«Animal research» redirects right here. For other uses, see Animal studies (disambiguation). The log, see Animal Research (journal).A Wistar laboratory ratDescriptionAround 50–100 million vertebrate pets are used in experiments yearly.SubjectsAnimal testing, science, medicine, animal welfare, animal rights, ethics

Animal assessment, also known as animal experimentation, animal research plus in vivo assessment, may be the use of non-human pets in experiments that look for to control the factors that affect the behavior or biological system under research. This process may be contrasted with industry studies which animals are found within their natural environments or habitats. Experimental research with animals is usually carried out in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical organizations, defense establishments and commercial facilities offering animal-testing services to industry.[1] The focus of animal evaluating varies on a continuum from pure research, concentrating on developing fundamental knowledge of an organism, to applied research, which could give attention to responding to some concern of good practical value, such as for example finding relief from an ailment. Types of used research include testing infection treatments, breeding, protection research and toxicology, including cosmetics evaluation. In education, animal assessment can be a factor of biology or therapy courses. The practice is controlled to varying levels in different nations.

It's estimated that the yearly use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to significantly more than 100 million.[2] In the eu, vertebrate types represent 93% of pets found in research, and 11.5 million pets had been utilized there last year. By one estimate the amount of mice and rats utilized in the usa alone in 2001 ended up being 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, seafood, amphibians and reptiles together account fully for over 85per cent of research animals.[4]

Many pets are euthanized after being used in an experiment.[5]Sources of laboratory animals vary between nations and types; many animals are purpose-bred, while a minority are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers whom get them from deals and pounds.[6][7][8] Supporters of usage of pets in experiments, for instance the British Royal community, argue that virtually every medical accomplishment in twentieth century relied regarding the usage of animals for some reason.[9] The Institute for Laboratory Animal analysis of this united states of america nationwide Academy of Sciences has argued that animal research cannot be replaced by even advanced computer models, which are not able to handle the excessively complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms therefore the environment.[10]Animal legal rights organizations—such as PETA and BUAV—question the necessity for and legitimacy of animal screening, arguing that it is cruel and defectively managed, that medical progress is actually held back once again by deceptive animal models that cannot reliably anticipate impacts in humans, that some of the tests are outdated, that the expenses outweigh the huge benefits, or that animals have the intrinsic right not to be properly used or harmed in experimentation.[11][12][13][14][15][16]

Definitions

The terms animal screening, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo evaluation, and vivisection have similar denotations but various connotations. Literally, «vivisection» means the «cutting up» of a living animal, and historically referred simply to experiments that involved the dissection of real time animals. The term is occasionally always refer pejoratively to virtually any test using residing animals; like, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines «vivisection» as: «Operation on an income animal for experimental in place of healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on real time animals»,[11][17][18] although dictionaries point out your broader definition is «used only by individuals who are in opposition to such work».[19] The phrase has a poor connotation, implying torture, putting up with, and death.[5] The word «vivisection» is recommended by those in opposition to this research, whereas researchers typically use the term «animal experimentation».[20][21]

History

Main article: History of animal testinga test on a Bird in an air mattress pump, from 1768, by Joseph Wright

The earliest sources to animal assessment are found inside writings regarding the Greeks within the 2nd and 4th hundreds of years BC. Aristotle and Erasistratus were one of the primary to execute experiments on living pets.[22]Galen, a 2nd-century Roman physician, dissected pigs and goats; his is recognized as the «father of vivisection».[23]Avenzoar, a 12th-century Arabic doctor in Moorish Spain additionally practiced dissection; he introduced animal evaluation as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human clients.[24][25]

Pets have over and over been used through the reputation for biomedical research. In 1831, the founders regarding the Dublin Zoo had been users regarding the medical career who were interested in learning animals as they had been alive so when these people were dead.[26] Into the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ concept of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep.[27] In the 1880s, Robert Koch infected mice and guinea pigs with anthrax and tuberculosis. Into the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to spell it out traditional fitness.[28] In World War We, German agents infected sheep bound for Russia with anthrax, and inoculated mules and horses for the French cavalry aided by the equine glanders illness. Between 1917 and 1918, the Germans infected mules in Argentina bound for American forces, causing the loss of 200 mules.[29]Insulin was initially separated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes.[30] On 3 November 1957, a Soviet dog, Laika, became the very first of several pets to orbit the planet earth. In 1970s, antibiotic remedies and vaccines for leprosy were developed utilizing armadillos,[31] then given to people.[32] The power of humans to alter the genetics of pets took a large action forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to create the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA through the SV40 virus into the genome of mice.[33] This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, 1st mammal to be cloned from a grown-up mobile.[34][35]

Toxicology evaluating became crucial in the twentieth century. Within the 19th century, laws and regulations regulating medications were more enjoyable. For example, within the U.S., the federal government could just ban a drug after an organization was indeed prosecuted for attempting to sell products which harmed customers. But responding towards Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 where eponymous medication killed more than 100 users, the U.S. congress passed laws and regulations that needed security testing of drugs on animals before they may be marketed. Other nations enacted similar legislation.[36] In 1960s, in a reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy, further laws and regulations were passed away needing safety evaluation on pregnant animals before a drug could be offered.[37]

Historical debate

Claude Bernard, considered to be the «prince of vivisectors»,[38] argued that experiments on animals are «entirely conclusive the toxicology and hygiene of man».[39]

As the experimentation on pets increased, particularly the practice of vivisection, therefore did criticism and debate. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that «the miserable torture of vivisection puts the body in an unnatural state».[40][41] O'Meara as well as others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering outcomes unreliable. There have been additionally objections on an ethical foundation, contending that the benefit to people did not justify the injury to animals.[41] Early objections to animal screening additionally came from another angle—many individuals believed that pets had been inferior to humans and thus different that outcomes from pets couldn't be applied to people.[41]

On the other hand of debate, those in support of animal evaluation held that experiments on animals were required to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard—who can be known as the «prince of vivisectors»[38] and daddy of physiology, and whose spouse, Marie Françoise Martin, founded 1st anti-vivisection society in France in 1883[42]—famously penned in 1865 that «the technology of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hallway which might be reached just by moving through an extended and ghastly kitchen».[43] Arguing that «experiments on animals… are totally conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man...the aftereffects of these substances are exactly the same on guy as on animals, save for differences in degree»,[39] Bernard established animal experimentation within the standard scientific technique.[44]

In 1896, the physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon stated «The antivivisectionists would be the 2nd regarding the two kinds Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, 'good judgment without conscience can result in crime, but conscience without commonsense may lead to folly, which will be the handmaiden of criminal activity.'»[45] These divisions between pro- and anti-animal screening teams first stumbled on public attention during the Brown Dog affair in very early 1900s, when countless medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.[46]

Certainly one of Pavlov's dogs with a saliva-catch container and tube surgically implanted in his muzzle, Pavlov Museum, 2005

In 1822, initial animal protection law had been enacted in Uk parliament, accompanied by the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876), the initial legislation particularly aimed at regulating animal evaluating. The legislation had been promoted by Charles Darwin, who had written to Ray Lankester in March 1871: «You enquire about my estimation on vivisection. We quite concur that it really is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for simple damnable and detestable fascination. It is a topic which makes me unwell with horror, and so I wont say another term about this, else I shall not rest to-night.»[47][48] In response toward lobbying by anti-vivisectionists, several organizations had been setup in Britain to defend animal research: The Physiological Society had been formed in 1876 to offer physiologists «mutual advantage and protection»,[49] the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by analysis was created in 1882 and centered on policy-making, as well as the analysis Defence Society (now Learning Animal Research) was formed in 1908 «to make known the important points concerning experiments on animals inside country; the immense value toward welfare of mankind of such experiments while the great saving of individual life and wellness straight due to them».[50]

Opposition toward use of animals in medical research throughly first arose in the United States throughout the 1860s, whenever Henry Bergh founded the United states Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), with America's very first especially anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection community (AAVS), started in 1883. Antivivisectionists of this age generally speaking thought the spread of mercy had been the fantastic reason for civilization, and vivisection had been cruel. However, in america the antivivisectionists' efforts were beaten atlanta divorce attorneys legislature, overwhelmed by the superior company and influence of the medical community. In general, this motion had little legislative success before the passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, in 1966.[51]

Care and make use of of animals

laws and laws

See additionally: Animal testing regulations, Institutional Animal Care and make use of Committee, and Animals (medical Procedures) Act 1986

The regulations that connect with animals in laboratories differ across species. Into the U.S., underneath the conditions of Animal Welfare Act additionally the Guide the Care and make use of of Laboratory Animals (the Guide), published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it may be effectively argued it is scientifically justified. Generally speaking, scientists must check with the institution's veterinarian as well as its Institutional Animal Care and make use of Committee (IACUC), which every research center is obliged to keep up.[52] The IACUC must be sure that alternatives, including non-animal options, were considered, that the experiments are not unnecessarily duplicative, which pain relief is given unless it would restrict the research. The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in assessment at institutions getting federal funds in the united states. Although the provisions of this Animal Welfare Act never include purpose-bred rodents and birds, these species are similarly controlled under Public wellness Service policies that govern the IACUCs.[53][54] People wellness provider policy oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for infection Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC conducts infectious illness research on nonhuman primates, rabbits, mice, along with other animals, while Food And Drug Administration needs cover use of animals in pharmaceutical research.[55] Animal Welfare Act (AWA) laws are enforced by the USDA, whereas Public Health Service regulations are enforced by OLAW and in many cases by AAALAC.

Based on the 2014 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report—which looked over the oversight of animal usage during a three-year period—«some Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees ...did not acceptably accept, monitor, or report on experimental procedures on animals». The OIG found that «as a result, pets aren't always receiving fundamental humane care and therapy and, sometimes, pain and distress are not minimized after and during experimental procedures». Based on the report, within a three-year period, almost half all US laboratories with regulated types were cited for AWA violations relating to improper IACUC oversight.[56] The USDA OIG made comparable findings in a 2005 report.[57] With only an extensive range 120 inspectors, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees a lot more than 12,000 facilities involved in research, event, breeding, or working of animals.[55] Others have actually criticized the composition of IACUCs, asserting that the committees are predominantly comprised of animal researchers and university representatives whom can be biased against animal welfare concerns.[58]

Larry Carbone, a laboratory animal veterinarian, writes that, in their experience, IACUCs take their work very seriously no matter what the types involved, although use of non-human primates constantly raises just what he calls a «red banner of unique concern».[59] A study posted in Science mag in July 2001 confirmed the low dependability of IACUC reviews of animal experiments. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the three-year study discovered that animal-use committees which do not know the specifics associated with the college and personnel cannot result in the same approval decisions as those created by animal-use committees that know the university and workers. Especially, blinded committees more often ask for more details as opposed to approving studies.[60]

Experts in India are protesting a recent guideline released by the University Grants Commission to ban the utilization of live animals in universities and laboratories.[61]

Numbers

Accurate international figures for animal testing are hard to get; it's been predicted that 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world each year,[62] 10–11 million of them in EU.[63] The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that worldwide annual estimates vary from 50 to 100 million animals. None for the figures include invertebrates like shrimp and fruit flies.[64]

The USDA/APHIS has published the 2016 animal research data. In general, the amount of pets (included in the pet Welfare Act) utilized in research in the US rose 6.9per cent from 767,622 (2015) to 820,812 (2016).[65] This consists of both general public and private institutions.By comparing with EU data, where all vertebrate types are counted, Speaking of Research estimated that around 12 million vertebrates were used in research in the usa in 2016.[66] A 2015 article posted in Journal of Medical Ethics, argued that the use of animals in the US has dramatically increased in recent years. Researchers discovered this increase is largely caused by an increased reliance on genetically modified mice in animal studies.[67]

In 1995, scientists at Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 14–21 million pets had been utilized in US laboratories in 1992, a reduction from a top of 50 million utilized in 1970.[68] In 1986, the U.S. Congress Office of tech Assessment reported that estimates of this animals used in the U.S. range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million each year, and that their particular most useful estimate is at least 17 million to 22 million.[69] In 2016, the Department of Agriculture listed 60,979 dogs, 18,898 kitties, 71,188 non-human primates, 183,237 guinea pigs, 102,633 hamsters, 139,391 rabbits, 83,059 farm animals, and 161,467 other mammals, an overall total of 820,812, a figure that features all animals except purpose-bred mice and rats. Using dogs and cats in research inside U.S. reduced from 1973 to 2016 from 195,157 to 60,979, and from 66,165 to 18,898, correspondingly.[66]

In GB, home business office figures reveal that 3.79 million procedures had been carried out in 2017.[70] 2,960 procedures utilized non-human primates, down over 50per cent since 1988. A «procedure» pertains right here to an experiment that may last minutes, many months, or years. Most pets are employed in only one procedure: pets are often euthanized after the experiment; nevertheless death is the endpoint of some procedures.[64]The procedures conducted on animals in GB in 2017 were categorised as –

  • 43percent (1.61 million) had been evaluated as sub-threshold
  • 4per cent (0.14 million) had been evaluated as non-recovery
  • 36% (1.35 million) had been assessed as mild
  • 15% (0.55 million) were evaluated as moderate
  • 4per cent (0.14 million) had been assessed as severe[71]

A ‘severe’ procedure could be, as an example, any test where death may be the end-point or fatalities are expected, whereas a ‘mild’ procedure will be something similar to a bloodstream test or an MRI scan.[70]

The 3 R's

The Three R's (3R's) are guiding principles for lots more ethical utilization of pets in testing. They were first described by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959.[72] The 3R's state:

  1. Replacement which relates to preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever you are able to attain the exact same scientific aims. These methods consist of computer modeling.[73]
  2. Reduction which describes techniques that enable researchers to have comparable quantities of information from less pets, or to get extra information from same number of pets.
  3. Refinement which means methods that relieve or reduce potential discomfort, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals used. These procedures include non-invasive methods.[73]

The 3R's have actually a broader scope than encouraging alternatives to animal assessment, but aim to enhance animal welfare and clinical quality where the use of pets can't be prevented. These 3R's are now actually implemented in several screening establishments global and have now been adopted by various bits of legislation and laws.[74]

Inspite of the widespread acceptance of the 3R's, many countries—including Canada, Australia, Israel, Southern Korea, and Germany—have reported rising experimental utilization of pets in recent years with additional usage of mice and, in some instances, fish while reporting decreases inside utilization of kitties, dogs, primates, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. And also other countries, Asia has also escalated its utilization of GM pets, resulting in a rise in overall animal usage.[67][75][76][77][78][79][80]

Invertebrates

Main article: Animal evaluation on invertebratesSee also: soreness in invertebratesFruit flies are an invertebrate commonly used in animal testing.

Although a lot more invertebrates than vertebrates are utilized in animal assessment, these studies are mainly unregulated by law. Probably the most frequently used invertebrate species are Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode worm. Regarding C. elegans, the worm's human body is totally clear as well as the exact lineage of the many system's cells is well known,[81] while studies in fly D. melanogaster can use an amazing array of genetic tools.[82] These invertebrates provide some advantages over vertebrates in animal assessment, including their brief life period therefore the simplicity with which good sized quantities can be housed and examined. However, the possible lack of an adaptive disease fighting capability and their easy organs prevent worms from used in a number of facets of medical research including vaccine development.[83] Likewise, the good fresh fruit fly immune protection system varies significantly from compared to humans,[84] and diseases in bugs is distinctive from diseases in vertebrates;[85] however, good fresh fruit flies and waxworms they can be handy in studies to recognize unique virulence factors or pharmacologically active compounds.[86][87][88]

A few invertebrate systems are thought acceptable options to vertebrates in early-stage development displays.[89] As a result of similarities between your natural defense mechanisms of insects and animals, bugs can replace mammals in a few kinds of studies. Drosophila melanogaster and also the Galleria mellonella waxworm have now been specially very important to analysis of virulence traits of mammalian pathogens.[86][87] Waxworms along with other bugs have proven valuable the recognition of pharmaceutical substances with favorable bioavailability.[88] The decision to follow such models generally involves accepting a lowered amount of biological similarity with animals for significant gains in experimental throughput.

Vertebrates

Further information: Animal evaluating on frogs, Animal assessment on rabbits, Animal screening on rodents, Draize test, and Median lethal doseEnos the space chimp before insertion in to the Mercury-Atlas 5 capsule in 1961This rat will be deprived of restful sleep making use of a single platform («flower pot») method. Water is within 1 cm of small flower pot bottom platform where in actuality the rat sits. At the start of sleep, the rat would either fall under water and then clamber back into the cooking pot to avoid drowning, or its nose would become submerged into the water shocking it back to an awakened state.

into the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice utilized is calculated to be from 11 million[66] to between 20 and 100 million annually.[90] Other rodents popular are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most often used vertebrate species due to their size, low priced, easy handling, and quick reproduction price.[91][92] Mice are widely regarded as being the most effective style of inherited human disease and share 99per cent of the genes with people.[91] With all the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice are generated to purchase and may offer models for a range of peoples diseases.[91] Rats are popular for physiology, toxicology and cancer tumors research, but hereditary manipulation is a lot harder in rats than in mice, which limits using these rodents in fundamental technology.[93] Over 500,000 seafood and 9,000 amphibians had been used in the UK in 2016.[94] The key types utilized may be the zebrafish, Danio rerio, that are translucent during their embryonic phase, additionally the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. Over 20,000 rabbits had been useful for animal screening in the united kingdom in 2004.[95]Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests (Draize test) because rabbits have less tear flow than many other pets, while the insufficient eye pigment in albinos result in the effects better to visualize. The variety of rabbits useful for this function has dropped substantially over the past 2 full decades. In 1996, there were 3,693 procedures on rabbits for eye irritation in the UK,[96] and in 2017 this number was simply 63.[94] Rabbits are also frequently used for the manufacturing of polyclonal antibodies.

Cats

Cats are most frequently utilized in neurological research. 18,898 kitties were utilized in the U.S. in 2016,[66] around a 3rd which had been utilized in experiments which have the prospective to cause «pain and/or distress»[97] though only 0.1% of pet experiments involved potential discomfort that has been perhaps not relieved by anesthetics/analgesics. In UK, simply 198 procedures had been carried out on cats in 2017. The amount has been around 200 for many regarding the last ten years.[94]

Dogs

See also: Laika and Soviet area dogs

Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, evaluating, and education—particularly beagles, as they are gentle and easy to manage, also to allow for comparisons with historic data from beagles (a Reduction strategy). They're utilized as models for human and veterinary conditions in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone tissue and joint studies, research that is commonly highly invasive, based on the Humane Society associated with United States.[98] The most frequent use of dogs is in the security assessment of the latest medicines[99] for human or veterinary use as an additional species after assessment in rodents, prior to the regulations set out into the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. One of the main advancements in medical technology involves the application of dogs in developing the responses to insulin production in the body for diabetics plus the part of this pancreas within process. They unearthed that the pancreas was in charge of creating insulin within the body which elimination of the pancreas, resulted in the growth of diabetic issues in the dog. After re-injecting the pancreatic extract, (insulin), the blood sugar amounts had been significantly lowered.[100] The advancements built in this research relating to the usage of dogs has led to a certain improvement within the quality of life for both people and pets.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report suggests that 60,979 dogs had been found in USDA-registered facilities in 2016.[66] In the UK, based on the British office at home, there have been 3,847 procedures on dogs in 2017.[94] Of the other big EU users of dogs, Germany carried out 3,976 procedures on dogs in 2016[101] and France conducted 4,204 procedures in 2016.[102] Both in situations this represents under 0.2percent of the total number of procedures conducted on pets in respective nations.

Non-human primates

Main article: Animal screening on non-human primates

Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. They are caught in the wild or purpose-bred. In the us and Asia, many primates are domestically purpose-bred, whereas in European countries the majority is brought in purpose-bred.[103] The European Commission reported that last year, 6,012 monkeys had been experimented on in European laboratories.[104] In line with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were 71,188 monkeys in U.S. laboratories in 2016.[66] 23,465 monkeys were imported in to the U.S. in 2014 including 929 who have been caught in the great outdoors.[105] All the NHPs found in experiments are macaques;[106] but marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys may also be used, and baboons and chimpanzees are employed in the US. As of 2015, you can find approximately 730 chimpanzees in U.S. laboratories.[107]

In a study in 2003, it had been unearthed that 89percent of singly-housed primates exhibited self-injurious or abnormal stereotypyical habits including pacing, rocking, locks pulling, and biting amongst others.[108]

1st transgenic primate had been stated in 2001, with all the development of a method that may introduce new genes into a rhesus macaque.[109] This transgenic technology is currently being applied in search for a treatment for the hereditary disorder Huntington's condition.[110] Notable studies on non-human primates happen the main polio vaccine development, and growth of Deep mind Stimulation, and their current heaviest non-toxicological usage does occur in monkey AIDS model, SIV.[9][106][111] In 2008 a proposal to ban all primates experiments into the EU has sparked a vigorous debate.[112]

Sources

Main articles: Laboratory animal sources and Global primate trade

Animals utilized by laboratories are largely given by specialist dealers. Sources differ for vertebrate and invertebrate animals. Most laboratories breed and raise flies and worms by themselves, using strains and mutants provided from a couple of primary stock facilities.[113] For vertebrates, sources consist of breeders and dealers like Covance and Charles River Laboratories who supply purpose-bred and wild-caught pets; companies that trade in wildlife such as Nafovanny; and dealers whom provide pets sourced from pounds, auctions, and newsprint ads. Dog shelters also give you the laboratories directly.[114] Big facilities also occur to distribute strains of genetically modified pets; the International Knockout Mouse Consortium, including, aims to give knockout mice for each and every gene in the mouse genome.[115]

A laboratory mouse cage. Mice are either bred commercially, or raised inside laboratory.

in U.S., Class A breeders are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to offer pets for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to purchase pets from «random sources» such as for example auctions, lb seizure, and magazine adverts. Some course B dealers were accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping strays, a practice referred to as bunching.[8][116][117][118][119][120] It absolutely was partly away from public concern over the purchase of animals to analyze facilities your 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act ended up being ushered in—the Senate Committee on Commerce reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been retrieved from Veterans Administration facilities, the Mayo Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools.[121] The USDA recovered about twelve stolen animals during a raid on a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.[122]

Four states into the U.S.—Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa—require their shelters to offer animals to analyze facilities. Fourteen states clearly prohibit the training, while the rest either enable it or do not have appropriate legislation.[123]

Inside European Union, animal sources are governed by Council Directive 86/609/EEC, which calls for lab pets become specifically bred, unless the animal has been lawfully brought in and it is not a wild animal or a stray. The second requirement can also be exempted by special arrangement.[124] This year the Directive had been revised with EU Directive 2010/63/EU.[125] In the UK, many pets utilized in experiments are bred with the objective in 1988 Animal Protection Act, but wild-caught primates can be utilized if exceptional and particular justification can be founded.[126][127] The usa also allows the usage of wild-caught primates; between 1995 and 1999, 1,580 wild baboons were brought in into the U.S. Over half the primates imported between 1995 and 2000 were handled by Charles River Laboratories, or by Covance, which will be the single biggest importer of primates in to the U.S.[128]

Soreness and suffering

Further information: Animal cognition, Pain in animals, Pain in seafood, Soreness in amphibians, Pain in invertebrates, and Soreness in cephalopodsPrior to dissection for educational purposes, chloroform ended up being administered to the typical sand frog to cause anesthesia and death.

The degree that animal testing factors pain and suffering, as well as the capability of pets to experience and understand them, could be the subject of much debate.[129][130]

According to the USDA, in 2016 501,560 animals (61percent) (excluding rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not consist of a lot more than momentary pain or distress. 247,882 (31per cent) animals had been found in procedures where discomfort or distress ended up being relieved by anesthesia, while 71,370 (9%) were found in studies that will hurt or stress that could never be relieved.[66]

Since 2014, into the UK, every research procedure ended up being retrospectively evaluated for severity. The five categories are «sub-threshold», «mild», «moderate», «severe» and «non-recovery», the second being procedures where an animal is anesthetized and later killed without recovering awareness. In 2017, 43per cent (1.61 million) had been assessed as sub-threshold, 4percent (0.14 million) had been evaluated as non-recovery, 36per cent (1.35 million) had been evaluated as moderate, 15per cent (0.55 million) were examined as moderate and 4% (0.14 million) were examined as severe.[71]

The idea that pets may not feel discomfort as human beings feel it traces back once again to the 17th-century French philosopher, René Descartes, whom argued that animals do not experience discomfort and suffering since they lack awareness.[64][131]Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, the key author of two U.S. federal laws and regulations regulating pain relief for pets,[132] writes that researchers stayed unsure to the 1980s concerning whether pets experience pain, which veterinarians been trained in the U.S. before 1989 had been just taught to ignore animal pain.[133] In their interactions with researchers and other veterinarians, he had been regularly expected to «prove» that pets are aware, and to provide «scientifically acceptable» grounds for claiming that they feel discomfort.[133] Carbone writes your view that animals feel pain in a different way is currently a minority view. Academic reviews associated with subject are more equivocal, noting that even though the argument that animals have about easy aware thoughts and emotions has strong help,[134] some critics continue to question just how reliably animal mental states can be determined.[64][135] However, some canine professionals are saying that, while cleverness does differ animal to animal, dogs have actually the cleverness of a two to two-and-a-half year old. This does offer the proven fact that dogs, at the least, have some kind of awareness.[136] The capability of invertebrates to experience pain and suffering is less clear, but legislation in several nations (e.g. U.K., brand new Zealand,[137] Norway[138]) protects some invertebrate species if they're being used in animal evaluation.

Within the U.S., the defining text on animal welfare legislation in animal evaluation could be the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.[139] This describes the parameters that govern animal evaluating in U.S. It states «The power to experience and answer pain is widespread in animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, or even relieved, can lead to unsatisfactory levels of stress and stress in animals.» The Guide states that the capability to recognize the outward symptoms of discomfort in different species is vital in effortlessly applying pain relief and that it is crucial the individuals taking care of and utilizing animals become completely acquainted with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states «The selection of the most likely analgesic or anesthetic should reflect expert judgment concerning which most useful meets medical and humane needs without compromising the systematic areas of the study protocol». Appropriately, all dilemmas of animal discomfort and stress, and their possible therapy with analgesia and anesthesia, are needed regulatory problems in getting animal protocol approval.[140]

Euthanasia

Further information: Euthanasia and Animal euthanasia

Regulations need that scientists use as couple of pets as you can, particularly for terminal experiments.[141] However, while policy makers start thinking about suffering to be the central problem to see animal euthanasia in order to reduce suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue your everyday lives of laboratory animals have actually intrinsic value.[142] Regulations give attention to whether particular methods cause pain and suffering, maybe not whether their death is unwelcome in itself.[143] The animals are euthanized at the conclusion of studies for sample collection or post-mortem assessment; during studies if their pain or suffering falls into particular categories regarded as unacceptable, such as for example depression, illness that is unresponsive to therapy, and/or failure of large animals to eat for five days;[144] or when they're unsuitable for breeding or unwanted for some other explanation.[145]

Types of euthanizing laboratory pets are selected to cause rapid unconsciousness and death without pain or stress.[146] The techniques which are chosen are the ones published by councils of veterinarians. The pet may be built to inhale a gas, particularly carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, when you're positioned in a chamber, or by use of a face mask, with or without previous sedation or anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as for example barbiturates may be given intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics can be used. Amphibians and fish are immersed in water containing an anesthetic particularly tricaine. Real practices may also be utilized, with or without sedation or anesthesia with regards to the technique. Suggested practices include decapitation (beheading) for little rodents or rabbits. Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or back) may be used for wild birds, mice, and immature rats and rabbits. Maceration (grinding into little pieces) can be used on one day old chicks. High-intensity microwave oven irradiation of the brain can protect mind tissue and induce death in under 1 second, but that is at this time just used on rodents. Captive bolts can be utilized, typically on dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. It causes death by a concussion to the mind. Gunshot works extremely well, but only where a penetrating captive bolt might not be used. Some real techniques are only appropriate after the animal is unconscious. Electrocution can be utilized for cattle, sheep, swine, foxes, and mink following the animals are unconscious, often by a prior electric stun. Pithing (inserting an instrument in to the base of the brain) is usable on animals already unconscious. Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing atmosphere embolism are acceptable just with previous anesthesia to cause unconsciousness.[147]

Research classification

Pure research

Basic or pure research investigates just how organisms act, develop, and function. Those in opposition to animal testing item that pure research could have minimal practical function, but researchers argue that it forms the necessary foundation the growth of applied research, making the distinction between pure and used research—research which has a particular practical aim—unclear.[148] Pure research uses larger numbers and a greater number of animals than applied research. Fruit flies, nematode worms, mice and rats together take into account a large proportion, though little variety of other species are utilized, which range from sea slugs to armadillos.[149] Examples of the kinds of animals and experiments used in basic research include:

  • Studies on embryogenesis and developmental biology. Mutants are manufactured by the addition of transposons within their genomes, or specific genes are deleted by gene focusing on.[150][151] By learning the alterations in development these changes create, scientists aim to understand both exactly how organisms usually develop, and exactly what can fail in this procedure. These studies are specially effective because the fundamental settings of development, such as the homeobox genes, have similar functions in organisms as diverse as fruit flies and guy.[152][153]
  • Experiments into behavior, to comprehend how organisms detect and connect to each other and their environment, in which fruit flies, worms, mice, and rats are widely used.[154][155] Studies of brain function, like memory and social behavior, frequently utilize rats and birds.[156][157] For many species, behavioral scientific studies are along with enrichment techniques for animals in captivity because it enables them to take part in a wider array of tasks.[158]
  • Breeding experiments to study development and genetics. Laboratory mice, flies, fish, and worms are inbred through numerous generations to create strains with defined traits.[159] These offer animals of a known genetic background, a significant device for hereditary analyses. Bigger animals are hardly ever bred especially for such studies because of the slow price of reproduction, while some scientists make the most of inbred domesticated animals, like dog or cattle breeds, for comparative purposes. Scientists learning exactly how animals evolve use many animal types to observe variations in in which and exactly how an organism everyday lives (their niche) produce adaptations within their physiology and morphology. For example, sticklebacks are increasingly being used to study exactly how many and which forms of mutations are chosen to create adaptations in animals' morphology through the development of new species.[160][161]

Applied research

Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems. These may involve the usage of animal types of diseases or conditions, which are often found or produced by pure research programmes. Consequently, such used studies can be an early phase into the drug development procedure. These include:

  • Genetic modification of animals to review infection. Transgenic animals have particular genes inserted, modified or removed, to mimic particular conditions such as single gene disorders, such as for instance Huntington's illness.[162] Other models mimic complex, multifactorial conditions with hereditary components, like diabetes,[163] or even transgenic mice that carry the exact same mutations that happen throughout the growth of cancer.[164] These models allow investigations on what and just why the disease develops, as well as supplying approaches to develop and test brand new remedies.[165] The vast majority of these transgenic types of individual illness are lines of mice, the mammalian species which hereditary modification is most effective.[91] Smaller numbers of other pets are also utilized, including rats, pigs, sheep, seafood, wild birds, and amphibians.[127]
  • Studies on types of obviously occurring disease and condition. Particular domestic and wildlife have an all-natural propensity or predisposition for certain conditions that are additionally within people. Kitties are utilized as a model to build up immunodeficiency virus vaccines and to learn leukemia because their natural predisposition to FIV and Feline leukemia virus.[166][167] Specific kinds of dog suffer from narcolepsy making them the main model regularly study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal types that obviously experience leprosy; due to the fact germs responsible for this condition cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos will be the primary way to obtain bacilli utilized in leprosy vaccines.[149]
  • Studies on induced animal models of peoples conditions. Here, an animal is addressed such that it develops pathology and symptoms that resemble a human illness. Examples include limiting circulation to your brain to induce stroke, or providing neurotoxins that cause damage much like that observed in Parkinson's disease.[168] Such studies may be hard to interpret, and it is argued that they're not always much like human being diseases.[169] For instance, although such models are actually trusted to study Parkinson's disease, the British anti-vivisection interest team BUAV argues these models only superficially resemble the condition signs, without exact same time course or cellular pathology.[170] On the other hand, experts evaluating the usefulness of animal types of Parkinson's infection, plus the medical research charity The Parkinson's Appeal, state that these models were invaluable and they led to improved surgery particularly pallidotomy, brand new treatments including levodopa, and later deep brain stimulation.[111][168][171]
  • Animal evaluating has also included using placebo evaluation. In these instances animals are addressed with a substance that produces no pharmacological impact, it is administered to figure out any biological alterations because of the connection with a substance being administered, together with answers are in contrast to those obtained with an active ingredient.

Xenotransplantation

Main article: Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting cells or organs from species to some other, in order to overcome the shortage of individual organs to be used in organ transplants.[172] Present research involves utilizing primates once the recipients of organs from pigs that have been genetically modified to lessen the primates' resistant reaction contrary to the pig tissue.[173] Although transplant rejection stays a challenge,[173] present medical trials that involved implanting pig insulin-secreting cells into diabetics did reduce they's requirement for insulin.[174][175]

Papers released to the press by your pet liberties organization Uncaged Campaigns showed that, between 1994 and 2000, wild baboons brought in to your UK from Africa by Imutran Ltd, a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma AG, in conjunction with Cambridge University and Huntingdon Life Sciences, to be used in experiments that involved grafting pig tissues, suffered serious and sometimes deadly injuries. A scandal happened with regards to had been revealed your company had communicated utilizing the British federal government so that they can avoid regulation.[176][177]

Toxicology testing

Main article: Toxicology testingFurther information: Draize test, LD50, Acute poisoning, Chronic toxicity, and Genetically modified food controversies § Animal eating studies

Toxicology testing, also called security assessment, is carried out by pharmaceutical businesses testing medications, or by agreement animal testing facilities, like Huntingdon Life Sciences, for numerous clients.[178] According to 2005 EU figures, around one million pets are utilized each year in European countries in toxicology tests; which are about 10per cent of all of the procedures.[179] According to Nature, 5,000 animals are employed for each chemical being tested, with 12,000 had a need to test pesticides.[180] The tests are carried out without anesthesia, because interactions between medications make a difference how pets detoxify chemical compounds, and may even interfere with the results.[181][182]

Toxicology tests are accustomed to examine completed items such as pesticides, medicines, meals additives, packing materials, and atmosphere freshener, or their chemical components. Many tests include testing ingredients as opposed to completed products, but according to BUAV, manufacturers think these tests overestimate the toxic effects of substances; they consequently repeat the tests utilizing their finished products to obtain a less toxic label.[178]

The substances are put on your skin or dripped in to the eyes; injected intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by putting a mask over the pets and restraining them, or by placing them in an inhalation chamber; or administered orally, through a tube in to the stomach, or simply just within the animal's food. Doses can be offered as soon as, repeated frequently for a lot of months, or for the lifespan of this animal.

There are many several types of acute poisoning tests. The LD50 («Lethal Dose 50%») test is employed to gauge the poisoning of a substance by determining the dose necessary to kill 50per cent associated with test animal population. This test was removed from OECD international instructions in 2002, replaced by techniques for instance the fixed dosage procedure, which use less animals and cause less suffering.[183][184] Abbott writes that, as of 2005, «the LD50 severe toxicity test… still makes up one-third of animal [toxicity] tests worldwide».[180]

Irritancy can be calculated utilising the Draize test, in which a test substance is put on an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino bunny. For Draize eye testing, the test involves observing the consequences for the substance at periods and grading any damage or irritation, but the test must be halted additionally the animal killed if it shows «continuing indications of severe discomfort or distress».[185] The Humane community associated with the usa writes your procedure causes redness, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, and even blindness.[186] This test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, subjective, over-sensitive, and failing continually to reflect human exposures into the real-world.[187] Although no accepted in vitro options exist, a modified kind of the Draize test called the lower amount attention test may reduce suffering and provide more practical outcomes and also this was used as the brand new standard in September 2009.[188][189] But the Draize test will still be employed for substances that are not severe irritants.[189]

The most stringent tests are reserved for drugs and foodstuffs. For these, some tests are done, lasting under 30 days (acute), anyone to three months (subchronic), and much more than three months (chronic) to check general poisoning (injury to organs), attention and skin irritancy, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and reproductive issues. The cost of the total complement of tests is several million bucks per substance therefore might take three to four years to complete.

These poisoning tests offer, within the words of a 2006 usa nationwide Academy of Sciences report, «critical information for evaluating risk and danger potential».[190] Animal tests may overestimate risk, with false very good results being a particular issue,[180][191] but false positives appear to not be prohibitively typical.[192] Variability in outcomes arises from utilising the aftereffects of high doses of chemical substances in small variety of laboratory animals to try to anticipate the effects of low doses in many people.[193] Although relationships do occur, opinion is divided on how best to make use of information on a single species to anticipate the actual degree of risk in another.[194]

Boffins face growing stress to go away from making use of conventional animal poisoning tests to find out whether manufactured chemical substances are safe.[195] Among variety of methods to poisoning evaluation the people that have drawn increasing passions are in vitro cell-based sensing methods using fluorescence.[196]

Cosmetics testing

Main article: Testing cosmetic makeup products on animalsThe «Leaping Bunny» logo design: Some products in European countries that aren't tested on animals carry this symbol.

Cosmetics assessment on pets is particularly controversial. Such tests, that are still carried out inside U.S., include general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy, phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.[197]

Cosmetic makeup products assessment on pets is banned in India, the European Union,[198] Israel and Norway[199][200] while legislation in the U.S. and Brazil is currently considering comparable bans.[201] In 2002, after 13 many years of conversation, the European Union decided to stage in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetic makeup products by 2009, and also to ban all cosmetics-related animal screening. France, which can be home toward world's largest cosmetics business, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging an incident on European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking your ban be quashed.[202] The ban can be compared by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 organizations in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy.[202] In October 2014, India passed stricter legislation that also ban the importation of any cosmetic products that are tested on pets.[203]

Drug testing

Before the early 20th century, laws and regulations regulating medications were lax. At this time, all new pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous animal evaluating before being certified for human usage. Tests on pharmaceutical services and products involve:

  • metabolic tests, investigating pharmacokinetics—how medications are consumed, metabolized and excreted by your body when introduced orally, intravenously, intraperitoneally, intramuscularly, or transdermally.
  • toxicology tests, which gauge acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicity. Acute poisoning is examined by utilizing a rising dose until indications of poisoning become obvious. Present European legislation demands that «acute toxicity tests must be completed in 2 or higher mammalian species» addressing «at least two different paths of administration».[204] Sub-acute toxicity is where in actuality the drug is provided to the pets for four to six weeks in doses below the degree of which it causes fast poisoning, to discover if any toxic medication metabolites build up over time. Testing for chronic poisoning can endure as much as 2 yrs and, into the eu, is needed to include two species of animals, among which must be non-rodent.[205]
  • efficacy studies, which test whether experimental drugs work by inducing the appropriate infection in animals. The drug is then administered in a double-blind managed trial, allowing researchers to determine the aftereffect of the drug together with dose-response curve.
  • Specific tests on reproductive function, embryonic poisoning, or carcinogenic potential could all be required for legal reasons, with regards to the consequence of other studies while the style of drug being tested.

Education

It is predicted that 20 million pets are utilized yearly for academic purposes in the us including, class observational workouts, dissections and live-animal surgeries.[206][207] Frogs, fetal pigs, perch, cats, earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish and starfish can be used in classroom dissections.[208] Alternatives towards utilization of animals in class room dissections are trusted, with numerous U.S. States and college districts mandating students be provided the choice never to dissect.[209] Citing the wide availability of alternatives additionally the decimation of regional frog types, India banned dissections in 2014.[210][211]

The Sonoran Arthropod Institute hosts a yearly Invertebrates in Education and Conservation Conference to go over the usage of invertebrates in education.[212] There are efforts in lots of nations to get alternatives to utilizing pets in education.[213] The NORINA database, maintained by Norecopa, lists items that works extremely well as options or supplements to animal use in training, as well as in it of personnel who use pets.[214] Included in these are options to dissection in schools. InterNICHE has the same database and a loans system.[215]

In November 2013, the U.S.-based business Backyard Brains released on the market towards public what they call the «Roboroach», an «electronic backpack» which can be attached to cockroaches. The operator must amputate a cockroach's antennae, use sandpaper to put on straight down the shell, insert a wire in to the thorax, and glue the electrodes and circuit board onto the pest's right back. A mobile phone application are able to be employed to control it via Bluetooth.[216] It's been recommended that the usage of such a computer device might be a teaching aid that may promote desire for technology. The makers associated with «Roboroach» have now been funded by the nationwide Institute of Mental Health and suggest that the device is supposed to encourage children to become thinking about neuroscience.[216][217]

Defense

Animals are utilized by the military to build up tools, vaccines, battlefield medical methods, and protective clothes.[148] Like, in 2008 the United States Defense Advanced studies Agency utilized live pigs to examine the results of improvised explosive device explosions on organs, particularly the mind.[218]

In the usa military, goats can be regularly train combat medics. (Goats have become the primary animal species useful for this purpose after the Pentagon phased out utilizing dogs for medical learning the 1980s.[219]) While contemporary mannequins found in medical training can be efficient in simulating the behavior of a human body, some students believe «the goat exercise provide[s] a feeling of urgency that main life injury can provide».[220] However, in 2014, the U.S. Coast Guard announced it would lessen the quantity of pets it utilizes in its training workouts by half after PETA circulated video clip showing Guard users cutting from the limbs of unconscious goats with tree trimmers and inflicting other injuries with a shotgun, pistol, ax and a scalpel.[221] That same 12 months, citing the accessibility to human simulators alongside options, the Department of Defense announced it could begin reducing the amount of animals it uses in several training programs.[222] In 2013, a few Navy medical facilities stopped utilizing ferrets in intubation workouts after complaints from PETA.[223]

Aside from the usa, six from 28 NATO nations, including Poland and Denmark, use live animals for combat medic training.[219]

Ethics

Viewpoints

Further information: Animal welfare, Animal rights, and History of animal testingMonument for pets used in testing at Keio University

The moral and ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are at the mercy of debate, and viewpoints have shifted considerably on the 20th century.[224] There stay disagreements about which procedures are of help that purposes, in addition to disagreements over which ethical concepts connect with which species.

A 2015 Gallup poll unearthed that 67percent of People in america had been «very concerned» or «somewhat concerned» about pets used in research.[225] A Pew poll taken equivalent year found 50percent of American adults opposed the usage of animals in research.[226]

Nevertheless, a wide range of viewpoints occur. The view that pets have actually ethical liberties (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that pets are beings with thinking and desires, and as such will be the «subjects of a life» with moral value therefore moral rights.[227] Regan nevertheless views ethical differences between killing peoples and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a «moral dilemma» view implies that avoiding potential advantage to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue become a dilemma in balancing such problems for humans to the damage done to animals in research.[228] In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal legal rights holds that there's no moral justification for almost any harmful research on animals that isn't to your benefit of the patient animal.[228]Bernard Rollin argues that advantageous assets to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, which human beings do not have moral to make use of an animal in many ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, whom contends that we now have no grounds to include a being's species in factors of whether their suffering is very important in utilitarian ethical factors.[229]Malcolm Macleod and collaborators argue that a lot of controlled animal studies do not use randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding result assessment, which failure to hire these features exaggerates the obvious advantage of medications tested in pets, resulting in a failure to translate much animal research for individual benefit.[230][231][232][233][234]

Governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have actually responded to the general public's concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on specific classes of non-human primates, particularly the great apes.[235][236] In 2015, captive chimpanzees within the U.S. were put into the Endangered Species Act including new road blocks to those wanting to experiment in it.[237] Similarly, citing ethical considerations plus the availability of alternate research techniques, the U.S. NIH announced in 2013 it would considerably reduce and in the end stage down experiments on chimpanzees.[238]

The Uk government has necessary that the price to pets in an experiment be weighed contrary to the gain in knowledge.[239] Some medical schools and agencies in Asia, Japan, and Southern Korea have built cenotaphs for killed animals.[240] In Japan there are also yearly memorial services (Ireisai 慰霊祭) for pets sacrificed at medical college.

Dolly the sheep: initial clone created from the somatic cells of a grownup mammal

Various specific situations of animal screening have drawn attention, including both cases of useful systematic research, and instances of so-called ethical violations by those doing the tests. The fundamental properties of muscle tissue physiology were determined with work done making use of frog muscle tissue (like the force producing apparatus of all of the muscle mass,[241] the length-tension relationship,[242] plus the force-velocity curve[243]), and frogs continue to be preferred model system due to the long success of muscles in vitro and likelihood of isolating intact single-fiber preparations (not possible in other organisms).[244] Contemporary physical therapy while the understanding and remedy for muscular problems is dependant on this work and subsequent work in mice (usually engineered to state infection states such as for example muscular dystrophy).[245] In February 1997 a team on Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the delivery of Dolly the sheep, 1st mammal become cloned from an adult somatic cell.[34]

Concerns have now been raised within the mistreatment of primates undergoing testing. In 1985 the actual situation of Britches, a macaque monkey on University of Ca, Riverside, gained public attention. He'd his eyelids sewn closed and a sonar sensor on their head included in an experiment to try sensory replacement products for blind people. The laboratory had been raided by Animal Liberation Front in 1985, getting rid of Britches and 466 other pets.[246] The National Institutes of wellness conducted an eight-month research and concluded, but that no corrective action ended up being necessary.[247] Throughout the 2000s other situations have made headlines, including experiments within University of Cambridge[248] and Columbia University in 2002.[249] In 2004 and 2005, undercover footage of staff of Covance's, a contract research company that provides animal testing solutions, Virginia lab was shot by People for the Ethical Treatment of pets (PETA). After launch of the footage, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Covance $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations included administrative problems and gear.[250][251]

Threats to researchers

Threats of physical violence to animal researchers aren't uncommon.[252]

In 2006, a primate researcher at the University of Ca, la (UCLA) power down the experiments in his lab after threats from animal legal rights activists. The researcher had received a grant to use 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized for one physiological experiment lasting as much as 120 hours, after which euthanized.[253] The researcher's name, telephone number, and address had been posted on the internet site of the Primate Freedom venture. Demonstrations were held in front of their house. A Molotov cocktail had been placed on the porch of the thing that was considered to be the house of another UCLA primate researcher; rather, it absolutely was unintentionally kept regarding porch of an elderly girl unrelated towards college. The Animal Liberation Front stated duty for the attack.[254] Due to the campaign, the researcher delivered an email toward Primate Freedom venture stating «you win», and «please do not bother my loved ones anymore».[255] In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the Animal Liberation Brigade placed a bomb in automobile of a UCLA kids' ophthalmologist whom experiments on cats and rhesus monkeys; the bomb had a faulty fuse and couldn't detonate.[256]

In 1997, PETA filmed staff from Huntingdon lifetime Sciences, showing dogs being mistreated.[257][258] The workers accountable had been dismissed,[259] with two offered community service purchases and ordered to cover £250 costs, the very first lab specialists to own been prosecuted for animal cruelty in UK.[260] The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign utilized strategies including non-violent protest towards so-called firebombing of homes owned by professionals related to HLS's clients and investors. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors US domestic extremism, has described SHAC's modus operandi as «frankly terroristic tactics like those of anti-abortion extremists,» as well as in 2005 an official utilizing the FBI's counter-terrorism unit described SHAC's activities in the United States as domestic terrorist threats.[261][262] 13 people of SHAC had been jailed for between 15 months and eleven years on costs of conspiracy to blackmail or damage HLS as well as its companies.[263][264]

These attacks—as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal liberties motion had «clearly taken a change toward the greater amount of extreme»—prompted the federal government to pass the pet Enterprise Terrorism Act while the UK government to include the offense of «Intimidation of individuals associated with animal research organisation» toward Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Such legislation and arrest and imprisonment of activists might have reduced the incidence of attacks.[265]

Alternatives to animal testing

Main article: Alternatives to animal testing

Most scientists and governments state that animal evaluating should cause very little suffering to animals that you can, which animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The «Three Rs»[72][141] are guiding maxims the utilization of pets in research in many countries. Whilst replacement of animals, in other words. alternatives to animal evaluating, is among the maxims, their range is a lot wider.[266] Although such maxims have been welcomed as one step forwards by some animal welfare groups,[267] they have also been criticized as both outdated by present research,[268] and of small practical impact in increasing animal welfare.[269]

The experts and engineers at Harvard's Wyss Institute have actually developed «organs-on-a-chip», such as the «lung-on-a-chip» and «gut-on-a-chip». These small devices have peoples cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics human being organs. The chips can be used in place of pets in in vitro disease research, drug evaluation, and poisoning evaluating.[270] Scientists also have started using 3-D bioprinters to generate human cells for in vitro screening.[271]

Another non-animal research method is in silico or computer simulation and mathematical modeling which seeks to investigate and ultimately predict toxicity and medication affects in people without using animals. This is accomplished by investigating test compounds on a molecular degree making use of recent advances in technical abilities utilizing the ultimate objective of making remedies unique to each client.[272][273]

Microdosing is another option to using pets in experimentation. Microdosing is an activity whereby volunteers are administered a little dose of a test ingredient allowing researchers to analyze its pharmacological affects without harming the volunteers. Microdosing can change using animals in pre-clinical medication assessment and may reduce the quantity of pets utilized in safety and toxicity testing.[274]

Extra alternate methods consist of positron emission tomography (animal), allowing scanning regarding the mind in vivo,[275] and comparative epidemiological studies of disease risk facets among peoples populations.[276]

Simulators and computer programs also have replaced using pets in dissection, teaching and training workouts.[277][278]

Formal systems for instance the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Test Methods of the European Commission, the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods in the US,[279] ZEBET in Germany,[280] and also the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods[281] (among others) additionally promote and disseminate the 3Rs. These figures are primarily driven by responding to regulatory requirements, such as for instance supporting the cosmetics testing ban in EU by validating alternate techniques.

The European Partnership for Alternative ways to Animal Testing serves as a liaison between the European Commission and industries.[282] The European Consensus system for Alternatives coordinates efforts amongst EU member states.[283]

Academic facilities also investigate alternatives, including the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing on Johns Hopkins University[284] therefore the NC3Rs inside UK.[285]

See also

  • Bateson's cube
  • Human topic research
  • Krogh's principle
  • Preclinical imaging
  • Remote control animal
  • The People's Petition
  • Women and animal advocacy
  • Sham feeding

References

  1. ^ "«Introduction», choose Committee on Animals In Scientific treatments Report". UK Parliament. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  2. ^ Meredith Cohn (26 August 2010). "Alternatives to Animal Testing Gaining Ground," The Baltimore Sun.
  3. ^ Carbone, p. 26.
  4. ^ «EU statistics reveal decline in animal research numbers». Talking about Research. 2013. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  5. ^ a b Carbone, p. 22.
  6. ^ «Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research», Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, The National Academies Press, 1988ISBN 0-309-07878-4.
  7. ^ Cooper, Sylvia (1 August 1999). «Pets audience animal shelter», The Augusta Chronicle.
  8. ^ a b Gillham, Christina (17 February 2006). «Bought to be offered», Newsweek.
  9. ^ a b the employment of non-human pets in research: a guide for boffins The Royal Society, 2004, p. 1
  10. ^ «Science, Medicine, and Animals», Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Published by the National Research Council regarding the National Academies 2004, p. 2
  11. ^ a b Croce, Pietro (1999). Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. Zed Books,ISBN 1-85649-732-1.
  12. ^ «About». Peta.org. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  13. ^ «UK Legislation: A Criticism» (PDF). Web.archive.org. Archived from the initial (PDF) on 25 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  14. ^ «FAQs: Vivisection» (PDF). British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  15. ^ «Biomedical analysis : The Humane Society associated with United States». Humanesociety.org. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  16. ^ «Animal Testing and Animal Experimentation Problems | Physicians Committee». Pcrm.org. Archived through the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  17. ^ «Vivisection» Archived 1 January 2008 during the Wayback device, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.
  18. ^ «Vivisection FAQ» (PDF). British Union the Abolition of Vivisection. Archived from original (PDF) on 13 May 2015.
  19. ^ Definitions in:
    • Oxford Pocket Dictionary
    • Merriam-Webster Dictionary
  20. ^ Paixão RL, Schramm FR (1999). «Ethics and animal experimentation: what exactly is debated?». Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 15 (Suppl 1): 99–110. doi:10.1590/s0102-311x1999000500011. PMID 10089552.
  21. ^ Yarri, Donna (2005). The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, Oxford University Press U.S.,ISBN 0-19-518179-4.
  22. ^ Cohen and Loew 1984.
  23. ^ «History of nonhuman animal research». Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group. Archived from the original on 13 October 2006.
  24. ^ Abdel-Halim RE (2005). «Contributions of Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) toward progress of surgery: a research and translations from their guide Al-Taisir». Saudi Medical Journal. 26 (9): 1333–9. PMID 16155644.
  25. ^ Abdel-Halim RE (2006). «Contributions of Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi toward progress of medication and urology. A report and translations from their guide Al-Mukhtar». Saudi Health Journal. 27 (11): 1631–41. PMID 17106533.
  26. ^ Costello, John (9 June 2011). «The great zoo's who». Irish Independent.
  27. ^ Mock M, Fouet A (2001). «Anthrax». Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55: 647–71. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.647. PMID 11544370.
  28. ^ Windholz G (1987). «Pavlov as a psychologist. A reappraisal». Pavlovian J. Biol. Sci. 22 (3): 103–12. PMID 3309839.
  29. ^ Anne Maczulak (2011), «bioweapon», Encyclopedia of Microbiology, Facts On File, pp. 127–135, ISBN 978-0-8160-7364-1
  30. ^ Gorden P (1997). «Non-insulin dependent diabetes—the past, current and future». Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 26 (3): 326–30. PMID 9285027.
  31. ^ Walgate R (1981). «Armadillos fight leprosy». Nature. 291 (5816): 527. Bibcode:1981Natur.291..527W. doi:10.1038/291527a0. PMID 7242665.
  32. ^ Scollard DM, Adams LB, Gillis TP, Krahenbuhl JL, Truman RW, Williams DL (2006). «The Continuing Challenges of Leprosy». Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 19 (2): 338–81. doi:10.1128/CMR.19.2.338-381.2006. PMC 1471987. PMID 16614253.
  33. ^ Jaenisch R, Mintz B (1974). «Simian Virus 40 DNA Sequences in DNA of healthier Adult Mice Derived from Preimplantation Blastocysts Injected with Viral DNA». Procedures of the nationwide Academy of Sciences associated with united states. 71 (4): 1250–4. Bibcode:1974PNAS...71.1250J. doi:10.1073/pnas.71.4.1250. PMC 388203. PMID 4364530.
  34. ^ a b Wilmut we, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, type AJ, Campbell KH (1997). «Viable offspring produced from fetal and adult mammalian cells». Nature. 385 (6619): 810–3. Bibcode:1997Natur.385..810W. doi:10.1038/385810a0. PMID 9039911.
  35. ^ «History of animal research». www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
  36. ^ «Taste of Raspberries, Taste of Death. The 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide Incident». FDA customer magazine. June 1981.
  37. ^ Burkholz, Herbert (1 September 1997). «Giving Thalidomide an extra Chance». Food And Drug Administration Consumer. US Food and Drug Management.
  38. ^ a b Croce, Pietro. Vivisection or Science? A study into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. Zed Books, 1999,ISBN 1-85649-732-1 p. 11.
  39. ^ a b Bernard, Claude An Introduction toward Study of Experimental Medicine, 1865. Very first English interpretation by Henry Copley Greene, posted by Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1927; reprinted in 1949, p. 125.
  40. ^ Ryder, Richard D. (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg Publishers, p. 54ISBN 1-85973-330-1.
  41. ^ a b c «Animal Experimentation: A Student Guide to Balancing the Issues», Australian and brand new Zealand Council the Care of Animals in analysis and Teaching (ANZCCART), accessed 12 December 2007, cites original guide in Maehle, A-H. and Tr6hler, U. Animal experimentation from antiquity to your end of eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments. In N. A. Rupke (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. Croom Helm, London, 1987, p. 22.
  42. ^ Rudacille, Deborah (2000). The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict, University of Ca Press, p. 19ISBN 0-520-23154-6.
  43. ^ «In sickness as well as in wellness: vivisection's undoing», The regular Telegraph, November 2003
  44. ^ LaFollette, H., Shanks, N., Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard, International Studies in Philosophy of Science (1994) pp. 195–210.
  45. ^ Nicoll CS (1991). «A Physiologist's Views regarding the Animal Rights/Liberation Movement». The Physiologist. 34 (6): 303, 306–8, 315. PMID 1775539.
  46. ^ Mason, Peter. The Brown Puppy Affair. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997.
  47. ^ "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II". Fullbooks.com.
  48. ^ Bowlby, John (1991). Charles Darwin: a fresh lifestyle, W. W. Norton & Company, p. 420ISBN 0-393-30930-4.
  49. ^ Ilman, John (2008). Animal Research in Medicine: 100 years of politics, protest and progress. The Tale associated with the Analysis Defence Society. Research Defence Society. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-9560008-0-4.
  50. ^ Publications for the analysis Defence Society: March 1908–1909; chosen by the committee. London: Macmillan. 1909. p. xiv.
  51. ^ Buettinger, Craig (1 January 1993) Antivivisection and also the cost of zoophil-psychosis inside early 20th century. The Historian.
  52. ^ Carbone, pp. 68–69.
  53. ^ Workplace of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Public wellness Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. nih.gov
  54. ^ Title 9 – pets and Animal goods. Code of Federal Regulations. Vol. 1 (1 January 2008).
  55. ^ a b «Animal Testing and legislation — Animal Legal Defense Fund». Animal Legal Defense Fund. Archived from original on 23 August 2017. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
  56. ^ Harden, Gil. «USDA Inspector General Audit Report of APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities» (PDF). United States Department of Agriculture workplace of Inspector General (Report No. 33601–0001–41). Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  57. ^ Young, Robert (September 2005). «Audit Report: APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities» (PDF). USDA Office of Inspector General Western area (Report No. 33002–3–SF). Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  58. ^ Hansen, L; Goodman, J; Chandna, A (2012). «Analysis of animal research ethics committee account at United states institutions». Animals. 2 (1): 68–75. doi:10.3390/ani2010068. PMC 4494267. PMID 26486777.
  59. ^ Carbone, p. 94.
  60. ^ Plous S, Herzog H (2001). «ANIMAL ANALYSIS: Reliability of Protocol ratings for Animal Research». Technology. 293 (5530): 608–609. doi:10.1126/science.1061621. PMID 11474086.
  61. ^ Jayashree Nandi (27 April 2012). «Scientists accept activists, want ban on real time evaluation on pets lifted». Times Of India. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  62. ^ Taylor, Katy; Gordon, Nicky; Langley, Gill; Higgins, Wendy (2008). «Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use within 2005». ATLA. 36 (3): 327–42. doi:10.1177/026119290803600310. PMID 18662096.
  63. ^ Hunter, Robert G. (1 January 2014). «Alternatives to animal assessment drive market». Gen. Eng. Biotechnol. News. 34 (1). p. 11. While development has leveled off and there were significant reductions in some countries, how many animals utilized in research globally nevertheless totals almost 100 million per year.
  64. ^ a b c d «The Ethics of research involving animals» (PDF). Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Archived through the initial (PDF) on 25 June 2008.
  65. ^ «USDA posts 2016 animal research data – 7per cent rise in animal use». Talking about analysis. 19 June 2017. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  66. ^ a b c d age f g «USDA Statistics for Animals found in analysis into the US». These are analysis. 20 March 2008.
  67. ^ a b Goodman, J.; Chandna, A.; Roe, K. (2015). «Trends in animal usage at US research facilities». Journal of Medical Ethics. 41 (7): 567–569. doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102404. PMID 25717142. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  68. ^ Rowan, A., Loew, F., and Weer, J. (1995) «The Animal analysis Controversy. Protest, Process and Public Policy: An Analysis of Strategic Issues.» Tufts University, North Grafton. cited in Carbone 2004, p. 26.
  69. ^ Alternatives to Animal use within Research, Testing and Education, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1986, p. 64. In 1966, the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association estimated in testimony before Congress your number of mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits found in 1965 was around 60 million. (Hearings prior to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. home of Representatives, 1966, p. 63.)
  70. ^ a b «Animal research figures in 2017». Understanding Animal Analysis. 2017.
  71. ^ a b «Home workplace Statistics for pets Used in Research in the UK». Talking about analysis. 23 October 2012.
  72. ^ a b Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L., (1959). The Maxims of Humane Experimental Technique, Methuen, London.ISBN 0-900767-78-2 [1]
  73. ^ a b Badyal D., Desai C. (2014). «Animal used in pharmacology training and research: The changing scenario». Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 46 (3): 257–265. doi:10.4103/0253-7613.132153. PMC 4071700. PMID 24987170.CS1 maint: Uses writers parameter (link)
  74. ^ Liguori, G.; et al. (2017). «Ethical problems in utilization of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on Legal Aspects, Moral Theory, 3Rs Strategies, and Harm-Benefit Analysis» (PDF). Tissue Engineering role C techniques. 23 (12): 850–862. doi:10.1089/ten.TEC.2017.0189. PMID 28756735.
  75. ^ Canadian Council on Animal Care (December 2010). «2009 CCAC Survey of Animal Use» (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on 7 June 2015. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  76. ^ Merkes, M.; Buttrose, R. «New rule, same suffering: animals within the lab». ABC. The Drum. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  77. ^ Even, Dan (29 May 2013). «Number of animal experiments up for first time since 2008». Haaretz. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  78. ^ «Rise in animal research in Southern Korea in 2017». 20 April 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2017.
  79. ^ «Number of laboratory pets in Germany». Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  80. ^ Kong, Q.; Qin, C. (2009). «Analysis of current laboratory animal technology policies and administration in China». ILAR. 51 (1): e1–e11. doi:10.1093/ilar.51.1.e1. PMID 20075493.
  81. ^ Antoshechkin We, Sternberg PW (2007). «The versatile worm: genetic and genomic resources for Caenorhabditis elegans research». Nature Reviews Genetics. 8 (7): 518–32. doi:10.1038/nrg2105. PMID 17549065.
  82. ^ Matthews KA, Kaufman TC, Gelbart WM (2005). «Research resources for Drosophila: the expanding universe». Nature Ratings Genetics. 6 (3): 179–93. doi:10.1038/nrg1554. PMID 15738962.
  83. ^ Schulenburg H, Kurz CL, Ewbank JJ (2004). «Evolution associated with the innate immunity system: the worm perspective». Immunological Reviews. 198: 36–58. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0125.x. PMID 15199953.
  84. ^ Leclerc V, Reichhart JM (2004). «The immune reaction of Drosophila melanogaster». Immunological Reviews. 198: 59–71. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0130.x. PMID 15199954.
  85. ^ Mylonakis E, Aballay A (2005). «Worms and flies as genetically tractable animal models to examine host-pathogen interactions». Illness and Immunity. 73 (7): 3833–41. doi:10.1128/IAI.73.7.3833-3841.2005. PMC 1168613. PMID 15972468.
  86. ^ a b Kavanagh K, Reeves EP (2004). «Exploiting the potential of bugs for in vivo pathogenicity screening of microbial pathogens». FEMS Microbiology Ratings. 28 (1): 101–12. doi:10.1016/j.femsre.2003.09.002. PMID 14975532.
  87. ^ a b Antunes LC, Imperi F, Carattoli the, Visca P (2011). Adler B (ed.). «Deciphering the Multifactorial Nature of Acinetobacter baumannii Pathogenicity». PLoS ONE. 6 (8): e22674. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...622674A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022674. PMC 3148234. PMID 21829642.
  88. ^ a b Aperis G, Fuchs BB, Anderson CA, Warner JE, Calderwood SB, Mylonakis E (2007). «Galleria mellonella as a model host to examine disease by the Francisella tularensis real time vaccine strain». Microbes and Disease / Institut Pasteur. 9 (6): 729–34. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2007.02.016. PMC 1974785. PMID 17400503.
  89. ^ Waterfield NR, Sanchez-Contreras M, Eleftherianos I, Dowling The, Yang G, Wilkinson P, Parkhill J, Thomson N, Reynolds SE, Bode HB, Dorus S, Ffrench-Constant RH (2008). «Rapid Virulence Annotation (RVA): Identification of virulence factors utilizing a bacterial genome collection and numerous invertebrate hosts». Procedures for the nationwide Academy of Sciences for the usa. 105 (41): 15967–15972. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10515967W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711114105. PMC 2572985. PMID 18838673.
  90. ^ Trull, F. L. (1999). «More Legislation of Rodents». Science. 284 (5419): 1463. Bibcode:1999Sci...284.1463T. doi:10.1126/science.284.5419.1463.
  91. ^ a b c d Rosenthal N, Brown S (2007). «The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models». Nature Cell Biology. 9 (9): 993–9. doi:10.1038/ncb437. PMID 17762889.
  92. ^ Mukerjee, M (August 2004). «Speaking the Animals». Scientific United States. 291 (2): 96–97. Bibcode:2004SciAm.291b..96M. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0804-96.
  93. ^ Aitman TJ, Critser JK, Cuppen E, Dominiczak A, Fernandez-Suarez XM, Flint J, Gauguier D, Geurts AM, Gould M, Harris PC, Holmdahl R, Hubner N, Izsvák Z, Jacob HJ, Kuramoto T, Kwitek AE, Marrone A, Mashimo T, Moreno C, Mullins J, Mullins L, Olsson T, Pravenec M, Riley L, Saar K, Serikawa T, Shull JD, Szpirer C, Twigger SN, Voigt B, Worley K (2008). «Progress and leads in rat genetics: a residential district view». Nature Genetics. 40 (5): 516–22. doi:10.1038/ng.147. PMID 18443588.
  94. ^ a b c d «Statistics of Scientific treatments on residing Animals, Great Britain» (PDF). British Home Business Office. 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
  95. ^ «Statistics of Scientific treatments on Living Animals, Great Britain» (PDF). British government. 2004. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  96. ^ Data of Scientific treatments on Living pets, Great Britain, 1996 — British home business office, Table 13
  97. ^ «Annual Report Animals» (PDF). Aphis.usda.gov. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
  98. ^ Puppy profile, The Humane Society associated with United States
  99. ^ Smith, D; Broadhead, C; Descotes, G; Fosse, R; Hack, R; Krauser, K; Pfister, R; Phillips, B; Rabemampianina, Y; Sanders, J; Sparrow, S; Stephan-Gueldner, M; Jacobsen, SD (2002). «Preclinical Safety Evaluation Operating Nonrodent Species: A Market/ Welfare Project to attenuate Puppy Use». ILAR.
  100. ^ Quianzon, Celeste C.; Cheikh, Issam (16 July 2012). «History of insulin». Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives. 2 (2): 18701. doi:10.3402/jchimp.v2i2.18701. ISSN 2000-9666. PMC 3714061. PMID 23882369.
  101. ^ «Germany views 7% rise in animal research procedures in 2016». Talking about Research. 6 February 2018.
  102. ^ «France, Italy plus the Netherlands publish their 2016 statistics». These are analysis. 20 March 2018.
  103. ^ Overseas Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources, Proceedings associated with Workshop Held 17–19 April, pages 36–45, 46–48, 63–69, 197–200.
  104. ^ «Seventh Report on the data regarding Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes inside Member States associated with European Union». Report from the Commission toward Council and European Parliament. 12 May 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
  105. ^ «U.S. primate import data for 2014». Global Primate Protection League. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
  106. ^ a b Kathleen M. Conlee, Erika H. Hoffeld and Martin L. Stephens (2004) Demographic Analysis of Primate Research in the United States, ATLA 32, Supplement 1, 315–322
  107. ^ St. Fleur, Nicholas (12 June 2015). «U.S. Will Call All Chimps 'Endangered'». Ny Times. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
  108. ^ Lutz, C; Well, A; Novak, M (2003). «Stereotypic and Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Macaques: A Survey and Retrospective Analysis of Environment and Early Experience». United states Journal of Primatology. 60 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1002/ajp.10075. PMID 12766938.
  109. ^ Chan AW, Chong KY, Martinovich C, Simerly C, Schatten G (2001). «Transgenic monkeys produced by retroviral gene transfer into mature oocytes». Technology. 291 (5502): 309–12. Bibcode:2001Sci...291..309C. doi:10.1126/science.291.5502.309. PMID 11209082.
  110. ^ Yang SH, Cheng PH, Banta H, Piotrowska-Nitsche K, Yang JJ, Cheng EC, Snyder B, Larkin K, Liu J, Orkin J, Fang ZH, Smith Y, Bachevalier J, Zola SM, Li SH, Li XJ, Chan AW (2008). «Towards a transgenic model of Huntington's illness in a non-human primate». Nature. 453 (7197): 921–4. Bibcode:2008Natur.453..921Y. doi:10.1038/nature06975. PMC 2652570. PMID 18488016.
  111. ^ a b Emborg ME (2007). «Nonhuman primate models of Parkinson's disease». ILAR Journal. 48 (4): 339–55. doi:10.1093/ilar.48.4.339. PMID 17712221.
  112. ^ McKie, Robin (2 November 2008). «Ban on primate experiments is devastating, scientists warn». The Observer. London.
  113. ^ Invertebrate Animal Resources Archived 25 October 2007 during the Wayback device. Nationwide Center for Analysis Resources. ncrr.nih.gov
  114. ^ «Who's Who of Federal Oversight of Animal Issues». Aesop-project.org. Archived through the initial on 22 September 2007.
  115. ^ Collins FS, Rossant J, Wurst W (2007). «A mouse for many reasons». Cell. 128 (1): 9–13. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.018. PMID 17218247.
  116. ^ Class B dealers Archived 29 April 2010 within Wayback Machine, Humane Society associated with the United States.
  117. ^ «that's whom of Federal Oversight of Animal Issues» Archived 22 September 2007 at the Wayback device, Aesop Project.
  118. ^ Salinger, Lawrence and Teddlie, Patricia. «Stealing animals for analysis and income: The Enforcement (?) for the Animal Welfare Act», paper presented within yearly conference of American Society of Criminology, Royal York, Toronto, 15 October 2006
  119. ^ Reitman, Judith (1995) Stolen for income, Zebra,ISBN 0-8217-4951-X.
  120. ^ Moran, Julio (12 September 1991) «Three Sentenced to Prison for Stealing Pets for analysis,» L.A. days.
  121. ^ Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, plus the Law. Temple University Press, 1995, p. 192; Magnuson, Warren G., Chairman. «Opening remarks in hearings prior to enactment of Pub. L. 89-544, the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act,» U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 25 March 1966.
  122. ^ Notorious Animal Dealer Loses License and Pays Record Fine, The Humane community for the United States
  123. ^ Animal Testing: Where Do the pets originate from?. American Society the Prevention of Cruelty to pets. Based on the ASPCA, these states prohibit shelters from providing animals for research: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, nj-new jersey, ny, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.
  124. ^ «Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986». Eur-lex.europa.eu.
  125. ^ «Directive 2010/63/EU for the European Parliament and of this Council of 22 September 2010 in the protection of pets useful for medical purposes Text with EEA relevance». Eur-lex.europa.eu.
  126. ^ Meeting on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Archived 31 July 2007 on Wayback Machine Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  127. ^ a b "«Statistics of Scientific Procedures on residing Animals», Statistics of Scientific treatments on Living pets, Home Office" (PDF). 2004. p. 87.
  128. ^ U.S. Primate Imports Spike International Primate Protection League April 2007
  129. ^ Duncan IJ, Petherick JC (1991). «The implications of intellectual processes for animal welfare». Journal of Animal Science. 69 (12): 5017–22. doi:10.2527/1991.69125017x. PMID 1808195.
  130. ^ Curtis SE, Stricklin WR (1991). «The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal manufacturing systems: an overview». Journal of Animal Science. 69 (12): 5001–7. doi:10.2527/1991.69125001x. PMID 1808193.
  131. ^ Carbone, p. 149.
  132. ^ Rollin drafted the 1985 wellness analysis Extension Act and an animal welfare amendment to the 1985 Food protection Act: see Rollin, Bernard. «Animal research: a moral science. Chatting aim regarding utilization of pets in systematic research», EMBO Reports 8, 6, 2007, pp. 521–525
  133. ^ a b Rollin, Bernard. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Nyc: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. xii, 117–118, cited in Carbone 2004, p. 150.
  134. ^ Griffin DR, Speck GB (2004). «New evidence of animal consciousness». Animal Cognition. 7 (1): 5–18. doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0203-x. PMID 14658059.
  135. ^ Allen C (1998). «Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives». Journal of Animal Science. 76 (1): 42–7. doi:10.2527/1998.76142x. PMID 9464883.
  136. ^ American Emotional Association. «Dogs' Intelligence On Par With Two-year-old Human, Canine Researcher Says.» ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 August 2009. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm>
  137. ^ «Animal Welfare Act 1999». Parliamentary Counsel Workplace. 2015. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
  138. ^ «Norwegian animal welfare act». Michigan State University. 2011. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
  139. ^ «Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals», ILAR, National Research Council, National Academies Press, 1996, p. 64,ISBN 0-309-05377-3.
  140. ^ «just how to make use of Your Institutional Animal Care and make use of Committee (IACUC)». ori.hhs.gov.
  141. ^ a b Flecknell P (2002). «Replacement, reduction and refinement». ALTEX. 19 (2): 73–8. PMID 12098013.
  142. ^ Animal treatments Committee: review of cost-benefit evaluation in the use of pets in research Archived 27 February 2008 at Wayback Machine The Animal treatments Committee, June 2003 p46-7
  143. ^ Carbone, Larry. «Euthanasia,» in Bekoff, M. and Meaney, C. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Welfare. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 164–166, cited in Carbone 2004, pp. 189–190.
  144. ^ Dale Cooper (11 June 2017). "«Euthanasia Guidelines», Research animal resources". University of Minnesota.
  145. ^ Close B, Banister K, Baumans V, Bernoth EM, Bromage N, Bunyan J, Erhardt W, Flecknell P, Gregory N, Hackbarth H, Morton D, Warwick C (1996). «Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: component 1». Laboratory Animals. 30 (4): 293–316 (295). doi:10.1258/002367796780739871. PMID 8938617.
  146. ^ «Guide the Care and make use of of Laboratory Animals», ILAR, National analysis Council, National Academies Press, 1996, p. 65,ISBN 0-309-05377-3.
  147. ^ «AVMA instructions on Euthanasia, June 2007 edition, Report for the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia» (PDF). Avma.org. Archived from original (PDF) on 15 August 2011.
  148. ^ a b «Select Committee on pets in Scientific treatments Report», home of Lords, 16 July 2002. See chapter 3: «The purpose and nature of animal experiments.» Retrieved 6 July 2010.
  149. ^ a b Job CK (2003). «Nine-banded armadillo and leprosy research». Indian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology. 46 (4): 541–50. PMID 15025339.
  150. ^ Venken KJ, Bellen HJ (2005). «Emerging technologies for gene manipulation in Drosophila melanogaster». Nature Ratings Genetics. 6 (3): 167–78. doi:10.1038/nrg1553. PMID 15738961.
  151. ^ Sung YH, Song J, Lee HW (2004). «Functional genomics approach utilizing mice». Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 37 (1): 122–32. doi:10.5483/BMBRep.2004.37.1.122. PMID 14761310.
  152. ^ Janies D, DeSalle R (1999). «Development, development, and corroboration». The Anatomical Record. 257 (1): 6–14. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19990215)257:1<6::AID-AR4>3.0.CO;2-I. PMID 10333399.
  153. ^ Akam M (1995). «Hox genes while the development of diverse human anatomy plans». Philosophical Transactions of this Royal Society B. 349 (1329): 313–9. doi:10.1098/rstb.1995.0119. PMID 8577843.
  154. ^ Prasad BC, Reed RR (1999). «Chemosensation: Molecular mechanisms in worms and mammals». Trends in Genetics. 15 (4): 150–3. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(99)01695-9. PMID 10203825.
  155. ^ Schafer WR (2006). «Neurophysiological techniques in C. elegans: an introduction». WormBook: 1–4. doi:10.1895/wormbook.1.113.1. PMC 4780964. PMID 18050439.
  156. ^ Yamamuro, Yutaka (2006). «Social behavior in laboratory rats: Applications for psycho-neuroethology studies». Animal Science Journal. 77 (4): 386–94. doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00363.x.
  157. ^ Marler P., Slabbekoorn H, Nature's Music: The Science of Birdsong, Academic Press, 2004.ISBN 0-12-473070-1
  158. ^ including «in addition to providing the chimpanzees with enrichment, the termite mound is also the focus of a tool-use research being conducted», from the web page for the Lincoln Park Zoo. Retrieved 25 April 2007.
  159. ^ Festing, M., «Inbred Strains of Mice and their Characteristics», The Jackson Laboratory . Retrieved 30 January 2008.
  160. ^ Peichel CL (2005). «Fishing for the secrets of vertebrate evolution in threespine sticklebacks». Developmental Dynamics. 234 (4): 815–23. doi:10.1002/dvdy.20564. PMID 16252286.
  161. ^ Peichel CL, Nereng KS, Ohgi KA, Cole BL, Colosimo PF, Buerkle CA, Schluter D, Kingsley DM (2001). «The hereditary architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species». Nature. 414 (6866): 901–5. Bibcode:2001Natur.414..901P. doi:10.1038/414901a. PMID 11780061.
  162. ^ Ramaswamy S, McBride JL, Kordower JH (2007). «Animal models of Huntington's disease». ILAR Journal. 48 (4): 356–73. doi:10.1093/ilar.48.4.356. PMID 17712222.
  163. ^ Rees DA, Alcolado JC (2005). «Animal models of diabetes mellitus». Diabetic Medicine. 22 (4): 359–70. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01499.x. PMID 15787657.
  164. ^ Iwakuma T, Lozano G (2007). «Crippling p53 activities via knock-in mutations in mouse models». Oncogene. 26 (15): 2177–84. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210278. PMID 17401426.
  165. ^ Frese KK, Tuveson DA (2007). «Maximizing mouse cancer models». Nature Reviews Cancer. 7 (9): 645–58. doi:10.1038/nrc2192. PMID 17687385.
  166. ^ Dunham SP (2006). «Lessons through the cat: development of vaccines against lentiviruses». Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 112 (1–2): 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.03.013. PMID 16678276.
  167. ^ Vail DM, MacEwen EG (2000). «Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion pets as models for human being cancer». Cancer Research. 18 (8): 781–92. doi:10.3109/07357900009012210. PMID 11107448.
  168. ^ a b Tolwani RJ, Jakowec MW, Petzinger GM, Green S, Waggie K (1999). «Experimental types of Parkinson's disease: insights from numerous models». Laboratory Animal Science. 49 (4): 363–71. PMID 10480640.
  169. ^ Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I (2004). Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group. «in which is the proof that animal research advantages people?». BMJ. 328 (7438): 514–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514. PMC 351856. PMID 14988196.
  170. ^ Langley, Gill (2006) next of kin...A report in the utilization of primates in experiments Archived 27 February 2008 on Wayback device, BUAV.
  171. ^ The History of Deep Brain Stimulation Archived 31 March 2017 on Wayback Machine. parkinsonsappeal.com
  172. ^ Platt JL, Lin SS (1998). «The future claims of xenotransplantation». Annals of New York Academy of Sciences. 862 (1): 5–18. Bibcode:1998NYASA.862...5P. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09112.x. PMID 9928201.
  173. ^ a b Schuurman HJ, Pierson RN (2008). «Progress towards clinical xenotransplantation». Frontiers in Bioscience. 13 (13): 204–20. doi:10.2741/2671. PMID 17981539.
  174. ^ Valdés-González RA, Dorantes LM, Garibay GN, Bracho-Blanchet E, Mendez AJ, Dávila-Pérez R, Elliott RB, Terán L, White DJ (2005). «Xenotransplantation of porcine neonatal islets of Langerhans and Sertoli cells: a 4-year study». European Journal of Endocrinology. 153 (3): 419–27. doi:10.1530/eje.1.01982. PMID 16131605.
  175. ^ Valdés-González RA, White DJ, Dorantes LM, Terán L, Garibay-Nieto GN, Bracho-Blanchet E, Dávila-Pérez R, Evia-Viscarra L, Ormsby CE, Ayala-Sumuano JT, Silva-Torres ML, Ramírez-González B (2007). «Three-yr follow-up of a sort 1 diabetes mellitus client with an islet xenotransplant». Clinical Transplantation. 21 (3): 352–7. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0012.2007.00648.x. PMID 17488384.
  176. ^ Townsend, Mark (20 April 2003). «Exposed: secrets of animal organ lab» Archived 6 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian.
  177. ^ Curtis, Polly (11 July 2003). «Home workplace under renewed fire in animal liberties row», The Guardian.
  178. ^ a b home Product Tests Archived 27 February 2008 during the Wayback Machine BUAV
  179. ^ Fifth Report in the Statistics in the amount of pets useful for Experimental and other Scientific needs within the Member States of the European Union, Commission associated with European Communities, posted November 2007
  180. ^ a b c Abbott A (2005). «Animal evaluating: over a cosmetic change» (PDF). Nature. 438 (7065): 144–146. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..144A. doi:10.1038/438144a. PMID 16281001. Archived from original (PDF) on 27 February 2008.
  181. ^ Watkins JB (1989). «Exposure of rats to inhalational anesthetics alters the hepatobiliary approval of cholephilic xenobiotics». The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 250 (2): 421–7. PMID 2760837.
  182. ^ Watt JA, Dickinson RG (1990). «The effect of diethyl ether, pentobarbitone and urethane anaesthesia on diflunisal conjugation and disposition in rats». Xenobiotica. 20 (3): 289–301. doi:10.3109/00498259009046848. PMID 2336839.
  183. ^ Walum E (1998). «Acute oral toxicity». Environmental Health Perspectives. 106 (Suppl 2): 497–503. doi:10.2307/3433801. JSTOR 3433801. PMC 1533392. PMID 9599698.
  184. ^ Inter-Governmental Organization Eliminates the LD50 Test, The Humane community for the United States (2003-02-05)
  185. ^ «OECD guideline 405, organization for Economic Co-operation and Development» (PDF). Archived through the original (PDF) on 27 February 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  186. ^ Types Used in analysis: Rabbit, Humane community regarding the United States
  187. ^ Wilhelmus KR (2001). «The Draize eye test». Survey of Ophthalmology. 45 (6): 493–515. doi:10.1016/S0039-6257(01)00211-9. PMID 11425356.
  188. ^ Secchi A, Deligianni V (2006). «Ocular toxicology: the Draize eye test». Current Viewpoint in Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 6 (5): 367–72. doi:10.1097/01.all.0000244798.26110.00. PMID 16954791.
  189. ^ a b Draize bunny eye test replacement milestone welcomed. Dr Hadwen Trust (2009-09-21)
  190. ^ Toxicity Testing for Assessment of ecological Agents" National Academies Press, (2006), p. 21.
  191. ^ Hartung T (2009). «Toxicology the twenty-first century». Nature. 460 (7252): 208–12. Bibcode:2009Natur.460..208H. doi:10.1038/460208a. PMID 19587762.
  192. ^ «in which could be the toxicology for the twenty-first century?». Pro-Test Italia. 2013. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
  193. ^ Smith LL (2001). «Key challenges for toxicologists in the 21st century». Styles Pharmacol. Sci. 22 (6): 281–5. doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01714-4. PMID 11395155.
  194. ^ Brown SL, Brett SM, Gough M, Rodricks JV, Tardiff RG, Turnbull D (1988). «Review of interspecies danger comparisons». Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8 (2): 191–206. doi:10.1016/0273-2300(88)90028-1. PMID 3051142.
  195. ^ Burden, N; Sewell, F; Chapman, K (2015). «Testing Chemical Safety: what exactly is Needed to Ensure the extensive Application of Non-animal Approaches?». PLoS Biol. 13 (5): e1002156. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002156. PMC 4446337. PMID 26018957.
  196. ^ Moczko, E; Mirkes, EM; Cáceres, C; Gorban, AN; Piletsky, S (2016). «Fluorescence-based assay as a fresh screening tool for toxic chemicals». Scientific Reports. 6: 33922. Bibcode:2016NatSR...633922M. doi:10.1038/srep33922. PMC 5031998. PMID 27653274.
  197. ^ Stephens, Martin & Rowan, Andrew. An overview of Animal Testing dilemmas, Humane community of the United States
  198. ^ «Cosmetics animal assessment inside EU».
  199. ^ Engebretson, Monica (16 March 2014). «Asia Joins the EU and Israel in Surpassing the usa in Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Testing Policy». The entire world Post.
  200. ^ «Cruelty complimentary International Applauds Congressman Jim Moran for Bill to End Cosmetics Testing on Animals in the United States» (Press release). 5 March 2014. Archived from original on 18 March 2014.
  201. ^ Fox, Stacy (10 March 2014). «Animal Attraction: Federal Bill to End Cosmetics Testing on pets Introduced in Congress» (Press release). Humane Society of this United States Of America. Archived from the initial on 11 March 2014.
  202. ^ a b Osborn, Andrew & Gentleman, Amelia.«Secret French relocate to block animal-testing ban», The Guardian (19 August 2003). Retrieved 27 February 2008.
  203. ^ Mohan, Vishwa (14 October 2014). «India bans import of cosmetic makeup products tested on animals». The Times of Asia. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
  204. ^ «EU Directive 2001/83/EC, p. 44». Eur-lex.europa.eu.
  205. ^ «EU Directive 2001/83/EC, p. 45». Eur-lex.europa.eu.
  206. ^ Patronek, G; Rauch, A (1 January 2007). «Systematic overview of relative studies examining options to your harmful use of animals in biomedical education». Journal for the United States Veterinary Health Association. 230 (1): 37–43. doi:10.2460/javma.230.1.37. PMID 17199490.
  207. ^ Hart, L; Hart, B; Wood, M (2008). Why Dissection: Animal Used In Education. Westport: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-32390-4.
  208. ^ Orlans, Barbara; Beauchamp, Tom; Dresser, Rebecca; Morton, David; Gluck, John (1998). The Individual Use of Pets. Oxford University Press. p. 213. ISBN 978-0-19-511908-4.
  209. ^ Downey, Maureen (25 June 2013). «Should pupils dissect animals or should schools move to virtual dissections?». Atlanta Journal Constitution. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  210. ^ Pulla, Priyanka (6 August 2014). «Dissections prohibited in Indian universities». Technology. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  211. ^ Shine, Nicole. «The Battle Over Senior School Animal Dissection». Pacific Standard. Pacific Standard. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  212. ^ «Invertebrates in Education and Conservation Conference | Department of Neuroscience». Neurosci.arizona.edu. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  213. ^ Dalal, Rooshin; Also, Megha; Sandusky, Chad; Barnard, Neal (August 2005). «Replacement Alternatives in Education: Animal-Free Teaching» (Abstract from Fifth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal use within living Sciences, Berlin). The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Archived through the initial on 22 July 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2015.
  214. ^ «The NORINA database of alternatives». Oslovet.norecopa.no. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  215. ^ «Welcome». Interniche.org. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  216. ^ a b «Row over United States mobile 'cockroach backpack' appp». BBC News. 9 November 2013. Retrieved 9 November 2013.
  217. ^ Hamilton, Anita (1 November 2013). «Resistance is Futile: PETA tries to stop the Sale of Remote-Controlled Cyborg Cockroaches». Time. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
  218. ^ Brook, Tom Vanden, "Brain learn, Animal Rights Collide", USA Today (7 April 2009), p. 1.
  219. ^ a b Kelly, Jon (7 March 2013). «whom, exactly what, Why: Does shooting goats save soldiers' life?». BBC Information Magazine.
  220. ^ Londoño, Ernesto (24 February 2013). «Military must justify using animals in medic training after pressure from activists». The Washington Post. Archived from the initial on 15 December 2013.
  221. ^ Vergakis, Brock (14 February 2014). «Coast Guard decreases usage of real time pets in training». Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  222. ^ Bender, Bryan (12 November 2014). «Military to curtail usage of real time pets in medical training». Boston World. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  223. ^ Champaco, Brent (15 August 2013). «PETA: Madigan Army Infirmary Has Stopped 'Cruel' Ferret-Testing». Patch. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  224. ^ Rollin BE (2006). «The regulation of animal research together with emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history». Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 27 (4): 285–304. doi:10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8. PMID 16937023.
  225. ^ Riffkin, Rebecca (18 May 2015). «In U.S., More State Pets Should Have Exact Same Legal Rights as People». Gallup. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  226. ^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (29 January 2015). «Public and researchers' Views on Science and Society». Pew Research Center. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  227. ^ Singer, Peter (ed.). «A Companion to Ethics». Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 1991.
  228. ^ a b webpage 244, Chapter 14, Discussion of ethical problems Archived 28 September 2011 on Wayback Machine in: The ethics of research involving animals during the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Published 25 May 2005
  229. ^ Rollin, Bernard E. (1998) «The ethical status of animals and their use as experimental topics,» in Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter (eds.). «A Companion to Bioethics». Blackwell Publishing,ISBN 0-631-23019-X.
  230. ^ Bebarta V, Luyten D, Heard K (2003). «Emergency medication animal research: does utilization of randomization and blinding affect the outcomes?». Academic Crisis Medicine. 10 (6): 684–7. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00056.x. PMID 12782533.
  231. ^ Macleod, Malcolm R.; van der Worp, H. Bart; Sena, Emily S.; Howells, David W.; Dirnagl, Ulrich; Donnan, Geoffrey A. (2008). «Evidence the effectiveness of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality». Stroke. 39 (10): 2824–2829. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.515957. PMID 18635842.
  232. ^ Sena E, Wheble P, Sandercock P, Macleod M (2007). «Systematic review and meta-analysis of this efficacy of tirilazad in experimental stroke». Stroke. 38 (2): 388–394. doi:10.1161/01.str.0000254462.75851.22. PMID 17204689.
  233. ^ Hirst JA, Howick J, Aronson J, Roberts N, Perera R, Koshiaris C, Heneghan C (2014). «The requirement for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews». PLoS ONE. 9 (6): e98856. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...998856H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098856. PMC 4048216. PMID 24906117.
  234. ^ Van der Worp B, Sena E, Porritt M, Rewell S, O'Collins V, Macleod MR (2010). «Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?». PLoS Med. 7 (3): e1000245. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245. PMC 2846855. PMID 20361020.
  235. ^ Gagneux P, Moore JJ, Varki A (2005). «The ethics of research on great apes». Nature. 437 (7055): 27–9. Bibcode:2005Natur.437...27G. doi:10.1038/437027a. PMID 16136111.
  236. ^ Vermij P (2003). «Europe's final research chimps to retire». Nature Medication. 9 (8): 981. doi:10.1038/nm0803-981b. PMID 12894144.
  237. ^ St Fleur, Nicholas (12 June 2015). «U.S. Will Call All Chimps 'Endangered'». The Newest York Occasions. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  238. ^ Kaiser, Jocelyn (26 June 2013). «NIH Will Retire Most Analysis Chimps, End Many Projects». sciencemag.org. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  239. ^ «Summary of House of Lords choose Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures». UK Parliament. 24 July 2002. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  240. ^ 韓国・食薬庁で「実験動物慰霊祭」挙行 Archived 29 August 2007 during the Wayback Machine
  241. ^ Huxley AF, Simmons RM (1971). «Proposed Mechanism of Force Generation in Striated Muscle». Nature. 233 (5321): 533–8. Bibcode:1971Natur.233..533H. doi:10.1038/233533a0. PMID 4939977.
  242. ^ Gordon AM, Huxley AF, Julian FJ (1966). «The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle tissue fibres» (PDF). The Journal of Physiology. 184 (1): 170–92. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp007909. PMC 1357553. PMID 5921536.
  243. ^ Ford LE, Huxley AF, Simmons RM (1985). «Tension transients during steady shortening of frog muscle mass fibres» (PDF). The Journal of Physiology. 361 (1): 131–50. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015637. PMC 1192851. PMID 3872938.
  244. ^ Lutz GJ, Lieber RL (2000). «Myosin isoforms in anuran skeletal muscle mass: Their influence on contractile properties as well as in vivo muscle mass function». Microscopy Research and Technique. 50 (6): 443–57. doi:10.1002/1097-0029(20000915)50:6<443::AID-JEMT3>3.0.CO;2-5. PMID 10998635.
  245. ^ Liber, R. L. (2002). Skeletal strength Structure, Function, and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation, second ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,ISBN 978-0-7817-3061-7.
  246. ^ Franklin, Ben A. (30 August 1987) «Going to Extremes for 'Animal Rights'», the brand new York occasions.
  247. ^ Holden C (1986). «A crucial 12 months for lab animal welfare». Science. 232 (4747): 147–50. Bibcode:1986Sci...232..147H. doi:10.1126/science.3952503. PMID 3952503.
  248. ^ Laville, Sandra (8 February 2005). «Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests», The Guardian.
  249. ^ «Columbia in animal cruelty dispute», CNN (2003-10-12)
  250. ^ Benz, Kathy and McManus, Michael (17 May 2005). PETA accuses lab of animal cruelty, CNN.
  251. ^ Scott, Luci (1 April 2006). «Probe causes Covance fine», The Arizona Republic.
  252. ^ Huggett B (2008). «When animal rights turns ugly». Nature Biotechnology. 26 (6): 603–5. doi:10.1038/nbt0608-603. PMID 18536673.
  253. ^ Malone BJ, Kumar VR, Ringach DL (2007). «Dynamics of Receptive Field Size in main Visual Cortex». Journal of Neurophysiology. 97 (1): 407–14. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.133.3969. doi:10.1152/jn.00830.2006. PMID 17021020.
  254. ^ Epstein, David (22 August 2006). Throwing within the Towel, Inside advanced schooling
  255. ^ Predators Unleashed, Investor's Business Daily (2006-08-24)
  256. ^ McDonald, Patrick number (8 August 2007). UCLA Monkey Madness, Los Angeles Weekly.
  257. ^ «It's your dog's Life,» Countryside Undercover, Channel Four Television, British (26 March 1997).
  258. ^ «It's your dog's life» Archived 8 March 2012 at Wayback device, Small World Productions (2005). Retrieved 6 July 2010.
  259. ^ «A controversial laboratory». BBC Information. 18 January 2001. Retrieved 13 July 2012.
  260. ^ Broughton, Zoe (March 2001). «Seeing Is thinking – cruelty to dogs at Huntingdon Life Sciences», The Ecologist.
  261. ^ «From push to shove», Southern Poverty Law Group Intelligence Report, Fall 2002
  262. ^ Lewis, John E. «Statement of John Lewis», United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Functions, 26 October 2005, accessed 17 January 2011.
  263. ^ Evers, Marco. «Resisting the pet Avengers», role 1, Part 2, Der Spiegel, 19 November 2007.
  264. ^ Weaver, Matthew. «Animal liberties activists jailed for terrorising companies to Huntingdon lifetime Sciences», The Guardian, 25 October 2010.
  265. ^ Herbert, Ian (27 January 2007). «Collapse in support for animal liberties extremist assaults», The Independent.
  266. ^ «do you know the 3Rs?». NC3Rs. Archived from original on 1 August 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  267. ^ Kolar R (2002). «ECVAM: desperately required or superfluous? An animal welfare perspective». Altern Lab Anim. 30 (Suppl 2): 169–74. doi:10.1177/026119290203002S26. PMID 12513669.
  268. ^ Schuppli CA, Fraser D, McDonald M (2004). «Expanding the three Rs to satisfy brand new challenges in humane animal experimentation». Altern Lab Anim. 32 (5): 525–32. doi:10.1177/026119290403200507. PMID 15656775.
  269. ^ Rusche B (2003). «The 3Rs and animal welfare – conflict or the way forward?». ALTEX. 20 (Suppl 1): 63–76. PMID 14671703.
  270. ^ Alternatives to Animal Testing. «Alternatives to Animal Testing | Animals Used for Experimentation | The Issues». Peta.org. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  271. ^ Rhodes, Margaret (28 Might 2015). «Inside L'Oreal's intend to 3-D Print Human Skin». Wired. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  272. ^ Watts, Geoff (27 January 2007). «Alternatives to animal experimentation». BMJ. 334 (7586): 182–184. doi:10.1136/bmj.39058.469491.68. PMC 1782004. PMID 17255608.
  273. ^ Edelman, L; Eddy, J; Price, N (July – August 2010). «In silico models of cancer». Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2 (4): 438–459. doi:10.1002/wsbm.75. PMC 3157287. PMID 20836040.
  274. ^ «Microdosing». 3Rs. Canadian Council on Animal Care in Science. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  275. ^ «What Is A PET Scan? How Does A PET Scan Work?». Medicalnewstoday.com.
  276. ^ Jiang J, Liu B, Nasca PC, Han W, Zou X, Zeng X, Tian X, Wu Y, Zhao P, Li J (2009). «Comparative study of control selection in a national populace -based case-control study: Estimating danger of smoking on cancer fatalities in Chinese men». Global Journal of Medical Sciences. 6 (6): 329–337. doi:10.7150/ijms.6.329. PMC 2777271. PMID 19918375.
  277. ^ McNeil, Donald (13 January 2014). «PETA's Donation to simply help Save life, Animal and Human». This New York Days. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  278. ^ Bernstein, Fred (4 October 2005). «An On-Screen Option To Hands-On Dissection». This New York Occasions. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
  279. ^ «NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological techniques – NTP». Iccvam.niehs.nih.gov. Archived through the original on 9 December 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  280. ^ ZEBET database on options to animal experiments on the Internet (AnimAlt-ZEBET). BfR (30 September 2004). Retrieved on 2013-01-21.
  281. ^ About JaCVAM-Organization of JaCVAM Archived 11 May 2012 within Wayback Machine. Jacvam.jp. Retrieved on 2013-01-21.
  282. ^ EPAA – Home Archived 1 November 2013 within Wayback Machine. Ec.europa.eu. Retrieved on 2013-01-21.
  283. ^ ecopa – european consensus-platform for alternatives. Ecopa.eu. Retrieved on 2013-01-21.
  284. ^ Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing – Johns Hopkins Bloomberg class of Public wellness. Caat.jhsph.edu. Retrieved on 2013-01-21.
  285. ^ «NC3Rs». NC3Rs.org.uk. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

Bibliography

  • Carbone, Larry (2004) Exactly What Animals Want. Oxford University Press,ISBN 0-19-516196-3.

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has news pertaining to Animal testing.Wikiquote has quotations associated with: Animal testing
  • Animalresearch.info, Scientific evidence in animal research
  • Conn, P. Michael and Parker, James V (2008). The Animal Research War, Palgrave Macmillan,ISBN 978-0-230-60014-0
  • Guerrini, Anita (2003). Experimenting with people and pets: from Galen to animal rights. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7197-9.
  • Speaking of analysis, Historical Statistics for animal research figures 2012-2017, accessed 19 April 2018.
  • 1940 American/Soviet film of dog resurrection experiments
  • «Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report», choose Committee on pets in Scientific Procedures, British home of Lords, 16 July 2002, accessed 27 October 2005.
  • «Biomed the layperson», Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group, accessed 24 February 2006.
  • In Focus «Animal Experiments in Research» (German guide Centre for Ethics in lifestyle Sciences)
  • Encyclopedia of Earth: Animal screening alternatives
  • Go3R: semantic search to prevent animal experiments
  • v
  • t
  • e
Animal testingMain articles
  • Animal testing
  • Alternatives to animal testing
  • Animal evaluation on invertebrates
  • Animal testing on frogs
  • Animal evaluating on non-human primates
  • Animal screening on rabbits
  • Animal testing on rodents
  • Experimentation on prisoners
  • History of animal testing
  • History of model organisms
  • Laboratory animal sources
  • Toxicology testing
Issues
  • Animal rights
  • Animal welfare
  • Pain and suffering in laboratory animals
  • Biomedical research
  • Great Ape research ban
  • International trade in primates
Controversial experiments
  • Brown puppy affair
  • Britches
  • Cambridge University primates
  • Pit of despair
  • Silver Spring monkeys
  • Unnecessary Fuss
Companies
  • Charles River Laboratories, Inc.
  • Covance
  • Envigo
  • Harlan
  • Huntingdon lifestyle Sciences
  • Laboratory animal suppliers inside United Kingdom
  • Nafovanny
  • Shamrock Farm
Groups/campaigns
  • Anti-Vivisection Coalition
  • Americans for healthcare Progress
  • American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
  • American Association for the development of Science
  • Boyd Group
  • British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
  • Dr Hadwen Trust
  • Foundation For Biomedical Research
  • National Anti-Vivisection Society
  • New England Anti-Vivisection Society
  • People for the Ethical Treatment of pets (PETA)
  • ALF
  • Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
  • Primate Freedom Project
  • Pro-Test
  • SPEAK
  • Research Defence Society
  • Speaking of Research
  • SHAC
  • Stop Sequani Animal Testing
  • Understanding Animal Research
Writers/activists
  • Colin Blakemore
  • Carl Cohen
  • Gill Langley
  • Ingrid Newkirk
  • Neal Barnard
  • Jerry Vlasak
  • Simon Festing
  • Tipu Aziz
Legislation
  • EU Directive 2010/63/EU (EU)
  • Animal assessment regulations
  • Animals (systematic Procedures) Act 1986 (UK)
  • Animal Welfare Act 1999 (NZ)
  • Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (US)
Categories
  • Animal testing
  • Animal rights
  • Animal welfare
  • v
  • t
  • e
Clinical research and experimental designOverview
  • Clinical trial
    • Trial protocols
    • Adaptive clinical trial
  • Academic clinical trials
  • Clinical study design
Controlled study
(EBM I to II-1; A to B)
  • Randomized managed trial
    • Scientific experiment
    • Blind experiment
    • Open-label trial
Observational study
(EBM II-2 to II-3; B to C)
  • Cross-sectional research vs. Longitudinal research, Ecological study
  • Cohort study
    • Retrospective
    • Prospective
  • Case–control research (Nested case–control study)
  • Case series
  • Case study
  • Case report
MeasuresOccurrenceIncidence, Cumulative incidence, Prevalence, Point prevalence, Period prevalenceAssociationRisk huge difference, quantity had a need to treat, quantity had a need to damage, Risk ratio, Relative risk decrease, chances ratio, Hazard ratioPopulation impactAttributable fraction among the exposed, Attributable small fraction the populace, Preventable fraction among the list of unexposed, Preventable fraction the populationOtherClinical endpoint, Virulence, Infectivity, Mortality price, Morbidity, Case fatality rate, Specificity and sensitivity, Likelihood-ratios, Pre- and post-test probabilityTrial/test types
  • In vitro
  • In vivo
  • Animal evaluation
  • Animal testing on non-human primates
  • First-in-man study
  • Multicenter trial
  • Seeding trial
  • Vaccine trial
Analysis of clinical trials
  • Risk–benefit ratio
  • Systematic review
  • Replication
  • Meta-analysis
  • Intention-to-treat analysis
Interpretation of results
  • Selection bias
  • Survivorship bias
  • Correlation does not imply causation
  • Null result
  • Category
  • Glossary
  • List of topics
  • v
  • t
  • e
Animal rightsTopicsOverview
  • Abolitionism
  • Animal protectionism
  • Animal welfare
  • Speciesism
  • Sentientism
  • Vegaphobia
  • Veganism
  • more...
Issues
  • Ahimsa
  • Anarchism
  • Animal cognition
  • Animal consciousness
  • Animal commercial complex
  • Animal law
  • Animal model
  • Animal product
  • Animal rights and punk subculture
  • Animal legal rights and Holocaust
  • Animal liberties movement
  • Animal testing
  • Animal evaluation on non-human primates
  • Animals in sport
  • Anthrozoology
  • Anti-hunting
  • Bile bear
  • Bioethics
  • Blood sport
  • Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
  • Carnism
  • Cosmetics testing
  • Chick culling
  • Christianity and animal rights
  • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
  • Cormorant culling
  • Covance
  • Cruelty to animals
  • Deep ecology
  • Ethics of consuming meat
  • Fox hunting
  • Fur trade
  • Great ape research ban
  • Green Scare
  • Huntingdon Life Sciences
  • Intensive animal farming
  • Ivory trade
  • Livestock
  • Meat paradox
  • Nafovanny
  • Nonviolence
  • Open rescue
  • Operation Backfire
  • Pain in animals
  • Pain and suffering in laboratory animals
  • Qurbani
  • Primate trade
  • Seal hunting
  • Shark culling
  • Slaughterhouse
  • Stock-free agriculture
  • Toxicology testing
  • Veganism
  • Vegetarianism
  • Western Australian shark cull
  • more...
Cases
  • Brown puppy affair
  • Cambridge University primates
  • McLibel case
  • Pit of despair
  • Silver Spring monkeys
  • University of Ca Riverside 1985 laboratory raid
  • Unnecessary Fuss
AdvocatesAcademics
and writers
  • Carol Adams
  • James Aspey
  • Tom Beauchamp
  • Marc Bekoff
  • Paola Cavalieri
  • Stephen R. L. Clark
  • Alasdair Cochrane
  • J. M. Coetzee
  • Priscilla Cohn
  • Alice Crary
  • David DeGrazia
  • Sue Donaldson
  • Josephine Donovan
  • Lawrence Finsen
  • Gary Francione
  • Robert Garner
  • Antoine Goetschel
  • John Hadley
  • Will Kymlicka
  • Andrew Linzey
  • Dan Lyons
  • Mary Midgley
  • Martha Nussbaum
  • Siobhan O'Sullivan
  • Clare Palmer
  • Tom Regan
  • Bernard Rollin
  • Mark Rowlands
  • Richard D. Ryder
  • Peter Singer
  • Henry Stephens Salt
  • Steve Sapontzis
  • Gary Steiner
  • Cass Sunstein
  • more...
Activists
  • Cleveland Amory
  • Greg Avery
  • Matt Ball
  • Martin Balluch
  • Barbi twins
  • Brigitte Bardot
  • Bob Barker
  • Gene Baur
  • Frances energy Cobbe
  • Rod Coronado
  • Karen Davis
  • Chris DeRose
  • Robert Enke
  • John Feldmann
  • Bruce Friedrich
  • Juliet Gellatley
  • Tal Gilboa
  • Jordan Halliday
  • Barry Horne
  • Ronnie Lee
  • Lizzy Lind af Hageby
  • Jo-Anne McArthur
  • Bill Maher
  • Keith Mann
  • Dan Mathews
  • Luísa Mell
  • Ingrid Newkirk
  • Heather Nicholson
  • Jack Norris
  • Alex Pacheco
  • Jill Phipps
  • Craig Rosebraugh
  • Nathan Runkle
  • Henry Spira
  • Marianne Thieme
  • Darren Thurston
  • Andrew Tyler
  • Gary Yourofsky
  • more...
MovementGroups
  • Animal Aid
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund
  • Animal Liberation Front
  • Anonymous the Voiceless
  • British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
  • Centre for pets and personal Justice
  • Chinese Animal Protection Network
  • Direct Action Everywhere
  • Farm Animal Rights Movement
  • Great Ape Project
  • Hunt Saboteurs Association
  • In Defense of Animals
  • Korea Animal Rights Advocates
  • Last Chance for Animals
  • Mercy for Animals
  • New England Anti-Vivisection Society
  • Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics
  • Oxford Group
  • People for Animals
  • People the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  • United Poultry Concerns
  • more...
Parties
  • AAEVP (Canada)
  • Animal Justice Party (Australia)
  • Animal Welfare Party (UK)
  • PACMA (Spain)
  • Party the Animals (Netherlands)
  • Partito Animalista Italiano (Italy)
  • Movimento Animalista (Italy)
  • Tierschutzpartei (Germany)
  • V-Partei³ (Germany)
  • People–Animals–Nature (Portugal)
  • more...
MediaBooks
  • pets' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1894)
  • Animals, guys and Morals (1971)
  • Animal Liberation (1975)
  • the actual situation for Animal Rights (1983)
  • The everyday lives of Animals (1999)
  • Striking on Roots (2008)
  • An US Trilogy (2009)
  • more...
Films
  • The Animals movie (1981)
  • A Cow within my Table (1998)
  • Meet the Meat (2002)
  • Peaceable Kingdom (2004)
  • Earthlings (2005)
  • Behind the Mask (2006)
  • The Cove (2009)
  • Forks Over Knives (2011)
  • Vegucated (2011)
  • Speciesism: the film (2013)
  • The Ghosts inside our Machine (2013)
  • more...
Categories
  • Animal advocacy parties
  • Animal law
  • Animal Liberation Front
  • Animal rights
  • Animal liberties activists
  • Animal right media
  • Animal legal rights movement
  • Animal legal rights scholars
  • Animal testing
  • Blood sports
  • Livestock
  • Meat industry
  • Poultry
  • Veganism
  • Vegetarianism
Animal legal rights portalAuthority control
  • GND: 4060137-7
  • HDS: 27815
  • LCCN: sh85005173
  • NDL: 00561557
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_testing&oldid=898220657"

How to cite this essay: