Editing Animal testing (section)

===Pain and suffering===
{{Further|Animal cognition|Pain in animals|Pain in fish|Pain in amphibians|Pain in invertebrates|Pain in cephalopods}}
[[File:Frog vivisection.jpg|thumb|right|Prior to dissection for educational purposes, [[chloroform]] was administered to this [[Common Sand Frog|common sand frog]] to induce [[anesthesia]] and death.]]
The extent to which animal testing causes [[pain]] and [[suffering]], and the capacity of animals to experience and comprehend them, is the subject of much debate.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Duncan IJ, Petherick JC | title = The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare | journal = Journal of Animal Science | volume = 69 | issue = 12 | pages = 5017–22 | year = 1991 | pmid = 1808195 | doi=10.2527/1991.69125017x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Curtis SE, Stricklin WR | title = The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal production systems: an overview | journal = Journal of Animal Science | volume = 69 | issue = 12 | pages = 5001–07 | year = 1991 | pmid = 1808193 | doi=10.2527/1991.69125001x}}</ref>

According to the USDA, in 2016 501,560 animals (61%) (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. 247,882 (31%) animals were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 71,370 (9%) were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved.<ref name="USDA2016" />

The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17th-century French philosopher, [[René Descartes]], who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack [[consciousness]].<ref name=nuffield45/><ref name=Carbone149>Carbone, p. 149.</ref> [[Bernard Rollin]] of [[Colorado State University]], the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals,<ref>Rollin drafted the 1985 Health Research Extension Act and an animal welfare amendment to the 1985 Food Security Act: see Rollin, Bernard. [http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html "Animal research: a moral science. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research"], EMBO Reports 8, 6, 2007, pp. 521–25</ref> writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain.<ref name=Rollin117>Rollin, Bernard. ''The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. xii, 117–18, cited in Carbone 2004, p. 150.</ref> In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain.<ref name=Rollin117/> Carbone writes that ''the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view.'' Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that [[Animal consciousness|animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings]] has strong support,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Griffin DR, Speck GB | title = New evidence of animal consciousness | journal = Animal Cognition | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | pages = 5–18 | year = 2004 | pmid = 14658059 | doi = 10.1007/s10071-003-0203-x | s2cid = 8650837 }}</ref> some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined.<ref name=nuffield45/><ref>{{cite journal | author = Allen C | title = Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives | journal = Journal of Animal Science | volume = 76 | issue = 1 | pages = 42–47 | year = 1998 | pmid = 9464883 | doi = 10.2527/1998.76142x }}</ref> However, some canine experts are stating that, while intelligence does differ animal to animal, dogs have the intelligence of a two to two-and-a-half-year old. This does support the idea that dogs, at the very least, have some form of consciousness.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/08/dogs-think |title=Smarter Than You Think: Renowned Canine Researcher Puts Dogs' Intelligence on Par with 2-Year-Old Human |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=www.apa.org}}</ref> The ability of invertebrates to experience pain and suffering is less clear, however, legislation in several countries (e.g. U.K., [[Regulation of animal research in New Zealand|New Zealand]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/DLM49664.html|title=Animal Welfare Act 1999|publisher=Parliamentary Counsel Office|year=2015|access-date=23 January 2016}}</ref> Norway<ref name="Norway">{{cite web |title=Norwegian animal welfare act |url=https://www.animallaw.info/statute/noway-cruelty-norwegian-animal-welfare-act-2010#s1|access-date=25 January 2016|website=Animal Legal and Historical Center |year=2011}}</ref>) protects some invertebrate species if they are being used in animal testing.

In the U.S., the defining text on animal welfare regulation in animal testing is the ''Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals''.<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5140 "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals"], ILAR, National Research Council, National Academies Press, 1996, p. 64, {{ISBN|0-309-05377-3}}.</ref> This defines the parameters that govern animal testing in the U.S. It states "The ability to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress and distress in animals." The Guide states that the ability to recognize the symptoms of pain in different species is vital in efficiently applying pain relief and that it is essential for the people caring for and using animals to be entirely familiar with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states "The selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol". Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ncstate/iacuc.htm|title=How to Work With Your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)|website=ori.hhs.gov}}</ref> Currently, traumatic methods of marking laboratory animals are being replaced with non-invasive alternatives.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Klabukov |first1=Ilya |last2=Shestakova |first2=Victoria |last3=Krasilnikova |first3=Olga |last4=Smirnova |first4=Anna |last5=Abramova |first5=Olga |last6=Baranovskii |first6=Denis |last7=Atiakshin |first7=Dmitri |last8=Kostin |first8=Andrey A. |last9=Shegay |first9=Peter |last10=Kaprin |first10=Andrey D. |date=2023 |title=Refinement of Animal Experiments: Replacing Traumatic Methods of Laboratory Animal Marking with Non-Invasive Alternatives |journal=Animals |volume=13 |issue=22 |pages=3452 |doi=10.3390/ani13223452 |doi-access=free |issn=2076-2615 |pmc=10668729 |pmid=38003070}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lindner |first1=Elke |last2=Fuelling |first2=Olaf |date=2002 |title=Marking methods in small mammals: ear-tattoo as an alternative to toe-clipping |url=https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S0952836902000195 |journal=Journal of Zoology |language=en |volume=256 |issue=2 |pages=159–163 |doi=10.1017/S0952836902000195 |issn=0952-8369}}</ref>

In 2019, Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed [[Genetically modified animal|gene editing research animals]] to [[eradication of suffering|remove the ability to feel pain]]. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting [[alternatives to animal testing|alternatives]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Devolder |first1=Katrien |last2=Eggel |first2=Matthias |title=No Pain, No Gain? In Defence of Genetically Disenhancing (Most) Research Animals |journal=Animals |date=2019 |volume=9 |issue=4 |page=154 |doi=10.3390/ani9040154 |pmc=6523187 |pmid=30970545 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Additionally, this would not stop research animals from experiencing psychological harm.