which approximately 500 were researched and of these, 100 were contacted directly by FRD staff. These organizations include hospitals, government organizations, private companies (pharmaceutical companies, etc.), universities/colleges, a few secondary schools, and research institutes. Of these 2,000, approximately 960 are regulated by USDA; 349 by NIH; and 560 accredited by AALAC. Approximately 50 percent of the organizations contacted revealed a specific or approximated number of animals in their laboratories. The total number of animals for those organizations is: 250,000-1,000,000 rats; 400,000-2,000,000 mice; and 130,000-900,000 birds. </blockquote>
Primates are the species most likely to be re-used in experiments. Re-use is allowed if the animals have been used in mild procedures with no lasting side-effects, according to the Research Defence Society.[51] BUAV report that it is because of re-use that there has been a fall in the number of individual primates used in the UK.[52]
Most of the NHPs used are macaques, accounting for 79% of all primates used in research in the UK, and 63% of all primate research grants in the USA[53]. Lesser numbers of the New World primates marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys are used in the UK, and baboons, New World monkeys, and the Great Ape chimpanzee used in the USA. Licenses approving the use of apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, are not currently being issued in Britain, though their use has not been outlawed,[54] but chimpanzees are used in the U.S., with an estimated 1,500-1600 still remaining in research laboratories, according to The Humane Society of the United States.[55] NHPs are used in research into HIV, neurology, behavior, cognition, reproduction, Parkinson's disease, stroke, malaria, respiratory viruses, infectious disease, genetics, xenotransplantation, drug abuse, and also in vaccine and drug testing. According to The Humane Society of the United States, chimpanzees are most often used in hepatitis research, and monkeys in HIV research, and are often housed alone because of the nature of the conditions being studied.[55]
There are indications that NHP use is on the rise,[55] in part because biomedical research funds in the USA have more than doubled since the 1990s.[56] In the U.S., the Oregon and California National Primate Research Centers and New Iberia Research Center have expanded their facilities;[57][58][59] in 2000 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) invited applications for the establishment of new breeding specific pathogen free colonies;[60] and a new breeding colony projected to house 3,000 NHPs has been set up in Florida.[61] The NIH's National Center for Research Resources identified a need to increase the number of breeding colonies in its 2004-2008 strategic plan, as well as to set up a database, using information provided through a network of National Primate Research Centers, to allow researchers to locate NHPs with particular characteristics.[62] China is also increasing its NHP use, and is regarded as attractive to Western companies because of the low cost of research, the relatively lax regulations and the increase in animal-rights activism in the West.[55]
In 2004, the British government reported "a definite long-term downward trend" in the use of new world primates (for example, marmosets, tamarins, squirrel, owl, spider and capuchin monkeys), but stated that the use of old world primates (for example, baboons and macaques) fluctuates and is more difficult to determine.[63] Crab-eating macaques and rhesus macaques are the most commonly used species.[52] Home Office figures show the number of primates used in the UK rose by 11 per cent in 2005 to 4,650 procedures, 440 more than in 2004.[64]
Most primate use in the UK is in applied studies, which the Home Office defines as research conducted for the purpose of developing or testing commercial products. Toxicology testing is the largest use.[65] The second largest category of research using primates is "fundamental biological research." This includes neuroscientific study of the visual system, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's,[66] involving techniques such as inserting electrodes to record from or stimulate the brain, and temporary or permanent inactivation of areas of tissue.
In 1996, the British Animal Procedures Committee recommended new measures for dealing with NHPs. The use of wild-caught primates was banned, except where "exceptional and specific justification can be established"; specific justification must be made for the use of old world primates (but not for the use of new world primates); approval for the acquisition of primates from overseas is conditional upon their breeding or supply center being acceptable to the Home Office; and each batch of primates acquired from overseas must be separately authorized.[67]
Experiments can be split into three broad, overlapping categories: pure research, in which experiments are conducted that have no direct commercial application, with a view to advancing knowledge, most often inside universities; applied research, conducted in order to solve specific biological problems or to develop commercial products, either for medical or non-medical use; and toxicology or safety testing, in which commercial products are tested on animals to measure potential adverse biological reactions to the ingredients.
Basic or pure research aims to increase knowledge about the way organisms behave, develop, and function biologically.
Both the largest number and greatest variety of laboratory animals are used in this type of research. Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs through blind cavefish [72]. In the UK in 2005, 89 macaques, 114 marmosets, 133 dogs and 237 cats were used in basic research to investigate topics such as social behaviour, vision, nutrition and suckling.[47]
Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:
Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems, often relating to the treatment or cure of disease and disorder in humans and animals.
Compared to pure research, which is largely academic in origin, applied research programmes are more likely to be carried out in the pharmaceutical industry, or in universities in commercial partnership. These may involve the use of animal models of disease or condition, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the modern drug discovery process. Examples of animal use in this type of research include:
According to licensing agencies, the increased experimentation on xenotransplation is motivated by the desire to save human lives. The US FDA says "The development of xenotransplantation is, in part, driven by the fact that the demand for human organs for clinical transplantation far exceeds the supply. Currently ten patients die each day in the United States while on the waiting list to receive life-saving vital organ transplants. Moreover, recent evidence has suggested that transplantation of cells and tissues may be therapeutic for certain diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders and diabetes, where, again human materials are not usually available.".[70] In Great Britain, the government agency UKXIRA states "There is currently, and will continue to be, a shortage of human organs and tissue for transplantation....Xenotransplantation is a potential solution to this shortage."[71] Author G. Wayne Miller, in The Xeno Chronicles, suggests another motivation:
<blockquote> Assuming xeno could be perfected, the group that brought xeno to the clinic first would claim not only scientific accolades but also a good share of the market that a Saloman Brothers study had predicted would reach $6 billion by 2010. The estimate did not seem unreasonable. No one could state what a working pig organ would cost, but with so many desperate patients and with waiting lists for all organs growing, the seller could all but command his price.[72] </blockquote>
Medical journalists Jenny Bryan and John Clare have called xenotransplatation experiments "some of the most grisly procedures carried out anywhere in the name of science." They write that: "They do sometimes involve a full transplant of a genetically modified pig heart into a monkey. In some cases, however, the doctors will graft the transgenic hearts onto a baboon's neck arteries, as this allows them to observe the way the pig heart behaves in another species, and monitor the rejection process. The operation is carried out under general anaesthetic and the baboon is humanely killed afterwards. These measures, however, do not pacify animal rights campaigners, who say the experiments are cruel and unnecessary."[73] Details of the effects of these experimental procedures came to light when thousands of documents were leaked to a UK-based animal rights organization. After a legal battle, the documents were published in a report titled Diaries of Despair.[118]
In response to the teratogenic effects of Thalidomide in the 1960s, many countries passed new laws to ensure all new pharmaceuticals underwent rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:
Cosmetics testing is particularly controversial. It 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. [119] 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. [120]
Cosmetic testing on animals includes:
Some cosmetics companies continue to make the claim that their products are not tested on animals despite using one or more of the above practices.
Re-using existing test data obtained from previous animal testing is generally not considered to be cosmetic testing on animals; however, the acceptability of this to opponents of testing is inversely proportional to how recent the data is.
Due to the strong public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers say their products are not tested on animals. However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws in most countries to show their products are not toxic and dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous in large quantities, such as when in transport or in the manufacturing plant. In some countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. In other countries, it may require animal testing to meet legal requirements. The United States and Japan are frequently criticised for their insistence on stringent safety measures, which often requires animal testing, although the U.S. has also been a leader in developing cell culture alternatives.
Some retailers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by their stance on animal testing. The British Co-op maintains a cosmetic-testing website, [121] which includes statements from all their suppliers about the extent of their animal testing and the Body Shop is also known for its campaigns against cosmetic testing on animals. [122]
Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, compounds that have both cosmetic and medical uses, such as those in the "anti-wrinkle" preparations Zyderm, Restylane and Botox, are still bound by the regulations requiring animal testing. According to activists, a raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that the LD50 test is still used on every batch of Botox (a toxin that, when administered intravenously, is lethal to humans) to establish potency [123] [124] [125].
While some cosmetics manufacturers have genuinely stopped all animal testing of their products, others continue to test. Companies that continue to perform cosmetic testing on animals may falsely claim that they do not do this in their advertising and on their products — or choose not to state either way.
Cosmetics manufacturers who genuinely do not test on animals generally use the following for safety testing of their products:
This presumes that cosmetics companies are already using computer modeling and cell cultures to simulate human tissue, two techniques that have had ambiguous utility in discovering problems early. Supporters of animal testing say that neither can fully replace live human or non-human animal tests.
PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, hitting puppies, shouting at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples[74] (video). Footage shot in the U.S. appeared to show technicians dissecting a live monkey[75] (video). A lawsuit filed by HLS against PETA was successful in obtaining a restraining order against PETA, and prohibiting PETA from distributing any materials they had obtained.[76] Other non-PETA sources remain free to distribute these materials.
In 2004, German journalist Friedrich Mülln was hired as a BUAV operative to shoot 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[77] (video). A lawsuit by Covance placed an injunction on Mülln from distributing the footage he shot; the same material remains accessible on the web at sites outside jurisdiction of the court.[78]
Primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as "horrendous," and told BUAV that to see them "crazed with boredom, and sadness probably, is deeply, deeply disturbing." 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 an "untenable proposition."[77] PETA found similar conditions in Covance's Vienna, Virginia lab during an undercover investigation in 2004-5. [131] Covance sued PETA and their undercover operative as a result of the Vienna operation, and obtained a restraining order preventing the operative from performing any further undercover work for three years, and forced PETA and their operative to turn over all materials they obtained documenting conditions at Covance. PETA is further prevented from attempting to infiltrate Covance for five years.[79]
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had undergone surgery to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five. [133] The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [134]
The experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for the purpose of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains or by injecting toxins. The monkeys were then re-tested to determine how the damage had affected their skills. They were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours. [135] [136] (video)
The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and 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. [137] [138] The Research Defence Society, a lobby group representing 5,000 medical researchers and institutions in the UK, wrote in a summary of the case: "[F]or this research into stroke monkeys were fully anaesthetised, a piece of the skull bone was removed (in the same way as for human neurosurgery), one blood vessel was permanently blocked, the skull bone was replaced, the muscle and skin resewn and appropriate pain killers given. On recovery from anaesthesia, monkeys were kept in an incubator, offered food and water and monitored at regular intervals until the early evening. They were then allowed to sleep in the incubators until the next morning. No monkeys died unattended during the night after stroke surgery." [139]
One of the best-known cases of alleged abuse involved Britches, a macaque monkey born in 1985 into a breeding colony at the University of California, Riverside, removed from his mother at birth, and left alone and tethered, with his eyelids sewn shut, as part of a sight-deprivation experiment. [140] (video)
Britches was removed from the laboratory when he was five weeks old during a raid by the Animal Liberation Front, along with 700 other animals. The university criticized the ALF, claiming that damage to the monkey's eyelids, [141] allegedly caused by the sutures, had in fact been caused by an ALF veterinarian who examined the monkey after the raid and wrote a report. The experiment was condemned by the American Council for the Blind.[80]
The photograph of Britches on the right is taken from a video made by the ALF during the raid, and later released as a short film by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The university said that the monitoring device attached to the monkey's head had been tampered with by activists before the photograph was taken.[81]
According to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [142] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" [143]
In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" .
A USDA investigation of the Columbia baboons found "no indication that the experiments...violated federal guidelines." Further, the Dean of Research at Columbia's School of Medicine noted that Connolly stopped the experiments because of threats from animal rights activists, despite the fact that Connolly "remained convinced that his experiments were humane and potentially valuable."[82]
In 2006, animal rights activists were successful in getting a primate researcher at UCLA to shut down the experiments in his lab. The researcher's name, phone number, and address were posted on the website of the UCLA Primate Freedom Project, along with a description of his research, which stated that he had "received a grant to kill 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments. Each monkey is first paralyzed, then used for a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed." [145]
Demonstrations were held in front of the professor's home. A Molotov cocktail — which failed to explode but had enough force to be lethal — 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. [146][147] 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." One article covering the incident wrote "It's no accident that the Animal Liberation Front, perhaps the foremost extremist animal rights group, was named a terrorist threat by Homeland Security in January 2005." [148]
Both proponents and critics of animal experimentation have claimed that the majority of the general public support their position according to opinion polls.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research used a HART poll[83] in 2005 which asked American subjects to choose a statement they agree with more. The first statement was "Animal research is inhumane and unnecessary. Many lab animals endure painful experiments in cramped/dirty conditions. Animal research can be replaced with modern alternatives such as computer simulations and it can be dangerous, as results in animals are not comparable to those in humans." The second statement was "U.S. places strict regulations on treatment of research animals, scientific community is working hard to develop alternatives to animal research and already uses some alternatives. However, the most reliable tests use animals because they most closely duplicate complex interactions that occur in humans." 56% agreed with the second statement more, compared to 27% who agreed more with the first.
In Great Britain, more than 70% of those surveyed in a Telegraph/YouGov poll "accepted that experimentation on animals was sometimes essential because alternative methods were unavailable."[84] This poll was published in June 2006. The increased public favoritism relative to older polls was attributed to public concern that animal testing would simply move out of Great Britain, and that more than three quarters of the public believes "the more fanatical activists can justifiably be defined as 'terrorists'". Older polls came closer to a 50/50 split on similar issues.
One such older poll was conducted in Great Britain by ICM, which was commissioned by the Research Defence Society, an organisation that advocates animal experimentation.[85] When asked, "Do you agree or disagree with the use of animals in experiments to test new medicines?" 50% Agreed, 47% disagreed, 3% did not know.
A more recent ICM poll was commissioned by BBC Newsnight and published in July 2006.[86] Asked "Do you believe it is acceptable or not acceptable to use animals for medical research?" 57% responded that it was completely, or quite acceptable, whereas 40% responded it was either not very acceptable or not at all acceptable.
A MORI poll[87] tracked public sentiment on animal testing in the UK from 1999 to 2002. They found the number of people who were "conditional acceptors" of animal testing rose from 84% to 90% over that time. A conditional acceptor agrees with testing meeting the four conditions of the experiment being for medical research purposes, into life threatening diseases, with no un-necessary suffering, and non-animal alternatives being used whenever possible.
However, these opinions are strongly subject to the wording used in polls. A BUAV poll carried out by TNS in 2003 found 76% of respondents thought the British Government “should, as a matter of principle, prohibit experiments on any live animals which cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”.[88] A 2001 US poll conducted on behalf of the Humane Society of the United States found that 75% of the people polled disapprove of experiments that subject animals to severe pain and distress, 33% indicated they disapprove of animal experimentation that involves little or no pain or distress, and 62% approve of experiments that involve little or no pain or distress.[89]
Most scientists and governments say they agree 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" [152] are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries:
The US Congress, in 1985, held a series of hearings on animal research. In it, they heard testimony from veterinarians, doctors, scientists, and animal rights activists including Alex Pacheco. They wrote a summary of their findings on animal research into the law commonly called the Animal Welfare Act. They wrote <blockquote> (1) the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals;<br>
(2) methods of testing that do not use animals are being and continue to be developed which are faster, less expensive, and more accurate than traditional animal experiments for some purposes and further opportunities exist for the development of these methods of testing;<br>
(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds; and<br>
(4) measures which help meet the public concern for laboratory animal care and treatment are important in assuring that research will continue to progress. </blockquote> The principles outlined in these findings guide the law in the USA, as well as guiding the oversight of animal welfare in laboratory research.[90]
One moral basis for animal testing was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes."[91] Some researchers also believe animals may suffer less throughout the testing process than human beings would because they have a reduced capacity to remember and anticipate pain.[92] The House of Lords report further made the following statement about research experiments using animals "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge."[93]
Testing advocates argue that:
Opponents argue that:
<div class="references-small">
Contents
![[141]](http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/photos_videos/britches.jpg){kind=link}