research paper topics on animal experimentation

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

• 🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
• 🐶 Essay: How to Write
• 🏆 Best Essay Examples
• 📌 Good Topics to Research
• 🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What would life be like without animal testing?
• Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
• AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
• What if animals experimented on humans?
• In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
• Opposing animal testing: success stories.
• Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
• What have we gained from experiments on animals?
• Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

• The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
• Animal testing should (not) be banned
• How animal testing affects endangered species
• The history and consequences of animal testing
• The controversy associated with animal testing
• Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
• Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

• Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
• Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
• Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
• Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
• Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
• Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
• Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

• Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
• Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
• Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

• More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
• Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
• More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

• Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
• Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
• Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
• The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
• Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
• Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
• Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
• Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
• Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
• Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
• Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
• Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
• Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
• Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
• Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
• Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
• Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
• Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
• Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
• The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
• The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
• An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
• The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
• An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
• The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
• The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

• An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
• The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
• Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
• Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
• Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
• Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
• An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
• Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
• A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
• The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
• What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
• Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
• Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
• How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
• Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
• Does Animal Testing Really Work?
• Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
• Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
• How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
• Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
• Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
• Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
• Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
• What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
• Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
• How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
• What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
• How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
• Who Cares for Animals in Research?
• How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
• Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
• How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

• Animal Abuse Research Topics
• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Meaning of Life Essay Ideas
• Animal Rights Research Ideas
• Cloning Questions
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Wildlife Ideas
• Extinction Research Topics
• Hunting Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

119 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. While some argue that it is necessary for medical and scientific advancements, others believe it is cruel and unnecessary. If you have been assigned an essay on animal testing and are struggling to come up with a topic, we have compiled a list of 119 ideas and examples to inspire you.

• The ethical implications of animal testing: Discuss the moral considerations surrounding the use of animals in scientific experiments.
• Animal testing for cosmetics: Should it be banned worldwide?
• The history of animal testing: How has it evolved over time?
• The benefits of animal testing in medical research: Explore the breakthroughs and medical advancements that have been made possible through animal testing.
• Animal testing alternatives: Discuss alternatives to using animals in scientific experiments.
• The role of animal testing in drug development: How crucial is it for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of new medications?
• The impact of animal testing on animal rights: Does it infringe upon their rights?
• Animal testing and consumer safety: How does it contribute to ensuring the safety of products we use?
• The use of animals in psychological experiments: Is it justified?
• The reliability of animal models in predicting human responses: How accurate are they?
• Animal testing and the development of vaccines: How essential is it in preventing diseases?
• The use of animals in agricultural research: What are the benefits and drawbacks?
• Animal testing and cancer research: How has it contributed to finding cures and treatments?
• Animal testing and neurology: How has it advanced our understanding of the brain?
• The impact of animal testing on endangered species: Does it pose a threat to their conservation?
• Animal testing and toxicity testing: How does it help in identifying harmful substances?
• The impact of animal testing on public health: How does it contribute to disease prevention?
• Animal testing and genetic engineering: How has it contributed to advancements in this field?
• The use of animals in military research: Is it justifiable?
• Animal testing and organ transplantation: How has it contributed to the development of successful procedures?
• The impact of animal testing on veterinary medicine: How has it improved animal healthcare?
• Animal testing and cosmetic allergies: How does it help identify potential allergens?
• The use of animals in behavioral research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and reproductive medicine: How has it contributed to advancements in this field?
• The impact of animal testing on psychological well-being: How does it affect the animals involved?
• Animal testing and alternative testing methods: What are the most promising alternatives?
• Animal testing and stem cell research: How do they intersect?
• The use of animals in infectious disease research: What breakthroughs have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of surgical techniques: How has it improved patient outcomes?
• The impact of animal testing on animal populations: Does it affect their numbers in the wild?
• Animal testing and drug addiction research: How has it contributed to understanding addiction mechanisms?
• The use of animals in environmental research: What insights have been gained about ecosystem health?
• Animal testing and personalized medicine: How has it contributed to tailored treatments?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory conditions: How does it affect the reliability of results?
• Animal testing and the testing of household products: How does it ensure their safety?
• The use of animals in veterinary drug development: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of pain management techniques: How has it improved patient comfort?
• The impact of animal testing on public opinion: How has public perception changed over time?
• Animal testing and the development of medical devices: How has it contributed to advancements?
• The use of animals in dental research: What insights have been gained about oral health?
• Animal testing and the study of infectious diseases: How has it contributed to prevention and control?
• The impact of animal testing on animal behavior: How does it affect their natural instincts?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary treatments: What breakthroughs have been made?
• The use of animals in neuroscience research: What insights have been gained about brain function?
• Animal testing and the development of anesthesia techniques: How has it improved patient comfort?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife conservation: Does it have positive or negative effects?
• Animal testing and the study of developmental disorders: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in bioengineering research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of reproductive technologies: How has it improved fertility treatments?
• The impact of animal testing on scientific progress: How has it accelerated discoveries?
• Animal testing and the study of aging: How has it contributed to understanding the aging process?
• The use of animals in pharmaceutical research: What breakthroughs have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of prosthetics: How has it improved quality of life?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal welfare: How does it influence their well-being?
• Animal testing and the study of autoimmune diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in nutritional research: What insights have been gained about human health?
• Animal testing and the development of wound healing techniques: How has it improved patient outcomes?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife rehabilitation: Does it aid in their recovery?
• Animal testing and the study of addiction: How has it contributed to understanding dependency?
• The use of animals in regenerative medicine research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary vaccines: How has it improved animal health?
• The impact of animal testing on animal cognition: How does it affect their mental abilities?
• Animal testing and the study of genetic disorders: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in agricultural genetics research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary diagnostics: How has it improved disease detection?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife management: Does it aid in conservation efforts?
• Animal testing and the study of mental health disorders: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in tissue engineering research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary surgical techniques: How has it improved outcomes?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal breeding: How does it affect their reproductive health?
• Animal testing and the study of neurodegenerative diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in ecological research: What insights have been gained about ecosystems?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary drugs: How has it improved treatment options?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife behavior: How does it affect their interactions?
• Animal testing and the study of infectious disease transmission: How has it contributed to prevention?
• The use of animals in immunology research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary rehabilitation techniques: How has it improved recovery?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal housing: How does it influence their living conditions?
• Animal testing and the study of cardiovascular diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in environmental toxicology research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary nutrition: How has it improved animal health?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife conservation genetics: Does it aid in population management?
• Animal testing and the study of developmental biology: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in wildlife disease research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary pain management: How has it improved animal welfare?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal enrichment: How does it affect their mental stimulation?
• Animal testing and the study of respiratory diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in aquatic toxicology research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary imaging techniques: How has it improved diagnosis?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife population dynamics: Does it aid in conservation planning?
• Animal testing and the study of reproductive biology: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in wildlife ecology research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary anesthesia techniques: How has it improved safety?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal welfare regulations: How do they protect animals?
• Animal testing and the study of gastrointestinal diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in ecotoxicology research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary dentistry techniques: How has it improved oral health?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife disease surveillance: Does it aid in early detection?
• Animal testing and the study of endocrine disorders: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in wildlife conservation research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary ophthalmology techniques: How has it improved vision?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal welfare training: How does it ensure proper care?
• Animal testing and the study of reproductive toxicology: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in wildlife genetics research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary oncology treatments: How has it improved survival?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife disease management: Does it aid in control measures?
• Animal testing and the study of musculoskeletal disorders: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in wildlife behavior research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary allergy treatments: How has it improved quality of life?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal welfare assessment: How does it ensure well-being?
• Animal testing and the study of reproductive endocrinology: How has it contributed to understanding?
• The use of animals in wildlife conservation genetics research: What insights have been gained?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary cardiology treatments: How has it improved heart health?
• The impact of animal testing on wildlife rehabilitation techniques: Does it aid in recovery?
• Animal testing and the study of metabolic diseases: How has it contributed to treatment options?
• The use of animals in wildlife ecology and conservation research: What advancements have been made?
• Animal testing and the development of veterinary neurology treatments: How has it improved brain health?
• The impact of animal testing on laboratory animal welfare monitoring: How does it ensure proper care?
• Animal testing and the study of reproductive immunology: How has it contributed to understanding?

These topics cover a wide range of aspects related to animal testing, allowing you to choose an area that aligns with your interests or argue for a specific perspective. Remember to conduct thorough research and present a balanced view when discussing this controversial subject.

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Contributed equally to this work with: Kai Diederich, Kathrin Schmitt

Affiliation German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), Berlin, Germany

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Kai Diederich, 
• Kathrin Schmitt, 
• Philipp Schwedhelm, 
• Bettina Bert, 
• Céline Heinl

Published: September 15, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810
• Reader Comments

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Citation: Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C (2022) A guide to open science practices for animal research. PLoS Biol 20(9): e3001810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810

Copyright: © 2022 Diederich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors are employed at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and part of the German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R) which developed and hosts animalstudyregistry.org , a preregistration platform for animal studies and animaltestinfo.de, a database for non-technical project summaries (NTS) of approved animal study protocols within Germany.

Abbreviations: CC, Creative Commons; CIRS-LAS, critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science; COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals; DOI, digital object identifier; EDA, Experimental Design Assistant; ELN, electronic laboratory notebook; EU, European Union; IMSR, International Mouse Strain Resource; JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee; LIMS, laboratory information management system; MGI, Mouse Genome Informatics; NC3Rs, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; NTS, non-technical summary; RRID, Research Resource Identifier

Introduction

Over the past decade, the quality of published scientific literature has been repeatedly called into question by the failure of large replication studies or meta-analyses to demonstrate sufficient translation from experimental research into clinical successes [ 1 – 5 ]. At the same time, the open science movement has gained more and more advocates across various research areas. By sharing all of the information collected during the research process with colleagues and with the public, scientists can improve collaborations within their field and increase the reproducibility and trustworthiness of their work [ 6 ]. Thus, the International Reproducibility Networks have called for more open research [ 7 ].

However, open science practices have not been adopted to the same degree in all research areas. In psychology, which was strongly affected by the so-called reproducibility crisis, the open science movement initiated real practical changes leading to a broad implementation of practices such as preregistration or sharing of data and material [ 8 – 10 ]. By contrast, biomedical research is still lagging behind. Open science might be of high value for research in general, but in translational biomedical research, it is an ethical obligation. It is the responsibility of the scientist to transparently share all data collected to ensure that clinical research can adequately evaluate the risks and benefits of a potential treatment. When Russell and Burch published “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” in 1959, scientists started to implement their 3Rs principle to answer the ethical dilemma of animal welfare in the face of scientific progress [ 11 ]. By replacing animal experiments wherever possible, reducing the number of animals to a strict minimum, and refining the procedures where animals have still to be used, this ethical dilemma was addressed. However, in recent years, whether the 3Rs principle is sufficient to fully address ethical concerns about animal experiments has been questioned [ 12 ].

Most people tolerate the use of animals for scientific purposes only under the basic assumption that the knowledge gained will advance research in crucial areas. This implies that performed experiments are reported in a way that enables peers to benefit from the collected data. However, recent studies suggest that a large proportion of animal experiments are never actually published. For example, scientists working within the European Union (EU) have to write an animal study protocol for approval by the competent authorities of the respective country before performing an animal experiment [ 13 ]. In these protocols, scientists have to describe the planned study and justify every animal required for the project. By searching for publications resulting from approved animal study protocols from 2 German University Medical Centers, Wieschowski and colleagues found that only 53% of approved protocols led to a publication after 6 years [ 14 ]. Using a similar approach, Van der Naald and colleagues determined a publication rate of 60% at the Utrecht Medical Center [ 15 ]. In a follow-up survey, the respective researchers named so-called “negative” or null-hypothesis results as the main cause for not publishing outcomes [ 15 ]. The current scientific system is shaped by publishers, funders, and institutions and motivates scientists to publish novel, surprising, and positive results, revealing one of the many structural problems that the numerous efforts towards open science initiatives are targeting. Non-publication not only strongly contradicts ethical values, but also it compromises the quality of published literature by leading to overestimation of effect sizes [ 16 , 17 ]. Furthermore, publications of animal studies too often show poor reporting that strongly impairs the reproducibility, validity, and usefulness of the results [ 18 ]. Unfortunately, the idea that negative or equivocal findings can also contribute to the gain of scientific knowledge is frequently neglected.

So far, the scientific community using animals has shown limited resonance to the open science movement. Due to the strong controversy surrounding animal experiments, scientists have been reluctant to share information on the topic. Additionally, translational research is highly competitive and researchers tend to be secretive about their ideas until they are ready for publication or patent [ 19 , 20 ]. However, this missing openness could also point to a lack of knowledge and training on the many open science options that are available and suitable for animal research. Researchers have to be convinced of the benefits of open science practices, not only for science in general, but also for the individual researcher and each single animal. Yet, the key players in the research system are already starting to value open science practices. An increasing number of journals request open sharing of data, funders pay for open access publications and institutions consider open science practices in hiring decisions. Open science practices can improve the quality of work by enabling valuable scientific input from peers at the early stages of research projects. Furthermore, the extended communication that open science practices offer can draw attention to research and help to expand networks of collaborators and lead to new project opportunities or follow-up positions. Thus, open science practices can be a driver for careers in academia, particularly those of early career researchers.

Beyond these personal benefits, improving transparency in translational biomedical research can boost scientific progress in general. By bringing to light all the recorded research outputs that until now have remained hidden, the publication bias and the overestimation of effect sizes can be reduced [ 17 ]. Large-scale sharing of data can help to synthesize research outputs in preclinical research that will enable better decision-making for clinical research. Disclosing the whole research process will help to uncover systematic problems and support scientists in thoroughly planning their studies. In the long run, we predict that the implementation of open science practices will lead to the use of fewer animals in unintentionally repeated experiments that previously showed unreported negative results or in the establishment of methods by avoiding experimental dead ends that are often not published. More collaborations and sharing of materials and methods can further reduce the number of animal experiments used for the implementation of new techniques.

Open science can and should be implemented at each step of the research process ( Fig 1 ). A vast number of tools are already provided that were either directly conceptualized for animal research or can be adapted easily. In this Essay, we provide an overview of open science tools that improve transparency, reliability, and animal welfare in translational in vivo biomedical research by supporting scientists to clearly communicate their research and by supporting collaborative working. Table 1 lists the most prominent open science tools we discuss, together with their respective links. We have structured this Essay to guide you through which tools can be used at each stage of the research process, from planning and conducting experiments, through to analyzing data and communicating the results. However, many of these tools can be used at many different steps. Table 1 has been deposited on Zenodo and will be updated continuously [ 21 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Application of open science practices at each step of the research process can maximize the impact of performed animal experiments. The implementation of these practices will lead to less time pressure at the end of a project. Due to the connection of most of these open science practices, spending more time in the planning phase and during the conduction of experiments will save time during the data analysis and publication of the study. Indeed, consulting reporting guidelines early on, preregistering a statistical plan, and writing down crucial experimental details in an electronic lab notebook, will strongly accelerate the writing of a manuscript. If protocols or even electronic lab notebooks were made public, just citing these would simplify the writing of publications. Similarly, if a data management plan is well designed before starting data collection, analyzing, and depositing data in a public repository, as is increasingly required, will be fast. NTS, non-technical summary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.t001

Planning the study

Transparent practices can be adopted at every stage of the research process. However, to ensure full effectivity, it is highly recommended to engage in detailed planning before the start of the experiment. This can prevent valuable time from being lost at the end of the study due to careless decisions being made at the beginning. Clarifying data management at the start of a project can help avoiding filing chaos that can be very time consuming to untangle. Keeping clear track of a project and study design will also help if new colleagues are included later on in the project or if entire project parts are handed over. In addition, all texts written on the rationale and hypothesis of the study or method descriptions, or design schemes created during the planning phase can be used in the final publications ( Fig 1 ). Similarly, information required for preregistration of animal studies or for reporting according to the ARRIVE guidelines are an extension of the details required for ethical approval [ 22 , 23 ]. Thus, the time burden within the planning phase is often overestimated. Furthermore, the thorough planning of experiments can avoid the unnecessary use of animals by preventing wrong avenues from being pursued.

Implementing open scientific practices at the beginning of a project does not mean that the idea and study plan must be shared immediately, but rather is critical for making the entire workflow transparent at the end of the project. However, optional early sharing of information can enable peers to give feedback on the study plan. Studies potentially benefit more from this a priori input than they would from the classical a posteriori peer-review process.

Most people perceive guidelines as advice that instructs on how to do something. However, it is sometimes useful to consider the term in its original meaning; “the line that guides us”. In this sense, following guidelines is not simply fulfilling a duty, but is a process that can help to design a sound research study and, as such, guidelines should be consulted at the planning stage of a project. The PREPARE guidelines are a list of important points that should be thought-out before starting a study involving animal experiments in order to reduce the waste of animals, promote alternatives, and increase the reproducibility of research and testing [ 24 ]. The PREPARE checklist helps to thoroughly plan a study and focuses on improving the communication and collaboration between all involved participants of the study (i.e., animal caretakers and scientists). Indeed, open science begins with the communication within a research facility. It is currently available in 33 languages and the responsible team from Norecopa, Norway’s 3R-center, takes requests for translations into further languages.

The UK Reproducibility Network has also published several guiding documents (primers) on important topics for open and reproducible science. These address issues such as data sharing [ 25 ], open access [ 26 ], open code and software [ 27 ], and preprints [ 28 ], as well as preregistration and registered reports [ 27 ]. Consultation of these primers is not only helpful in the relevant phases of the experiment but is also encouraged in the planning phase.

Although the ARRIVE guidelines are primarily a reporting guideline specifically designed for preparing a publication containing animal data, they can also support researchers when planning their experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. Going through the ARRIVE website, researchers will find tools and explanations that can support them in planning their experiments [ 29 ]. Consulting the ARRIVE checklist at the beginning of a project can help in deciding what details need to be documented during conduction of the experiments. This is particularly advisable, given that compliance to ARRIVE is still poor [ 18 ].

Experimental design

To maximize the validity of performed experiments and the knowledge gained, designing the study well is crucial. It is important that the chosen animal species reflects the investigated disease well and that basic characteristics of the animal, such as sex or age, are considered carefully [ 30 ]. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provides a collection of resources on the integration of sex and gender in biomedical research with animals, including tips and tools for researchers and reviewers [ 31 ]. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid unnecessary standardization of biological and environmental factors that can reduce the external validity of results [ 32 ]. Meticulous statistical planning can further optimize the use of animals. Free to use online tools for calculating sample sizes such as G*Power or the inVivo software package for R can further support animal researchers in designing their statistical plan [ 33 , 34 ]. Randomization for the allocation of groups can be supported with specific tools for scientists like Research Randomizer, but also by simple online random number generators [ 35 ]. Furthermore, it might be advisable when designing the study to incorporate pathological analyses into the experimental plan. Optimal planning of tissue collection, performance of pathological procedures according to accepted best practices, and use of optimal pathological analysis and reporting methods can add some extra knowledge that would otherwise be lost. This can improve the reproducibility and quality of translational biomedicine, especially, but not exclusively, in animal studies with morphological endpoints. In all animal studies, unexpected deaths in experimental animals can occur and be the cause of lost data or missed opportunities to identify health problems [ 36 , 37 ].

To support researchers in designing their animal research, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has also developed the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) [ 38 , 39 ]. This online tool helps researchers to better structure in vivo research by creating detailed schemes of the study design. It provides feedback on the entered design, drawing researcher’s attention to crucial decisions in the project. The resulting schemes can be used to transparently share the study design by uploading it into a study preregistration, enclosing it in a grant application, or submitting it with a final manuscript. The EDA can be used for different study designs in diverse scenarios and helps to communicate researcher plans to others [ 40 ]. The EDA might be particularly of interest to clarify very complex study designs involving multiple experimental groups. Working with the EDA might appear rather complex in the beginning, but the NC3R provides regular webinars that can help to answer any questions that arise.

Preregistration

Preregistration is an effective tool to improve the quality and transparency of research. To preregister their work, scientists must determine crucial details of the study before starting any experiment. Changes occurring during a study can be outlined at the end. A preregistered study plan should include at least the hypothesis and determine all the parameters that are known in advance. A description of the planned study design and statistical analysis will enable reviewers and peers to better retrace the workflow. It can prevent the intentional use of the flexibility of analysis to reach p -values under a certain significance level (e.g., p-hacking or HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)). With preregistration, scientists can also claim their idea at an early stage of their research with a citable individual identifier that labels the idea as their own. Some open preregistration platforms also provide a digital object identifier (DOI), which makes the registered study citable. Three public registries actively encourage the preregistration of animal studies conducted around the world: OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org [ 41 – 45 ]. Scientists can choose the registry according to their needs. Preregistering a study in a public registry supports scientists in planning their study and later to critically reevaluate their own work and assess its limitations and potentials.

As an alternative to public registries, researchers can also submit their study plan to one of hundreds of journals already publishing registered reports, including many journals open to animal research [ 8 ]. A submitted registered report passes 2 steps of peer review. In the first step, reviewers comment on the idea and the study design. After an “in-principle-acceptance,” researchers can conduct their study as planned. If the authors conduct the experiments as described in the accepted study protocol, the journal will publish the final study regardless of the outcome. This might be an attractive option, especially for early career researchers, as a manuscript is published at the beginning of a project with the guarantee of a future final publication.

The benefits of preregistration can already be observed in clinical research, where registration has been mandatory for most trials for more than 20 years. Preregistration in clinical research has helped to make known what has been tested and not just what worked and was published, and the implementation of trial registration has strongly reduced the number of publications reporting significant treatment effects [ 46 ]. In animal research, with its unrealistically high percentage of positive results, preregistration seems to be particularly worthwhile.

Research data management

To get the most out of performed animal experiments, effective sharing of data at the end of the study is essential. Sharing research data optimally is complex and needs to be prepared in advance. Thus, data management can be seen as one part of planning a study thoroughly. Many funders have recognized the value of the original research data and request a data management plan from applicants in advance [ 25 , 47 ]. Various freely available tools such as DMPTool or DMPonline already exist to design a research data management plan that complies to the requirements of different funders [ 48 , 49 ]. The data management plan defines the types of data collected and describes the handling and names responsible persons throughout the data lifecycle. This includes collecting the data, analyzing, archiving, and sharing it. Finally, a data management plan enables long-term access and the possibility for reuse by peers. Developing such a plan, whether it is required by funders or not, will later simplify the application of the FAIR data principle (see section on the FAIR data principle). The Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group from the Harvard Medical School developed a checklist to assist researchers in optimally managing their data throughout the data lifecycle [ 50 ]. Similarly, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provides a great research data management toolkit including a checklist for researchers planning their project [ 51 ]. Consulting this checklist in the planning phase of a project can prevent common errors in research data management.

Non-technical project summary

One instrument specifically conceived to create transparency on animal research for the general public is the so-called non-technical project summary (NTS). All animal protocols approved within the EU must be accompanied by these comprehensible summaries. NTSs are intended to inform the public about ongoing animal experiments. They are anonymous and include information on the objectives and potential benefits of the project, the expected harm, the number of animals, the species, and a statement of compliance with the requirements of the 3Rs principle. However, beyond simply informing the public, NTSs can also be used for meta-research to help identify new research areas with an increased need for new 3R technologies [ 52 , 53 ]. NTSs become an excellent tool to appropriately communicate the scientific value of the approved protocol and for meta-scientists to generate added value by systematically analyzing theses summaries if they fulfill a minimum quality threshold [ 54 , 55 ]. In 2021, the EU launched the ALURES platform ( Table 1 ), where NTSs from all member states are published together, opening the opportunities for EU-wide meta-research. NTSs are, in contrast to other open science practices, mandatory in the EU. However, instead of thinking of them as an annoying duty, it might be worth thoroughly drafting the NTS to support the goals of more transparency towards the public, enabling an open dialogue and reducing extreme opinions.

Conducting the experiments

Once the experiments begin, documentation of all necessary details is essential to ensure the transparency of the workflow. This includes methodological details that are crucial for replicating experiments, but also failed attempts that could help peers to avoid experiments that do not work in the future. All information should be stored in such a way that it can be found easily and shared later. In this area, many new tools have emerged in recent years ( Table 1 ). These tools will not only make research transparent for colleagues, but also help to keep track of one’s own research and improve internal collaboration.

Electronic laboratory notebooks

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are an important pillar of research data management and open science. ELNs facilitate the structured and harmonized documentation of the data generation workflow, ensure data integrity, and keep track of all modifications made to the original data based on an audit trail option. Moreover, ELNs simplify the sharing of data and support collaborations within and outside the research group. Methodological details and research data become searchable and traceable. There is an extensive amount of literature providing advice on the selection and the implementation process of an ELN depending on the specific needs and research area and its discussion would be beyond the scope of this Essay [ 56 – 58 ]. Some ELNs are connected to a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that provides an animal module supporting the tracking of animal details [ 59 ]. But as research involving animals is highly heterogeneous, this might not be the only decision point and we cannot recommend a specific ELN that is suitable for all animal research.

ELNs are already established in the pharmaceutical industry and their use is on the rise among academics as well. However, due to concerns around costs for licenses, data security, and loss of flexibility, many research institutions still fear the expenses that the introduction of such a system would incur [ 56 ]. Nevertheless, an increasing number of academic institutions are implementing ELNs and appreciating the associated benefits [ 60 ]. If your institution already has an ELN, it might be easiest to just use the option available in the research environment. If not, the Harvard Medical School provides an extensive and updated overview of various features of different ELNs that can support scientists in choosing the appropriate one for their research [ 61 ]. There are many commercial ELN products, which may be preferred when the administrative workload should be outsourced to a large extent. However, open-source products such as eLabFTW or open BIS provide a greater opportunity for customization to meet specific needs of individual research institutions [ 62 – 64 ]. A huge number of options are available depending on the resources and the features required. Some scientists might prefer generic note taking tools such as Evernote or just a simple Word document that offers infinite flexibility, but specific ELNs can further support good record keeping practice by providing immutability, automated backups, standardized methods, and protocols to follow. Clearly defining the specific requirements expected might help to choose an adequate system that would improve the quality of the record compared to classical paper laboratory notebooks.

Sharing protocols

Adequate sharing of methods in translational biomedical sciences is key to reproducibility. Several repositories exist that simplify the publication and exchange of protocols. Writing down methods at the end of the project bears the risk that crucial details might be missing [ 65 ]. On protocols.io, scientists can note all methodological details of a procedure, complete them with uploaded documents, and keep them for personal use or share them with collaborators [ 66 ]. Authors can also decide at any point in time to make their protocol public. Protocols published on protocols.io receive a DOI and become citable; they can be commented on by peers and adapted according to the needs of the individual researcher. Protocol.io files from established protocols can also be submitted together with some context and sample datasets to PLOS ONE , where it can be peer-reviewed and potentially published [ 67 , 68 ]. Depending on the affiliation of the researchers to academia or industry and on an internal or public sharing of files, protocols.io can be free of charge or come with costs. Other journals also encourage their authors to deposit their protocols in a freely accessible repository, such as protocol exchange from Nature portfolio [ 69 ]. Another option might be to separately submit a protocol that was validated by its use in an already published research article to an online and peer-reviewed journal specific for research protocols, such as Bio-Protocol. A multitude of journals, including eLife and Science already collaborate with Bio-Protocol and recommend authors to publish the method in Bio-Protocol [ 70 ]. Bio-Protocol has no submission fees and is freely available to all readers. Both protocols.io and Bio-Protocol allow the illustration of complex scientific methods by uploading videos to published protocols. In addition, protocols can be deposited in a general research repository such as the Open Science Framework (OSF repository) and referenced in appropriate publications.

Sharing critical incidents

Sharing critical or even adverse events that occur in the context of animal experimentation can help other scientists to avoid committing the same mistakes. The system of sharing critical incidents is already established in clinical practice and helps to improve medical care [ 71 , 72 ]. The online platform critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science (CIRS-LAS) represents the first preclinical equivalent to these clinical systems [ 73 ]. With this web-based tool, critical incidents in animal research can be reported anonymously without registration. An expert panel helps to analyze the incident to encourage an open dialogue. Critical incident reporting is still very marginal in animal research and performed procedures are very variable. These factors make a systemic analysis and a targeted search of incidence difficult. However, it may be of special interest for methods that are broadly used in animal research such as anesthesia. Indeed, a broad feed of this system with data on errors occurring in standard procedures today could help avoid critical incidences in the future and refine animal experiments.

Sharing animals, organs, and tissue

When we think about open science, sharing results and data are often in focus. However, sharing material is also part of a collaborative and open research culture that could help to greatly reduce the number of experimental animals used. When an animal is killed to obtain specific tissue or organs, the remainder is mostly discarded. This may constitute a wasteful practice, as surplus tissue can be used by other researchers for different analyses. More animals are currently killed as surplus than are used in experiments, demonstrating the potential for sharing these animals [ 74 , 75 ].

Sharing information on generated surplus is therefore not only economical, but also an effective way to reduce the number of animals used for scientific purposes. The open-source software Anishare is a straightforward way for breeders of genetically modified lines to promote their surplus offspring or organs within an institution [ 76 ]. The database AniMatch ( Table 1 ) connects scientists within Europe who are offering tissue or organs with scientists seeking this material. Scientists already sharing animal organs can support this process by describing it in publications and making peers aware of this possibility [ 77 ]. Specialized research communities also allow sharing of animal tissue or animal-derived products worldwide that are typically used in these fields on a collaborative basis via the SEARCH-framework [ 78 , 79 ]. Depositing transgenic mice lines into one of several repositories for mouse strains can help to further minimize efforts in producing new transgenic lines and most importantly reduce the number of surplus animals by supporting the cryoconservation of mouse lines. The International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR) can be used to help find an adequate repository or to help scientists seeking a specific transgenic line find a match [ 80 ].

Analyzing the data

Animal researchers have to handle increasingly complex data. Imaging, electrophysiological recording, or automated behavioral tracking, for example, produce huge datasets. Data can be shared as raw numerical output but also as images, videos, sounds, or other forms from which raw numerical data can be generated. As the heterogeneity and the complexity of research data increases, infinite possibilities for analysis emerge. Transparently reporting how the data were processed will enable peers to better interpret reported results. To get the most out of performed animal experiments, it is crucial to allow other scientists to replicate the analysis and adapt it to their research questions. It is therefore highly recommended to use formats and tools during the analysis that allow a straightforward exchange of code and data later on.

Transparent coding

The use of non-transparent analysis codes have led to a lack of reproducibility of results [ 81 ]. Sharing code is essential for complex analysis and enables other researchers to reproduce results and perform follow-up studies, and citable code gives credit for the development of new algorithms ( Table 1 ). Jupyter Notebooks are a convenient way to share data science pipelines that may use a variety of coding languages, including like Python, R or Matlab, and also share the results of analyses in the form of tables, diagrams, images, and videos. Notebooks contain source code and can be published or collaboratively shared on platforms like GitHub or GitLab, where version control of source code is implemented. The data-archiving tool Zenodo can be used to archive a repository on GitHub and create a DOI for the archive. Thereby contents become citable. Using free and open-source programming language like R or Python will increase the number of potential researchers that can work with the published code. Best practice for research software is to publish the source code with a license that allows modification and redistribution.

Choice of data visualization

Choosing the right format for the visualization of data can increase its accessibility to a broad scientific audience and enable peers to better judge the validity of the results. Studies based on animal research often work with very small sample sizes. Visualizing these data in histograms may lead to an overestimation of the outcomes. Choosing the right dot plots that makes all recorded points visible and at the same time focusses on the summary instead of the individual points can further improve the intuitive understanding of a result. If the sample size is too low, it might not be meaningful to visualize error bars. A variety of freely available tools already exists that can support scientists in creating the most appropriate graphs for their data [ 82 ]. In particular, when representing microscopy results or heat maps, it should be kept in mind that a large part of the population cannot perceive the classical red and green representation [ 83 ]. Opting for the color-blind safe color maps and checking images with free tools such as color oracle ( Table 1 ) can increase the accessibility of graphs. Multiple journals have already addressed flaws in data visualization and have introduced new policies that will accelerate the uptake of transparent representation of results.

Publication of all study outcomes

Open science practices have received much attention in the past few years when it comes to publication of the results. However, it is important to emphasize that although open science tools have their greatest impact at the end of the project, good study preparation and sharing of the study plan and data early on can greatly increase the transparency at the end.

The FAIR data principle

To maximize the impact and outcome of a study, and to make the best long-term use of data generated through animal experiments, researchers should publish all data collected during their research according to the FAIR data principle. That means the data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The FAIR principle is thus an extension of open access publishing. Data should not only be published without paywalls or other access restrictions, but also in such a manner that they can be reused and further processed by others. For this, legal as well as technical requirements must be met by the data. To achieve this, the GoFAIR initiative has developed a set of principles that should be taken into account as early as at the data collection stage [ 49 , 84 ]. In addition to extensively described and machine-readable metadata, these principles include, for example, the application of globally persistent identifiers, the use of open file formats, and standardized communication protocols to ensure that humans and machines can easily download the data. A well-chosen repository to upload the data is then just the final step to publish FAIR data.

FAIR data can strongly increase the knowledge gained from performed animal experiments. Thus, the same data can be analyzed by different researchers and could be combined to obtain larger sample sizes, as already occurs in the neuroimaging community, which works with comparable datasets [ 85 ]. Furthermore, the sharing of data enables other researchers to analyze published datasets and estimate measurement reliabilities to optimize their own data collection [ 86 , 87 ]. This will help to improve the translation from animal research into clinics and simultaneously reduce the number of animal experiment in future.

Reporting guidelines

In preclinical research, the ARRIVE guidelines are the current state of the art when it comes to reporting data based on animal experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. The ARRIVE guidelines have been endorsed by more than 1,000 journals who ask that scientists comply with them when reporting their outcomes. Since the ARRIVE guidelines have not had the expected impact on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications, a more rigorous update has been developed to facilitate their application in practice (ARRIVE 2.0 [ 23 ]). We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines can be more effective if they are implemented at a very early stage of the project (see section on guidelines). Some more specialized reporting guidelines have also emerged for individual research fields that rely on animal studies, such as endodontology [ 88 ]. The equator network collects all guidelines and makes them easily findable with their search tool on their website ( Table 1 ). MERIDIAN also offers a 1-stop shop for all reporting guidelines involving the use of animals across all research sectors [ 89 ]. It is thus worth checking for new reporting guidelines before preparing a manuscript to maximize the transparency of described experiments.

Identifiers

Persistent identifiers for published work, authors, or resources are key for making public data findable by search engines and are thus a prerequisite for compliance to FAIR data principles. The most common identifier for publications will be a DOI, which makes the work citable. A DOI is a globally unique string assigned by the International DOI Foundation to identify content permanently and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. An ORCID ID is used as a personal persistent identifier and is recommendable to unmistakably identify an author ( Table 1 ). This will avoid confusions between authors with the same name or in the case of name changes or changes of affiliation. Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are unique ID numbers that help to transparently report research resources. RRID also apply to animals to clearly identify the species used. RRID help avoid confusion between different names or changing names of genetic lines and, importantly, make them machine findable. The RRID Portal helps scientists find a specific RRID or create one if necessary ( Table 1 ). In the context of genetically altered animal lines, correct naming is key. The Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) Database is the authoritative source of official names for mouse genes, alleles, and strains ([ 90 ]).

Preprint publication

Preprints have undergone unprecedented success, particularly during the height of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when the need for rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge was critical. The publication process for scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals usually requires a considerable amount of time, ranging from a few months to several years, mainly due to the lengthy review process and inefficient editorial procedures [ 91 , 92 ]. Preprints typically precede formal publication in scientific journals and, thus, do not go through a peer review process, thus, facilitating the prompt open dissemination of important scientific findings within the scientific community. However, submitted papers are usually screened and checked for plagiarism. Preprints are assigned a DOI so they can be cited. Once a preprint is published in a journal, its status is automatically updated on the preprint server. The preprint is linked to the publication via CrossRef and mentioned accordingly on the website of the respective preprint platform.

After initial skepticism, most publishers now allow papers to be posted on preprint servers prior to submission. An increasing number of journals even allow direct submission of a preprint to their peer review process. The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, among other funders, also encourage prepublication and permit researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications. There are now numerous preprint repositories for different scientific disciplines. BioASAP provides a searchable database for preprint servers that can help in identifying the one that best matches an individual’s needs [ 93 ]. The most popular repository for animal research is bioRxiv, which is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ( Table 1 ).

The early exchange of scientific results is particularly important for animal research. This acceleration of the publication process can help other scientists to adapt their research or could even prevent animal experiments if other scientists become aware that an experiment has already been done before starting their own. In addition, preprints can help to increase the visibility of research. Journal articles that have a corresponding preprint publication have higher citation and Altmetric counts than articles without preprint [ 94 ]. In addition, the publication of preprints can help to combat publication bias, which represents a major problem in animal research [ 16 ]. Since journals and readers prioritize cutting-edge studies with positive results over inconclusive or negative results, researchers are reluctant to invest time and money in a manuscript that is unlikely to be accepted in a high-impact journal.

In addition to the option of publishing as preprint, other alternative publication formats have recently been introduced to facilitate the publication of research results that are hard to publish in traditional peer-reviewed journals. These include micro publications, data repositories, data journals, publication platforms, and journals that focus on negative or inconclusive results. The tool fiddle can support scientists in choosing the right publication format [ 95 , 96 ].

Open access publication

Publishing open access is one of the most established open science strategies. In contrast to the FAIR data principle, the term open access publication refers usually to the publication of a manuscript on a platform that is accessible free of charge—in translational biomedical research, this is mostly in the form of a scientific journal article. Originally, publications accessible free of charge were the answer to the paywalls established by renowned publishing houses, which led to social inequalities within and outside the research system. In translational biomedical research, the ethical aspect of urgently needed transparency is another argument in favor of open access publication, as these studies will not only be findable, but also internationally readable.

There are different ways of open access publishing; the 2 main routes are gold open access and green open access. Numerous journals offer now gold open access. It refers to the immediate and fully accessible publication of an article. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) provides a complete and updated list for high-quality, open access, and peer-reviewed journals [ 97 ]. Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin offers a specific tool for biomedical open access journals that supports animal researchers to choose an appropriate journal [ 49 ]. In addition, the Sherpa Romeo platform is a straightforward way to identify publisher open access policies on a journal-by-journal basis, including information on preprints, but also on licensing of articles [ 51 ]. Hybrid open access refers to openly accessible articles in otherwise paywalled journals. By contrast, green open access refers to the publication of a manuscript or article in a repository that is mostly operated by institutions and/or universities. The publication can be exclusively on the repository or in combination with a publisher. In the quality-assured, global Directory of Open Access Repositories (openDOAR), scientists can find thousands of indexed open access repositories [ 49 ]. The publisher often sets an embargo during which the authors cannot make the publication available in the repository, which can restrict the combined model. It is worth mentioning that gold open access is usually more expensive for the authors, as they have to pay an article processing charge. However, the article’s outreach is usually much higher than the outreach of an article in a repository or available exclusively as subscription content [ 98 ]. Diamond open access refers to publications and publication platforms that can be read free of charge by anyone interested and for which no costs are incurred by the authors either. It is the simplest and fairest form of open access for all parties involved, as no one is prevented from participating in scientific discourse by payment barriers. For now, it is not as widespread as the other forms because publishers have to find alternative sources of revenue to cover their costs.

As social media and the researcher’s individual public outreach are becoming increasingly important, it should be remembered that the accessibility of a publication should not be confused with the licensing under which the publication is made available. In order to be able to share and reuse one’s own work in the future, we recommend looking for journals that allow publications under the Creative Commons licenses CC BY or CC BY-NC. This also allows the immediate combination of gold and green open access.

Creative commons licenses

Attributing Creative Commons (CC) licenses to scientific content can make research broadly available and clearly specifies the terms and conditions under which people can reuse and redistribute the intellectual property, namely publications and data, while giving the credit to whom it deserves [ 49 ]. As the laws on copyright vary from country to country and law texts are difficult to understand for outsiders, the CC licenses are designed to be easily understandable and are available in 41 languages. This way, users can easily avoid accidental misuse. The CC initiative developed a tool that enables researchers to find the license that best fits their interests [ 49 ]. Since the licenses are based on a modular concept ranging from relatively unrestricted licenses (CC BY, free to use, credit must be given) to more restricted licenses (CC BY-NC-ND, only free to share for non-commercial purposes, credit must be given), one can find an appropriate license even for the most sensitive content. Publishing under an open CC license will not only make the publication easy to access but can also help to increase its reach. It can stimulate other researchers and the interested public to share this article within their network and to make the best future use of it. Bear in mind that datasets published independently from an article may receive a different CC license. In terms of intellectual property, data are not protected in the same way as articles, which is why the CC initiative in the United Kingdom recommends publishing them under a CC0 (“no rights reserved”) license or the Public Domain Mark. This gives everybody the right to use the data freely. In an animal ethics sense, this is especially important in order to get the most out of data derived from animal experiments.

Data and code repositories

Sharing research data is essential to ensure reproducibility and to facilitate scientific progress. This is particularly true in animal research and the scientific community increasingly recognizes the value of sharing research data. However, even though there is increasing support for the sharing of data, researchers still perceive barriers when it comes to doing so in practice [ 99 – 101 ]. Many universities and research institutions have established research data repositories that provide continuous access to datasets in a trusted environment. Many of these data repositories are tied to specific research areas, geographic regions, or scientific institutions. Due to the growing number and overall heterogeneity of these repositories, it can be difficult for researchers, funding agencies, publishers, and academic institutions to identify appropriate repositories for storing and searching research data.

Recently, several web-based tools have been developed to help in the selection of a suitable repository. One example is Re3data, a global registry of research data repositories that includes repositories from various scientific disciplines. The extensive database can be searched by country, content (e.g., raw data, source code), and scientific discipline [ 49 ]. A similar tool to help find a data archive specific to the field is FAIRsharing, based at Oxford University [ 102 ]. If there is no appropriate subject-specific data repository or one seems unsuitable for the data, there are general data repositories, such as Open Science Framework, figshare, Dryad, or Zenodo. To ensure that data stored in a repository can be found, a DOI is assigned to the data. Choosing the right license for the deposited code and data ensures that authors get credit for their work.

Publication and connection of all outcomes

If scientists have used all available open science tools during the research process, then publishing and linking all outcomes represents the well-deserved harvest ( Fig 2 ). At the end of a research process, researchers will not just have 1 publication in a journal. Instead, they might have a preregistration, a preprint, a publication in a journal, a dataset, and a protocol. Connecting these outcomes in a way that enables other scientists to better assess the results that link these publications will be key. There are many examples of good open science practices in laboratory animal science, but we want to highlight one of them to show how this could be achieved. Blenkuš and colleagues investigated how mild stress-induced hyperthermia can be assessed non-invasively by thermography in mice [ 103 ]. The study was preregistered with animalstudyregistry.org , which is referred to in their publication [ 104 ]. A deviation from the originally preregistered hypothesis was explained in the manuscript and the supplementary material was uploaded to figshare [ 105 ].

Application of open science practices can increase the reproducibility and visibility of a research project at the same time. By publishing different research outputs with more detailed information than can be included in a journal article, researchers enable peers to replicate their work. Reporting according to guidelines and using transparent visualization will further improve this reproducibility. The more research products that are generated, the more credit can be attributed. By communicating on social media or additionally publishing slides from delivered talks or posters, more attention can be raised. Additionally, publishing open access and making the work machine-findable makes it accessible to an even broader number of peers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g002

It might also be helpful to provide all resources from a project in a single repository such as Open Science Framework, which also implements other, different tools that might have been used, like GitHub or protocols.io.

Communicating your research

Once all outcomes of the project are shared, it is time to address the targeted peers. Social media is an important instrument to connect research communities [ 106 ]. In particular, Twitter is an effective way to communicate research findings or related events to peers [ 107 ]. In addition, specialized platforms like ResearchGate can support the exchange of practical experiences ( Table 1 ). When all resources related to a project are kept in one place, sharing this link is a straightforward way to reach out to fellow scientists.

With the increasing number of publications, science communication has become more important in recent years. Transparent science that communicates openly with the public contributes to strengthening society’s trust in research.

Conclusions

Plenty of open science tools are already available and the number of tools is constantly growing. Translational biomedical researchers should seize this opportunity, as it could contribute to a significant improvement in the transparency of research and fulfil their ethical responsibility to maximize the impact of knowledge gained from animal experiments. Over and above this, open science practices also bear important direct benefits for the scientists themselves. Indeed, the implementation of these tools can increase the visibility of research and becomes increasingly important when applying for grants or in recruitment decisions. Already, more and more journals and funders require activities such as data sharing. Several institutions have established open science practices as evaluation criteria alongside publication lists, impact factor, and h-index for panels deciding on hiring or tenure [ 108 ]. For new adopters, it is not necessary to apply all available practices at once. Implementing single tools can be a safe approach to slowly improve the outreach and reproducibility of one’s own research. The more open science products that are generated, the more reproducible the work becomes, but also the more the visibility of a study increases ( Fig 2 ).

As other research fields, such as social sciences, are already a step ahead in the implementation of open science practices, translational biomedicine can profit from their experiences [ 109 ]. We should thus keep in mind that open science comes with some risks that should be minimized early on. Indeed, the more open science practices become incentivized, the more researchers could be tempted to get a transparency quality label that might not be justified. When a study is based on a bad hypothesis or poor statistical planning, this cannot be fixed by preregistration, as prediction alone is not sufficient to validate an interpretation [ 110 ]. Furthermore, a boom of data sharing could disconnect data collectors and analysts, bearing the risk that researchers performing the analysis lack understanding of the data. The publication of datasets could also promote a “parasitic” use of a researcher’s data and lead to scooping of outcomes [ 111 ]. Stakeholders could counteract such a risk by promoting collaboration instead of competition.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an explosion of preprint publications. This unseen acceleration of science might be the adequate response to a pandemic; however, the speeding up science in combination with the “publish or perish” culture could come at the expense of the quality of the publication. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis comparing the quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles showed that the quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is at most slightly lower on average compared to peer-reviewed articles [ 112 ]. Additionally, preprints and social media have shown during this pandemic that a premature and overconfident communication of research results can be overinterpreted by journalists and raise unfounded hopes or fears in patients and relatives [ 113 ]. By being honest and open about the scope and limitations of the study and choosing communication channels carefully, researchers can avoid misinterpretation. It should be noted, however, that by releasing all methodological details and data in research fields such as viral engineering, where a dual use cannot be excluded, open science could increase biosecurity risk. Implementing access-controlled repositories, application programming interfaces, and a biosecurity risk assessment in the planning phase (i.e., by preregistration) could mitigate this threat [ 114 ].

Publishing in open access journals often involves higher publication costs, which makes it more difficult for institutes and universities from low-income countries to publish there [ 115 ]. Equity has been identified as a key aim of open science [ 116 ]. It is vital, therefore, that existing structural inequities in the scientific system are not unintentionally reinforced by open science practices. Early career researchers have been the main drivers of the open science movement in other fields even though they are often in vulnerable positions due to short contracts and hierarchical and strongly networked research environments. Supporting these early career researchers in adopting open science tools could significantly advance this change in research culture [ 117 ]. However, early career researchers can already benefit by publishing registered reports or preprints that can provide a publication much faster than conventional journal publications. Communication in social media can help them establish a network enabling new collaborations or follow-up positions.

Even though open science comes with some risks, the benefits easily overweigh these caveats. If a change towards more transparency is accompanied by the implementation of open science in the teaching curricula of the universities, most of the risks can be minimized [ 118 ]. Interestingly, we have observed that open science tools and infrastructure that are specific to animal research seem to mostly come from Europe. This may be because of strict regulations within Europe for animal experiments or because of a strong research focus in laboratory animal science along with targeted research funding in this region. Whatever the reason might be, it demonstrates the important role of research policy in accelerating the development towards 3Rs and open science.

Overall, it seems inevitable that open science will eventually prevail in translational biomedical research. Scientists should not wait for the slow-moving incentive framework to change their research habits, but should take pioneering roles in adopting open science tools and working towards more collaboration, transparency, and reproducibility.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input and comments from Sebastian Dunst, Daniel Butzke, and Nils Körber that have improved the content of this work.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Cary Funk MH, Brian Kennedy, Courtney Johnson. Americans say open access to data and independent review inspire more trust in research findings. Pew Research Center Website: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/americans-say-open-access-to-data-and-independent-review-inspire-more-trust-in-research-findings/ .
• 7. International Reproducibility Networks. International Networks Statement UK Reproducibility Network Website: UK Reproducibility Network. 2021. Available from: https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/b/631/files/2021/09/International-Networks-Statement-v1.0.pdf .
• 13. Article 36 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 amended by Regilation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. OJEU. 2010;L276:36.
• 19. American Association for Cancer Research. Editorial Policies. 2021. Available from: https://aacrjournals.org/content/authors/editorial-policies .
• 21. Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C. Open Science Toolbox for Animal Research. Zenodo. 2022. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/6497560 .
• 29. NC3R. ARRIVE guidelines. NC3R Website. Available from: https://arriveguidelines.org/ .
• 31. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. How to integrate sex and gender into research. Website of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html .
• 33. Simon T, Bate RAC. InVivoStat. Available from: https://invivostat.co.uk/ .
• 35. Urbaniak G, Plous S. Research randomizer (version 4.0) [computer software]. 2013.
• 47. Medical Research Council’s. Data sharing policy. UK Research and Innovation Website 2021. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/publications/mrc-data-sharing-policy/ .
• 48. University of California Curation Center. DMPTool. 2021. Available from: https://dmptool.org/ .
• 49. Digital Curation Centre. DMPOnline. Available from: https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ . Digital Curation Centre; 2021.
• 50. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Biomedical Data Lifecycle. Harvard Medical School Website: Harvard Medical School; 2021. Available from: https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/about/what-research-data-management/biomedical-data-lifecycle .
• 51. Joint Information Systems Committee. Research data management toolkit JISC Website: JISC; 2018. Available from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/rdm-toolkit .
• 54. German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R). NTPs—Nicht Technische Projektzusammenfassungen 3R-SMART; 2020. Available from: https://www.3r-smart.de/index.php?id=6895 .
• 55. Understanding Animal Research. Guide to writing non-technical summaries concordat on openness on animal research in the UK2018. Available from: https://concordatopenness.org.uk/guide-to-writing-non-technical-summaries .
• 56. Gerlach B, Untucht C, Stefan A. Electronic Lab Notebooks and Experimental Design Assistants. In: Bespalov A, Michel MC, Steckler T, editors. Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 257–75.
• 58. Adam BL, Birte L. ELN Guide: electronic laboratory notebooks in the context of research data management and good research practice–a guide for the life sciences. Cologne, Germany: ZB MED–Information Centre for Life Sciences; 2021.
• 59. AgileBio. LabCollector Website https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/2022 . Available from: https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/ .
• 61. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Electronic Lab Notebook Comparison Matrix. Zenodo. 2021.
• 70. Bio-protocol. Collaborating Journals bio-protocol website2021. Available from: https://bio-protocol.org/default.aspx?dw=Collaborating .
• 76. Dinkel H. anishare: GitHub; [updated June 2018]. Available from: https://github.com/hdinkel/anishare .
• 89. O’Connor AM. MERIDIAN: Menagerie of Reporting guidelines Involving Animals. Iowa State University; 2022. Available from: https://meridian.cvm.iastate.edu/ .
• 90. The Jackson Laboratory. Mouse Nomenclature Home Page at the Mouse Genome Informatics website World Wide Web: The Jackson Laboratory,Bar Harbor, Maine. Available from: http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/index.shtml .
• 97. Directory of Open Access Journals. Find open access journals & articles. Available from: https://doaj.org/ . Directory of Open Access Journals, [DOAJ]; 2021.
• 98. Gold Open Access research has greater societal impact as used more outside of academia [press release]. Springer Nature Website: Springer. Nature. 2020;30:2020.
• 104. Franco NH. Can we use infrared thermography for assessing emotional states in mice?—A comparison between handling-induced stress by different techniques. Available from: animalstudyregistry.org . German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR); 2020. https://doi.org/10.17590/asr.0000224

An Introduction to Animal Research

Cite this chapter.

• James Kinross 3 &
• Lord Ara Darzi 4  

2863 Accesses

Despite advances in computer modelling and bioinformatics, animal models remain a vital component of biomedical research. The growth in this area of work is in part due to the evolution next generation of biotechnologies, which more than ever necessitate the need for in vivo experimentation. An understanding of the principals of animal research therefore remains a necessity for medical researchers as it permits scientific analysis to be interpreted in a more critical and meaningful manner. Initiating and designing an animal experiment can be a daunting process, particularly as the law and legislation governing animal research is complex and new specialist skills must be acquired. This chapter reviews the principles of animal research and provides a practical resource for those researchers seeking to create robust animal experiments that ensure minimal suffering and maximal scientific validity.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal Welfare Act

Control of substances hazardous to health

European Coalition for Biomedical Research

The Food and Drug Agency

Health and Safety Executive

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Individually ventilated cage

In vitro fertilisation

Laboratory animal allergy

Named animal care and welfare officer

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

Named veterinary surgeon

The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare

Public Health Service

Personal License under the Scientific (Animal Procedures) Act 1986

Project License under the Scientific (Animal Procedures) Act 1986

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Specified pathogen free

The United States Department of Agriculture

(2006) Animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate annual report. Home Office: Science, Research and Statistics, London

Google Scholar  

Davidson N (2006) Davidson review: implementation of EU legislation. http://wwwhm-treasurygovuk/independent_reviews/davidson_review/davidson_indexcfm

Fox JG, Cohen BJ, Loew FM (1984) Laboratory animal medicine. Academic press, New York

RDS, Understanding Animal Research in Medicine, Coalition for Medical Progress (2007) Medical advances and animal research: the contribution of animal science to the medical revolution: some case histories. Available at: http://www.pro-test.org.uk/MAAR.pdf

Foex BA (2007) The ethics of animal experimentation. Emerg Med J 24:750–751

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Matfield M (2002) Animal experimentation: the continuing debate. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:149–152

Rollin BE (2007) Animal research: a moral science. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep 8:521–525

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Singer P (2006) In defense of animals: the second wave. Blackwell, Malden, MA

Croce P (1999) Vivisection or science? An investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health. Zed Books, London

Schechter AN, Rettig RA (2002) Funding priorities for medical research. JAMA 288:832; author reply 832

Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P et al (2004) Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 328:514–517

Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E et al (2007) Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 334:197

Mayor S (2007) UK regulatory body wants public consultation on human—animal hybrid research. BMJ 334:112

Anon (2007) Avoiding a chimaera quagmire. Nature 445:1

Article   Google Scholar  

Karpowicz P, Cohen CB, van der Kooy D (2004) It is ethical to transplant human stem cells into nonhuman embryos. Nat Med 10:331–335

Thompson SG (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309:1351–1355

Auer JA, Goodship A, Arnoczky S et al (2007) Refining animal models in fracture research: seeking consensus in optimising both animal welfare and scientific validity for appropriate biomedical use. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:72

Sarker SK, Patel B (2007) Simulation and surgical training. Int J Clin Pract 61:2120–2125

Dolan K (2007) Laboratory animal law: legal control of the use of animals in research. Blackwell, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Rice M (2007) Deadline approaches for animal experimentation directive. Eur J Cancer 43:1641

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Field K, Bailey M, Foresman LL et al (2007) Medical records for animals used in research, teaching, and testing: public statement from the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. ILAR J 48:37–41

Hauser R, Marczak M, Karaszewski B et al (2008) A preliminary study for identifying olfactory markers of fear in the rat. Lab Anim (NY) 37:76–80

Vermeulen JK, de Vries A, Schlingmann F, Remie R. (1997) Food Deprivation: common sense or nonsense? Animal Tech 48:45–54

Levine S, Saltzman A (2000) Feeding sugar overnight maintains metabolic homeostasis in rats and is preferable to overnight starvation. Lab Anim 34:301–306

Brown C (2007) Endotracheal intubation in the dog. Lab Anim (NY) 36:23–24

Price H (2007) Intubating rabbits. Vet Rec 160:744

Spoelstra EN, Ince C, Koeman A et al (2007) A novel and simple method for endotracheal intubation of mice. Lab Anim 41:128–135

Buscaglia JM (2007) Animal laboratory endoscopic research: a fellow's perspective. Gastrointest Endosc 65:882–883

Fritscher-Ravens A, Patel K, Ghanbari A et al (2007) Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) in the mediastinum: long-term survival animal experiments in transesoph-ageal access, including minor surgical procedures. Endoscopy 39:870–875

Radostits OM, Mayhew IG, Houston DM (2000) Veterinary clinical examination and diagnosis, 2nd edn. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia

James Thomson et al, “Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts,” Science 282:1145–1147, November 6, 1998

The National Academies' Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. 2008. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12260

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College, 10th floor, QEQM, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK

James Kinross

The Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, 10th Floor, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (QEQM) Building, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital Campus, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK

Lord Ara Darzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept. Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College London St. Mary's Hospital London, 10th floor QEQM Bldg. Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, United Kingdom

Thanos Athanasiou  & Ara Darzi  & 

UCSF Global Health Sciences, 3333 California Street, Suite 285, San Francisco L, CA, 94143-0443, USA

Haile Debas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Kinross, J., Darzi, L.A. (2010). An Introduction to Animal Research. In: Athanasiou, T., Debas, H., Darzi, A. (eds) Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_17

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_17

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-540-71914-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-540-71915-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing

Argumentative Essays on Animal Testing

Hook examples for animal testing essays, the ethical dilemma hook.

Begin your essay by presenting the ethical dilemma surrounding animal testing. Explore the moral questions it raises and the conflicting viewpoints of proponents and opponents.

The Historical Perspective Hook

Take your readers on a journey through the history of animal testing. Discuss its origins, evolution, and its role in scientific and medical advancements over time.

The Scientific Advancements Hook

Highlight the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that have resulted from animal testing. Discuss how it has contributed to medical treatments, vaccines, and the understanding of diseases.

The Alternatives and Innovations Hook

Explore alternative methods and innovations in research that aim to replace or reduce the use of animals in testing. Discuss advancements like in vitro testing and computer modeling.

The Animal Welfare Hook

Focus on the welfare and ethical treatment of animals used in testing. Discuss regulations, guidelines, and efforts to minimize harm and suffering in research.

The Legal and Regulatory Landscape Hook

Examine the legal and regulatory framework surrounding animal testing in different countries. Discuss laws, restrictions, and their enforcement.

The Public Opinion and Activism Hook

Discuss public perceptions of animal testing and the role of animal rights activists in advocating for change. Highlight notable campaigns and their impact.

The Unintended Consequences Hook

Explore unintended consequences or risks associated with animal testing, such as potential harm to humans due to species differences or the limitations of animal models.

The Future of Research Hook

Discuss the future of scientific research and the possibilities for reducing or eliminating animal testing. Explore emerging technologies and trends in biomedical research.

The Personal Story Hook

Share a personal or anecdotal story related to animal testing, such as the experiences of a researcher, activist, or someone affected by medical advancements achieved through animal testing.

Ethical Statement for Animal Testing

Animal testing: a necessary evil, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Use of Animals in Scientific Research

Arguments aganist using animals in experiments and testing, reasons to stop animal testing, the reasons why animal testing should be stopped, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Discussion Whether Animals Testing is Necessary

An argument favoring the use of animals in testing and the benefits it has brought, animal testing in modern world, pros and cons of animal testing: the conflicting debate, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Ethics of Animal Testing: an Argument Against Its Practice

Discussion: should animals be used for scientific research, the arguments concerning animal testing, why animal testing should be viewed as beneficial, saving the animals: alternative ways to test products, discussion on whether scientists should be allowed to test products on animals, the arguments why we should not test on animals, reasons why animal testing should be forbidden, why we should not continue test on animals, arguments for the reduction of animal testing, the problem of human cruelty to animals, how animal testing benefits us from diseases, stop the cruel and unnecessary animal testing, animal testing and alternatives for developing cruelty-free makeup, animals should not be a part of scientific research, worldwide problem of animal testing, analysis of the perspectives in support for animal testing and against it, animal testing in the united states, animal testing in the world, arguments for eliminating the use of animal testing.

Animal testing, referred to as animal experimentation, animal research, or in vivo testing, involves the utilization of animals other than humans in scientific experiments aimed at manipulating the factors influencing the behavior or biological processes being investigated.

Throughout history, the practice of animal testing has deep roots dating back centuries. The earliest recorded instances can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where animals were used for various scientific and medical purposes. The Greek physician Galen, during the second century AD, conducted experiments on animals to understand human anatomy and physiology. However, the formal establishment of animal testing as a systematic approach began to take shape during the 19th century with the emergence of modern medical research. In the late 1800s, advances in scientific knowledge and technology led to an increased demand for animal testing in various fields, including medicine, toxicology, and physiology. The development of anesthesia further facilitated the experimentation on animals by reducing pain and discomfort. Throughout the 20th century, animal testing became more widespread and institutionalized, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Public opinion on animal testing is a complex and diverse topic, with viewpoints spanning a wide spectrum. While there are those who support the use of animals in scientific research for the advancement of human knowledge and medical breakthroughs, others express strong opposition due to ethical concerns and the perceived mistreatment of animals. Some people argue that animal testing is necessary for the development of life-saving treatments and the improvement of human health. They believe that animals provide valuable insights into human biology and the effectiveness of potential therapies. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing argue that it is cruel and unnecessary, advocating for alternative methods such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and human cell-based assays. Public opinion on animal testing often hinges on the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare. The growing awareness of animal rights and ethical considerations has fueled debates and discussions surrounding the topic. As society becomes more conscious of animal welfare, there is an increasing demand for alternative testing methods and greater transparency in the treatment of animals involved in research. Ultimately, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping policies and regulations surrounding animal testing.

1. Scientific advancement. 2. Human health and safety. 3. Understanding diseases. 4. Regulatory requirements. 5. Animal welfare improvements.

1. Ethical concerns. 2. Inadequate human relevance. 3. Availability of alternatives. 4. Animal welfare. 5. Speciesism and moral status.

One example of media representation is the documentary "Earthlings" directed by Shaun Monson. This influential film explores different aspects of animal exploitation, including animal testing, and highlights the ethical concerns surrounding the practice. It has garnered widespread attention and prompted discussions about the treatment of animals in scientific research. Social media platforms have also become powerful tools for activists and organizations to share information and advocate for alternatives to animal testing. Hashtags like #StopAnimalTesting and #CrueltyFree have gained traction, raising awareness and encouraging conversations on the topic.

The topic of animal testing is important due to its ethical, scientific, and societal implications. From an ethical standpoint, it raises profound questions about the treatment of sentient beings and the moral responsibility we have towards animals. It prompts us to consider the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare, urging us to explore alternative methods that minimize harm. Scientifically, animal testing has been instrumental in advancing medical knowledge and developing treatments for various diseases. However, it is essential to continually evaluate its effectiveness, limitations, and potential alternatives to ensure both human and animal well-being. Furthermore, the issue of animal testing has societal implications as it reflects our values and priorities as a society. It prompts discussions about our relationship with animals, the extent of their rights, and the importance of promoting more humane practices.

The topic of animal testing is worth writing an essay about due to its complex nature and the multitude of perspectives it encompasses. It is a subject that elicits strong emotions and raises critical ethical, scientific, and social questions. Writing an essay on animal testing allows for an in-depth exploration of these issues and encourages critical thinking and analysis. By delving into the topic, one can examine the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in experiments, weighing the potential benefits against the moral implications. Additionally, it provides an opportunity to evaluate the scientific validity and reliability of animal testing as a method for understanding human biology and developing medical treatments. Furthermore, an essay on animal testing opens avenues for discussing alternative approaches and advancements in technology that can reduce or replace animal experimentation. It allows for an exploration of the societal impact of animal testing, including public opinion, legislation, and the influence of media.

1. Each year, millions of animals are used in scientific experiments worldwide. According to estimates, over 100 million animals, including rabbits, mice, rats, dogs, and primates, are subjected to testing for various purposes, such as biomedical research, drug development, and toxicity testing. 2. Animal testing is not always reliable in predicting human outcomes. Studies have shown that there can be significant differences between animals and humans in terms of anatomy, physiology, and drug metabolism. This raises concerns about the validity and relevance of using animal models for understanding human diseases and developing treatments. 3. Alternatives to animal testing are emerging and gaining traction. Scientists and researchers are actively exploring innovative methods, such as in vitro cell cultures, computer modeling, and organ-on-a-chip technology, to simulate human biology and predict human responses more accurately. These alternative approaches aim to reduce or eliminate the need for animal testing while still ensuring the safety and efficacy of new products and treatments.

1. Abbott, A. (2005). Animal testing: more than a cosmetic change. Nature, 438(7065), 144-147. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA185466349&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E513ffe31) 2. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096 Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. 3. Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ Heart views: the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12(1), 42. 4. Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought… on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 26(1), 3-16. (https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/633) 5. Valappil, S. P., Misra, S. K., Boccaccini, A. R., & Roy, I. (2006). Biomedical applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in vivo responses. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 3(6), 853-868. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/17434440.3.6.853) 6. File, S. E., Lippa, A. S., Beer, B., & Lippa, M. T. (2004). Animal tests of anxiety. Current protocols in neuroscience, 26(1), 8-3. (https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471142301.ns0803s26) 7. Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261192920965977) 8. Donnellan, L. (2006). Animal testing in cosmetics: recent developments in the European Union and the United States. Animal L., 13, 251. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/anim13&div=18&id=&page=)

Relevant topics

• Gun Violence
• Pro Choice (Abortion)
• Human Trafficking
• Women's Rights
• Homelessness
• Illegal Immigration
• Gender Equality
• Death Penalty

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

162 Best Animal Research Topics To Nail Your Paper In 2023

The world is filled with living things. There are some animals that we know about, some that we will discover, and there are many that we might never know about. All our knowledge about animals is mostly dependant on researchers. Well, we are rooting for you to be the next great researcher. Be it zoology, veterinary, or live wild stock, your study needs a research topic. If you’re looking for the best animal research topics to nail this year, we’re here with your help.

Table of Contents

Best Animal Research Topics

We have 162 Animal Research Topics that will help you get the best grades this year.

Physiology of Animals Research Topics

• Description of the knowledge required to work in animal physiology
• Study of animal species with different specialties in the sciences of nature and life
• Life sciences and socioeconomic impacts
• Neurulation appendages birds
• Exercises on gastrulation and neurulation
• Gastrulation amphibians birds
• Fertilization segmentation in the sea species
• Gametogenesis: A Detailed Introduction
• Study of Delimitation: bird appendages
• Particularities of the developmental biology of certain species
• Technical-commercial animal physiology
• Terrestrial and marine ecosystems
• Animal biology and forensic science: Is there a connection?
• Animal Biology Biotechnology and molecules of interest regarding food and industry
• The interest in biology in the diagnosis of animal and plant diseases
• Toxicology and environmental health concerns in animal physiology
• Animal and plant production
• Fundamentals of animal physiology research and analysis
• Behavior and evolution Genetics of behavior in animals
• Adaptation and evolution of behavior
• Comparative studies of general ecology, zoology, and animal physiology
• Study of animals about the conditions prevailing in their immediate environment
• Endocrine and neuroendocrine systems in animals
• Studying the nervous systems in birds
• Genitals and reproductive physiology of birds
• Understanding of the anatomical and functional particularities of invertebrates
• Biology and physiology of invertebrates
• Reconstruction of phylogenetic trees
• Morpho-anatomical arguments and the importance of fossils
• Argued classification of animals
• Study of the evolution of living organisms by making updates on recent advances in Animalia
• Phylogeny and animal evolution
• Principles of echolocation in the bats
• Possible evolution of the increase in complexity of the primitive nervous system
• The nervous system of the insect
• Circulation in animal physiology
• Animals without a differentiated circulatory system
• Water and mineral balance in animals
• Thermoregulation in animals
• Musculoskeletal system in animals
• Study of animal blood
• Biological rhythms of animals
• Skin and teguments of mammals
• Animal nutrition and metabolism
• Hormones and endocrine system of animals
• Emerging organic pollutants
• Mechanisms of toxicity in animals
• Animal physiology in animals from temperate regions
• Genetic correlations between animal species
• Animal communities, forest ecology, and forest birds
• Wildlife-habitat modeling

Looking for research topics in general? Read 402  General Research Paper Topics

Animal Research Topics For Student

• Impact of the agricultural raw materials crisis on the marketing of livestock feed
• Analysis of the competitiveness of poultry produced in the USA
• Animal cruelty in USA and European countries
• Seroprevalence of neosporosis in cattle herds
• The peri-urban dairy sector
• Effect of the liberalization of the veterinary profession on the vaccination coverage of livestock
• Why do people kill animals? The psyche behind animal cruelty
• Evaluation of the growth performance of three sheep breeds
• Study on the protection of terrestrial ecosystems
• Ecology of African dung beetles
• Effects of road infrastructure on wildlife in developing countries
• Analysis of the consequences of climate change related to pastoral livestock
• Strategies for management in the animal feed sector
• The feeding behavior of mosquitoes
• Bee learning and memory
• Immediate response to the animal cruelty
• Study of mass migration of land birds over the ocean
• A study of crocodile evolution
• The cockroach escape system
• The resistance of cockroaches against radiation: Myth or fact?
• Temperature regulation in the honey bee swarm
• Irresponsible dog breeding can often lead to an excess of stray dogs and animal cruelty
• Reliable communication signals in birds

Also see:  How to Write an 8 Page Research Paper ?

Animal Research Topics For University

• Color patterns of moths and moths
• Mimicry in the sexual signals of fireflies
• Ecophysiology of the garter snake
• Memory, dreams regarding cat neurology
• Spatiotemporal variation in the composition of animal communities
• Detection of prey in the sand scorpion
• Internal rhythms in bird migration
• Genealogy: Giant Panda
• Animal dissection: Severe type of animal cruelty and a huge blow to animal rights
• Cuckoo coevolution and patterns
• Use of plant extracts from Amazonian plants for the design of integrated pest management
• Research on flying field bug
• The usefulness of mosquitoes in biological control serves to isolate viruses
• Habitat use by the Mediterranean Ant
• Genetic structure of the  African golden wolf  based on its habitat
• Birds body odor on their interaction with mosquitoes and parasites
• The role of ecology in the evolution of coloration in owls
• The invasion of the red swamp crayfish
• Molecular taxonomy and biogeography of caprellids
• Bats of Mexico and United States
• What can animal rights NGOs do in case of animal cruelty during animal testing initiatives?

Or you can try 297 High School Research Paper Topics to Top The Class

Controversial Animal Research Topics

• Is it okay to adopt an animal for experimentation?
• The authorization procedures on animals for scientific experiments
• The objective of total elimination of animal testing
• Are there concrete examples of successful scientific advances resulting from animal experimentation?
• Animal rights for exotic animals: Protection of forests and wildlife
• How can animal rights help the endangered animals
• Animal experimentations are a type of animal cruelty: A detailed analysis
• Animal testing: encouraging the use of alternative methods
• Use of animals for the evaluation of chemical substances
• Holding seminars on the protection of animals
• Measures to take against animal cruelty
• Scientific research on marine life
• Scientific experiments on animals for medical research
• Experimentation on great apes
• Toxicological tests and other safety studies on chemical substances
• Why isn’t research done directly on humans rather than animals?
• Are animals necessary to approve new drugs and new medical technologies?
• Are the results of animal experiments transferable to humans?
• Humans are not animals, which is why animal research is not effective
• What medical advances have been made possible by animal testing?
• Animals never leave laboratories alive
• Scientific interest does not motivate the use of animal research
• Animal research is torture 
• How can a layperson work against the animal testing?

Every crime is a controversy too, right? Here are some juicy  Criminal Justice Research Paper Topics  as well.

Animal Research Topics: Animal Rights

• Growing awareness of the animal suffering generated by these experiments
• What are the alternatives to animal testing?
• Who takes care of animal welfare?
• Major global organizations working for animal rights
• Animal rights in developing countries
• International animal rights standards to work against animal cruelty
• Animal cruelty in developing countries
• What can a layperson do when seeing animal cruelty
• Role of society in the prevention of animal cruelty
• Animal welfare and animal rights: measures taken against animal cruelty in developing countries
• Animal cruelty in the name of science
• How can we raise a better, empathetic and warm-hearted children to put a stop to animal cruelty
• Ethical animal testing methods with safety
• Are efforts being made to reduce the number of animals used?
• The welfare of donkeys and their socioeconomic roles in the subcontinent
• Animal cruelty and superstitious conceptions of dogs, cats, and donkeys in subcontinent
• Efforts made by international organizations against the tragedy of animal cruelty
• International organizations working for animal welfare
• Animal abuse: What are the immediate measures to take when we see animal cruelty
• Efforts to stop animal abuse in South Asian Countries
• Animal abuse in the name of biomedical research

Talking about social causes, let’s have a look at social work topics too: 206  Social Work Research Topics

Interesting Animal Research Topics

• The urbanization process and its effect on the dispersal of birds:
• Patterns of diversification in Neotropical amphibians
• Interactions between non-native parrot species
• Impact of landscape anthropization dynamics and wild birds’ health
• Habitat-driven diversification in small mammals
• Seasonal fluctuations and life cycles of amphipods
• Animal cruelty in African countries
• Evolution of the environmental niche of amphibians
• Biological studies on Louisiana crawfish
• Biological studies on Pink bollworm
• Biological studies on snails
• Biological studies on Bush Crickets
• Biological studies on Mountain Gorillas
• Biological studies on piranha
• Consequences of mosquito feeding
• Birds as bioindicators of environmental health
• Biological studies on victoria crowned pigeon
• Biological studies on black rhinoceros
• Biological studies on European spider
• Biological studies on dumbo octopus
• Biological studies on markhor
• Study of genetic and demographic variation in amphibian populations
• Ecology and population dynamics of the blackberry turtle
• Small-scale population differentiation in ecological and evolutionary mechanisms
• Challenges in vulture conservation

Also interesting: 232  Chemistry Research Topics  To Make Your Neurochemicals Dance

Submarine Animals Research Topics

• The physiology behind the luminous fish
• A study of Fish population dynamics
• Study of insects on the surface of the water
• Structure and function of schools of fish
• Physiological ecology of whales and dolphins
• Form and function in fish locomotion
• Why do whales and dolphins jump?
• Impact of Noise on Early Development and Hearing in Zebrafish
• Animal cruelty against marine life on the hand of fishermen

Read More:  Accounting Research Topics

Animal Biology Research Topics

• Systematic and zoogeographical study of the ocellated lizards
• Morphological study of neuro histogenesis in the diencephalon of the chick embryo
• Anatomical study of three species of Nudibranch
• The adaptive strategy of two species of lagomorphs
• The Black vulture: population, general biology, and interactions with other birds
• Ocellated lizards: their phylogeny and taxonomy
• Studies on the behavior of ocellated lizards in captivity
• Comparative studies of the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards
• The taxonomic and phylogenetic implications of ocellated lizards
• Research on the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards in their natural environment
• Comparative studies of the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards in different countries
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards in their natural environment in the light of evolutionary and ecological insights

Animal research topics are not hard to find for you anymore. As you have already read a load of them. You can use any of them and ace your research paper, and you don’t even need to ask permission. If you are looking for a research paper writing service , be it animal research, medical research, or any sort of research, you can contact us 24/7.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

111 Animal Testing Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on animal testing, ✍️ animal testing essay topics for college, 🎓 most interesting animal testing research titles, 💡 simple animal testing essay ideas, ❓ questions about animal testing.

• Is Animal Testing Ethical: Essay Example
• Animal Testing: Benefits and Disadvantages
• The Testing of Animals for Cosmetic Products
• The Animal Testing Problem
• Nestlé Animal Testing and Business Ethics
• The Use of Animals in Psychological Experiments
• The Ethical Side of Animal Testing
• Scientific Experiments on Animals from Ethical Perspectives This paper discusses using animals in scientific experiments from the consequentialist, Kantian deontological and Donna Yarri’s Christian character-based perspectives.
• The Problem of Using Animals in Experimentation Testing on animals in the lab provides researchers with valuable knowledge regarding a particular disease, how it could be treated, and using which medicines.
• Animal Experimentation: The Theory of Utilitarianism This moral issue concerns animal experimentation. It is related to the theory of Utilitarianism, the idea of which induces preference of practical changes over morally obstacles.
• Animal Testing and How It Should Continue It is essential to understand that animal testing should continue or find a new acceptable form as the possible benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
• Animals Testing for Cosmetic or Medical Purposes Should Not Be Allowed Experiments on animals are not a valid method either for investigating the various causes of human diseases or for developing a treatment for them.
• Animal Use in Scientific Testing Should Be Stopped Animals should not be used in scientific experimentation because it is unethical, dangerous, and unreliable and better alternatives exist.
• Save Animals: Experimentation Should Be Stopped The paper proves that animal experimentation should be stopped. It addresses statistical data and the outcomes of animal testing, offering possible solutions to the problem.
• Animal Testing in the Modern World The current debate is on whether animal experiments have any value or they only amount to torturing animals to satisfy human curiosity.
• Law: Animal Testing Debates Cosmetics industry heavily employs animal testing. It is noteworthy that fighters for animals’ rights have managed to achieve a lot in their fight.
• Animal Testing: Evaluation, Prediction and Risk The issue of animal testing is a complex issue. The way animal testing is conducted is changing as animal-friendly groups are lobbying for a tougher control on the discipline.
• Lab Experiment on Animals’ Taste or Smell Senses The hypothesis of the study is that taste perception and detection of different sugars by insects were similar to that of humans.
• Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Experiments? Unfortunately, at the moment, the use of animals in science and medicine cannot be excluded entirely. However, it is possible to conduct experiments using mathematical models.
• Animal Testing: Finding an Alternative It is possible to find a less cruel alternative to animal testing in the context of present-day development. This paper reviews the supporting arguments for this position.
• The Controversies of Animal Testing The unbalanced ecosystem is probably the best-known and publicized example, with several others being primarily of ethical origin. Animal testing falls into this category.
• Animal Testing: The Notion of the 21st Century Cruelty The paper names animal testing as one of the most vivid examples of cruelty, in terms of which animals are to suffer from medical or cosmetic experiments.
• Saving the Animals: Stop Animal Testing In the article, the author argues why animal testing should be banned and replaced with alternative research methods.
• Animal Testing in the Modern World Animal testing should be used for both commercial and scientific purposes as long as the outcome results in a direct benefit for humankind.
• Scientific Testing on Animals It is cruel and nonessential for animals to go through testing of any form. Scientific testing on animals does not consider their welfare, safety, and quality of life.
• Ethics: Experiments on Animals Industrial and biomedical research is often painful and most of the test ends up killing the animals. Experiments such as these often incur the wrath of the animal rights movement.
• Animal Experimentation: Arguments For and Against The controversy surrounding animal experimentation is a serious concern that should be addressed by considering views from both sides.
• Vegetarian Diet and Animal Testing Theory The ethical preference of a vegetarian diet may be proved with the theory if one considers the consequences of every person choosing to be vegetarian.
• Animal Testing and Alternatives Development Despite the concern voiced by its opponents, animal testing remains a viable practice that is both beneficial and important for humans and, to some degree, animals.
• Using Animals in Medical Experiments This paper explores how the principles of the character-based ethical approach can be applied to the discussion of using animals in the medical research and experiments.
• Animal Testing: Use of Animal in Biomedical Research The research paper shall attempt to explore the reasons for and against the use of animal testing in biomedical research.
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Ethics, Regulations, and History of Medical Animal Testing
• Animal Testing for the Benefit of Science
• How Animal Testing Benefits Us From Diseases
• Animal Testing and Hunting: Stopping the Slaughter
• Medical Animal Testing Should Not Be the Option When Conducting Research
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned
• Animal Testing and Its Effects on a Full Living System
• The Advantages and Importance of Animal Testing
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• Controversial and Ethical Issues of Animal Testing, Torture, and Executions
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill Against Animal Cruelty
• Animal Testing: Can Cause Animal Sudden Death
• Replacing Animal Testing: Why It’s Impossible
• Animal Testing for Pharmaceuticals: Ethical or Unethical
• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing in the Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing: Helps Both Humans and Other Animals
• Environmental Ethics: Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Cruelty and Suffering of Animals in Animal Testing
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• The Hidden Crime Behind Animal Testing
• How Institutional Logics Hamper Innovation: The Case of Animal Testing
• Animal Testing and Alternatives for Developing Cruelty-Free Makeup
• Counter Argument Refutation About Animal Testing
• Animal Testing and Changing the Animal Welfare Act
• Our Environment, Animal Testing, and Human Life
• Animal Testing and Its Effects on Human Health
• Problems With Animal Testing: Inhumane Practices and Neglected Interests
• Animal Testing and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Should Animal Testing Really Benefit the Human Race?
• Animal Testing: Animals Used for Experiments
• Stop Animal Testing: Rabbits Do Not Wear Mascara
• Animal Testing Causes Millions of Animal Deaths Each Year
• Why Animals Are Necessary: An Argument in Support of Animal Testing
• The Ugly Truth Behind Cosmetics and Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: Cruelty Versus Benefit
• Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• Benefits and Environmental Impacts of Animal Testing
• What the Government Should Do About Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• Stop the Insanity: Alternatives to Animal Testing
• How Technology Impact Animal Testing Issues
• Animal Testing: Not Very Reliable or Safe for Human Safety and Health
• Why Animal Testing Should Be Accepted in the World
• Cruel and Inhuman Ways of Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: The Horrific Truth About Scientific Research
• What Are Important Positive Consequences of Animal Testing?
• Why Is It Difficult to Extrapolate Carcinogenic Data From Animal Testing?
• Why Are Chimpanzees Used for Animal Testing?
• Is Animal Testing Still Cruel?
• How Do Humans Benefit From Animal Testing?
• Do the Animals Feel Pain During Testing?
• What Kinds of Animals Are Used in Testing?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• How Many Animals Are Killed From Testing?
• Has Animal Testing Increased Over Time?
• How Many Animals Are Used in Animal Testing Each Year?
• How Is Animal Testing Regulated in the United States?
• What Are the Alternatives to Animal Testing?
• Does Public Opinion Support or Oppose Animal Testing?
• What Do Religious Groups Say About Animal Testing?
• Are There Any Organizations Working to End Animal Testing?
• Why Do Companies Continue to Use Animals for Testing?
• Does Animal Testing Lead to Safer Products for Humans?
• Which Countries Have Banned Animal Testing?
• Is It Ever Possible to Completely Replace Animal Testing With Other Methods?
• Do the Benefits of Animal Testing Outweigh the Costs?
• What Is Being Done to Reduce the Need for Animal Testing?
• Who Pays for Animal Testing?
• How Will the Animals Be Cared for During the Testing?
• What Will Happen to the Animals After the Testing Is Completed?
• What Are the Main Ethical Issues With Animal Testing?
• How High Is the Success Rate of Animal Testing?
• Who Conducts Animal Testing?
• Can Computer Modelling Replace Animal Testing?
• What Actually Happens During Animal Testing?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, August 27). 111 Animal Testing Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/animal-testing-essay-topics/

"111 Animal Testing Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 27 Aug. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/animal-testing-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '111 Animal Testing Essay Topics'. 27 August.

1. StudyCorgi . "111 Animal Testing Essay Topics." August 27, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/animal-testing-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "111 Animal Testing Essay Topics." August 27, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/animal-testing-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "111 Animal Testing Essay Topics." August 27, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/animal-testing-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Animal Testing were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on December 27, 2023 .

The Edvocate

• Lynch Educational Consulting
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• Write For Us
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Assistive Technology
• Best PreK-12 Schools in America
• Child Development
• Classroom Management
• Early Childhood
• EdTech & Innovation
• Education Leadership
• First Year Teachers
• Gifted and Talented Education
• Special Education
• Parental Involvement
• Policy & Reform
• Best Colleges and Universities
• Best College and University Programs
• HBCU’s
• Higher Education EdTech
• Higher Education
• International Education
• The Awards Process
• Finalists and Winners of The 2022 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2021 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2020 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2019 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2018 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2017 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Award Seals
• GPA Calculator for College
• GPA Calculator for High School
• Cumulative GPA Calculator
• Grade Calculator
• Weighted Grade Calculator
• Final Grade Calculator
• The Tech Edvocate
• AI Powered Personal Tutor

College Minor: Everything You Need to Know

14 fascinating teacher interview questions for principals, tips for success if you have a master’s degree and can’t find a job, 14 ways young teachers can get that professional look, which teacher supplies are worth the splurge, 8 business books every teacher should read, conditional admission: everything you need to know, college majors: everything you need to know, 7 things principals can do to make a teacher observation valuable, 3 easy teacher outfits to tackle parent-teacher conferences.

Research Topics About Animal Testing

• Early Logicians Did Not Lean toward the Possibility of Basic Rights
• Animal Rights: Regulations That Safeguard Animals
• Animal Privileges Development and the Different Sides of the Issue
• Establishing and Maintaining Basic Rights in the US
• Animal Privileges: Need, Significance, and FAQs
• Ethical and Moral Issues with Contention against Basic Rights
• Animal Privileges, Inclination Utilitarianism, and Peter Artist’s Hypothesis of Freedoms
• Explaining Basic Rights and the Impacts of Abusing Them
• Animal Privileges: Advantages and Disadvantages of Creature Examinations
• Controversy Around P.E.T.A: Basic Entitlements, Human Maltreatment
• Animal Privileges Activists: Who Is the Best?
• Should Basic Entitlements Activists Be Considered Responsible for Misuse of Recordings
• Animal Privileges: Runs from Creature Freedom to Creature Abuse
• Importance of Showing Kids Basic Entitlements
• Animal Privileges Ought Not to Be Acquainted with Regulation
• The Basic Entitlements Activism in the US of America
• Animal Privileges, the Climate, and Social Government Assistance
• The Basic Entitlements Fights against the Fur Exchange
• The Developing Worries Over Basic Entitlements

Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What Could Life Resemble Without Creature Testing?
• Animal Testing: The Cruellest Investigations.
• AWA: For What Reason Does It Not Safeguard All Creatures?
• What If Animals Probed People?
• In the Skin of a Guinea Pig: A Story Paper.
• Opposing Animal Testing Examples of Overcoming Adversity.
• Animal-Tried Items: Would It Be Advisable to Eradicate Them?
• What Have We Acquired from Investigating Animals?
• Animal Testing and Disease Research: Over a Significant Period.

Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Could Do Without Wearing Cosmetics: Creature Testing in the Makeup Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Creature Trial and Error Be Allowed
• Essay Creature Testing and in Vitro Testing as a Substitution
• Animal Testing: A Superior Information on Human Body
• The Significance of Creature Testing for Assessing Buyer Security
• The Issues on Creature Testing and the Elective Systems to Stay Away from the Utilization of the Cruel Trial and Error
• An Option in Contrast to the Brutal and Pointless Acts of Creature Testing for Items, Medications, Synthetic Compounds, and Other Exploration
• The Untrustworthy Utilization of Creatures and the Need to Boycott Creature Testing for Clinical Exploration Purposes in the US
• A Contention for Creature Testing with the End Goal of Clinical Exploration
• A Contention against Creature Testing and the Restricting of the Training in the US
• The Discussion About the Morals of Creature Testing and Its Consequences for Us
• A Contention for Creature Testing as Useful to Human Wellbeing Exploration
• Animal Testing and the Justifications for Why It Ought to Be Unlawful
• The Standards of the Creature Testing According to the Human Point of View
• The Moral Issues on the Act of Creature Testing to Test Beauty Care Products and Medications
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Brutality

Fascinating Animal Testing Topics to Write About

• A Contention against Creature Testing of Buyer Items and Medications
• The Outcomes and Unscrupulous Act of Creature Testing for Clinical Preparation and Examinations
• How to Do the Commitments of Creature Testing to Worldwide Clinical
• Ways to Work on Creature Government Assistance After Prefacing the Creature Testing
• Animal Testing – Vital or Boorish and Wrong?
• Animal Testing and Its Effect on the Climate
• Animal Testing and Its Commitment to the Headway of Medication
• Cosmetics and Creature Testing: The Reason for Death and Abuse
• Animal Testing and Individuals for the Moral Treatment of Creatures
• Animal Freedoms Activists and the Disputable Issue of Creature Testing
• A History and the Kinds of Creature Testing in the Clinical Region
• Argumentation on Health Advantages of Creature Testing
• An Investigation of the Idea of Creature Testing, Which Brings Down the Norm of Human Existence
• Is the Altruistic Culture Worldwide Gave for Creature Testing
• A Conversation of Whether Creature Testing Is Great for Humankind or Infringement of Freedoms
• The Morals of Creature Testing for Immunization Advancement and Expected Other Options
• The Great and Awful of Human Testing and Creature Testing

Animal Testing Research Questions

• What Should the Public Authority Do About Creature Testing?
• Why Does Creature Testing Lower Our Way of Life?
• Should Creatures Be Utilized in Exploration?
• Why Should Creature Testing Be Acknowledged on the Planet?
• How Does Innovation Effect Creature Testing?
• Why Should Creature Testing Be Unlawful?
• Should Creature Testing Stay Lawful?
• Why Should Creature Testing Be Restricted?
• Can the Creature Testing Done to Find Remedies for Sicknesses Be Accommodating?
• Does Creature Testing Truly Work?
• Why Might Choices at Any Point Like Pcs Supplant Exploration Creatures?
• Should Creature Testing Keep on Testing Solutions for Human Infections?
• How Does Creature Testing Impact Medication?
• Should Creature Testing Proceed or Be Halted?
• What Are the Benefits and Drawbacks of Creature Testing?
• Why Could Creature Testing at Any Point Save Our Lives?
• Is Immature Microorganism Exploration Start of the Finish of Creature Testing?
• Do Magnificence Items Experience the Ill Effects of Negative Exposure If They Lead Preliminaries on Creatures?
• Should Medication Preliminaries Be Directed?
• What Are the Beginning and History of Creature Testing?
• Why Are Creatures Expected to Evaluate Buyer Items for Wellbeing When Items Tried by Elective Strategies, Are Accessible?
• How Much Does a Creature Experience Because of Testing?
• What Is the Adequacy of Basic Entitlements Gatherings in Halting Creature Testing?
• How Do We Gain from Biomedical Exploration Utilizing Creatures?
• Who Focuses on Creatures in Exploration?
• Why Are There Expanding Quantities of Mice, Rodents, and Fish Utilized in Exploration?
• How Could We at Any Point Be Certain Lost or Taken Pets Are Not Utilized in Exploration?
• Why Do Clinical Preliminaries in People Expect Earlier Animal Testing?

27 Ways to Support Students Who Become ...

Elections essay topic ideas & examples.

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author, good research topics about hypnosis, essay topics about church, top judicial essay topics, most interesting listening skills essay topics, arranged marriage essay topics, simple & easy monarchy essay topics.

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

The Emergence and Development of Animal Research Ethics: A Review with a Focus on Nonhuman Primates

Gardar arnason.

Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Gartenstrasse 47, 72074 Tübingen, Germany

The ethics of using nonhuman animals in biomedical research is usually seen as a subfield of animal ethics. In recent years, however, the ethics of animal research has increasingly become a subfield within research ethics under the term “animal research ethics”. Consequently, ethical issues have become prominent that are familiar in the context of human research ethics, such as autonomy or self-determination, harms and benefits, justice, and vulnerability. After a brief overview of the development of the field and a discussion of relevant theoretical ethical frameworks, I consider two of these issues, namely autonomy and self-determination on the one hand, and harms and benefits on the other hand. My concern is with philosophical and ethical issues, rather than animal research oversight. I focus my discussion on nonhuman primates, as the most plausible nonhuman candidates for this approach. I conclude that the approach, although promising, depends strongly on the moral status of nonhuman research subjects.

Introduction

Within the field of philosophical ethics, the ethics of using nonhuman animals in biomedical research is usually seen as a subfield of animal ethics. In that context the central problem is the general justifiability of nonhuman animal research. In contrast to the majority of public views and public policies, most major works in animal ethics have been strongly opposed to the current use of nonhuman animals for research, varying from arguing for restrictive positions to advocating abolition. 1 In recent years, however, problems in the ethics of animal research have increasingly been discussed within a framework similar to human research ethics, sometimes under the term “animal research ethics” (Gilbert 2012 ; Beauchamp et al. 2014 ; DeGrazia and Beauchamp 2015 ).

When the ethics of animal research is placed in the context of research ethics, questions and problems become prominent that are familiar in the context of human research ethics but often less so in the context of animal ethics; and those problems that are prominent in animal ethics, such as animal harm, are to some extent approached differently. Four of the main issues that come to the fore in animal research ethics are autonomy or self-determination, harms and benefits, justice, and vulnerability (Ferdowsian and Choe 2013 ). When considering these four issues, it may seem that autonomy is an issue that is central to human research ethics but not applicable to animal research ethics, while the issue of harms and benefits is already a central issue in animal ethics, and hence not novel in the context of animal research ethics. I will therefore pay particular attention to these two issues.

The question of the general justifiability of animal research barely matters in animal research ethics, but that does not mean that animal research ethics supports the status quo in animal research or even that it is more permissive than most animal rights positions. On the contrary, the growing literature in animal research ethics tends to be very critical of current practices in nonhuman animal research, but its concerns are much wider and more differentiated than merely the question whether nonhuman animal research can be justified or must be abolished.

This is not to say that animal research ethics, in the sense described here, is fully independent of animal ethics. Many of the concerns that give rise to discussions about animal self-determination and agency, harms and benefits, justice, and vulnerability, are motivated by and seek support from classical works in animal ethics. Scientific research on animal cognition and behavior has also influenced and driven debates both within animal ethics about the justification of using animals in biomedical research and discussions in animal research ethics about specific problems and principles in animal research. The two fields are closely connected.

The extent to which human research ethics concepts and concerns apply to nonhuman animals is closely related to the animals’ moral status. At the extremes, if sentient nonhuman animals (animals that can feel pain) have the same moral status as paradigmatic humans, namely personhood or full moral status, the concepts and concerns of human research ethics will apply to them in the same way as to humans; if sentient nonhuman animals have no moral status and do not matter morally at all, neither the concepts nor concerns of human research ethics will apply to them. If nonhuman animals are considered to have a moral status, but lower than humans, then the consequences for the applicability of both concepts and concerns need to be worked out. By moral status I mean the extent to which something matters morally for its own sake. There is no agreement on what features determine moral status, but according to many accounts moral status depends significantly on cognitive capacities and sentience (Jaworska and Tannenbaum 2018 ). Nonhuman primates, and in particular nonhuman great apes, are in evolutionary terms our closest relatives. They have the highest cognitive capacities of all nonhuman animals and therefore, presumably, a greater capacity for suffering. Some species of nonhuman primates may even have some features of personhood. 2 If the concerns of human research ethics apply to nonhuman animals at all, they will apply to the greatest extent to nonhuman primates. This makes nonhuman primates an interesting test-case for animal research ethics.

As animal research ethics establishes itself as a subfield of research ethics and the literature on various topics in animal research ethics grows, it is useful to reflect on the development of the field and what it means for the ethics of animal research to be placed in the context of research ethics. In what follows I will attempt to describe the current state of animal research ethics with a focus on nonhuman primates as subjects of biomedical research. After a brief overview of the development of the field and a discussion of relevant theoretical ethical frameworks, I consider two of the main issues that, perhaps unexpectedly, set animal research ethics apart from the traditional animal ethics approach, namely agency and self-determination on the one hand, and harms and benefits on the other hand.

My aim here is to review and reflect on the discussion of the ethics of animal research within the field of research ethics, with nonhuman primates as my main example and a focus on the two issues of agency/self-determination, and harms and benefits. I make three central claims regarding animal research ethics: (1) the ethics of animal research is increasingly being discussed in the context of research ethics; (2) this has led to a richer and more fruitful discourse on animal research, as is exemplified by the issues of agency/self-determination and benefits/harms; and (3) the moral status of nonhuman animals is fundamental to the applicability of the research ethics framework to the ethics of animal research. I hope to advance the discussion of the use of nonhuman sentient animals, in particular nonhuman primates, in biomedical research, by providing an overview of how the debate is increasingly taking place within the framework of research ethics, and what the assumptions and implications of using that framework are. My aim is not to argue for or against the use of animals in research, but I do assume that some animal research can be justified, at the very least if it is conducted under the same ethical restrictions as research on humans. My focus is on philosophical issues in animal research ethics, but I am aware that the term “animal research ethics” is also used to refer to animal research oversight and regulatory frameworks, including laws and regulations, professional codes, ethical guidelines, and institutional rules and procedures. A parallel division exists in the field of human research ethics.

The Emergence of Animal Research Ethics

In his contribution to The Routledge Companion to Bioethics , Tom L. Beauchamp ( 2014 , p. 262) calls animal research ethics “a recently coined term”. It is, indeed, only in the last decade, that animal research has been discussed extensively within the framework of philosophical research ethics, but the term “animal research ethics” goes back at least to the 1980s. 3 Jerrold Tannenbaum and Andrew N. Rowan conclude in an article published in 1985 that “animal research ethics is still at a rudimentary state of development” (Tannenbaum and Rowan 1985 , p. 42) and compare it to the state of human research ethics in 1966 when Henry Beecher published his influential article on the ethics of biomedical research, revealing 22 examples of research protocols where human subjects were treated unethically (Beecher 1966 ). I note that the lesson drawn from Beecher’s terrifying list of human rights abuses in biomedical research was not that human biomedical research should be abolished, but that the conditions for justifiable research had to be clarified within a better research ethics. Similarly, examples of animal abuse in biomedical research should not lead to calls to abolish animal research, but to improvements in animal research ethics, in regulation and practice. Discussing the use of animals in biomedical research within the context of research ethics signifies exactly such a change of emphasis. It moves the focus of the discussion away from the question of the justifiability of animal research and places a stronger emphasis on the ethical frameworks within which it should be regulated and practiced.

Like Tannenbaum and Rowan before them, Hope R. Ferdowsian and John P. Gluck also discuss Beecher’s work in a recent article and claim that “that there are significant parallels between Beecher’s observations about human research in 1966 and contemporary problems with animal research” (Ferdowsian and Gluck 2015 , p. 391). One might get the impression that not much has happened in animal research ethics during the almost 30 years between the publication dates of these two articles, except that examples of ethically questionable animal research keep accumulating. That impression is not accurate. Since the 1980s, animal research proposals must increasingly be approved by animal ethics committees, which may be institutional, regional or national. In the U.S., federally funded animal research has to be reviewed by an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). It is parallel to institutional review boards (IRBs) in human research. In Europe, recent legislation on animal research, Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, stipulates that animal research must receive ethical approval by a competent authority, meeting a specific list of ethical and scientific requirements (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2010 ). The Directive also puts the use of nonhuman primates into the spotlight. The former Directive it replaces had only one paragraph mentioning nonhuman primates (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 1986 ), but the current Directive refers 48 times to them, including three preambles devoted solely to nonhuman primates. The 3R framework proposed by Russell and Burch in 1959 is increasingly being applied, requiring scientists to replace animals with alternative methods (or lower species) if possible, to reduce the number of animals to the minimum required for statistically valid results, and to refine the use of animals by minimizing their pain and suffering as well as improving husbandry, housing, and welfare (Russell and Burch 1959 ). All three requirements can be recognized in Directive 2010/63/EU and corresponding national legislation in Europe. The directive also prohibits the use of great apes except for very specific circumstances, but great apes have not been used for research in Europe since 1999 (UK Home Office 2014 , p. 23). In the United States, the use of chimpanzees is being phased out by the National Institutes of Health, effectively ending the use of great apes in research in the U.S. (Beauchamp et al. 2014 ; Reardon 2015 ). These developments undermine the claim that the situation in animal research is comparable to the one in research involving human beings in the 1960s.

In the academic literature, one possible starting point for the emergence of animal research ethics is the publication in 2006 of a special issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics focusing on animals (DeGrazia 2006 ). This special issue includes two articles that draw a comparison between the use of humans and the use of animals in biomedical research (Walker 2006 ; Pluhar 2006 ). In 2012 the Hastings Center published a Special Report entitled “Animal Research Ethics: Evolving Views and Practices” (Gilbert et al. 2012 ). The report includes a section about chimpanzee research in the United States, but it does not explicitly place the issues in the context of research ethics. The report was followed by another special issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics in 2014, which is primarily concerned with chimpanzee research in the United States (Beauchamp et al. 2014 ). Here questions about autonomy, consent, vulnerability, and harm are directly addressed. In 2015 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics published a special section entitled “Moving Forward in Animal Research Ethics” (DeGrazia and Beauchamp 2015 ) and a year earlier the same journal published a special section on “Neuroethics and Animals” (Buller et al. 2014 ). Both special sections contain articles that discuss the question of autonomy of research animals in terms of the possibility to assent or dissent (Fenton 2014 ; Kantin and Wendler 2015 ). The impetus for this discussion about animal autonomy came from a US Institute of Medicine report on the use of chimpanzees for biomedical and behavioral research, released in 2011, which led to the discontinuation of chimpanzee research in the U.S. (IOM 2011 ). I will consider the issue of autonomy in greater detail below.

Although the literature on animal research in the context of research ethics has been growing rapidly, it does not mean that animal research is no longer discussed in the context of animal ethics. Scholarly articles and books discussing animal research in the familiar animal ethics context, mostly calling for the abolition of animal research (e.g., Herrmann and Jayne 2019 ), continue to be published. Those who have published on animal research in the research ethics context, or those who use the human research ethics framework to some extent when discussing animal research, may not consider themselves moving away from animal ethics. It is nonetheless possible to discern a growing interest in the framework of human research ethics, which has given rise to a body of work large enough and with enough in common to describe it as a distinct field of research, regardless of the intention of the individual authors who have or are contributing to it. One of the main features of animal research ethics, as a subfield of research ethics, is in the ethical approach, with less emphasis on the standard utilitarian (e.g., Singer) or deontological (e.g., Regan) ethical frameworks to an increasing interest in the principlism of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2013 ). 4 To draw out this difference, let me take a closer look at the ethical frameworks that are usually applied to the issue of animal research.

Ethical Frameworks for Animal Research Ethics

An overview of the main ethical positions concerning the use of nonhuman animals in research reveals a variety of conflicting positions even within the same general theoretical approach. A characteristic trait of medical ethics can also be observed in animal ethics: the limited direct benefit of the “classical” moral theories. No general theoretical approach in ethics can be applied directly and conclusively to determine the moral status of animals, the justifiability of animal research, nor what sort of animal research ethics is appropriate. That is, defendable positions for abolishing animal research, for restricting animal research, and for the current practice, can and have been developed within each of the general theoretical approaches. In this section I will briefly consider some of the main approaches to animal ethics and what they mean for animal research ethics.

Utilitarian arguments have been applied to support a near abolitionist position about animal research in general (Singer 1975 ), but also positions in favor of animal research generally (Brody 2012 ; Cohen 1990 ; Frey 1997 ) and a position in favor of nonhuman primate research specifically (Weatherall 2006 ). The best known utilitarian position in animal ethics is Peter Singer’s preference utilitarianism as developed in his books Animal Liberation (Singer 1975 ) and Practical Ethics (Singer 1979 ). According to that position, we should do what best satisfies our well-considered preferences or objective interests, which in the case of animals amounts to matters of pleasure and pain. Singer also emphasizes the importance of the principle of “equal consideration of interests”. Singer’s position does not rule out animal research, provided its utility (in terms of satisfying interests) is greater than the harm caused. This, Singer claims, is very rarely the case in animal research (Singer 1975 ).

Current regulatory frameworks for animal research are almost exclusively utilitarian in nature. They aim to minimize the suffering of animals and, in Europe at least, the suffering has to be justified by the potential scientific or medical benefits of the research. This is in stark contrast to human research ethics, where deontological concerns dominate. To use a well-known phrase from Robert Nozick, we have “utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people” (Nozick 1974 , p. 39).

Although Singer’s utilitarian animal ethics has been very influential, animal ethicists and animal advocates have overwhelmingly relied on deontological approaches, in particular animal rights, when arguing against animal research. The animal rights approach has produced some of the strongest positions against the use of animals in research, for example in Tom Regan’s work (Regan 2004 [1983]) and more recently in the Kantian ethics of Christine Korsgaard ( 2018 ). Some animal rights advocates argue against the use of animals for any human purpose (Francione 2009 ). On the other hand, the classical Kantian deontological approach recognizes only limited, indirect duties towards animals, and some social contract theories put animals squarely outside the moral realm altogether, allowing at most that we have “duties of compassion and humanity” to animals (Rawls 1999 , p. 448). Rather than focusing on rights and duties, some deontological theories are based on the concepts of dignity and justice, such as Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to animal ethics (Nussbaum 2004 ). Nussbaum’s theory would vastly limit human uses of animals, but with the notable exception of allowing the use of animals for biomedical research.

Just as arguments can be made for a wide range of positions on the use of animals for biomedical research within both utilitarian and deontological moral frameworks, virtue ethics provides little guidance in itself. Rosalind Hursthouse ( 2006 ), for example, argues that what we can and cannot do with nonhuman animals depends on the circumstances and our relationship to the animals. The basic moral prescription is to act virtuously, in this case to treat animals with compassion and justice. She assumes that animal research is mostly (but not necessarily always) cruel and useless, and that the just and courageous individual should support actions and organizations that aim to stop cruel and useless animal research. Garret Merriam ( 2012 ) similarly argues that from the standpoint of virtue ethics much of animal research is unjustified, very little of it is clearly justified, and the rest is in between, requiring careful moral judgment. Walker ( 2018 ) has applied virtue ethics specifically to nonhuman primate research, focusing on the virtues and character development of primate researchers and the social and institutional structures involved in the development of the moral character of researchers. These virtue ethics approaches promote moral reflection, the development of moral character of those involved in animal research, and the construction of caring relationships between researchers and their animal subjects, but none of them suggests an absolutist position with regard to the practice of animal research.

Some of the most militant opposition to the use of animals in research is skeptical or even openly hostile to any theoretical basis for its views. This opposition appeals to persons’ empathy with animals and applies a strategy of “exposure and persuasion.” The starting point is that animals are brutally abused and exploited and that bringing animal suffering and injustice into the public eye is the most effective strategy to persuade people to oppose the use of animals in research or in other areas (Aaltola 2011 ). On this view, any theoretical approach just gets in the way or distracts from the political-activist agenda. Organizations supporting the use of animals in research often appeal to the benefits of animal research for children and pets, rather than engage in philosophical debates, but I am not aware of any academic discussion by supporters of animal research about the usefulness of a comparable anti-theoretical position in favor of animal research.

As the discussion of ethical issues in animal research in the context of research ethics has been growing, the animal ethics discussion has independently been moving from applied ethics to political theory in what has been termed “the political turn”. Much of that discussion is concerned with issues of justice and rights, viewing at least some animals as members of our societies and examining the implications of that (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011 ; Garner and O’Sullivan 2016 ; Cochrane 2018 ). The political turn in animal ethics has significant implications for animal research ethics, in particular if animals are accorded the same basic rights as humans. This would not result in the abolition of animal research, but it would put severe limits on it, requiring animal research to adopt research ethics that are very similar to current human research ethics (Arnason 2017 , 2018a ).

This brief survey of how major ethical frameworks have been applied to animal research suggests that broad moral theories do not provide clear answers or a single approach to the question of the justification of animal research. Rather than looking for general answers from moral theories about whether animal research is generally justifiable, recent work on animal research ethics has considered topics that are closer to human research ethics than animal ethics. This work includes, to give a few examples, Walker ( 2006 ), Pluhar ( 2006 ), and Ferdowsian and Gluck ( 2015 ) comparing the ethics of human and nonhuman research, Fenton ( 2014 ), Beauchamp and Wobber ( 2014 ), and Wendler ( 2014 ) on consent and autonomy of nonhuman primates, Kantin and Wendler ( 2015 ) on assent and dissent in animal research, Johnson and Barnard ( 2014 ) on chimpanzees as vulnerable subjects, Ferdowsian and Fuentes ( 2014 ) and Beauchamp and Morton ( 2015 ) on harms and benefits in human and nonhuman research, and Choe Smith ( 2014 ) on justice in subject selection in animal research. In the following sections, I will focus on two of these topics, autonomy and harm. They are of particular interest for almost opposite reasons: autonomy may seem to be a topic in human research ethics that does not apply in animal research ethics and harm may seem to be a topic that has already been extensively discussed in animal ethics.

Autonomy, Self-Determination, and Agency

Respect for autonomy, or the person, has been one of the cornerstones of research ethics at least since the publication of the Belmont Report (National Commission 1979 ). The principle can be found even earlier, in terms of respecting the voluntariness of the subject, in the publication of the Nuremberg Code in 1949. The very first sentence of the Nuremberg Code states simply: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (Shuster 1997 ). It ensures that the potential research subject can protect her own interests, by making an informed and voluntary decision about participating in research. It also ensures respect for autonomy and respect for the person.

It is obvious that nonhuman primates and nonhuman animals generally cannot give informed consent for their participation in research, but it is far from obvious what follows from that fact. One might insist that if a research subject cannot give informed consent, whether the subject is human or not, then she cannot be used in research at all. This position requires a complete abolition of animal research, since no nonhuman animal could be used ethically in research if informed consent is an absolute requirement. When one considers the justification of the requirement for informed consent, this position quickly collapses. If the justification is based on respect for autonomy or respect for persons, then the requirement does not hold in the case of nonhuman animals, since they are neither autonomous nor persons (with the possible exception of great apes), so there is neither autonomy nor personhood to be respected. 5 If the justification of the requirement for informed consent is to protect the interests of research subjects, then one might simply seek other ways to protect the interests of subjects who are not able to give informed consent. In either case, the requirement for respect of autonomy or the person in the form of informed consent is not only impossible but also irrelevant for nonhuman animal research (Weatherall 2006 , p. 129).

Even for nonhuman primates that cannot be considered autonomous, one might still argue that we should consider some sort of a parallel to respect for autonomy, such as respect for agency or self-determination. There is hardly any doubt that nonhuman primates, and other animals, have volition and preferences, and act on those, although they can reflect neither on their preferences nor the reasons they may have for or against acting on them. In that sense they are agents even if they are not autonomous. Such agency, or self-determination, may require that we take it into our moral consideration. The justification of such a requirement could be that they can protect their own welfare interests, to some extent at least, by avoiding activities that cause them pain or distress. Following the terminology of Kantin and Wendler ( 2015 ), we can term these welfare-based reasons. One might also attempt to justify a principle of respect for animal agency or self-determination by arguing that agency or self-determination is itself morally relevant independently of welfare. These can be termed agency-based reasons. In this case, the nonhuman animal in question would have a morally relevant interest in exercising its capacity of agency or self-determination, as opposed to merely having an interest in avoiding suffering. The difficult theoretical question here is whether agency, or self-determination, has any moral relevance (or even meaning) in the absence of self-consciousness or the ability to reflect on one’s actions, reasons, values, and beliefs, that is, the sort of features that are usually thought to constitute autonomy. I will not argue for an answer to that question, neither affirmative nor negative, but I do suggest that agency or self-determination is morally relevant at least for welfare-based reasons and as such is a parallel in animal research ethics to the principle of respect for autonomy in human research ethics.

If we accept a principle of respect for agency with regard to research on nonhuman animals, the question remains what form the principle would take in practice. Nonhuman animals cannot consent nor even assent, in the sense that children may be able to assent to research when they are not competent to give informed consent (Fenton 2014 , pp. 133–134). Assent requires some grasp of what is going on or going to happen during a specific procedure, which is outside the cognitive capacity even of nonhuman primates (Diekema 2006 , p. S9). 6 Dissent may be possible; however, since it does not require any information about procedures or actions, it consists simply in a wish to be removed from a painful or stressful situation. The opposite of dissent, in this sense, is acquiescence rather than assent. A principle of respect for agency could then take the form of requiring acquiescence from the nonhuman animal during research and conversely respecting animal dissent (Fenton 2014 ). Such a requirement would clearly put severe limits on nonhuman animal research.

A related but less demanding requirement might consist in seeking voluntary participation from nonhuman animals, in particular nonhuman primates, for research. This is clearly a lower requirement than assent, because no understanding of the procedures and their purpose is required of the research subject. It is similar to acquiescence, but can be considered less demanding as it is induced through training which itself may be considerably more coercive. This sort of voluntariness is increasingly required in some nonhuman primate research, where the primates are trained through positive reinforcement to do such things as offer their arm for injections or the taking of blood samples, entering a primate chair, and performing various actions or solving tasks for rewards. The reasons for respecting voluntariness are in part welfare-based, as applying physical force may cause pain or distress, and in part they are practical, where applying force is not effective. Some common research procedures, for example in primate neuroscience, require the voluntary participation of the primates, since they cannot be physically forced to solve tasks, perform complex actions or make decisions. If they suffer from pain, fear or distress, they might either stop their activities or lose their concentration or interest with the result that the data obtained would be useless. One objection to the practice of seeking voluntariness is that it is mere manipulation and without any moral benefit (Beauchamp and Wobber 2014 ). This may be the case when one considers agency based reasons, but in so far as the practice of seeking voluntariness reduces suffering, it has a moral benefit for welfare-based reasons.

I hope to have shown in this section that although respect for autonomy does not apply to nonhuman primates (except perhaps great apes), animal agency can have moral significance, at the very least for welfare-based reasons, and such concerns can be compared to the principle of respect for autonomy in human research ethics. Although animals cannot give informed consent, they can often communicate their preferences and express their dissent (or acquiescence) to participating in a research procedure. Nonhuman animals are unlikely to be able to assent to anything, with the possible exception of chimpanzees and other great apes. The moral importance of nonhuman dissent depends in the end strongly on the moral status of the dissenting nonhuman animal and in particular on whether we can be ethically justified in sacrificing its welfare for human benefits.

Harms and Benefits

Human research ethics limits in practice the level of harm or risk that human research subjects can be exposed to, even if there are research subjects willing to give informed consent to harmful research. Research ethics codes and regulations generally do not specify any limits to risks or harms to human participants, but rather require that risks are minimized (WMA 2013 , art. 17; CIOMS 2016 , pp. 2, 9–13; US Department of Health and Human Services 2018 , §46.111(a)(1)), that benefits outweigh risks (WMA 2013 , art. 16; CIOMS 2016 , pp. 9–13; US Department of Health and Human Services 2018 , §46.111(a)(2)), and, in the case of the Declaration of Helsinki, that the welfare, rights, and interests of the research subject have priority over scientific or social interests (WMA 2013 , art. 8). The Nuremberg Code explicitly prohibits research that is likely to result in injury, disability or death of the research subject (art. 5 and art. 10) (Shuster 1997 ). In the case of human research subjects, who are not capable of giving informed consent, such as children, a common requirement is that the risk of participating in the research is minimal. “Minimal risk” is often defined as those risks that are comparable to the risks of daily life.

Animal research allows and often requires procedures that result in injury, disability or death of the animals. Our scientific and social interests have, in current practice, a clear priority over the welfare, rights (if applicable at all), and interests of the animals used for research. This difference in human and animal research ethics is only justified if animals have a lower moral status than humans. The issue of moral status is however highly contested; there is no agreement on the moral status of nonhuman animals or what exactly determines it, not even whether the concept is of any use. Two things, however, are uncontroversial. First, some nonhuman animals are capable of experiencing pain. 7 This includes probably all vertebrates and perhaps some invertebrates (e.g. cephalopods). They have, in virtue of their sentience, morally relevant interests and possibly moral rights, and therefore they have a moral status. In other words, nonhuman animals have interests, in particular welfare interests, that have to be taken into account in our moral judgments. Second, most people intuitively accord animals a lower moral status than humans. For example, most of us would think that one should save a human child from a fire rather than a dog, if only one can be saved and we had to choose between the two. A more mundane example is the fact that most of us use animal products, including in food and clothing, knowing that animals most likely suffer and surely die in their production. This does not mean that we do not care about the death and suffering of animals, but rather that human interests are generally taken to have a priority over animal interests. Most of us would presumably agree that it is wrong to torture an animal for fun, but that we can use animals (and take their lives) as means to our own ends, if that use has reasonable benefits (which does not include sadistic pleasure). I am not arguing that current social norms or attitudes are sufficient to justify the lower moral status of animals, but rather that moral status is a fundamental issue that needs to be further analyzed and debated. This is particularly important in the case of nonhuman primates, since animals with higher cognitive capacities may have stronger welfare interests in virtue of having a stronger sense of self.

In Europe, at least, animal research is, by law, only to be approved if the researchers make a reasonable case that the expected benefits justify the harms caused to the animals. In that respect, animal research ethics overlaps here with human research ethics. The difference is, as noted above, that human research has the constraint that fundamental rights, welfare, and interests of human research subjects cannot be sacrificed for scientific or social benefits. In contrast, animal research lets scientific and social benefits justify setbacks to animal welfare and interests. There are at least two significant concerns here regarding this weighing of harms and benefits. One concern is the claim that in many animal research proposals the expected benefits only justify the suffering to the animals if their interests are massively discounted (for this concern in the context of nonhuman primates see Arnason 2018b and Faria 2018 ). Peter Singer has argued that if we applied a principle of equal consideration of interests, much of our animal research would not be justified (Singer 1975 ).

The second concern is that we cannot assess benefits or harms, whether in research on nonhuman primates or more generally in animal research, in any non-arbitrary way that would allow us to meaningfully weigh one against the other. 8 We can, however, evaluate the expected benefits and the likely harms and make an informed, moral judgment about whether it is an acceptable trade-off. This approach acknowledges the incommensurability of harms and benefits, as well as the impossibility of accurate, objective, quantifiable measurements, without making the moral judgment trivial or arbitrary. Providing a more detailed argument for this approach is outside the scope of this paper, but this case has been made extensively elsewhere in the context of research on nonhuman primates (Arnason and Clausen 2016 ; Nordgren 2010 ).

At the beginning of this section I noted that human research ethics codes generally do not specify any upper limits of risk or harm, with the exception of the case of research subjects who are not capable of giving informed consent, in particular children. In this case, research is often considered justifiable only if it poses no more than minimal risk and minimal burden to the research subject. If we want to draw on human research ethics in our discussion of animal research ethics, this is the sort of issue that may be seen to apply directly to animals, since they cannot give informed consent either (Wendler 2014 ). Some animal advocates argue indeed that animal research, like nontherapeutic pediatric research, is only justifiable if it poses no more than minimal risk and minimal burden to the research subjects, at least in the case of nonhuman primates (Ferdowsian and Fuentes 2014 ) and great apes (Gagneux et al. 2005 , p. 28). Others, such as Beauchamp and Morton ( 2015 ), have argued for upper-severity limits for animal research in general, excluding all research that causes significant suffering.

In any case, it is intellectually interesting and useful to draw comparisons between the ethical requirements for research involving incompetent humans and research involving animals with regard to upper limits of risk and harm. It is also worth emphasizing, that the justification for having different limits for humans and animals, and more generally treating human and animal interests differently, relies on an argument about the moral status of both humans and animals (Wendler 2014 ; Walker 2016 ). Placing the upper limit of risk and harm in animal research at “minimal risk and minimal harm,” as equal moral status with human would suggest, would surely amount to an abolishment of most animal research, but a higher limit of severe pain or distress over prolonged time, as is the case in EU law, would have considerably less impact on biomedical research (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2010 ).

The recent move to address ethical questions in animal research within the framework of human research ethics, rather than within the more traditional framework of animal ethics, has moved the focus away from the basic question of the general, ethical justifiability of animal research and towards specific issues familiar from human research ethics, such as autonomy or agency, and harms and benefits. This move to research ethics is advocated mostly by people who are committed to some sort of an equality principle with regard to the rights or interests of human and nonhuman animals, but not necessarily from a commitment to any particular moral framework. The concern with the two topics of autonomy and harm in animal research ethics is no more and no less tied to any particular moral framework than the concern with the same topics within human research ethics. The concern with autonomy leans towards a deontological framework, the concern with harms leans towards a utilitarian framework. For both topics the Beauchamp and Childress ( 2013 ) principles of biomedical ethics loom large. Still, both topics are regularly discussed within human research ethics without a commitment to any of those moral frameworks.

How far human research ethics applies to animals depends in the end significantly on the moral status accorded to animals. If animals, or some higher mammals such as nonhuman primates, are accorded the same moral status as humans, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that human research ethics would apply to them, giving them the same protections as human research subjects who are not competent to give informed consent. This would be the end of much of animal research as it is practiced now. Justifying current levels of risk and harm exposure in animal research depends conversely on animals having a lower moral status than humans. This difference in moral status implies not only unequal consideration of interests, but more importantly that animal welfare and interests cannot give rise to limits based on rights or dignity that trump utilitarian considerations of harms and benefits, as is the case in human research ethics. As fruitful as recent work on animal research ethics has been, its plausibility ultimately requires a defensible account of the moral status of nonhuman animals.

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. My thanks to Urban Wiesing for his help and his comments on previous drafts. I am also grateful to the reviewers for constructive and helpful comments.

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) research unit Grant FOR 1847.

1 Two obvious examples are Singer‘s ( 1975 ) Animal Liberation and Regan‘s ( 2004 [1983]) The Case for Animal Rights , who argue for the utilitarian and deontological positions, respectively, against animal research. For further elaboration of this contrast between public views and the restrictive views within animal ethics see DeGrazia‘s ( 1999 ) “The ethics of animal research: What are the prospects for agreement?”.

2 The relationship between cognitive capacities, sentience, personhood, and moral status generally is complicated and the analysis of that relationship is outside the scope of this paper. I merely acknowledge the common assumption that nonhuman primates matter more morally than other nonhuman animals, without having the cognitive capacities necessary for moral personhood. “Personhood” (in the moral sense, as opposed to legal personhood) is a technical term indicating a full moral status, for example having a moral right to life, and was often considered coextensive with humanity (Chan and Harris 2011 ; Tooley 2011 ). Nonhuman primates are certainly sentient, where sentience, the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, is understood either as a specific cognitive capacity or a combination of cognitive capacities underlying awareness and sensation. Contrary to the common assumption in regulation and praxis, lower cognitive capacities do not necessarily imply less suffering, see for example Akhtar ( 2011 ). There remains the problem of knowing animal suffering; there is no way for us humans to know what it is like to be a mouse in pain or a severely depressed monkey, just like we cannot know what it is like to be a bat (Nagel 1974 ). We can merely imagine what it is like to be a human in the same situation. In terms of understanding animal suffering, the best we can do is to infer from behavioral, cognitive and neurological similarities, to what extent the experience of animal suffering may be similar to human suffering.

3 An early example is Blackmore’s ( 1982 ) paper “Animal Research Ethics at the University of Southern California.”

4 In biomedical ethics, the principlism of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2013 ) grounds moral decisions on four principles: Respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. It combines aspects of both utilitarianism and the duty-based ethics of deontological moral theories. Within research ethics, the principle of respect for autonomy requires that research subjects can make their own informed decisions about research participation, in particular by giving their informed consent before participating in research. The principle of non-maleficence formulates an obligation to “do no harm”. The principle of beneficence formulates an obligation to benefit others. The principle of justice requires that burdens and benefits are justly distributed, which includes such concerns as the just selection of research subjects.

5 Various accounts of the concept of autonomy can be found in research ethics, but at its core is the ability to act on one’s own reasons, or to act on one’s considered judgment. Compare the following passage from the Belmont Report (National Commission 1979 , B1): “To show lack of respect for an autonomous agent is to repudiate that person’s considered judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act on those considered judgments, or to withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment, when there are no compelling reasons to do so”. Nonhuman animals, and indeed some humans, are not capable of making considered judgments and cannot be shown lack of respect as autonomous agents in the sense of this passage.

6 Here I follow Diekema’s ( 2006 , p. S9) analysis of assent in pediatrics research, where assent “requires only that the child possess the capacity to understand that the research is not being done for his or her benefit, to understand what will happen to him or her in the research project, and to agree or disagree regarding participation”. Diekema expects most children to have the capability to assent by 7 years of age and in some cases earlier.

7 For a discussion of animal pain, see for example Allen ( 2004 ) and Rollin ( 2011 ). The view that nonhuman animals cannot experience pain, sometimes incorrectly associated with Descartes (Cottingham 1978 ; Harrison 1992 ; Thomas 2006 ), does currently not find any defenders of note (with the often cited exception of Harrison 1991 ). Although Peter Carruthers admits that (some) nonhuman animals can experience pain and other suffering, he has argued that it has no moral significance because their pain is non-conscious (Carruthers 1992 , p. 192).

8 This point is often made by critics of utilitarianism, see for example Regan’s “Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection” (Regan 2005 , p. 79). For a spirited attempt to provide a framework for balancing harms and benefits in animal research, see Bateson’s “When to Experiment on Animals” (Bateson 1986 ).

Publisher's Note

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

• Aaltola E. The philosophy behind the movement: Animal studies versus animal rights. Society & Animals. 2011; 19 :393–406. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akhtar S. Animal pain and welfare: Can pain sometimes be worse for them than for us? In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 495–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen C. Animal pain. Nôus. 2004; 38 (4):617–643. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnason G. Animal research and the political theory of animal rights. In: da Trindade GG, Woodhall A, editors. Ethical and political approaches to nonhuman animal issues. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017. pp. 327–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnason G. Human-animal parallels in clinical ethics and research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics. 2018; 18 (2):64–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnason G. The ethical justification for the use of non-human primates in research: The weather all report revisited. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2018; 44 :328–331. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnason G, Clausen J. On balance: Weighing harms and benefits in fundamental neurological research using nonhuman primates. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2016; 19 :229–237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateson P. When to experiment on animals. New Scientist. 1986; 109 (1496):30–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchamp TL. The ethics of biomedical research involving animals. In: Arras JD, Fenton E, Kukla R, editors. The Routledge companion to bioethics. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014. pp. 261–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchamp TL, Ferdowsian HR, Gluck JP. Rethinking the ethics of research involving nonhuman animals: Introduction. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :91–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchamp TL, Morton DB. The upper limits of pain and suffering in animal research: A moral assessment of the European Union’s legislative framework. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015; 24 :431–447. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchamp TL, Wobber V. Autonomy in chimpanzees. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :117–132. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine. 1966; 272 :1354–1360. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackmore WM. Animal research ethics at the University of Southern California. LabAnimal. 1982; 11 :41–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody B. Defending animal research: An international perspective. In: Garrett JR, editor. The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2012. pp. 53–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buller T, Shriver A, Farah M. Guest editorial: Broadening the focus. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2014; 23 :124–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carruthers P. The animal issue: Moral theory in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan S, Harris J. Human animals and nonhuman persons. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 304–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choe Smith CU. Confronting ethical permissibility in animal research: Rejecting a common assumption and extending a principle of justice. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :175–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CIOMS, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences . International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 4. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane A. Sentientist politics: A theory of global inter-species justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen C. Animal experimentation defended. In: Garattini S, van Bekkum DW, editors. The importance of animal experimentation for safety and biomedical research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990. pp. 7–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottingham J. ‘A brute to the brutes?’: Descartes’ treatment of animals. Philosophy. 1978; 53 (206):551–559. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGrazia D. The ethics of animal research: What are the prospects for agreement? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 1999; 8 :23–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGrazia D. Regarding animals: Mental life, moral status, and use in biomedical research: An introduction to the special issue. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2006; 27 :277–284. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeGrazia D, Beauchamp TL. Guest editorial: Reassessing animal research ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015; 24 :385–389. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekema DS. Conducting ethical research in pediatrics: A brief historical overview and review of pediatric regulations. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2006; 149 (1):S3–S11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson S, Kymlicka W. Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (1986). Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 18/12. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31986L0609 .
• European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union L 276/33; adopted 2010 Sept 22. Retrieved August 28, 2019, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063 .
• Faria C. A flimsy case for the use of non-human primates in research: A reply to Arnason. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2018; 44 :332–333. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fenton A. Can a Chimp say “no”? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2014; 23 :130–139. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferdowsian H, Choe C. Extending human research protections to non-human animals. In: Corbey R, Lanjouw A, editors. The politics of species: Reshaping our relationships with other animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. pp. 232–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferdowsian H, Fuentes A. Harms and deprivation of benefits for nonhuman primates in research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :143–156. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferdowsian HR, Gluck JP. The ethical challenges of animal research: Honoring Henry Beecher’s approach to moral problems. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015; 24 :391–406. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione GL. Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey RG. Moral community and animal research in medicine. Ethics and Behavior. 1997; 7 (2):123–136. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagneux P, Moore JJ, Varki A. The ethics of research on great apes. Nature. 2005; 437 (1 September):27–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R, O’Sullivan S, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert S. Progress in the animal research war. Animal Research Ethics: Evolving Views and Practices, Hastings Center Report Special Report. 2012; 42 (6):S2–S3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert, S., Kaebnick, G. E., & Murray, T. H. (Eds). (2012). Animal research ethics: Evolving views and practices. Hastings Center Special Report , 42(6). Retrieved August 29, 2019, from http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/special-report/ .
• Harrison P. Do animals feel pain? Philosophy. 1991; 66 (255):25–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison P. Descartes on animals. The Philosophical Quarterly. 1992; 42 (167):219–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrmann K, Jayne K, editors. Animal experimentation: Working towards a paradigm change. Leiden: Brill; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hursthouse R. Applying virtue ethics to our treatment of the other animals. In: Welchman J, editor. The practice of virtue: Classic and contemporary readings in virtue ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company; 2006. pp. 136–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• IOM, Institute of Medicine . Chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research: Assessing the necessity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaworska, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (2018). The grounds of moral status. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/grounds-moral-status/ .
• Johnson J, Barnard ND. Chimpanzees as vulnerable subjects in research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kantin H, Wendler D. Is there a role for assent or dissent in animal research? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015; 24 :459–472. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korsgaard CM. Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam G. Virtue, vice, and vivisection. In: Garrett JR, editor. The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2012. pp. 125–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review. 1974; 83 (4):435–450. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. DHEW publications (OS) 78-0013 and (OS) 78-0014. [ PubMed ]
• Nordgren A. For our children: The ethics of animal experimentation in the age of genetic engineering. Amsterdam: Rodopi; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nozick R. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum MC. Beyond ‘compassion and humanity’: Justice for nonhuman animals. In: Sunstein CR, Nussbaum MC, editors. Animal rights: Current debates and new directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 299–320. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pluhar EB. Experimentation on humans and nonhumans. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2006; 27 :333–355. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls J. A theory of justice. Revised. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon, S. (2015). NIH to retire all research chimpanzees. Nature News , 18 November. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://www.nature.com/news/nih-to-retire-all-research-chimpanzees-1.18817 .
• Regan, T. (2004 [1983]). The case for animal rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Regan T. Empty cages: Animal rights and vivisection. In: Cohen AI, Wellman CH, editors. Contemporary debates in applied ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2005. pp. 77–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rollin BE. Animal pain: What it is and why it matters. The Journal of Ethics. 2011; 15 (4):425–437. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell WS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuster E. Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997; 337 :1436–1440. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Animal liberation. New York, NY: New York Review; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tannenbaum J, Rowan AN. Rethinking the morality of animal research. Hastings Center Report. 1985; 15 (5):32–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J. Does Descartes deny consciousness to animals? Ratio. 2006; 19 (3):336–363. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tooley M. Are nonhuman animals persons? In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 332–370. [ Google Scholar ]
• UK Home Office . Annual statistics of scientific procedures on living animals; Great Britain 2013. London: House of Commons; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• US Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). 45 CFR 46. Code of federal regulations. Title 45. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html .
• Walker RL. Human and animal subjects of research: The moral significance of respect versus welfare. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2006; 27 :305–331. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker RL. Beyond primates: Research protections and animal moral value. Hastings Center Report. 2016; 46 (4):28–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker RL. Virtue, vice, and “voracious” science: How should we approach the ethics of primate research? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2018; 61 (1):130–146. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weatherall D. The use of nonhuman primates in research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wendler D. Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2014; 35 :157–173. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WMA, World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects . Retrieved August 29, 2019, from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Latest science news, discoveries and analysis

Could a rare mutation that causes dwarfism also slow ageing?

Bird flu in US cows: is the milk supply safe?

Future of Humanity Institute shuts: what's next for ‘deep future’ research?

Judge dismisses superconductivity physicist’s lawsuit against university

Nih pay raise for postdocs and phd students could have us ripple effect, hello puffins, goodbye belugas: changing arctic fjord hints at our climate future, china's moon atlas is the most detailed ever made, ‘shut up and calculate’: how einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality, ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork chris mantegna.

Should the Maldives be creating new land?

Lethal AI weapons are here: how can we control them?

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

How gliding marsupials got their ‘wings’

Audio long read: why loneliness is bad for your health, nato is boosting ai and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice, rat neurons repair mouse brains — and restore sense of smell, plastic pollution: three numbers that support a crackdown.

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Any plan to make smoking obsolete is the right step

Citizenship privilege harms science

European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how charlotte e. blattner, will ai accelerate or delay the race to net-zero emissions, current issue.

The Maldives is racing to create new land. Why are so many people concerned?

Surprise hybrid origins of a butterfly species, stripped-envelope supernova light curves argue for central engine activity, optical clocks at sea, research analysis.

Ancient DNA traces family lines and political shifts in the Avar empire

A chemical method for selective labelling of the key amino acid tryptophan

Robust optical clocks promise stable timing in a portable package

Targeting RNA opens therapeutic avenues for Timothy syndrome

Bioengineered ‘mini-colons’ shed light on cancer progression, galaxy found napping in the primordial universe, tumours form without genetic mutations, marsupial genomes reveal how a skin membrane for gliding evolved.

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

How ground glass might save crops from drought on a caribbean island, londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs, books & culture.

How volcanoes shaped our planet — and why we need to be ready for the next big eruption

Dogwhistles, drilling and the roots of Western civilization: Books in brief

Cosmic rentals

Las borinqueñas remembers the forgotten puerto rican women who tested the first pill, dad always mows on summer saturday mornings, nature podcast.

Latest videos

Nature briefing.

An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Researchers detect a new molecule in space

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

New research from the group of MIT Professor Brett McGuire has revealed the presence of a previously unknown molecule in space. The team's open-access paper, “ Rotational Spectrum and First Interstellar Detection of 2-Methoxyethanol Using ALMA Observations of NGC 6334I ,” appears in April 12 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters .

Zachary T.P. Fried , a graduate student in the McGuire group and the lead author of the publication, worked to assemble a puzzle comprised of pieces collected from across the globe, extending beyond MIT to France, Florida, Virginia, and Copenhagen, to achieve this exciting discovery. 

“Our group tries to understand what molecules are present in regions of space where stars and solar systems will eventually take shape,” explains Fried. “This allows us to piece together how chemistry evolves alongside the process of star and planet formation. We do this by looking at the rotational spectra of molecules, the unique patterns of light they give off as they tumble end-over-end in space. These patterns are fingerprints (barcodes) for molecules. To detect new molecules in space, we first must have an idea of what molecule we want to look for, then we can record its spectrum in the lab here on Earth, and then finally we look for that spectrum in space using telescopes.”

Searching for molecules in space

The McGuire Group has recently begun to utilize machine learning to suggest good target molecules to search for. In 2023, one of these machine learning models suggested the researchers target a molecule known as 2-methoxyethanol. 

“There are a number of 'methoxy' molecules in space, like dimethyl ether, methoxymethanol, ethyl methyl ether, and methyl formate, but 2-methoxyethanol would be the largest and most complex ever seen,” says Fried. To detect this molecule using radiotelescope observations, the group first needed to measure and analyze its rotational spectrum on Earth. The researchers combined experiments from the University of Lille (Lille, France), the New College of Florida (Sarasota, Florida), and the McGuire lab at MIT to measure this spectrum over a broadband region of frequencies ranging from the microwave to sub-millimeter wave regimes (approximately 8 to 500 gigahertz). 

The data gleaned from these measurements permitted a search for the molecule using Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations toward two separate star-forming regions: NGC 6334I and IRAS 16293-2422B. Members of the McGuire group analyzed these telescope observations alongside researchers at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (Charlottesville, Virginia) and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 

“Ultimately, we observed 25 rotational lines of 2-methoxyethanol that lined up with the molecular signal observed toward NGC 6334I (the barcode matched!), thus resulting in a secure detection of 2-methoxyethanol in this source,” says Fried. “This allowed us to then derive physical parameters of the molecule toward NGC 6334I, such as its abundance and excitation temperature. It also enabled an investigation of the possible chemical formation pathways from known interstellar precursors.”

Looking forward

Molecular discoveries like this one help the researchers to better understand the development of molecular complexity in space during the star formation process. 2-methoxyethanol, which contains 13 atoms, is quite large for interstellar standards — as of 2021, only six species larger than 13 atoms were detected outside the solar system , many by McGuire’s group, and all of them existing as ringed structures.  

“Continued observations of large molecules and subsequent derivations of their abundances allows us to advance our knowledge of how efficiently large molecules can form and by which specific reactions they may be produced,” says Fried. “Additionally, since we detected this molecule in NGC 6334I but not in IRAS 16293-2422B, we were presented with a unique opportunity to look into how the differing physical conditions of these two sources may be affecting the chemistry that can occur.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• McGuire Lab
• Department of Chemistry

Related Topics

• Space, astronomy and planetary science
• Astrophysics

Related Articles

Found in space: Complex carbon-based molecules

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Two from MIT awarded 2024 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

Read full story →

MIT Emerging Talent opens pathways for underserved global learners

The MIT Edgerton Center’s third annual showcase dazzles onlookers

Seven from MIT elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences for 2024

Two MIT teams selected for NSF sustainable materials grants

3 Questions: A shared vocabulary for how infectious diseases spread

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram