experimental animals examples

What Is Animal Testing & Which Animals Are Used For Testing?

Hidden out of sight from the general population, animal experimentation takes the lives of millions of animals each year—but you can help to end this cruelty.

T eddy the beagle is one of 65,000 dogs used in animal testing each year. Trapped in a horrific cycle of experimentation, Teddy lived behind bars in a barren cage. He suffered daily exposure to harmful pesticides for safety testing. Teddy never had the opportunity to play with other dogs or roll around in the grass on a sunny day.

Fortunately for Teddy , an undercover investigation led to his release and changed his life forever. Today, Teddy lives with a loving family where he can enjoy walks, toys, and companionship. Sadly, millions of dogs and other animals remain trapped in this cruel industry.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing is the process of experimenting on live, non-human animals to assess the effectiveness or safety of cosmetics, household products, or medicines. These experiments often cause tremendous suffering for innocent subjects. Most animals used for testing are killed after the experiment is complete.

When Did Animal Testing Start?

The first known accounts of animal testing can be found in Ancient Greek writings, dating back to 500 BCE . Famous thinkers including Aristotle dissected live animals to learn about human biological functions. In the twelfth century, Arab physician Ibn Zuhr became the first known individual to have performed experimental surgeries on animals prior to performing the operation on humans.

Which Animals Are Used For Testing?

Many different kinds of animals are used in animal testing, including mice, rats, birds, dogs, cats, farmed animals, fish, and non-human primates.

Invertebrates

Invertebrates are animals that do not have a backbone, such as insects. Many researchers find invertebrates to be advantageous test subjects for several reasons. First, there are few welfare regulations that protect invertebrates from harm, so researchers can save time spent on compliance efforts and paperwork by opting for invertebrate subjects. Since individual enclosures are not required for invertebrate testing, researchers can also maximize space and reduce costs by choosing invertebrates for testing. For example, because female fruit flies can produce up to 100 eggs per day, and their offspring only live for two weeks, fruit flies are a common choice for genetics research. However, for more complex pharmaceutical testing, the simpler anatomical and biological makeup of invertebrates can yield unreliable results.

Vertebrates

Vertebrates are animals that have a backbone, such as mammals, birds, and reptiles. Scientists typically use vertebrates—rather than invertebrates—for testing drugs prior to human use. Vertebrates tend to be more biologically similar to humans than invertebrates, which can lead to more accurate results from animal testing.

Some vertebrates subjected to testing, like cats and dogs, benefit from certain minimal protections under the Animal Welfare Act . Other animals, such as rats and mice—the most commonly used animals for experimentation—are excluded from this legislation and have essentially no legal protections to mitigate their suffering.

What Kinds Of Institutions Use Animals In Experiments?

Many kinds of institutions perform painful experiments on animals, from major cosmetic and drug companies to colleges and universities.

Experiments On Animals At Colleges And Universities

Almost all research universities in the US use animals for medical and pharmaceutical testing. Animals are also used for experiments in many other subject areas, including veterinary medicine and psychology .

Animal Testing In Cosmetics

Testing cosmetics , such as make-up, moisturizer, and hair care products, is not required by law in the US. The choice to test products on animals is left up to the company. Some of these companies continue to subject rabbits, guinea pigs, or rats to torturous and needless testing of cosmetics. These experiments include skin and eye irritation, force feedings of certain chemicals, and even "lethal dose" tests, in which experimenters force animals to consume large quantities of chemicals to determine the amount that causes death.

Animal testing at chemical, pesticide and drug companies

Requirements from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other government bodies require that pharmaceuticals and pesticides undergo animal testing before being approved to circulate among the general public. This means that many pesticide and drug companies repeatedly poison animals to the point of death in order to determine safe chemical levels for human use.

Animal testing at hospitals

Public and private research facilities, Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities, and other medical centers are known to use animals for medical experimentation.

What Are Laboratories Like?

Animal testing laboratories are typically sterile, indoor areas, lined with barren cages. These facilities lack the proper environment for most animals to lead healthy lives.

What Is Life Like For Animals In Laboratories?

Most animal testing victims spend their lives behind bars or glass. The animals often live alone in small enclosures, although some smaller animals, like rats and mice, may live together. Animal test subjects have few, if any, sources of comfort and enrichment, such as bedding or toys. These animals are typically taken out of their cages only for excruciating experimental procedures, which can create tremendous anxiety for many animals. These innocent victims often have to watch or hear other animals suffer alongside them—in some cases, even their own families. This constant stress can lead to self-mutilation, pacing, and other indicators of extreme distress.

What's Wrong With Animal Testing?

Animal testing brutalizes millions of animals each year. These terrifying experiments subject innocent beings to the cruelest forms of physical and psychological torture.

Pain And Suffering

The experiments animals suffer through are tragic and terrifying. For instance:

• Researchers separate baby primates from their mothers to study the impact of severe stress on human young
• Scientists frequently force-feed potentially harmful chemicals to mice over the course of years to determine if the substance could cause cancer to humans
• Researchers place rats in small tubes and regularly expose them to cigarette smoke for a period of several hours to see how cigarette smoke affects humans

Even when these animals are not directly suffering from torturous experiments, they are typically isolated in stressful environments and denied almost everything necessary for a healthy and happy life.

Most test animals are killed by euthanasia after the completion of an experiment so that scientists can examine the impact a product had on their tissues and organs. In other cases, researchers might subject an animal to many consecutive experiments before killing them. In some tests, the animals will die as a result of the experiment. For instance, in "lethal dose" tests, the intention is to determine the quantity of a given substance or product that will lead to death. Fourteen states have begun to pass laws requiring dogs and cats used for research to be given up for adoption once the course of an experiment is complete. These laws are helpful to a precious few animals, but overall, only a tiny fraction of these victims will ever experience life outside of a laboratory.

Are Tests On Animals Legal?

Yes. In the United States, it is legal to experiment on animals. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets minimum standards of care for animals used as test subjects. However, the AWA does not apply to 95% of animals used in experiments, such as rats, mice, birds, reptiles, and fish.

Why Are Animals Still Used In Experiments?

Sadly, government entities like the EPA and FDA require certain products to be tested on animals for evaluation and approval. For instance, the EPA requires that pesticide companies forcibly feed new products to dogs on a daily basis for three months before the products become publicly available. These rules restrict corporations from considering any new and potentially more effective evaluation technology. Instead, pesticide companies are obligated to subject dogs to needless suffering in order to circulate a new product.

Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

Animal testing is not only ethically wrong—it's also surprisingly ineffective. For instance, drugs approved through animal testing later fail in human trials more than 95% of the time. The majority of experimental pharmaceuticals prove too dangerous or ineffective when they enter the human trial phase.

According to Dr. Elias Zerhouni , the former U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, "The problem is that [animal testing] hasn't worked... We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans."

Nonhuman animal subjects cannot reliably yield results reflective of the human response. In fact, animal testing can even be harmful to humans by producing deceptive data about product safety and effectiveness. Cutting-edge technologies are beginning to provide excellent alternatives that can end animal experimentation.

Statistics And Facts About Animal Testing

Millions of sentient individuals suffer excruciating experiments and lonely deaths each year due to animal testing. Many of these tests fail to yield beneficial results for humans.

What Percentage Of Animal Tests Fail?

More than 95% of drugs tested on animals eventually fail when advanced to human trials. This means the vast majority of animals used for testing—at least in medical research—suffered and died in vain.

How Many Animals Are Used In Experiments Each Year?

Estimates suggest that more than 50 million animals are used for experiments each year in the United States alone. The vast majority of these animals are rats and mice.

How Many Animals Die From Animal Testing Every Year?

Worldwide, some calculations suggest that more than 100 million animals , including cats, dogs, rabbits, primates, and mice, die each year from testing and experimentation.

How To Stop Animal Testing

Consumers and legislators are beginning to make change for animals trapped in laboratories. By increasing demand for cruelty-free products and increasing legal protections, animal testing victims may enjoy a brighter future ahead.

Alternatives To Animal Testing

Scientists are making remarkable progress in developing more effective and compassionate alternatives to animal testing. These options offer hope for tens of thousands of research subjects currently trapped in cages.

In Vitro Testing

Tests on human cells and tissues outside of a living organism, often known as in vitro testing , can yield fast and affordable results. Some studies suggest in vitro testing is also a highly effective option when compared to animal experimentation.

Bioprinting

Bioprinting can utilize computer models to produce lab-grown tissue, including bones, hearts and skin. This 3D printing technology, combined with the conditions to foster regenerative cell growth, can create organs that can imitate the behaviors found in the human body.

Human Tissues

Another option for experimentation is the utilization of donated human tissues following biopsies, transplants, cosmetic surgeries, or deaths, for use in clinical trials. This tissue more closely reflects human biology than the bodies of mice, rats, and other animals.

Research Using Human Volunteers

Research using human volunteers poses serious equity concerns, but holds promise for highly reliable results. Modern medicine has a troubling history of taking advantage of marginalized communities for harmful medical research (that does not benefit the testing subjects of their community). However, it's possible that human testing with less invasive, nontoxic products could offer financial benefits to subjects with few serious risks.

Your Role in a Cruelty-Free Future

Hidden out of sight from the general population, animal experimentation takes the lives of millions of animals each year—but you can help to end this cruelty. You play a critical role with every dollar you spend. Whether you're buying soap, shampoo, makeup or household cleaner, look closely and make sure you're choosing products that have not been tested on animals. Some well-known brands that are cruelty free include Aveda, E.L.F., and Tom's of Maine, among hundreds of others . Your choices can support the momentum towards a world free from needless animal suffering. By leveraging the power of consumer choice, legislative action, and technological advances, a future without animal testing is possible.

If you care about animals, you can join the movement to create a more compassionate future for all species—a future where no animal has to suffer within the confines of a cage. Check out our Fast Action Network for quick easy actions you can take to make an impact for animals everywhere, every day.

More like this

This World Egg Day, We Should Celebrate the Hen—Not the Egg

On World Egg Day, the chicken should come first.

How Many Eggs Does a Chicken Lay a Day?

A hen’s closest wild ancestor, the red junglefowl, will produce 10-15 eggs in a year. A commercial egg-laying hen on a factory farm can produce around 300.

• Toggle navigation
• OneGreenPlanet Animals

Search By Post Type

Search by post category.

• Autoimmune Health
• Budget Friendly Guides
• Collections
• Contest Winner
• Eating Out Guides
• Grow / Harvest
• Heart Health
• Holiday and Festival Guides
• Human Interest
• Ingredient Guides
• International Cooking Guides
• Mental Health & Wellness
• Plant-Based Nutrition
• Plant-Based Protein Guides
• Plant-Based Recipe Roundups
• Plant-Based Strength
• Popular Trends
• Quick & Easy
• Take Action! Sign These Petitions
• Tips & Hacks
• Uncategorized
• Whole Foods

Get thousands of vegan, allergy-friendly recipes in the palm of your hands today!

Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox, 7 real world examples that prove animal testing harms humans, by animal defenders international.

Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Every year, hundreds of millions of animals, including dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, rabbits, mice, and rats, live in factory farm conditions and endure pain and suffering in laboratory experiments.

In one lab, investigated by ADI , stress alone of being strapped into restraint chairs before tests caused monkeys to rectally prolapse.  ADI exposed labs where rats were pushed into tubes and forced to inhale paint until they suffocated. At another lab, monkeys had holes drilled in their skulls and bolts, electrodes, and metal plates screwed into them. In many countries, including the US and China, cosmetics tests on animals are still permitted.

But as well as being cruel, animal testing is fundamentally flawed, due to species differences – the way that animal species are physiologically different and respond in different ways substances. Substances that are safe in monkeys or mice can be lethal to humans.

Here are seven times when animal testing has led to confusion and failure:

An anti-inflammatory drug, used to treat pain from arthritis, had been tested safe at least eight different animal studies , with species including African green monkeys.  But the effects in humans were catastrophic, causing a huge number of cardiovascular problems. It has been reported that 88-140,000 extra heart attacks may have been caused by Vioxx in the five years following its introduction.   None of these effects were seen in animals. Vioxx is estimated to have killed 60,000 people.

2. Tamoxifen

Tamoxifen is one of the oldest and most prescribed breast cancer drugs.  But it was originally patented as an oral contraceptive – which it is in rats. Unfortunately, in women it has completely the opposite effect , actually making them more fertile!  Today it is used as hormone therapy in breast cancer patients, acting as an anti-oestrogen, intercepting the hormone before it reaches its active site to promote cancer growth. In mice – the most commonly used animal in cancer research – Tamoxifen has the opposite effect behaving as an oestrogen. In experiments on rats, it has caused liver cancer ! Despite all of this confusion, human clinical studies ensured its successful use in humans.

3. Blood transfusions delayed over 200 years

Animal experiments took place as long ago as the 1600s , but led to blood transfusions from animals to people and deaths of recipients. Test tube methods, however, discovered that blood took up oxygen and identified certain salts that could prevent clotting. The 19 th century saw animal experiments spreading more confusion, including the that the addition of sodium citrate to prevent clotting was unsafe. Years later, in 1914, clinical researchers studying human blood in the test tube revealed this to be false, laying the foundations of the modern blood bank. While animal experiments had made blood transfusions appear lethal, it was the clinical discovery of the blood groups that made it safe.  All of the key discoveries were made either in clinical studies or using test tube methods and blood transfusions have gone on to save millions of lives.

4. Fialuridine

A clinical trial for a new Hepatitis B vaccine ended in tragedy when patients developed severe toxicity, with five people out of the 15 in the trial dying . Two others were likely saved only by having liver transplants. The vaccine was tested on dogs, rats, and monkeys , who did not suffer any similar effects.  

The heart drug Eraldin was thoroughly studied in animals and satisfied the regulatory authorities’ requirements. However, when humans began taking the drug, thousands became seriously ill, experiencing severe effects such as growths, stomach troubles, joint pain, and even blindness. None of these effects were detected in the animal trials. The drug ended up being withdrawn from the market.

Avandia, a diabetes drug, was suspended across Europe after data showed that its benefits no longer outweighed the risks . About 90,000 patients in Britain alone had been taking the drug, but there has been growing evidence of an increased risk of heart attack or stroke. These effects were not shown when Avandia was tested on rats – in fact, it had the opposite effect , protecting their hearts from damage.

TGN1412 was an experimental drug that caused human volunteers to suffer serious, permanent, and life-threatening damage within two hours of taking it. Prior to the human trials, the drug was tested in monkeys at 500 times the human dose; the monkeys did not experience the side effects suffered by the humans. Several studies regarding TGN1412 have highlighted the crucial differences between the human and monkey immune systems.

Ethical Alternatives Are the Way To Go

Animal experimenters try to lay claim to almost every medical advance, yet animal research represents on a fraction of medical research, and there is a long history of clinical medical discoveries without animal experiments, including life-saving drugs, surgical techniques, and causes of disease – studying people, their environment and lifestyle, showed the breakthrough links between smoking and cancer, and causes of heart disease.

Animal testing is an unreliable and misleading way to predict outcomes in human beings.  There are numerous alternatives available , that provide data of direct relevance to our species , including human tissue models, bioprinting 3D organ models, using computer modeling, and, of course, using modern imaging and other techniques to study human patients.

Related Content:

• Why Are Beagles Used for Lab Experiments? A Look Back at the Nuclear History of This Dog Breed
• 10 Groundbreaking Alternatives to Animal Testing
• Thousands of Puppies Harmed Due to Outdated FDA Policy
• This International Rabbit Day Pledge to Live Cruelty-Free, End Animal Testing and Support the Humane Cosmetics Act!
• Bipartisan Bill to Connect Retired Government Lab Animals With Adopted Homes
• Rand Paul Calls Out Wasteful Spending of U.S. Taxpayer Money on Animal Testing
• Stop Horrifying Lab Experiments that Damage Monkey Brains With Acid
• Dog Breeders are Selling Unwanted Puppies to Animal Testing Labs
• Various Animal Testing Violations Found at Government Labs
• 5 Extremely Unnecessary and Inhumane Experiments Done on Animals
• New Bill Introduced to End FDA Dog Testing
• Veterans Affairs Under Fire For Spending Over $8 Million in Taxpayer Money on Horrific Cat Experiments for Medical Research
• How Outdated FDA Drug Testing Rules Hurt Puppies, Patients and Pharma Companies

For more Animal, Earth, Life, Vegan Food, Health, and Recipe content published daily, subscribe to the  One Green Planet Newsletter ! Lastly, being publicly-funded gives us a greater chance to continue providing you with high-quality content. Please consider  supporting us  by donating!

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Cancel reply

You must be Login to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

hello again

Cruelty Free International

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

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Types of animal testing

Types of animal testing

Animals are suffering and dying in a range of cruel tests

Basic research

Basic biological research constitutes the most common use of animals in experiments around the world. These experiments are designed to answer ‘interesting’ scientific questions that animal researchers speculate might be useful medically in the future. It does not involve the testing of new medicines for humans or other animals and is conducted entirely on a voluntary basis.

This type of curiosity-driven research is often carried out by universities and some examples include recreational drug research, psychology experiments and the development of ’animal models’ of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

The likelihood of such speculative research actually leading to advances in human medicine is very slim. One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently,  we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 ‘breakthroughs’ had been realized in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Genetically modifying animals

The use of genetically modified animals (GM) has been an increasing trend for the last 30 years and while the sheer scale of GM animal use is difficult to determine, it is clearly responsible for year on year increases in animal numbers worldwide.

Mice and other animals are being bred with specific genes ‘knocked out (deleted)’ or ‘knocked in (inserted)’ into the cells of their bodies.  Researchers focus on genes that may be relevant in human medical conditions.

Far from being harmless tests, suffering has been acknowledged at every step of the GM process. For example, many of the animals die while they are still babies because the defect they have is so severe. It is also an extremely wasteful process as a huge number of animals are often needed to produce just one specific type of GM animal who carries the desired traits.

Experiments using GM animals are unable to fully mimic complex human diseases, particularly those like cancers and heart disease that are more commonly caused by lifestyle and environmental factors, rather than genetics.

Regulatory testing

Regulatory testing is standardised testing designed to see if medicines, chemicals (including paints, dyes, inks, petrol products, solvents, tars and waste materials), pesticides, biocides, food additives, cosmetics and other products are safe for use, and that they do their job effectively.

In these experiments, animals are forced to eat or inhale substances, or have them rubbed onto their skin or injected into their bodies. The animals are then subjected to further monitoring and testing before almost always being killed, so that researchers can look at the effects on their tissues and organs.

Cruelty Free International is successfully encouraging regulators to delete tests that are no longer required from legislation and guidelines, and to adopt non-animal methods that have shown to be safe and effective.

However, progress remains slow and much more needs to be done. For example, hundreds of thousands of animals continue to be used worldwide for tests where there are available non-animal methods.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous.

Arguments against animal testing

subtitle: Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous.

Science Publications

• Back to Previous Menu
• Animals in Laboratories

Animal Testing

Be cruelty-free campaign, biomedical research.

• Animal Protection & Crisis Response
• Abuse/Neglect
• Cruelty in Entertainment
• Disaster Response
• Companion Animals
• Companion Animal Welfare
• Dog and Cat Meat Trade
• Dogfighting
• Horse Protection
• Farm Animals
• Animal Agriculture and Climate Change
• Factory Farming
• Plant-Based Eating
• Human-Wildlife Coexistence
• Rhino and Elephant Protection
• Seal Slaughter
• Shark Finning
• Trophy Hunting
• Wildlife Trade
• Other Ways We Help
• Education and Training
• Legislation/Political Advocacy
• Policy and Treaties
• How You Can Help
• Ways to Give
• Donate Monthly
• Donate Once
• Leave a Gift in Your Will
• Give in Honor of Someone
• Workplace Giving
• Give Stocks or Bonds
• Get Involved
• Take Action
• Our Leadership
• Where We Work
• Financial Information
• News and Resources
• Media Contacts
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

About Animal Testing

Humane Society International / Global

What is animal testing?

The term “animal testing” refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals. All procedures, even those classified as “mild,” have the potential to cause the animals physical as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in subsequent experiments. Here is a selection of common animal procedures:

• Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc.
• Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death
• Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or “knocking out” of one or more genes
• Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification
• Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination
• Prolonged periods of physical restraint
• Food and water deprivation
• Surgical procedures followed by recovery
• Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing
• Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment
• Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming
• Other manipulations to create “animal models” of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression
• Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means

What types of animals are used?

Many different species are used around the world, but the most common include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, and non-human primates (monkeys, and in some countries, chimpanzees). Video: Watch what scientists have to say about alternatives to animal testing .

It is estimated that more than 115 million animals worldwide are used in laboratory experiments every year. But because only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for testing and research, the precise number is unknown. For example, in the United States, up to 90 percent of the animals used in laboratories (purpose-bred rats, mice and birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates) are excluded from the official statistics, meaning that figures published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are no doubt a substantial underestimate.

Within the European Union, more than 12 million animals are used each year, with France, Germany and the United Kingdom being the top three animal using countries. British statistics reflect the use of more than 3 million animals each year, but this number does not include animals bred for research but killed as “surplus” without being used for specific experimental procedures. Although these animals still endure the stresses and deprivation of life in the sterile laboratory environment, their lives are not recorded in official statistics. HSI believes that complete transparency about animal use is vital and that all animals bred, used or killed for the research industry should be included in official figures. See some animal use statistics .

What’s wrong with animal testing?

For nearly a century, drug and chemical safety assessments have been based on laboratory testing involving rodents, rabbits, dogs, and other animals. Aside from the ethical issues they pose—inflicting both physical pain as well as psychological distress and suffering on large numbers of sentient creatures—animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions. Similarly, health scientists are increasingly questioning the relevance of research aimed at “modelling” human diseases in the laboratory by artificially creating symptoms in other animal species.

Trying to mirror human diseases or toxicity by artificially creating symptoms in mice, dogs or monkeys has major scientific limitations that cannot be overcome. Very often the symptoms and responses to potential treatments seen in other species are dissimilar to those of human patients. As a consequence, nine out of every 10 candidate medicines that appear safe and effective in animal studies fail when given to humans. Drug failures and research that never delivers because of irrelevant animal models not only delay medical progress, but also waste resources and risk the health and safety of volunteers in clinical trials.

What’s the alternative?

If lack of human relevance is the fatal flaw of “animal models,” then a switch to human-relevant research tools is the logical solution. The National Research Council in the United States has expressed its vision of “a not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines”, and science leaders around the world have echoed this view.

The sequencing of the human genome and birth of functional genomics, the explosive growth of computer power and computational biology, and high-speed robot automation of cell-based (in vitro) screening systems, to name a few, has sparked a quiet revolution in biology. Together, these innovations have produced new tools and ways of thinking that can help uncover exactly how chemicals and drugs disrupt normal processes in the human body at the level of cells and molecules. From there, scientists can use computers to interpret and integrate this information with data from human and population-level studies. The resulting predictions regarding human safety and risk are potentially more relevant to people in the real world than animal tests.

But that’s just the beginning. The wider field of human health research could benefit from a similar shift in paradigm. Many disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research. Some 300 million people currently suffer from asthma, yet only two types of treatment have become available in the last 50 years. More than a thousand potential drugs for stroke have been tested in animals, but only one of these has proved effective in patients. And it’s the same story with many other major human illnesses. A large-scale re-investment in human-based (not mouse or dog or monkey) research aimed at understanding how disruptions of normal human biological functions at the levels of genes, proteins and cell and tissue interactions lead to illness in our species could advance the effective treatment or prevention of many key health-related societal challenges of our time.

Modern non-animal techniques are already reducing and superseding experiments on animals, and in European Union, the “3Rs” principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments is a legal requirement. In most other parts of the world there is currently no such legal imperative, leaving scientists free to use animals even where non-animal approaches are available.

If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?

Despite this growing evidence that it is time for a change, effecting that change within a scientific community that has relied for decades on animal models as the “default method” for testing and research takes time and perseverance. Old habits die hard, and globally there is still a lack of knowledge of and expertise in cutting-edge non-animal techniques.

But with HSI’s help, change is happening. We are leading efforts globally to encourage scientists, companies and policy-makers to transition away from animal use in favour of 21st century methods. Our work brings together experts from around the globe to share knowledge and best practice, improving the quality of research by replacing animals in the laboratory.

Are animal experiments needed for medical progress?

It is often argued that because animal experiments have been used for centuries, and medical progress has been made in that time, animal experiments must be necessary. But this is missing the point. History is full of examples of flawed or basic practices and ideas that were once considered state-of-the-art, only to be superseded years later by something far more sophisticated and successful. In the early 1900’s, the Wright brothers’ invention of the airplane was truly innovative for its time, but more than a century later, technology has advanced so much that when compared to the modern jumbo jet those early flying machines seem quaint and even absurd. Those early ideas are part of aviation history, but no-one would seriously argue that they represent the cutting-edge of design or human achievement. So it is with laboratory research. Animal experiments are part of medical history, but history is where they belong. Compared to today’s potential to understand the basis of human disease at cellular and molecular levels, experimenting on live animals seems positively primitive. So if we want better quality medical research, safer more effective pharmaceuticals and cures to human diseases, we need to turn the page in the history books and embrace the new chapter—21st century science.

Independent scientific reviews demonstrate that research using animals correlates very poorly to real human patients. In fact, the data show that animal studies fail to predict real human outcomes in 50 to 99.7 percent of cases. This is mainly because other species seldom naturally suffer from the same diseases as found in humans. Animal experiments rely on often uniquely human conditions being artificially induced in non-human species. While on a superficial level they may share similar symptoms, fundamental differences in genetics, physiology and biochemistry can result in wildly different reactions to both the illness and potential treatments. For some areas of disease research, overreliance on animal models may well have delayed medical progress rather than advanced it. By contrast, many non-animal replacement methods such as cell-based studies, silicon chip biosensors, and computational systems biology models, can provide faster and more human-relevant answers to medical and chemical safety questions that animal experiments cannot match.

“The claim that animal experimentation is essential to medical development is not supported by proper, scientific evidence but by opinion and anecdote. Systematic reviews of its effectiveness don’t support the claims made on its behalf” (Pandora Pound et al. British Medical Journal 328, 514-7, 2004).

You can help: Sign the global pledge to Be Cruelty-Free

Donate to help animals suffering in labs and other cruel situations, discover more.

Imagine a syringe being forced down your throat to inject a chemical into your stomach, or being restrained and forced to breathe sickening vapours for hours. That’s the cruel reality of animal testing for millions of mice, rabbits, dogs and other animals worldwide.

We’re giving the beauty industry a cruelty-free makeover with a wave of animal testing bans supported by hundreds of companies and millions of caring consumers worldwide.

We all dream of the day when cancer is cured and AIDS is eradicated, but is the continued use of mice, monkeys and other animals as experimental “models” of human disease actually holding us back from realizing the promise of 21st century science?

Learn More Button Inserter

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988.

Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

1 Introduction

Animal experimentation has been a part of biomedical and behavioral research for several millennia; experiments with animals were conducted in Greece over 2,000 years ago. Many advances in medicine and in the understanding of how organisms function have been the direct result of animal experimentation.

Concern over the welfare of laboratory animals is also not new, as reflected in the activities of various animal welfare and antivivisectionist groups dating back to the nineteenth century. This concern has led to laws and regulations governing the use of animals in research and to various guides and statements of principle designed to ensure humane treatment and use of laboratory animals.

• Historical Background

Use of Animals in Research

Some of the earliest recorded studies involving animals were performed by Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), who revealed anatomical differences among animals by dissecting them (Rowan, 1984). The Greek physician Galen (A.D. 129–199) maintained that experimentation led to scientific progress and is said to have been the first to conduct demonstrations with live animals–specifically pigs–a practice later extended to other species and termed ''vivisection'' (Loew, 1982). However, it was not until the sixteenth century that many experiments on animals began to be recorded. In 1628, William Harvey published his work on the heart and the movement of blood in animals (French, 1975). In the 1800s, when France became one of the leading centers of experimental biology and medicine—marked by the work of such scientists as François Magendie in experimental physiology, Claude Bernard in experimental medicine, and Louis Pasteur in microbiology and immunology—investigators regularly used animals in biomedical research (McGrew, 1985).

Research in biology progressed at an increasing pace starting around 1850, with many of the advances resulting from experiments involving animals. Helmholtz studied the physical and chemical activities associated with the nerve impulse; Virchow developed the science of cellular pathology, which led the way to a more rational understanding of disease processes; Pasteur began the studies that led to immunization for anthrax and inoculation for rabies; and Koch started a long series of studies that would firmly establish the germ theory of disease. Lister performed the first antiseptic surgery in 1878, and Metchnikoff discovered the antibacterial activities of white blood cells in 1884. The first hormone was extracted in 1902. Ehrlich developed a chemical treatment for syphilis in 1909, and laboratory tissue culture began in 1910. By 1912, nutritional deficiencies were sufficiently well understood to allow scientists to coin the word "vitamin." In 1920, Banting and Best isolated insulin, which led to therapy for diabetes mellitus. After 1920, the results of science-based biological research and their medical applications followed so rapidly and in such numbers that they cannot be catalogued here.

Concerns Over Animal Use

The first widespread opposition to the use of animals in research was expressed in the nineteenth century. Even before this, however, concern had arisen about the treatment of farm animals. The first piece of legislation to forbid cruelty to animals was adopted by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641 and stated that "No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty towards any brute creatures which are usually kept for man's use" (Stone, 1977). In England, Martin's Act was enacted in 1822 to provide protection for farm animals. In 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was founded to ensure that this act was observed. In 1865, Henry Bergh brought the SPCA idea to America (Turner, 1980).

He was motivated not by the use of animals in research but by the ill-treatment of horses that he observed in czarist Russia.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, concerns for the welfare of farm animals expanded to include animals used in scientific research. The antivivisectionist movement in England, which sought to abolish the use of animals in research, became engaged in large-scale public agitation in 1870, coincident with the development of experimental physiology and the rapid growth of biomedical research. In 1876, a royal commission appointed to investigate vivisection issued a report that led to enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act. The act did not abolish all animal experimentation, as desired by the antivivisection movement. Rather, it required experimenters to be licensed by the government for experiments that were expected to cause pain in vertebrates.

As animal experimentation increased in the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, animal sympathizers in this country also became alarmed. The first American antivivisectionist society was founded in Philadelphia in 1883, followed by the formation of similar societies in New York in 1892 and Boston in 1895. Like their predecessors in England, these groups sought to abolish the use of animals in biomedical research, but they were far less prominent or influential than the major animal-protection societies, such as the American SPCA, the Massachusetts SPCA, and the American Humane Association (Turner, 1980).

Unsuccessful in its efforts toward the end of the nineteenth century to abolish the use of laboratory animals (Cohen and Loew, 1984), the antivivisectionist movement declined in the early twentieth century. However, the animal welfare movement remained active, and in the 1950s and 1960s its increasing strength led to federal regulation of animal experimentation. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985. Similar laws have been enacted in other countries to regulate the treatment of laboratory animals (Hampson, 1985).

Concern over the welfare of animals used in research has made itself felt in other ways. In 1963, the Animal Care Panel drafted a document that is now known as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 1985a). As discussed in Chapter 5 , the Guide is meant to assist institutions in caring for and using laboratory animals in ways judged to be professionally and humanely appropriate. Many professional societies and public and private research institutions have also issued guidelines and statements on the humane use of animals; for example, the American Physiological Society, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Psychological Association.

• Present Situation

Despite the long history of concern with animal welfare, the treatment and use of experimental animals remain controversial. In recent years a great expansion of biomedical and behavioral research has occurred. Simultaneously, there has been increased expression of concern over the use of animals in research. Wide publicity of several cases involving the neglect and misuse of experimental animals has sensitized people to the treatment of laboratory animals. Societal attitudes have also changed, as a spirit of general social concern and a strong belief that humans have sometimes been insensitive to the protection of the environment have contributed to an outlook in which the use of animals is a subject of concern.

Of course, any indifference to the suffering of animals properly gives rise to legitimate objections. From time to time some few members of the scientific community have been found to mistreat or inadequately care for research animals. Such actions are not acceptable. Maltreatment and improper care of animals used in research cannot be tolerated by the scientific establishment. Individuals responsible for such behavior must be subject to censure by their peers. Out of this concern that abuse be prevented, organizations have emerged to monitor how laboratory animals are being treated, and government agencies and private organizations have adopted regulations governing animal care and use.

Discussions about laboratory animal use have also been influenced in recent years by the emergence of groups committed to a concept termed "animal rights." Some of these groups oppose all use of animals for human benefit and any experimentation that is not intended primarily for the benefit of the individual animals involved. Their view recognizes more than the traditional interdependent connections between humans and animals: It reflects a belief that animals, like humans, have "inherent rights" (Regan, 1983; Singer, 1975).

Their use of the term "rights" in connection with animals departs from its customary usage or common meaning. In Western history and culture, "rights" refers to legal and moral relationships among the members of a community of humans; it has not been applied to other entities (Cohen, 1986). Our society does, however, acknowledge that living things have inherent value. In practice, that value imposes an ethical obligation on scientists to minimize pain and distress in laboratory animals.

Our society is influenced by two major strands of thought: the Judeo-Christian heritage and the humanistic tradition rooted in Greek philosophy. The dominance of humans is accepted in both traditions. The Judeo-Christian notion of dominance is reflected in the passage in the Bible that states (Genesis 1:26):

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

However, the Judeo-Christian heritage also insists that dominance be attended by responsibility. Power used appropriately must be used with the morality of caring. The uniqueness of humans, most philosophers agree, lies in our ability to make moral choices. We have the option to decide to dominate animals, but we also have a mandate to make choices responsibly to comply with the obligations of stewardship.

From tradition and practice it is clear that society accepts the idea of a hierarchy of species in its attitudes toward and its regulation of the relationships between humans and the other animal species. For example, animals as different as nonhuman primates, dogs, and cats are given special consideration as being "closer" to humans and are treated differently from rodents, reptiles, and rabbits.

Most individuals would agree that not all species of animals are equal and would reject the contention of animal rights advocates who argue that it is "speciesism" to convey special status to humans. Clearly, humans are different, in that humans are the only species able to make moral judgments, engage in reflective thought, and communicate these thoughts. Because of this special status, humans have felt justified to use animals for food and fiber, for personal use, and in experimentation. As indicated earlier, however, these uses of animals by humans carry with them the responsibility for stewardship of the animals.

Several recent surveys have examined public opinion about the use of laboratory animals in scientific experimentation (Doyle Dane Bernbach, 1983; Media General, 1985; Research Strategies Corp., 1985). Most of the people interviewed want to see medical research continued, even at the expense of animals' lives. Beyond that, people's thoughts about animal use depend on the particular species used and/or on the research problem being addressed. Almost all people support the experimental use of rodents. Support for the use of dogs, cats, and monkeys is less, and people clearly would prefer that rodents be used instead. Most people polled believe that animals used in research are treated humanely.

The next two chapters examine the ways in which animals are used in the United States and the benefits that have been derived from the use of experimental animal. After a discussion of alternative methods in the use of laboratory animals ( Chapter 4 ), the report discusses the regulatory issues surrounding animal use ( Chapter 5 ) and the use of animals from pounds and shelters ( Chapter 6 ). Chapter 7 contains the committee's recommendations.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988. 1, Introduction.
• PDF version of this title (664K)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Introduction - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research Introduction - Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

We use cookies to help our site work, to understand how it is used, and to tailor ads that are more relevant to you and your interests.

By accepting, you agree to cookies being stored on your device. You can view details and manage settings at any time on our cookies policy page.

Examples of animals being used for research

In 2020, 2,065,562 mice were used within the UK for experimental purpose of procedures (including creation and breeding), this represents 73.4 per cent of the overall animals used. Their short life span and fast reproductive rate, makes it possible to investigate biological processes in many subjects, at all stages of the life cycle. 

The mouse makes an excellent model for human disease because the organisation of their DNA and their gene expression is similar to humans, with ninety-eight per cent of human genes having a comparable gene in the mouse. They have similar reproductive and nervous systems to humans, and suffer from many of the same diseases such as cancer, diabetes and even anxiety. Manipulating their genes can lead them to develop other diseases that do not naturally affect them, and as a result research on mice has helped the understanding of both human physiology and the causes of disease.

Mice are used in a vast range of experiments, many of which are classified as fundamental research, investigating the physiology of mammals. Inbred strains of mice were used as disease models, long before the mouse genome project and transgenics. There are a large number of laboratory strains available, and their long breeding history means that mice of a single laboratory strain are isogenic. This is useful in experiments, as it reduces natural variation between subjects. Some inbred strains are used for their predisposition to certain mutations or genetic diseases, while others are used for their general health and resistance to mutatations.

In 2020 207,997 rats were used within the UK for experimental purpose of procedures (including creation and breeding), this represents 7.4 per cent of the overall animals used.

The laboratory rat has made invaluable contributions to the cardiovascular medicine, neural regeneration, wound healing, diabetes, transplantation, behavioural studies and space motion sickness research. Rats have also been widely used to test drug efficacy and safety.

The genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat was unveiled on 1 April 2004.Almost 200 years after the brown rat (r attus norvegicus) , was first used by scientists to understand human physiology and medicine, with early studies concentrating on the effects of food and oxygen deprivation. Mazes to test rat intelligence were first built 100 years ago and the first albino Wistar rats were bred soon after. Since then the rat has become almost a byword for laboratory experimentation. The first knockout and cloned rats were produced recently, and new techniques for creating transgenic rats were announced last year, allowing powerful models of human diseases to be developed.

The rodent's DNA was deciphered and analysed by a collaborative network of researchers, known as the Rat Genome Sequencing Project Consortium, led by the US Baylor College of Medicine. To achieve its goal of producing a high-quality draft sequence, the Consortium developed a new, "combined" approach that used both whole genome shotgun (WGS) and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clone sequencing techniques. To merge these into the final draft sequence, they developed a software package for genome assembly.

The sequence is a high-quality draft of 2.75 billion bases that covers 90 per cent of the genome. It is the third mammalian genome to be decoded, allowing three-way comparisons to be made with the human and mouse genomes. The rat genome is smaller than its human equivalent, but larger than that of the mouse. All three encode a similar number of genes - between 25,000 and 30,000. The new information should enable researchers to determine which characteristics are specific to rodents and which are shared by all mammals.

Around 10 per cent of the rat's genes are both shared with the mouse and absent in humans, including some that code for olfactory proteins. This may explain rodents' exceptional sense of smell. Rats have more genes for breaking down toxins than man. This means that rats may be better at removing toxins from their bodies than humans, so it may be possible to refine the use of rats in toxicology. There are significant distinctions, also, in the genes of the immune system.

Almost all disease-linked human genes have counterparts in the rat.

In 2020 11,332 Rabbits were used within the UK for experimental purpose of procedures (including creation and breeding), this represents 0.4 per cent of the overall animals used. 

The general physiology of rabbits is similar to that of humans, and like mice and rats, rabbits suffer from many diseases with human equivalents.

Young rabbits often die from a disease called mucoid enteritis, which resembles cystic fibrosis and cholera. Rabbits are therefore used as models which can contribute to our understanding of these illnesses.

Historically, Louis Pasteur used rabbits to develop his rabies vaccine and the rabbit has been important in the study of cardiovascular disease, particularly hypertension and atherosclerosis.

Studies in rabbits are key to many aspects of medical research, including cancer, glaucoma, ear infections, eye infections, skin conditions, diabetes and emphysema.