animal cruelty research project

Extending Animal Cruelty Protections to Scientific Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

INTRODUCTION

On November 25, 2019, the federal law H.R. 724 – the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) prohibiting the intentional harm of “living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians” was signed. [1] This law was a notable step in extending protections, rights, and respect to animals. While many similar state laws existed, the passing of a federal law signaled a new shift in public tone. PACT is a declaration of growing societal sentiments that uphold the necessity to shield our fellow creatures from undue harm. Protecting animals from the harm of citizens is undoubtedly important, but PACT does nothing to protect animals from state-sanctioned harm, particularly in the form of research, which causes death and cruelty. It is time to extend and expand protections for animals used in research.

There is a long history of animal experimentation in the US, but no meaningful ethical protections of animals emerged until the 20 th century. Proscription of human experimentation and dissection led to animals bearing the brunt of harm for scientific and medical progress. For instance, English physician William Harvey discovered the heart did not continuously produce blood but instead recirculated it; he made this discovery by dissecting and bleeding out living dogs without anesthesia. [2] Experiments like this were considered ethically tenable for hundreds of years. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, and Rene Descartes held that humans have no primary moral obligations to animals and that one should be concerned about the treatment of an animal only because it could indicate how one would treat a human. [3] During the 20 th century, as agriculture became more industrialized and government funding for animal research increased, the social demand for ethical regulations finally began to shift. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (Public Law 89-544) marked the first American federal legislation to protect laboratory animals, setting standards for use of animals in research. [4]

There has been progress in the field of animal research ethics since Harvey’s experiments, but much work remains. In the US alone, there are an estimated 20 million mice, fish, birds, and invertebrates used for animal research each year that are not regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. [5] Instead, the “3Rs Alternatives” approach (“reduce, replace, and refine”) [6] is one framework used to guide ethical treatment of animals not covered by federal protections. Unfortunately, unpacking the meaning and details of this approach only leads to ambiguity and minimal actionable guidance. For instance, an experimenter could reduce the number of animals used in research but subsequently increase the number of experiments conducted on the remaining animals. Replace could be used in the context of replacing one species with another. Refining is creating “any decrease in the severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals, which still have to be used.” [7] The vague “ any ” implies that even a negligible minimization would be ethically acceptable. [8] An experimenter could technically follow each of the “3Rs” with minimal to no reduction in harm to the animals. One must also consider whether it is coherent to refer to guidelines as ethical when they inevitably produce pain, suffering, and death as consequences of research participation.

Other ethical guides like Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in Regulatory Testing [9] encourage researchers to euthanize animals that undergo intractable pain or distress. This is a fate that an estimated one million animals face yearly in the US. [10] However, to use the word “humane” in this context contradicts the traditional meaning and undermines the integrity of the word. Taking living creatures, forcing them to experience intractable pain and suffering for human benefit, and killing them is the antithesis of what it means to be humane. During one of my Animal Ethics classes as a graduate student, our cohort visited an animal research facility to help inform our opinions on animal research. We observed one of the euthanasia chambers for lab mice – an enclosed metal lab bench with a sign above describing methods for euthanasia if CO 2 asphyxiation were to fail. The methods included decapitation, removal of vital organs, opening of the chest cavity, incision of major blood vessels, and cervical dislocation. [11] Behind us were rows and rows of see-through shoebox-sized containers housing five mice in each little box. Thousands of mice were packed together in this room for the sole purpose of breeding. If the mice were not the correct “type” for research, then they were “humanely” euthanized. “Humane,” in this context, has been deprived of its true meaning.

One can acknowledge that animal research was historically necessary for scientific progress, but those that currently claim these practices are still required must show empirically and undoubtedly this is true. As of now, this is not a settled issue. In the scientific community, there is contention about whether current animal research is actually applicable to humans. [12] Many drug researchers even view animal testing as a tedious barrier to development as it may be wholly irrelevant to the drug or medical device being tested. Since 1962, the FDA has required preclinical testing in animals; it is time to question whether this is necessary or helpful for drug development.

The scientific community should stop viewing animal testing as an unavoidable evil in the search for medical and technological innovation. PACT should be amended and extended to all animals and the FDA should modify the requirement for preclinical animal testing of all drugs and medical devices. It is time to encourage the scientific community to find alternative research methods that do not sacrifice our fellow animals. We use animals as test subjects because, in some sense, they resemble humans. But, if they are indeed like humans, they should receive similar protections. Science builds a better world for humans, but perhaps it is time for science to be more inclusive and build a better world for all creatures.

[1] Theodore E. Deutch, “Text - H.R.724 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act,” legislation, November 25, 2019, 2019/2020, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/724/text.

[2] Anita Guerrini, “Experiments, Causation, and the Uses of Vivisection in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the History of Biology 46, no. 2 (2013): 227–54.

[3] Bernard E. Rollin, “The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27, no. 4 (September 28, 2006): 285–304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8; Darian M Ibrahim, “A Return to Descartes: Property, Profit, and the Corporate Ownership of Animals,” LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 70 (n.d.): 28.

[4] Benjamin Adams and Jean Larson, “Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: Introduction | Animal Welfare Information Center| NAL | USDA,” accessed November 3, 2021, https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislative-history-animal-welfare-act-introduction.

[5] National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Patterns of Animal Use , Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Academies Press (US), 1988), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218261/.

[6] Robert C. Hubrecht and Elizabeth Carter, “The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change,” Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI 9, no. 10 (September 30, 2019): 754, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100754.

[7] Hubrecht and Carter.

[8] Hubrecht and Carter.                           

[9] William S. Stokes, “Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in Regulatory Testing,” ILAR Journal 43, no. Suppl_1 (January 1, 2002): S31–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.Suppl_1.S31.

[10] Stokes.

[11] “Euthanasia of Research Animals,” accessed April 21, 2022, https://services-web.research.uci.edu/compliance/animalcare-use/research-policies-and-guidance/euthanasia.html.

[12] Neal D. Barnard and Stephen R. Kaufman, “Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading,” Scientific American 276, no. 2 (1997): 80–82.

Chad Childers

MS Bioethics Candidate Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Skip to content

• Helping Shelters, People and Pets
• Investigations and Rescue
• Animal Care and Recovery
• Improving Laws for Animals
• The Puppy Industry
• Protecting Farm Animals
• Advancing Horse Welfare
• ASPCA Grants
• New York City
• Los Angeles
• Asheville, NC
• Oklahoma City, OK
• Ways to Give
• Get Involved
• Find More Humane Food
• Adopt a Pet
• Advocate for Animals
• Receive Text Updates

Primary Nav Menu

Search form, aspca announces new grant funding to support cutting-edge research to benefit animals.

NEW YORK, NY – The ASPCA ® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ® ) has announced more than $400,000 in grant funding available to U.S. and Canadian organizations to support research that either directly or systemically could benefit animals, with a focus on projects that examine cruelty, access to veterinary care, applied behavior, psychological trauma, and farm animal welfare. As the nation’s leading voice for animals for more than 150 years, the ASPCA is deeply committed to improving the lives of at-risk dogs, cats, equines, and farm animals across the United States, and research is a key element to understanding, informing, and taking action to address or improve animal welfare.

Millions of animals across the U.S. face challenges to their wellbeing each year, from cruelty to homelessness and lack of access to veterinary care, as well as those suffering on cruel factory farms. The ASPCA is reimagining how the animal welfare and veterinary fields can best serve animals, pet owners, and communities by dedicating its resources and expertise to the animals who need it most. To address some of the most urgent issues facing the animal welfare community, the ASPCA is seeking proposals for Research Grants in the following categories:

• Cruelty Research : Research that heightens awareness of animal cruelty and/or informs cruelty prevention and response, including projects that analyze the effectiveness of legislative and other policy measures.
• Access to Veterinary Care (AVC) Research : Research that addresses access to veterinary care that will establish tools or guidelines that professionals or organizations can use to improve access to care.
• Applied Behavior Research : Research that informs specific, evidence-based behavior protocols in shelters that lead to euthanasia.
• Psychological Trauma Research : Research related to developing novel approaches to the documentation of animal cruelty and neglect in the absence of physical trauma, with an emphasis on objective measures, including biomarkers and quantitative behavioral phenotyping.
• Farm Animal Welfare Research : Research related to animal welfare conditions in the largest U.S. poultry industries that produce broiler chickens, egg-laying hens, and turkeys.

“While the modern challenges facing animals are wide-ranging and complex, the ASPCA tackles these challenges head-on and in innovative ways, including providing vital veterinary care, responding to disasters, pioneering adoption and behavioral rehabilitation programs, conducting critical animal welfare research, training law enforcement and shelter professionals, educating consumers and the public, and advocating for more effective laws,” said Maya Gupta, senior director of research at the ASPCA . “The research funded by this grant program helps us gain more understanding of some of the biggest issues facing animals in our society, and has the potential to inform innovative strategies to improve the lives of animals and the people who care for them.”

“The funding we received from the ASPCA’s Research Grant helped us launch a new research arm at the University of Denver’s Institute for Human-Animal Connection, aimed at understanding community engagement practices within animal law enforcement,” said Kevin Morris, Executive Director of the Institute for Human-Animal Connection and 2023 research grant recipient. “Our new portfolio of quantitative and qualitative research is critical for informing policies that protect the health and well-being of pets and their families in all communities.”

Grant funding is only one of many ways the ASPCA supports organizations and communities across the country. The ASPCA is one of the nation’s largest animal welfare grant makers, and since 2001, the ASPCA has provided more than $200 million in grant funding to over 3,500 animal shelters, municipal and governmental agencies, rescue groups, universities and other mission-aligned organizations and programs nationwide. These funds support a variety of programs ranging from increasing pet adoptions to helping communities build strong programs that assist animals during natural disasters, improving access to veterinary care, and partnering with food banks to serve more than 4.3 million pet food meals since 2017. ASPCA research grants specifically have supported more than 40 organizations nationwide in conducting groundbreaking and thought-provoking research, with projects from past recipients that include: Market Access and Competition in the U.S. Veterinary Service Industry (Steinbach Consulting and Research LLC); Incorporating Video Telemedicine for Improved At-Home Management of Chronic Health Conditions in Cats: A Focus on Degenerative Joint Disease (University of California Davis); Reducing Kennel Reactivity in Shelter Housed Dogs (Arizona State University); Farm Animal PTSD (Farm Sanctuary).

Applications for the 2024 ASPCA Research Grants will be accepted from February 15-June 30, 2024, and the ASPCA Research Grants team will be hosting a one-hour open house on Thursday, February 29 th at 2:00 p.m. ET to answer questions related to the submission process and criteria. Proposals can come from investigators or research teams affiliated with U.S. public or private entities, as well as eligible Canadian organizations that can demonstrate the applicability of the research to improve the welfare of animals in the U.S. Proposals will be evaluated based on their significance and relevance, approach, potential impact, generalizability, credentials, and budget.

For more information about the eligibility requirements or to submit a proposal, please visit www.aspcapro.org/researchgrants . If your organization is interested in research but does not currently have the capacity to conduct formal research on its own, the ASPCA may be able to offer networking or guidance. To learn about ways to pursue your research ideas, please email [email protected] .

About the ASPCA ® Founded in 1866, the ASPCA ® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ® ) was the first animal welfare organization to be established in North America and today serves as the nation’s leading voice for vulnerable and victimized animals. As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation with more than two million supporters nationwide, the ASPCA is committed to preventing cruelty to dogs, cats, equines, and farm animals throughout the United States. The ASPCA assists animals in need through on-the-ground disaster and cruelty interventions, behavioral rehabilitation, animal placement, legal and legislative advocacy, and the advancement of the sheltering and veterinary community through research, training, and resources. For more information, visit www.ASPCA.org , and follow the ASPCA on Facebook , X , Instagram , and TikTok .

Other Ways to Help:

• Become a Monthly Member
• Join the Advocacy Brigade
• Volunteer or Foster

Share this page:

Traumatized Witnesses: Review of Childhood Exposure to Animal Cruelty

• Brief Report
• Published: 30 July 2019
• Volume 13 , pages 527–537, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Roshni Trehan Ladny 1 &
• Laura Meyer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5484-0249 2  

927 Accesses

8 Citations

37 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Aguirre, V., & Orihuela, A. (2010). Assessment of the impact of an animal welfare educational course with first grade children in rural schools in the state of Morelos, Mexico. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38 (1), 27–31.

Arbour, R., Signal, T., & Taylor, N. (2009). Teaching kindness: The promise of humane education. Society and Animals, 17 (2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853009X418073 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65 (3), 569–587.

Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13 (4), 354–373.

Baldry, A. C. (2003). Animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence in Italian youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 (3), 258–281.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34 (2), 163–175.

Becker, F., & French, L. (2004). Making the links: Child abuse, animal cruelty and domestic violence. Child Abuse Review, 12 , 399–414.

Becker, K. D., Stuewig, J., Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). A study of firesetting and animal cruelty in children: Family influences and adolescent outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43 (7), 905–912.

Berrend, P. (n.d.) The invisible rape of Europe . Retrieved from http://theinvisiblerapeofeurope.weebly.com/the-romanian-extermination-enterprise.html .

Braje, T. J. (2011). The human-animal experience in deep historical perspective. In T. J. Braje (Ed.), The psychology of the human-animal bond; a resource for clinicians and researchers (pp. 62–80). New York: Springer Science.

Google Scholar  

Browne, J. A., Hensley, C., & McGuffee, K. M. (2016). Does witnessing animal cruelty and being abused during childhood predict the initial age and recurrence of committing childhood animal cruelty? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology., 61 , 1850–1865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16644806 .

Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 (3), 298–310.

Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2008). Empathic correlates of witnessing the inhumane killing of an animal: An investigation of single and multiple exposures. Society & Animals, 16 (3), 243–255.

DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2009). Is animal cruelty a “red flag” for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 (6), 1036–1056.

DeViney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets within child abusing families. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 4 (4), 321–329

Dolby, N. (2017). Critical experiential education in the honors classroom: Animals, society, and education. Honors in Practice -- Online Archive, 260 , 70–88 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchchip/260 .

Dutton, D. G. (2000). Witnessing parental violence as a traumatic experience shaping the abusive personality. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 3 (1), 59–67.

European Union (2010). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Official journal of the European Union C83 (Vol. 53, p. 380). Brussels: European Union.

Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13 (2), 131–140.

Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2003). Domestic violence and animal cruelty: Untangling the web of abuse. Journal of Social Work Education, 39 (2), 237–253.

Faver, C. A. (2009). School-based humane education as a strategy to prevent violence: Review and recommendations. Children and Youth Services Review, 32 , 365–370.

Felthous, A. R., & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting, and cruelty to animals: The significance of two thirds of this triad. Journal of Forensic Science, 24 (1), 240–246.

Flynn, C. P. (1999). Animal abuse in childhood and later support for interpersonal violence in families. Society & Animals, 7 (2), 161–172.

Flynn, C. P. (2011). Examining the links between animal abuse and human violence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55 (5), 453–468.

Girardi, A., & Pozzulo, J. D. (2015). Childhood experiences with family pets and internalizing symptoms in early adulthood. Anthrozoös, 28 (3), 421–436.

Gullone, E. (2012). Animal cruelty, antisocial behaviour, and aggression: More than a link . Palgrave Macmillan.

Gullone, E., & Plant, M. (2014). Nothing happens in isolation. In The Invisible Rape of Europe , http://theinvisiblerapeofeurope.weebly.com/nothing-happens-in-isolation.html .

Gullone, E., & Robertson, N. (2008). The relationship between bullying and animal abuse behaviors in adolescents: The importance of witnessing animal abuse. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 , 371–379.

Henry, B. C. (2004). Exposure to animal abuse and group context: Two factors affecting participation in animal abuse. Anthrozoos, 17 (4), 290–305.

Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2005). Learning to be cruel?: Exploring the onset and frequency of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49 (1), 37–47.

Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32 (8), 797–810.

Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human relations, 38 (12), 1113–1129.

Larsen, K. (1982). An examination of the cases of 41 arsonists with a conclusion advocating reality therapy as opposed to individual therapy-Firesetting by children and youngsters. Skolepsykologi, 19 , 36–47.

Lockwood, R. (1998). Factors in the assessment of dangerousness in perpetrators of animal cruelty. Humane Society of the United States, Washington , DC.

Lucia, S., & Killias, M. (2011). Is animal cruelty a marker of interpersonal violence and delinquency? Results of a Swiss national self-report study. Psychology of Violence, 1 (2), 93–105.

McDonald, S. E., Graham-Bermann, S. A., Maternick, A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2016). Patterns of adjustment among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A person-centered approach. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 9 (2), 137–152.

McDonald, S. E., Cody, A. M., Collins, E. A., Stim, H. T., Nicotera, N., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017a). Concomitant exposure to animal maltreatment and socioemotional adjustment among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A mixed methods study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma , 1–13.

McDonald, S. E., Dmitrieva, J., Shin, S., Hitti, S. A., Graham-Bermann, S. A., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2017b). The role of callous/unemotional traits in mediating the association between animal abuse exposure and behavior problems among children exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72 , 421–432.

McPhedran, S. (2009). A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14 (1), 1–4.

Merz-Perez, L., Heide, K. M., & Silverman, I. J. (2001). Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45 (5), 556–573.

Miller, K. S., & Knutson, J. F. (1997). Reports of severe physical punishment and exposure to animal cruelty by inmates convicted of felonies and by university students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21 (1), 59–82.

Murrell, A. R., Merwin, R. M., Christoff, K. A., & Henning, K. R. (2005). When parents model violence: The relationship between witnessing weapon use as a child and later use as an adult. Behavior and Social Issues, 14 , 128–133.

Nicoll, K., Trifone, C., & Samuels, W. E. (2008). An in-class, humane education program can improve young students’ attitudes toward animals. Society and Animals, 16 , 45–60.

Pagani, C., Robustelli, F., & Ascione, F. R. (2008). Animal abuse experiences described by Italian school-aged children. In F. R. Ascione (Ed.), The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, research, and application (pp. 247–265). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Plant, M., van Schaik, P., Gullone, E., & Flynn, C. (2016). “It’s a Dog’s life”: Culture, empathy, gender, and domestic violence predict animal abuse in adolescents—Implications for societal health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0886260516659655 .

Reyes, C. L. (2016). Statistics and measurement of animal cruelty. In M. P. Brewster & C. L. Reyes (Eds.), Animal cruelty: A multidisciplinary approach to understanding, 2nd ed (pp. 141–156). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Riggs, D. W., Taylor, N., Fraser, H., Donovan, C., & Signal, T. (2018). The link between domestic violence and abuse and animal cruelty in the intimate relationships of people of diverse genders and/0r sexualities: A binational study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518771681 .

Tardif-Williams, C. Y., & Bosacki, S. L. (2015). Evaluating the impact of a humane education summer-camp program on school-aged children's relationships with companion animals. Anthrozoös, 28 (4), 587–600.

Tedeschi, P. (2014). The emergence of callous and unemotional traits in the developing child: Exposure to animal abuse as a form of psychological violence. In The Invisible Rape of Europe , http://theinvisiblerapeofeurope.weebly.com/the-emergence-of-callous-and-unemotional-traits-in-the-developing-child.html .

Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the association between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior toward animals. Society & Animals, 14 (3), 221–243.

Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Terrell, K., & Howard, M. O. (2009). Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43 , 1213–1218.

Volant, A. M., Johnson, J. A., Gullone, E., & Coleman, G. J. (2008). The relationship between domestic violence and animal abuse: An Australian study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (9), 1277–1295.

Voslarova, E., & Passantino, A. (2012). Stray dog and cat laws and enforcement in Czech Republic and Italy. Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanita, 48 (1), 97–104.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (1), 3–28.

Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 47 (1), 71–88.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mal Plant for his encouragement and his support of this work. Mal has always been a champion for those who cannot speak for themselves, and has been instrumental in developing the fundamentals of The Link in Eastern Europe. The authors would also like to extend their thanks to Eleonora Gullone, Ph.D., Phil Arkow and Daniel Maier-Katkin for reviewing the document draft and making a number of invaluable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, 33606-1490, USA

Roshni Trehan Ladny

Graduate School of Professional Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

Laura Meyer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roshni Trehan Ladny .

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards and Informed Consent

This paper did not involve the use of human subjects .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ladny, R.T., Meyer, L. Traumatized Witnesses: Review of Childhood Exposure to Animal Cruelty. Journ Child Adol Trauma 13 , 527–537 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-019-00277-x

Download citation

Published : 30 July 2019

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-019-00277-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Access to Veterinary Care
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Cruelty
• Shelter-Related

The ASPCA leads important studies of its direct-care and community-based programs and collaborates with partner agencies on assessing lifesaving models nationwide. An important part of this research effort is sharing results with the larger animal welfare field to improve the lives of animals and the people who care for them. View as list .

In this section

Research on access to veterinary care.

Discover research that helps keep people and pets together by increasing access to veterinary care through low-cost veterinary clinics and more treatment options for pets in need.

Animal Behavior Research

These studies will help you manage common dog and cat behavioral concerns. Use the research takeaways to improve animal welfare in your community.

Animal Cruelty Research

Learn about the ASPCA’s groundbreaking research on dogfighting, animal cruelty, and animal neglect.

Animal Shelter-Related Research

Animal welfare professionals serving dogs, cats, and horses can use this data-backed information to enhance fostering, adoption, relocation, and other programs.

Cruelty Free International

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

breadcrumb navigation:

• Latest news and updates /
• current page Levels of animal suffering continue to be poorly reported

Levels of animal suffering continue to be poorly reported

Published on 7 May 2024

Updated: 7 May 2024

The levels of suffering experienced by animals used in experiments continues to be poorly reported in public documents, our investigations have found.

Our newest research into the quality of Non-Technical Project Summaries (NTS) – legally required documents which must be completed and made public before any animal testing project can be allowed to start – has revealed that, despite recent legislative changes meant to improve the documents, still less than half of the NTS published in Germany and the UK fully describe the adverse effects likely to be experienced by the animals involved.

The full paper, written by our Deputy Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs, Laura Rego Alvarez, our former Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs, Dr Katy Taylor, and Tilo Weber, from the Animal Welfare Academy of the German Animal Welfare Federation, can be read on the ALTEX website .

All EU countries, and the UK, have to publish an NTS for every research project that uses animals, to help the public understand what animals experience during experiments. To improve transparency, these summaries are intended to be easily accessible and understandable by members of the public. Our previous review found that the information provided in the NTS published by the UK and Germany was lacking in many cases, preventing a full understanding of what animals undergoing the testing would experience. In particular, the NTS frequently failed to fully describe what procedures the animals would be subjected to, how often they would take place, how long they would last and the harm they would cause.

Our latest research looked at what progress has been made since the recommendations we made in 2018 to improve NTS and following recent legislative changes in the EU, including the requirement for NTS to be published in a central database using a standard template. Even though the UK has left the EU it continues to use the same template.

We found that there has been a significant improvement in the reporting of five of the six elements we identified as essential to sufficient completion of the ‘predicted harms’ section of the NTS, including a description of what the procedures involve, how often they happen, how long they last, what level of severity they are expected to cause (i.e., classified as “mild”, “moderate” or “severe”) and what will happen to the animals at the end of the project.

Yet still just 41% of NTS in Germany and 48% of UK NTS adequately describe the expected harmful effects of the procedures on animals. Sadly, researchers are still failing to fully consider all the symptoms the animals might actually experience (e.g., nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue) nor the specific location, degree, type and duration of any pain.  Instead, this section is often used to reassure that any pain, distress and suffering will be minimised without describing how the animals might still yet suffer even though these mitigating factors are in place.

Laura Rego Alvarez said: “NTS are a key means to communicate the impact of tests on animals; researchers clearly need further support in describing the true impact of their research on the animals involved. We have created a checklist and a list of suggested terms to help guide the preparation of higher-quality and more transparent NTS.

“The UK Home Office consider NTS a key part of their policy on transparency in animal testing, which underlines the importance that NTS are fit for purpose. Further improvements are needed for NTS to be effective tools for sharing good practice, supporting policy-making and, ultimately, helping to protect animals used in experiments.”

Take action to support a Cruelty-Free UK below.

• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Home > Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) > PURCC > 2022 PURCC > All Events > 18

All Events - 2022 PURCC

Do Good Project: Animal Cruelty; Testing on Animals; Animal Rights

Alyssa A. Lau , University of the Pacific Follow

Lead Author Major

Graphic Design

Lead Author Status

Senior Art & Design Exhibition

Faculty Mentor Name

Faculty mentor department.

Art Media Performance and Design

Abstract/Artist Statement

My work is unique, attempts to create a lasting impression, and hopefully portrays my creative imagination. I tend to be drawn to work that is nostalgic and fantasy-like, but what I love is when I can connect or relate to the art. That is exactly what I aim to do with my work. I want the viewer to “take something away” from what they experience. I aspire to use my skills and knowledge to design and create the most imaginable things. My design philosophy is that there are no limits when it comes to what I can create and that I give it my all every time.

100 million — That's the number of animals killed each year in the U.S. due to laboratory lessons, medical training, experimentation and testing on products. Many people overlook the facts and research behind the products they are using. For this project, I wanted to target teenage girls and young women who have a passion for makeup, are animal lovers, and in the Hollywood/ Beverly Hills area, but are not informed about the cons of testing on animals for cosmetics. I created a visual campaign based on a metaphor using valley girl slang with modern animation/ cartoon style. I did this through a series of deliverables, such as a poster series, a social media post, a website, and some stickers for when consumers buy products from stores. I used my design skills and knowledge as a graphic designer with visual communication, the use of color and typography, visual hierarchy and grouping, all unified visually. My goal is to inform these women of the type of products they are using, get them to sign petitions to stop testing on animals, and ultimately switch to products that are cruelty free. The motivation behind all of this is to create a sense of anger, realization, and sensibility in these women which will hopefully lead them to support this campaign and banish testing on innocent animals. To measure how successful or effective this project will be, I will compare statistics from before and after of people who buy brands that test on animals.

Reynolds Art Gallery

12-4-2022 9:00 AM

13-5-2022 5:00 PM

This document is currently not available here.

Since April 28, 2022

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Research & Scholarship at Pacific
• PURCC homepage
• Research Day homepage

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Report animal abuse and cruelty

What you can do to help stop animal abuse

Every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty and all of them contain felony provisions. However, a law is only as good as its enforcement and that's why animals rely on you to protect them by reporting animal abuse.

Defining cruelty

Most reported animal cruelty comes in the form of neglect, with direct violence occurring less. Often times, it can be difficult to gauge whether or not you’ve witnessed animal cruelty—the following examples may help you categorize suspected cruelty you do see.

Neglect, or a failure to provide basic needs for an animal, makes up the vast majority of cruelty cases that animal control officers respond to. Neglect often includes hoarding, lack of shelter or veterinary care, tethering and abandonment, as well as other forms of abuse.

Direct abuse

It can be very upsetting to see someone beating or physically attacking an animal, but it's important not to turn away. It's crucial to involve law enforcement quickly, as violence toward animals is often part of a larger pattern of violence that can include people as well.

Reporting abuse

If you witness suspected cruelty to animals, call your local animal control agency as soon as possible or dial 9-1-1 if you’re unfamiliar with local organizations. If you make a report of alleged animal cruelty, the responding agency is required to investigate.

If your area lacks the proper animal welfare agency and your local authorities are not equipped to deal with animal cruelty cases, you can also contact us .

Be sure to document the case as well as you can with dates, times, specific details and, if possible, footage and photographs from a cell phone. All of these things can help appropriate agencies during any investigation they may do of the suspected cruelty.

Hoarding behavior often victimizes animals. Sufferers of a hoarding disorder may impose severe neglect on animals by housing far more than they are able to adequately take care of. Contact your local animal control agency if you find out about animal hoarding. Some animal hoarding situations can be more difficult than others to solve.

Lack of veterinary care

Untreated wounds are a red flag that demand immediate attention; emaciation, scabs and hair loss can also be a sign of untreated diseases. If you can, alert the owner to the animal's condition and alert local authorities of suspected neglect as soon as possible.

Inadequate shelter

In extreme heat or cold , temperatures can be deadly. It can seem daunting or unnecessary to report neglect for inadequate sheltering, but conditions can change quickly, causing suffering or even death of the animal. Contact a local animal control agency immediately if you see an animal in inadequate shelter and document the incident with a cell phone camera if possible.

Abandonment

Animals die every year when people move out of their residences and simply leave the animals behind. Sometimes an abandoned dog's barking or cat's howling can alert the neighbors, but it's wise to keep an eye on a recently vacated home, especially if the former residents moved suddenly. Companion animals kept in cages or tanks are often overlooked upon a resident's sudden passing and may suffer neglect as well. If you find or know of abandoned animals, contact your local animal control agency immediately.

Pets left in cars

Time is of the essence when reporting pets left in parked cars. Even if the outside temperature seems cool, these animals could be minutes away from death or irreversible organ damage. If you cannot locate the owner immediately, don’t be afraid to call local authorities, detailing your location and the make, model and license plate number of the vehicle the animal is inside.

Learn More About Pets in Hot Cars

Beating and physical abuse

If you witness direct physical violence to an animal, report the incident immediately to authorities. If you decide to intervene in any way, use your best judgement and do not become physically involved in the situation; remember, even well-intentioned actions could compromise the process of investigation into suspected abuse.

Animal fighting and organized cruelty

Organized cruelty, such as dogfighting and cockfighting, is illegal in all 50 states and is linked to other criminal activities such as human violence, gambling and drug distribution. If you hear about or witness events like these, immediately report them to the local authorities and the HSUS.

Learn More about Animal Fighting

These are just common examples of animal cruelty. Even if a case doesn’t fit neatly into these categories, take action if something feels off. In many cases, you may be the only chance an animal has at escaping cruelty or neglect.

We never know where disasters will strike or when animals may be in need of urgent rescue, but we know we must be ready. Your support makes this lifesaving work possible.

What role does the HSUS play in local animal abuse and neglect cases?

We're fighting to:

• Promote public education.
• Advise local agencies and provide monetary grants to assist in specific local cases.
• Direct intervention and rescue in large-scale cruelty cases.
• Conduct regular investigations into institutionalized cruelty within agribusiness.
• Lobby to strengthen animal protection laws.
• Offer rewards for information leading to an animal cruelty or animal fighting conviction.

With each case the HSUS initiates, we assist not only in the rescue, handling and rehoming of animals, but also in the subsequent prosecution of each case.

Training for law enforcement

The HSUS also provides specialized training, assistance and resources to animal welfare agencies, law enforcement and prosecutors around the country on issues involving animal cruelty and animal fighting. We provide educational materials, online courses, operations guidelines and other expertise.

We never know where disasters will strike or when animals may be in need of rescue, but we know we must be ready. Donate today to support all our lifesaving work. 

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Experiments in the Revival of Organisms

Video item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

[Educational Screen] "The film records the successful experiments in the resuscitation of life to dead animals, as conducted by Dr. S.S. Bryukhonenko at the Institute of Experimental Physiology and Therapy, Voronezh, U.S.S.R. According to the New York Times, the experiments are hailed by American biologists as promising a new epoch in medical science, 'bringing closer the day when operations now incompatible with life will be possible'." Ken Smith sez: It's a fake! This film is a fake! It's ostensibily about a machine (it looks like a piston assembly out of a Model T) that miraculously brings dogs back to life that have been killed (or decapitated) -- but what it REALLY is is some sort of weird British/American WWII propaganda sop designed to make the Russians look intelligent(?). The dead dogs aren't really dead (at least, not those that are revived in this film) and the dismembered "live" dog's head isn't really dismembered (you can see it sticking through a cardboard backdrop). "After the experiment the dogs live for years, put on weight, and have families." Very weird. blood (running out of a tube into a glass) dogs (drinking water) stopwatch Safety Danger Lurks <BR>

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

720,966 Views

805 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

In collections.

Uploaded by Unknown on July 16, 2002

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Animal cruelty charges filed against founder of…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Entertainment
• Immigration
• Sports Betting

Latest Headlines

Animal cruelty charges filed against founder of south side feral cat not-for-profit.

Ashley Burrell, 37, was charged May 8 with five counts of aggravated cruelty to animals following an investigation by the city’s Department of Animal Care and Control, according to Cook County court records.

Records from the Illinois secretary of state show Burrell owns “Nikki’s Ferals,” a not-for-profit organization founded in 2022 that focuses on “(trap, neuter, release) for feral and community cats” while also providing food, shelter and “help (to) injured feral and community cats.”

Court records show a supervisor with Animal Care and Control went to Burrell’s Auburn Gresham home in early April to follow up on an investigation into Burrell.

Once inside, officials “observed several cats that had no access to clean water, they were covered in feces and urine, had discharge coming from out of their eyes, emaciated, underweight, and appeared to have upper respiratory problems,” according to Burrell’s arrest report.

Five dead cats were eventually found in the basement, police records allege, and Burrell told investigators that 26 cats and three dogs lived in the home.

Burrell, who could not be reached for comment, is scheduled to make her next court appearance Tuesday.

More in Post-Tribune

Dyer man charged with child molestation

Crown Point teen charged with stealing Dior sneakers at gunpoint

Post-Tribune | Banded birds help current, future scientists during Dunes Birding Festival

Politics | Protesters plan Gaza-focused DNC march, won’t apply for Chicago permit

Trending nationally.

• What to watch: ‘Bridgerton’ is back, saucier than ever
• Rep. Lauren Boebert attends Donald Trump’s hush money trial, taking front-row seat in show of support
• What will happen before, after the Dali is refloated? Here are next 3 steps for ship that hit Key Bridge.
• Column: Why the stink of that bad, bad iPad ad won’t go away
• Why UConn’s Nika Muhl hasn’t yet been allowed to make WNBA debut with Seattle Storm

Authorities investigating after 76 lab mice at Seton Hall had to be euthanized

L aw enforcement officials are looking into a complaint of animal cruelty regarding the neglect of laboratory animals at Seton Hall University that left about 76 mice in such poor condition they had to be euthanized, according to an animal rights group.

Michael A. Budkie, executive director of Stop Animal Exploitation NOW, an Ohio-based national watchdog of research facilities, shared an email from investigators who are probing the allegations.

Tom Fennelly, a chief assistant prosecutor in Essex County, confirmed the investigation, but declined to comment further.

“The Essex County Prosecutor’s Office has received information containing an allegation of animal cruelty at Seton Hall University and we are looking into it,” he said. “We will have no further comment on while our investigation is being conducted.”

The animals were denied “essential necessities needed to sustain life” and left their overcrowded cages black with feces, with dead baby mice present, the school’s interim president, Katia Passerini, wrote in a January report to National Institutes of Health officials . “Except for one or two cages, the water bottles were empty,” she wrote.

Problems with the lab at the private Catholic university in South Orange surfaced in mid-September 2022 when the school’s internal committee in charge of animal care found the lab was not keeping proper breeding records for the 76 mice originally purchased, according to Passerini’s letter.

Inspections on Feb. 24 and May 23, 2023, found worsening conditions.

After determining that the animals had been left unattended for up to 17 days at a time, the university locked the researchers and staff out of the lab and brought in a contractor to euthanize the animals, according to the report.

The name of the researcher, the department he or she worked in, and the nature of the research have not been disclosed. The project had to be scrapped due to the loss of the animals.

The watchdog group filed a complaint on April 30, alleging the lab had violated state anti-cruelty laws.

“The fact that these abuses continued for an entire year is an indictment of both the Principal Investigator, and the Seton Hall University research administration,” the group wrote. The complaint said the investigator “failed miserably” in following basic care standards and refused to work with university officials when they requested improvements.

“These abusers of animals clearly deserve to be criminally prosecuted,” Budkie wrote in the complaint. “If these things don’t qualify as animal cruelty, then nothing does.”

The university did not immediately comment on the prosecutor’s investigation Thursday. Previously, Seton Hall spokeswoman Laurie Pine said the school takes the integrity and ethical conduct of research seriously.

“Our own rigorous reviews and assessments identified these issues, leading us to immediately issue corrective directives to the principal investigator to align with our strict protocols and animal welfare standards,” Pine said.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com .

Tina Kelley may be reached at [email protected] .

©2024 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit nj.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Dogchitecture: WE Architecture Designs a Center That Challenges Traditional Animal Shelters

• Written by Ella Comberg

Copenhagen firm WE Architecture has completed a proposal for a “Dog Center” in Moscow that challenges traditional notions of animal shelters. Nestled in the countryside, the one-story pavilion will rely on a series of courtyards divided by pergolas that disappear into the landscape. The firm notes that the courtyards, which provide enclosed outdoor space for the dogs , allow the center “to avoid the 'jail-like' fencing which is often associated with dog shelters."

WE, in collaboration with MASU Planning , hopes to create a “healthy and inspiring environment for sheltered dogs and for the different people who will visit and work at the Center.” The project accomplishes its atmospheric goals by complimenting steel pillars with wooden rafters. The rafters extend to create an exterior overhang which functions as “a sun screen in summer time and as an exterior cover/hallway on rainy days.” As visitors approach the building, the green roof , which sits atop the wooden rafters, is meant to serve as a “fifth facade” that can blend in easily with its wooded surroundings. Extensive outdoor seating space bleeds into greenery, inviting both human and animal recreation.

Design Team

Project year, photographs.

News via: WE Architecture

Project gallery

Materials and Tags

• Sustainability

世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!

想浏览archdaily中国吗, you've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Southwestern Native Aquatic Resources and Recovery Center

You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website

You are being directed to

We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cambridge Open

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Introduction

Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. 1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny. 2

Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based , animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value. 3 I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, 4 that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, 5 and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals. 6

Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation

Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. 7 However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions.

The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results

Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. 8 Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety. 9 Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection. 10 Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated. 11 Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals’ stress markers. 12 These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results. 13 Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data. 14

A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. 15 In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared. 16 Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit. 17

In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures. 18 One notable effort was made by Crabbe et al. in their investigation of the potential confounding influences of the laboratory environment on six mouse behaviors that are commonly studied in neurobehavioral experiments. Despite their “extraordinary lengths to equate test apparatus, testing protocols, and all possible features of animal husbandry” across three laboratories, there were systematic differences in test results in these labs. 19 Additionally, different mouse strains varied markedly in all behavioral tests, and for some tests the magnitude of genetic differences depended on the specific testing laboratory. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate. These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans.

The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases

The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness. 20 Even if the design and conduct of an animal experiment are sound and standardized, the translation of its results to the clinic may fail because of disparities between the animal experimental model and the human condition. 21

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients. 22 In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans. 23 One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. 24 Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation. 25

Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don’t naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials. 26

Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models’ ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis. 27 These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs. 28 Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS. 29 The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. 30 More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. 31 Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. 32 In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals. 33 Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD 34 and inflammatory diseases, 35 respectively.

The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models. 36 A notable systematic review, published in 2007, compared animal experimentation results with clinical trial findings across interventions aimed at the treatment of head injury, respiratory distress syndrome, osteoporosis, stroke, and hemorrhage. 37 The study found that the human and animal results were in accordance only half of the time. In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans.

In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. 38 More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. 39 The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. 40

Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases. 41

Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics

Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies. In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior. 42 The micropathology of spinal cord injury, injury repair mechanisms, and recovery from injury varies greatly among different strains of rats and mice. A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species. 43 This suggests that factors inherent to the use of animals account for some of the major differences in results.

Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. 44 In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond. 45 These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date. 46

Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.” 47 The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents’ ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed.

Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers. 48 Consistent phenotypes (observable physical or biochemical characteristics) are rarely obtained by modification of the same gene, even among different strains of mice. 49 Gene regulation can substantially differ among species and may be as important as the presence or absence of a specific gene. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species. To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share (largely) the same genes. Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. For example, if we play the keys in a certain order, we hear Chopin; in a different order, we hear Ray Charles; and in yet a different order, it’s Jerry Lee Lewis. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes.

Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. 50 When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. 51 Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the “humanized” or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals.

In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease, both in function and in pathology. 52 Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson’s disease showed disappointing results in humans. 53 The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women. 54

HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. 55 After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths. 56 Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken 57 —a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research.

The implicit assumption that NHP (and indeed any animal) data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp120 were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments. Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk. 58 In 2003, Elan Pharmaceuticals was forced to prematurely terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial when an investigational AD vaccine was found to cause brain swelling in human subjects. No significant adverse effects were detected in GM mice or NHPs. 59

In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006. 60 Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks. 61 None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans—a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong.

As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences, 62 experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments

As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities , as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail. 63

“Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information. 64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.

Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources. 65 Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans. 66 As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments. 67 Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals.

An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests. 68 As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals 69 (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials. 70 Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans. 71 Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline.

An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, “would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline” if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years. 72 Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. 73 Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development. 74

A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection. 75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, “Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?” 76 These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development.

In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment. 77 Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise.

The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization. 78 Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation. 79

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering. 80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health. 81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

Aysha Akhtar , M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

1. Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005 . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :327–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

2. Systematic reviews that have been conducted generally reveal the unreliability and poor predictability of animal tests. See Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197. See also Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387. See Godlee F. How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ 2014;348:g3719. See Benatar M. Lost in translation: Treatment trials in the SOD 1 mouse and in human ALS. Neurobiology Disease 2007; 26 :1–13 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Akhtar AZ, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal studies in spinal cord injury: A systematic review of methylprednisolone . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 :43–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

3. Mathews RAJ. Medical progress depends on animal models—doesn’t it? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008; 101 :95–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

4. See Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2009; 4 :2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008; 69 :2–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

5. See note 3, Mathews 2008. See also Hartung T, Zurlo J. Food for thought… alternative approaches for medical countermeasures to biological and chemical terrorism and warfare . ALTEX 2012; 29 :251–60 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Leist M, Hartung T. Inflammatory findings on species extrapolations: Humans are definitely no 70-kg mice . Archives in Toxicology 2013; 87 :563–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Mak IWY, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment . American Journal in Translational Research 2014; 6 :114–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Pippin J. Animal research in medical sciences: Seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law . South Texas Law Review 2013; 54 :469–511. [ Google Scholar ]

6. For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see LaFollette H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:812–18. [ Google Scholar ]

7. See Jucker M. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases . Nature Medicine 2010; 16 :1210–14 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Institute of Medicine. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. And see Degryse AL, Lawson WE. Progress towards improving animal models for IPF . American Journal of Medical Science 2011; 341 :444–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

8. See Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 102 :262–302 [ Google Scholar ] . See Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ, LaPorte L, et al. Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models In Warrick JE, Kauleff AV, eds. Translational Neuroscience and Its Advancement of Animal Research Ethics . New York: Nova Science; 2009:71–82 [ Google Scholar ] . See Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience . American Journal of Primatology 2003; 60 :1–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Balcombe JP, Barnard ND, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress . Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 2004; 43 :42–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

9. Suckow MA, Weisbroth SH, Franklin CL. The Laboratory Rat . 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006, at 323.

10. Flow BL, Jaques JT. Effect of room arrangement and blood sample collection sequence on serum thyroid hormone and cortisol concentrations in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 1997;36:65–8.

11. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

12. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

13. Baldwin A, Bekoff M. Too stressed to work. New Scientist 2007;194:24.

14. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

15. Akhtar A, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal models in spinal cord injury: A review . Reviews in the Neurosciences 2008; 19 :47–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

16. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

17. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

18. See Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias . Stroke 2004; 35 :1203–8 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also O’ Neil BJ, Kline JA, Burkhart K, Younger J. Research fundamentals: V. The use of laboratory animal models in research. Academic Emergency Medicine 1999;6:75–82.

19. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: Interactions with laboratory environment . Science 1999; 284 :1670–2, at 1670. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

20. See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69–74. See also Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: The quest for quality in experimental stroke research . Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2006; 26 :1465–78 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

21. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Poritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010; 7 :e1000245. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

22. See note 20, Dirnagl 2006. See also Sena E, van der Worp B, Howells D, Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends in Neurosciences 2007; 30 :433–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

23. See Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models: Why did human trials fail? The Scientist 2007;21:44. See also Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations . Stroke 2009; 40 :2244–50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

24. See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. There is some dispute as to how vigorously investigators adhered to the suggested criteria. Nevertheless, NXY-059 animal studies were considered an example of preclinical studies that most faithfully adhered to the STAIR criteria. For further discussion see also Wang MM, Guohua X, Keep RF. Should the STAIR criteria be modified for preconditioning studies? Translational Stroke Research 2013; 4 :3–14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

25. See note 24, Wang et al. 2013.

26. O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke . Annals of Neurology 2006; 59 :467–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

27. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

28. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

29. See Perrin S. Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work . Nature 2014; 507 :423–5 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also, generally, Wilkins HM, Bouchard RJ, Lorenzon NM, Linseman DA. Poor correlation between drug efficacies in the mutant SOD1 mouse mode versus clinical trials of ALS necessitates the development of novel animal models for sporadic motor neuron disease. In: Costa A, Villalba E, eds. Horizons in Neuroscience Research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2011:1–39.

30. Traynor BJ, Bruijn L, Conwit R, Beal F, O’Neill G, Fagan SC, et al. Neuroprotective agents for clinical trials in ALS: A systematic assessment . Neurology 2006; 67 :20–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

31. Sinha G. Another blow for ALS . Nature Biotechnology 2013; 31 :185 [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 30, Traynor et al. 2006.

32. See Morales DM, Marklund N, Lebold D, Thompson HJ, Pitkanen A, Maxwell WL, et al. Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: Do we really need a better mousetrap? Neuroscience 2005; 136 :971–89 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Xiong YE, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury . Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013; 14 :128–42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see commentary by Farber: Farber N. Drug development in brain injury. International Brain Injury Association ; available at http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/drug-development-in-traumatic-brain-injury/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

33. Maas AI, Roozenbeek B, Manley GT. Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: Past experience and current developments . Neurotherapeutics 2010; 7 :115–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

34. Schneider LS, Mangialasche F, Andreasen N, Feldman H, Giacobini E, Jones R, et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development in Alzheimer’s disease: An appraisal from 1984 to 2014 . Journal of Internal Medicine 2014; 275 :251–83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

35. Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, Mindrinos MN, Baker HV, Xu W, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2013; 110 :3507–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

36. Palfreyman MG, Charles V, Blander J. The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery . Drug Discovery World 2002. Fall:33–40 [ Google Scholar ] .

37. See note 2, Perel et al. 2007.

38. Harding A. More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist 2004 Sept 13; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23003/title/More-compounds-failing-Phase-I/ (last accessed 2 June 2014).

39. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

40. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo 2012.

41. Wiebers DO, Adams HP, Whisnant JP. Animal models of stroke: Are they relevant to human disease? Stroke 1990; 21 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

42. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

43. See note 2, Akhtar et al. 2009.

44. Lonjon N, Prieto M, Haton H, Brøchner CB, Bauchet L, Costalat V, et al. Minimum information about animal experiments: Supplier is also important . Journal of Neuroscience Research 2009; 87 :403–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

45. Mogil JS, Wilson SG, Bon K, Lee SE, Chung K, Raber P, et al. Heritability of nociception I: Responses of 11 inbred mouse strains on 12 measures of nociception . Pain 1999; 80 :67–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

46. Tator H, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Norvell D, Fehling MG, Harrop JS, et al. Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury . Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2012; 17 :157–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

47. See note 35, Seok et al. 2013, at 3507.

48. Odom DT, Dowell RD, Jacobsen ES, Gordon W, Danford TW, MacIsaac KD, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptional regulation has diverged significantly between human and mouse . Nature Genetics 2007; 39 :730–2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

49. Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003; 2 :151–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

50. Vassilopoulous S, Esk C, Hoshino S, Funke BH, Chen CY, Plocik AM, et al. A role for the CHC22 clathrin heavy-chain isoform in human glucose metabolism . Science 2009; 324 :1192–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

51. See Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Psoriasis: Evolution of pathogenic concepts and new therapies through phases of translational research . British Journal of Dermatology 2007; 157 :1103–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also The mouse model: Less than perfect, still invaluable. Johns Hopkins Medicine ; available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/model_organisms/201010_mouse_model.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014). See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. See note 2, Benatar 2007. See note 29, Perrin 2014 and Wilkins et al. 2011. See Cavanaugh S, Pippin J, Barnard N. Animal models of Alzheimer disease: Historical pitfalls and a path forward. ALTEX online first; 2014 Apr 10. And see Woodroofe A, Coleman RA. ServiceNote: Human tissue research for drug discovery . Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 2007; 27 :18 [ Google Scholar ] .

52. Lane E, Dunnett S. Animal models of Parkinson’s disease and L-dopa induced dyskinesia: How close are we to the clinic? Psychopharmacology 2008; 199 :303–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

53. See note 52, Lane, Dunnett 2008.

54. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

55. Bailey J. An assessment of the role of chimpanzees in AIDS vaccine research . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :381–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

56. Tonks A. The quest for the AIDs vaccine . BMJ 2007; 334 :1346–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

57. Johnston MI, Fauci AS. An HIV vaccine—evolving concepts . New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356 :2073–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

58. See Rossouw JE, Andersen GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberf C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy menopausal women: Principle results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2002; 288 :321–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Andersen GL, Limacher A, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2004; 291 :1701–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

59. Lemere CA. Developing novel immunogens for a safe and effective Alzheimer’s disease vaccine . Progress in Brain Research 2009; 175 :83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

60. Allen A. Of mice and men: The problems with animal testing. Slate 2006 June 1; available at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014).

61. Attarwala H. TGN1412: From discovery to disaster . Journal of Young Pharmacists 2010; 2 :332–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

62. See Hogan RJ. Are nonhuman primates good models for SARS? PLoS Medicine 2006; 3 :1656–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Bailey J. Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: A critical review . Biogenic Amines 2005; 19 :235–55. [ Google Scholar ]

63. See note 4, Wall, Shani 2008.

64. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Critical reviews may be helpful—not systematic ones . BMJ 2005; 330 :977–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

65. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation . BMJ 2002; 324 :474–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

66. See note 60,Allen 2006. See also Heywood R. Target organ toxicity . Toxicology Letters 1981; 8 :349–58 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Fletcher AP. Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1978; 71 :693–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

67. See note 60, Allen 2006. See note 5, Pippin 2013. See also Greek R, Greek J. Animal research and human disease . JAMA 2000; 283 :743–4 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

68. See note 60, Allen 2006. See also note 5, Leist, Hartung 2013.

69. Food and Drug Administration. Development & approval process (drugs); available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014). See also http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

70. Drug discovery pipeline. IRSF; available at http://www.rettsyndrome.org/research-programs/programmatic-overview/drug-discovery-pipeline (last accessed 24 Sept 2014).

71. See note 60, Allen 2006.

72. Follow the yellow brick road. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2:167, at 167.

73. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

74. For data on aspirin, see Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra … Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 (Suppl 2 ):45–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see Koppanyi T, Avery MA. Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: A review . Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1966; 7 :250–70 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Schneierson SS, Perlman E. Toxicity of penicillin for the Syrian hamster . Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956; 91 :229–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

75. See note 67, Greek, Greek 2000.

76. Oral bioavailability of blockbuster drugs in humans and animals. PharmaInformatic . available at http://www.pharmainformatic.com/html/blockbuster_drugs.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2014).

77. Sams-Dodd F. Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process . Drug Discovery Today 2006; 11 :355–63 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

78. Zurlo J. No animals harmed: Toward a paradigm shift in toxicity testing . Hastings Center Report 2012;42. Suppl:s23–6 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

79. There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency’s budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH’s budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH’s funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH’s extramural funding is directed into animal research; see Greek R, Greek J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010; 5 :14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

80. For a helpful discussion on animal pain, fear, and suffering, see DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Lives and Moral Status . New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:116–23. [ Google Scholar ]

81. See Akhtar A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:chap. 5.