Background of the Issue

(click to enlarge image)

Marmoset monkeys used for testing being offered marshmallows in an animal research facility.
Source: Ben Goldacre, "Animal Research Study Shows Many Tests Are Full of Flaws," theguardian.com, Jan. 22,
2010

An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and
commercial testing. [2] Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the
toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other
biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced
since at least 500 BC.

Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving
treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a
complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in
laboratories.

Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that
alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are
so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

Regulations

Animal testing in the United States is regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA),
passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. [27] The AWA defines "animal" as
"any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit,
or such other warm blooded animal." The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice bred for
research, cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes. [3]

The AWA requires that each research facility develop an internal Institutional Animal
Committee (more commonly known as an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or
IACUC) to "represent society's concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects." The
Committee must be comprised of at least three members. One member must be a veterinarian
and one must be unaffiliated with the institution.

While the AWA regulates the housing and transportation of animals used for research, it does
not regulate the experiments themselves. The US Congress Conference Committee stated at
the time of the bill's passage that it wanted "to provide protection for the researcher... by
exempting from regulations all animals during actual research and experimentation... It is not
the intention of the committee to interfere in any way with research or experimentation." [66
Animal studies funded by US Public Health Service (PHS) agencies, including the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), are further regulated by the Public Health Service Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [27] All PHS funded institutions must base
their animal care standards on the AWA and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals (also known as the Guide), prepared by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
at the National Research Council. Unlike the AWA, the Policy on Humane Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals and the Guide cover all vertebrate animals used for research, including
birds, rats and mice. The Guide"establishes the minimum ethical, practice, and care standards
for researchers and their institutions," including environment and housing standards and
required veterinary care. The Guide stipulates that "the avoidance or minimization of
discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is
imperative." [71]

(click to enlarge image)

Undercover photo taken in 1981 by a PETA activist of a monkey at the Institute for Biological Research in Silver
Spring, MD.
Source: wikipedia.org (accessed Oct. 22, 2013)

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) reports the number of animals used for research each year, though it excludes
animals not covered by the AWA. For fiscal year 2010 (the latest year for which data are
available as of Oct. 11, 2013), 1,134,693 animals were reported. [26] Since the data excludes
cold-blooded animals, farm animals used for food, and birds, rats, and mice bred for use in
research, the total number of animals used for testing is unknown. Estimates of the number of
animals not counted by APHIS range from 85%-96% of the total of all animals used for
testing. [2][65][72][1]

The USDA breaks down its data by three categories of pain type: animals that experience
pain during their use in research but are given drugs to alleviate it (339,769 animals in 2010);
animals who experience pain and are not given drugs (97,123); and animals who do not
experience pain and are not given drugs (697,801). [26]

The US Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the development of new
medications, states that "At the preclinical stage, the FDA will generally ask, at a minimum,
that sponsors... determine the acute toxicity of the drug in at least two species of
animals..." [73]

Public Opinion

A public outcry over animal testing and the treatment of animals in general broke out in the
United States in the mid-1960s, leading to the passage of the AWA. An article in the
November 29, 1965 issue of Sports Illustrated about Pepper, a farmer's pet Dalmation that
was kidnapped and sold into experimentation, is believed to have been the initial catalyst for
the rise in anti-testing sentiment. [74] Pepper died after researchers attempted to implant an
experimental cardiac pacemaker in her body. [75]

A May 2013 Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans say medical testing on animals is
morally acceptable (down from 65% in 2001), with 39% saying it is morally
wrong. [76] Younger Americans are less likely to accept animal testing. 47% of people aged
18-34 say that animal testing is morally acceptable, whereas 60% of people aged 35-54 and
61% of people aged 55 and older say it is morally acceptable. [77] 67% of registered voters in
the US are opposed to using animals to test cosmetics and personal care products, according
to a 2013 nationwide poll conducted by Lake Research Partners. The poll found that women
are more likely to object, with 76% of women under 50 and 70% of women over 50 being
opposed to animal testing, and 63% of men under and over 50 being opposed. 52% of voters
said they feel safer using a product that was tested using non-animal methods, while 18% said
they feel safer with products tested on animals. [78]

Early History

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from
as early as circa 500 BC. Physician-scientists such as Aristotle, Herophilus, and Erasistratus
performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms. [79][80] Vivisection
(dissection of a living organism) was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and
Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human body in ancient Greece led to a
reliance on animal subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the
notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a successor to Aristotle,
disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, like humans, they can
feel pain, and causing pain to animals was an affront to the gods. [80]
 (click to enlarge image)
Vivisection performed on a dog, painted by Emile-Edouard Mouchy in 1832.
Source: Lindsey Nield, "History: The Nature of the Beast," bluesci.org, Jan. 4, 2010

Roman physician and philosopher Galen (130-200 AD), whose theories of medicine were
influential throughout Europe for fifteen centuries, engaged in the public dissection of
animals (including an elephant), which was a popular form of entertainment at the
time. [81][80]Galen also engaged in animal vivisection in order to develop theories on human
anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. [82] In one of his experiments, he
demonstrated that arteries, which were believed by earlier physicians to contain air, actually
contained blood. Galen believed that animal physiology was very similar to that of human
beings, but despite this similarity he had little sympathy for the animals on which he
experimented. Galen recommended that his students vivisect animals "without pity or
compassion" and warned that the "unpleasing expression of the ape when it is being
vivisected" was to be expected. [80]

French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who occasionally experimented on live

animals, including at least one rabbit, as well as eels and fish, believed that animals were
"automata" who could not experience pain or suffer the way that humans do. [66] Descartes
recognized that animals could feel, but because they could not think, he argued, they were
unable to consciously experience those feelings. [83]

English Physician William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered that the heart, and not the lungs,
circulated blood throughout the body as a result of his experiments on living animals. [84][85]

Animal Testing in the 1800s and Early 1900s

There was little public objection to animal experimentation until the 19th Century, when the
increased adoption of domestic pets fueled interest in an anti-vivisection movement,
primarily in England. This trend culminated in the founding of the Society for the Protection
of Animals Liable to Vivisection in 1875, followed by the formation of similar groups. [79][87]

One of the first proponents of animal testing to respond to the growing anti-testing movement
was French physiologist Claude Bernard in his Introduction to the Study of Experimental
Medicine (1865). Bernard argued that experimenting on animals was ethical because of the
benefits to medicine and the extension of human life. [79]
Queen Victoria was an early opponent of animal testing in England, according to a letter
written by her private secretary in 1875: "The Queen has been dreadfully shocked at the
details of some of these [animal research] practices, and is most anxious to put a stop to
them." [88] Soon the anti-vivisection campaign became strong enough to pressure lawmakers
into establishing the first laws controlling the use of animals for research: Great Britain's
Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. [15]

Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) demonstrated the "conditioned reflex" by

training dogs to salivate upon hearing the sound of a bell or electric buzzer. In order to
measure "the intensity of the salivary reflex," wrote Pavlov, the dogs were subjected to a
"minor operation, which consists in the transplantation of the opening of the salivary duct
from its natural place on the mucous membrane of the mouth to the outside skin." A "small
glass funnel" was then attached to the salivary duct opening with a "special cement." [86][75]

(click to enlarge image)

A mouse with an "ear" seeded from implanted cow cartilage cells growing on its back, the result of a 1997 experiment
created by Joseph and Charles Vacanti to explore the possibility of fabricating body parts for plastic and
reconstructive surgery.
Source: thedailytouch.com, Mar. 20, 2013

In 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by zoologist William Russell

and microbiologist Rex Burch was published in England. The book laid out the principle of
the "Three Rs" for using animals in research humanely: Replacement (replacing the use of
animals with alternative research methods), Reduction (minimizing the use of animals
whenever possible), and Refinement (reducing suffering and improving animals' living
conditions). [89]The "Three Rs" were incorporated into the AWA and have formed the basis
of many international animal welfare laws. [90][91]

Animals in Space and the Military

Since as early as 1948, animals have been used by the US space program for testing such
aspects of space travel as the effects of prolonged weightlessness. After several monkeys died
in unmanned space flights carried out during the 1940s, the first monkey to survive a space
flight was Yorick, recovered from an Aerobee missile flight on Sep. 20, 1951. However,
Yorick died several hours after landing, possibly due to heat stress. [7][116] The first living
creature to orbit the Earth was Laika, a stray dog sent into space on the Soviet spacecraft
Sputnik 2 in Nov. 1957. Laika died of "overheating and panic" early in the mission,
according to the BBC. [92] The record for the most animals sent into space was set Apr. 17,
1998, when more than two thousand animals, including rats, mice, fish, crickets, and snails,
were launched into space on the shuttle Columbia (along with the seven-member human
crew) for neurological testing. [7][8]
Since the Vietnam war, animals have also been used by the US military. The US Department
of Defense used 488,237 animals for research and combat trauma training ("live tissue
training") in fiscal year 2007 (the latest year for which data are available), which included
subjecting anesthetized goats and pigs to gunshot wounds, burns, and amputations for the
training of military medics. [6][93] In February 2013, after an escalation of opposition by
animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatments of Animals (PETA), Congress
ordered the Pentagon to present a written plan to phase out live tissue training. The US Coast
Guard, however, which was at the center of a 2012 scandal involving videotaped footage of
goats being mutilated as part of its live tissue training program, said in May 2013 that the
program will continue. [94][95]

The Modern Debate

The 1975 publication of Animal Liberation by Australian philosopher Peter Singer

galvanized the animal rights and anti-testing movements by popularizing the notion of
"speciesism" as being analogous to racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice. Addressing
animal testing specifically, Singer predicted that "one day... our children's children, reading
about what was done in laboratories in the twentieth century, will feel the same sense of
horror and incredulity... that we now feel when we read about the atrocities of the Roman
gladiatorial arenas or the eighteenth-century slave trade." [66]

In 1981, an early victory by then-fledgling animal rights group People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) served to revitalize the anti-testing movement once again. A
PETA activist working undercover at the Institute for Biological Research in Silver Spring,
MD took photographs of monkeys in the facility that had engaged in self-mutilation due to
stress. The laboratory's director, Edward Taub, was charged with more than a dozen animal
cruelty offences, and an especially notorious photo of a monkey in a harness with all four
limbs restrained became a symbolic image for the animal rights movement. [96]

In 2001, controversy erupted over animal experiments undertaken by a veterinarian at Ohio

State University. Dr. Michael Podell infected cats with the feline AIDS virus in order to study
why methamphetamine users deteriorate more quickly from the symptoms of AIDS. After
receiving several death threats, Dr. Podell abandoned his academic career. [97] Over 60% of
biomedical scientists polled by Nature magazine say "animal-rights activists present a real
threat to essential biomedical research." [35]

A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences called
for a reduction in the use of animal testing, recommending instead the increased use of in
vitromethods using human cells. Though the report touted new technologies that could
eventually eliminate the need for animal testing altogether, the authors acknowledged that
"For the foreseeable future... targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement
the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a
whole animal." [104]

In Mar. 2013, the European Union banned the import and sale of cosmetic products that use
ingredients tested on animals. Some proponents of animal testing objected, arguing that some
animal tests had no non-animal equivalents. A spokesman for the trade association Cosmetics
Europe stated it is likely "that consumers in Europe won’t have access to new products
because we can’t ensure that some ingredients will be safe without access to suitable and
adequate testing." [98] India and Israel have also banned animal testing for cosmetic products,
while the United States has no such ban in place. [99] China is the only major market where
testing all cosmetics on animals is required by law, and foreign companies distributing their
products to China must also have them tested on animals. [65][43] China has announced that its
animal testing requirement will be waived for shampoo, perfume, and other so-called "non-
special use cosmetics" manufactured by Chinese

(click to enlarge image)

Pro animal testing billboard posted by the Foundation for Biomedical Research.
Source: Jane E. Allen, "Animal Rights: Scientists' Billboards Ask Whether You'd Save a Child or a Lab Rat,"
abcnews.go.com, Apr. 14, 2011

companies after June 2014. "Special use cosmetics," including hair regrowth, hair removal,
dye and permanent wave products, antiperspirant, and sunscreen, will continue to warrant
mandatory animal testing. [114]

After ceasing to breed chimpanzees for research in May 2007, the US National Institutes of
Health announced in June 2013 that it would retire most of its chimpanzees (310 in total)
over the next several years. While the decision was welcomed by animal rights groups,
opponents said the decision would have a negative impact on the development of critical
vaccines and treatments. The Texas Biomedical Research Institute released a statement
claiming that the number of chimps to be retained (up to 50) was "not sufficient to enable the
rapid development of better preventions and cures for hepatitis B and C, which kill a million
people every year." [100] On Nov. 18, 2015 the US National Institutes of Health announced
that its remaining 50 research chimpanzees will be retired to the Federal Chimpanzee
Sanctuary System. [117] Gabon remains the only country in the world that still experiments on
chimpanzees. [4]