Editing Animal testing (section)

==Ethics==

Most animals are [[Animal euthanasia|euthanized]] after being used in an experiment.<ref name=Carbone22>Carbone, p. 22.</ref> [[Laboratory animal sources|Sources of laboratory animals]] vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while a minority are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and [[Animal shelter|pounds]].<ref name=ilar88>"Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research", Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, The National Academies Press, 1988 {{ISBN|0-309-07878-4}}.</ref><ref>Cooper, Sylvia (1 August 1999). [http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1999/08/01/met_266886.shtml "Pets crowd animal shelter"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202203913/http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1999/08/01/met_266886.shtml |date=2 February 2014 }}, ''The Augusta Chronicle''.</ref><ref name=Gillham>Gillham, Christina (17 February 2006). [http://www.newsweek.com/id/57139 "Bought to be sold"], ''Newsweek''.</ref> Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British [[Royal Society]], argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way.<ref name="TheRoyalSociety">[https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2004/non-human-animals/ The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists] [[The Royal Society]], 2004, p. 1</ref> The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the United States [[National Academy of Sciences]] has argued that animal testing cannot be replaced by even [[Digital twin|sophisticated computer models]], which are unable to deal with the extremely complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms and the environment.<ref>[http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10733 "Science, Medicine, and Animals"], Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Published by the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Research Council of the National Academies]] 2004, p. 2</ref> [[Animal rights]] organizations—such as [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]] and [[British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection|BUAV]]—question the need for and legitimacy of animal testing, arguing that it is [[cruelty to animals|cruel]] and poorly regulated, that medical progress is actually held back by misleading animal models that cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that some of the tests are outdated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have the intrinsic right not to be used or harmed in experimentation.<ref name="croce" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp |title=About |work=Peta.org |access-date=2015-04-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buav.org/pdf/UK-Legislation.pdf |title=UK Legislation: A Criticism |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625161126/http://www.buav.org/pdf/UK-Legislation.pdf |archive-date=25 June 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.buav.org/pdf/VivisectionFAQs.pdf |title=FAQs: Vivisection |publisher=[[British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection]] |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150513021651/http://www.buav.org/pdf/VivisectionFAQs.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/biomedical_research/ |title=Biomedical Research: The Humane Society of the United States |work=Humanesociety.org |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-date=30 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930150512/https://www.humanesociety.org/all-our-fights/taking-suffering-out-science |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html |title=Animal Testing and Animal Experimentation Issues &#124; Physicians Committee |work=Pcrm.org |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723001342/http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html |archive-date=23 July 2011 }}</ref>

===Viewpoints===
{{Further|Animal welfare|Animal rights|History of animal testing}}
[[File:実験動物慰霊碑.jpg|thumb|upright|Monument for animals used in testing at [[Keio University]]]]{{Animal rights sidebar}}The moral and ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Rollin BE | title = The regulation of animal research and the emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history | journal = Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics | volume = 27 | issue = 4 | pages = 285–304 | year = 2006 | pmid = 16937023 | doi = 10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8 | s2cid = 18620094 | url = https://org.uib.no/dyreavd/handouts/Rollin__B._2006._Animal_Research_Regulation_in_Theoret._Medicin_....PDF | access-date = 4 December 2019 | archive-date = 8 October 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201008152801/https://org.uib.no/dyreavd/handouts/Rollin__B._2006._Animal_Research_Regulation_in_Theoret._Medicin_....PDF }}</ref> There remain disagreements about which procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which species.

A 2015 Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans were "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about animals used in research.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Riffkin|first1=Rebecca|title=In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx|access-date=7 July 2015|agency=Gallup|date=18 May 2015}}</ref> A Pew poll taken the same year found 50% of American adults opposed the use of animals in research.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Funk|first1=Cary|last2=Rainie|first2=Lee|title=Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society|url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/|access-date=7 July 2015|agency=Pew Research Center|date=29 January 2015}}</ref>

Still, a wide range of viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights ([[animal rights]]) is a philosophical position proposed by [[Tom Regan]], among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights.<ref>Singer, Peter (ed.). "A Companion to Ethics". Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 1991.</ref> Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research.<ref name=Nuffield>[http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/files/Animals%20Chapter%2014%20Discussion%20of%20Ethical%20Issues.pdf Chapter 14, Discussion of ethical issues, p . 244] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928072631/http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/files/Animals%20Chapter%2014%20Discussion%20of%20Ethical%20Issues.pdf |date=28 September 2011 }} in: [http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal-research The ethics of research involving animals] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429185538/http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal-research |date=29 April 2011 }} at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Published 25 May 2005</ref> In contrast, an [[Abolitionism (animal rights)|abolitionist view in animal rights]] holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal.<ref name=Nuffield/> [[Bernard Rollin]] argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. [[Donald Watson]] has stated that [[vivisection]] and animal experimentation "is probably the cruelest of all Man's attack on the rest of Creation."<ref name=":3">{{cite web|url=https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/DW_Interview_2002_Unabridged_Transcript.pdf|title=Donald Watson 2002 Unabridged Interview|last=George|first=Roger|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191027031624/https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/DW_Interview_2002_Unabridged_Transcript.pdf|archive-date=27 October 2019}}</ref> Another prominent position is that of philosopher [[Peter Singer]], who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]] moral considerations.<ref name=Rollin1998>Rollin, Bernard E. (1998) "The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects," in Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter (eds.). "A Companion to Bioethics". Blackwell Publishing, {{ISBN|0-631-23019-X}}.</ref> [[Malcolm Macleod]] and collaborators argue that most [[Scientific control|controlled]] animal studies do not employ [[Randomized controlled trial|randomization]], [[Double-blind trials|allocation concealment]], and [[Blind experiment|blinding]] outcome assessment, and that failure to employ these features exaggerates the apparent benefit of drugs tested in animals, leading to a failure to translate much animal research for human benefit.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bebarta V, Luyten D, Heard K |title=Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? |journal=Academic Emergency Medicine | year=2003 | pmid=12782533 |doi=10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00056.x |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=684–87|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Macleod |first1=Malcolm R. |last2=van der Worp |first2=H. Bart |last3=Sena |first3=Emily S. |last4=Howells |first4=David W. |last5=Dirnagl |first5=Ulrich |last6=Donnan |first6=Geoffrey A. |title=Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality |journal=Stroke |volume=39 |pages=2824–29 |year=2008 |pmid=18635842 |doi=10.1161/strokeaha.108.515957 |issue=10|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Sena E, Wheble P, Sandercock P, Macleod M |title=Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of tirilazad in experimental stroke |journal=Stroke |volume=38 |pages=388–94 |year=2007 |pmid=17204689|doi=10.1161/01.str.0000254462.75851.22 |issue=2|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hirst JA, Howick J, Aronson J, Roberts N, Perera R, Koshiaris C, Heneghan C |title= The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews |journal=PLOS ONE|volume=9 |issue= 6 |page=e98856 |year=2014 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0098856 |pmid=24906117 |pmc=4048216|bibcode=2014PLoSO...998856H |doi-access= free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Van der Worp B, Sena E, Porritt M, Rewell S, O'Collins V, Macleod MR |title=Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? |journal=PLOS Med |volume=7 |issue=3 |page=e1000245 |year=2010 |pmid=20361020|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 |pmc=2846855 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to the public's concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the [[great apes]].<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Gagneux P, Moore JJ, Varki A | title = The ethics of research on great apes | journal = Nature | volume = 437 | issue = 7055 | pages = 27–29 | year = 2005 | pmid = 16136111 | doi = 10.1038/437027a | bibcode = 2005Natur.437...27G | s2cid = 11500691 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Vermij P | title = Europe's last research chimps to retire | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 9 | issue = 8 | page = 981 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12894144 | doi = 10.1038/nm0803-981b | s2cid = 9892510 | doi-access = free }}</ref> In 2015, captive chimpanzees in the U.S. were added to the [[Endangered Species Act]] adding new road blocks to those wishing to experiment on them.<ref>{{cite news|last1=St Fleur|first1=Nicholas|title=U.S. Will Call All Chimps 'Endangered'|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/science/chimpanzees-endangered-fish-and-wildlife-service.html|access-date=7 July 2015|work=The New York Times|date=12 June 2015}}</ref> Similarly, citing ethical considerations and the availability of alternative research methods, the U.S. [[NIH]] announced in 2013 that it would dramatically reduce and eventually phase out experiments on chimpanzees.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kaiser|first1=Jocelyn|title=NIH Will Retire Most Research Chimps, End Many Projects|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-will-retire-most-research-chimps-end-many-projects|access-date=7 July 2015|work=sciencemag.org|date=26 June 2013}}</ref>

The British government has required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge.<ref name=SelectComm>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15003.htm |title=Summary of House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures |publisher=UK Parliament|date=24 July 2002 |access-date=2012-07-13}}</ref> Some medical schools and agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built [[cenotaph]]s for killed animals.<ref>[http://rayinfo.koizumiengei.com/anilog/000145.html 韓国・食薬庁で「実験動物慰霊祭」挙行] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070829151819/http://rayinfo.koizumiengei.com/anilog/000145.html |date=29 August 2007 }}</ref> In Japan there are also annual memorial services ''Ireisai'' ({{langx|ja|慰霊祭}}) for animals sacrificed at medical school.

[[File:Dollyscotland (crop).jpg|thumb|left|[[Dolly (sheep)|Dolly the sheep]]: the first [[cloning|clone]] produced from the somatic cells of an adult mammal]]
Various specific cases of animal testing have drawn attention, including both instances of beneficial scientific research, and instances of alleged ethical violations by those performing the tests. The fundamental properties of [[muscle contraction#Force-length and force-velocity relationships|muscle physiology]] were determined with work done using frog muscles (including the force generating mechanism of all muscle,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Huxley AF, Simmons RM | title = Proposed Mechanism of Force Generation in Striated Muscle | journal = Nature | volume = 233 | issue = 5321 | pages = 533–38 | year = 1971 | pmid = 4939977 | doi = 10.1038/233533a0 | bibcode = 1971Natur.233..533H | s2cid = 26159256 }}</ref> the length-tension relationship,<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Gordon AM, Huxley AF, Julian FJ | title = The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres | journal = The Journal of Physiology | volume = 184 | issue = 1 | pages = 170–92 | year = 1966 | pmid = 5921536 | pmc = 1357553 | doi=10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp007909}}</ref> and the force-velocity curve<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ford LE, Huxley AF, Simmons RM | title = Tension transients during steady shortening of frog muscle fibres | journal = The Journal of Physiology | volume = 361 | issue = 1 | pages = 131–50 | year = 1985 | pmid = 3872938 | pmc = 1192851 | doi=10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015637}}</ref>), and frogs are still the preferred model organism due to the long survival of muscles ''in vitro'' and the possibility of isolating intact [[Fast twitch muscle|single-fiber]] preparations (not possible in other organisms).<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lutz GJ, Lieber RL | title = Myosin isoforms in anuran skeletal muscle: Their influence on contractile properties and in vivo muscle function | journal = Microscopy Research and Technique | volume = 50 | issue = 6 | pages = 443–57 | year = 2000 | pmid = 10998635 | doi = 10.1002/1097-0029(20000915)50:6<443::AID-JEMT3>3.0.CO;2-5 | s2cid = 3477585 }}</ref> Modern [[physical therapy]] and the understanding and treatment of muscular disorders is based on this work and subsequent work in mice (often engineered to express disease states such as [[muscular dystrophy]]).<ref>Liber, R. L. (2002). [https://books.google.com/books?id=T0fbq_b89cAC Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation], 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, {{ISBN|978-0-7817-3061-7}}.</ref> In February 1997 a team at the [[Roslin Institute]] in Scotland announced the birth of [[Dolly (sheep)|Dolly]] the sheep, the first mammal to be [[cloning|cloned]] from an adult [[somatic cell]].<ref name=Wilmut>{{cite journal |vauthors=Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH | title = Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells | journal = Nature | volume = 385 | issue = 6619 | pages = 810–13 | year = 1997 | pmid = 9039911 | doi = 10.1038/385810a0 | bibcode = 1997Natur.385..810W | s2cid = 4260518 }}</ref>

Concerns have been raised over the mistreatment of primates undergoing testing. In 1985, the case of [[Britches (monkey)|Britches]], a macaque monkey at the [[University of California, Riverside]], gained public attention. He had his eyelids sewn shut and a sonar sensor on his head as part of an experiment to test [[sensory substitution]] devices for blind people. The laboratory was raided by [[Animal Liberation Front]] in 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals.<ref>Franklin, Ben A. (30 August 1987) [https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/weekinreview/going-to-extremes-for-animal-rights.html "Going to Extremes for 'Animal Rights'"], ''The New York Times''.</ref> The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded, however, that no corrective action was necessary.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Holden C | title = A pivotal year for lab animal welfare | journal = Science | volume = 232 | issue = 4747 | pages = 147–50 | year = 1986 | pmid = 3952503 | doi = 10.1126/science.3952503 | bibcode = 1986Sci...232..147H | url = https://animalstudiesrepository.org/hensppite/1 }}</ref> During the 2000s other cases have made headlines, including experiments at the [[Cambridge University primates|University of Cambridge]]<ref>Laville, Sandra (8 February 2005). [https://www.theguardian.com/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00.html "Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests"], ''The Guardian''.</ref> and [[Primate experiments at Columbia University|Columbia University]] in 2002.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080307223434/http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/12/columbia.animals.ap/ "Columbia in animal cruelty dispute"]}}, CNN (2003-10-12)</ref> In 2004 and 2005, undercover footage of staff of in an animal testing facility in [[Vienna, Virginia|Virginia]] owned by Covance (now [[Fortrea]]) was shot by [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA). Following release of the footage, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined the company $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment.<ref>Benz, Kathy and McManus, Michael (17 May 2005). [http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/peta.lab/index.html PETA accuses lab of animal cruelty], CNN.</ref><ref>Scott, Luci (1 April 2006). [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/125672411/ "Probe leads to Covance fine"], ''The Arizona Republic''. Retrieved 8 March 2021.</ref>

===Threats to researchers===
Threats of violence to animal researchers are not uncommon.{{Vague|date=November 2019}}<ref name=naturebiotech>{{cite journal | author = Huggett B | title = When animal rights turns ugly | journal = Nature Biotechnology | volume = 26 | issue = 6 | pages = 603–05 | year = 2008 | pmid = 18536673 | doi = 10.1038/nbt0608-603 | s2cid = 8006958 }}</ref>

In 2006, a primate researcher at the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] (UCLA) shut down the experiments in his lab after threats from animal rights activists. The researcher had received a grant to use 30 [[macaque]] monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized for a single physiological experiment lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Malone BJ, Kumar VR, Ringach DL | title = Dynamics of Receptive Field Size in Primary Visual Cortex | journal = Journal of Neurophysiology | volume = 97 | issue = 1 | pages = 407–14 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17021020 | doi = 10.1152/jn.00830.2006 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.133.3969 }}</ref> The researcher's name, phone number, and address were posted on the website of the [[Primate Freedom Project]]. Demonstrations were held in front of his home. A [[Molotov cocktail]] was placed on the porch of what was believed to be the home of another UCLA primate researcher; instead, it was accidentally left on the porch of an elderly woman unrelated to the university. The [[Animal Liberation Front]] claimed responsibility for the attack.<ref>Epstein, David (22 August 2006). [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/22/animal Throwing in the Towel] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127012451/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/22/animal |date=27 November 2020 }}, ''Inside Higher Education''</ref> As a result of the campaign, the researcher sent an email to the Primate Freedom Project stating "you win", and "please don't bother my family anymore".<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050122/http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241311597601024 Predators Unleashed]}}, ''Investor's Business Daily'' (2006-08-24)</ref> In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the [[Revolutionary Cells (RCALB)|Animal Liberation Brigade]] placed a bomb under the car of a UCLA children's [[ophthalmologist]] who [[Animal testing on cats|experiments on cats]] and rhesus monkeys; the bomb had a faulty fuse and did not detonate.<ref>McDonald, Patrick Range (8 August 2007). {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080215232132/http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/monkey-madness-at-ucla/16986/ UCLA Monkey Madness]}}, ''LA Weekly''.</ref>

In 1997, PETA filmed staff from [[Huntingdon Life Sciences]], showing dogs being mistreated.<ref>"It's a Dog's Life", ''Countryside Undercover'', Channel Four Television, UK (26 March 1997).</ref><ref>[http://www.smallworldtv.co.uk/public/main.cfm?m1=c_75&m2=c_2&m3=c_54&m4=e_0 "It's a dog's life"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120308224555/http://www.smallworldtv.co.uk/public/main.cfm?m1=c_75&m2=c_2&m3=c_54&m4=e_0 |date=8 March 2012 }}, Small World Productions (2005). Retrieved 6 July 2010.</ref> The employees responsible were dismissed,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1123837.stm |title=A controversial laboratory |work=BBC News |date=18 January 2001 |access-date=2012-07-13}}</ref> with two given community service orders and ordered to pay £250 costs, the first lab technicians to have been prosecuted for animal cruelty in the UK.<ref>Broughton, Zoe (March 2001). {{usurped|1=[https://archive.today/20120629060332/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_2_31/ai_71634854/ "Seeing Is Believing – cruelty to dogs at Huntingdon Life Sciences"]}}, ''The Ecologist''.</ref> The [[Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty]] campaign used tactics ranging from non-violent protest to the alleged firebombing of houses owned by executives associated with 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 similar to those of anti-abortion extremists", and in 2005 an official with the FBI's counter-terrorism division referred to SHAC's activities in the United States as domestic terrorist threats.<ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=42 "From push to shove"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091122190431/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=42 |date=22 November 2009 }}, Southern Poverty Law Group ''Intelligence Report'', Fall 2002</ref><ref>Lewis, John E. {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080801014736/http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247787 "Statement of John Lewis"]}}, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 26 October 2005, accessed 17 January 2011.</ref> 13 members of SHAC were jailed for between 15 months and eleven years on charges of conspiracy to blackmail or harm HLS and its suppliers.<ref name="Evers">Evers, Marco. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517875,00.html "Resisting the Animal Avengers", Part 1], [http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517875-2,00.html Part 2], ''Der Spiegel'', 19 November 2007.</ref><ref name="Weaver">Weaver, Matthew. [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/25/animal-research-animal-welfare "Animal rights activists jailed for terrorising suppliers to Huntingdon Life Sciences"], ''The Guardian'', 25 October 2010.</ref>

These attacks—as well as similar incidents that caused the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme"—prompted the US government to pass the [[Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act]] and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the [[Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005]]. Such legislation and the arrest and imprisonment of activists may have decreased the incidence of attacks.<ref>Herbert, Ian (27 January 2007). [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/collapse-in-support-for-animal-rights-extremist-attacks-433872.html "Collapse in support for animal rights extremist attacks"], ''The Independent''.</ref>

=== Scientific criticism ===
[[Systematic review]]s have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Knight|first=Andrew|date=May 2008|title=Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare|journal=Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials|volume=3|issue=2|pages=89–96|doi=10.2174/157488708784223844|issn=1574-8871|pmid=18474018}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Greek|first1=Ray|last2=Menache|first2=Andre|date=2013-01-11|title=Systematic Reviews of Animal Models: Methodology versus Epistemology|journal=International Journal of Medical Sciences|volume=10|issue=3|pages=206–21|doi=10.7150/ijms.5529|issn=1449-1907|pmc=3558708|pmid=23372426}}</ref> For instance, a 2013 review noted that some 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans.<ref name=":0" /> Effects seen in animals may not be replicated in humans, and vice versa. Many [[corticosteroid]]s cause birth defects in animals, but not in humans. Conversely, [[thalidomide]] causes serious birth defects in humans, but not in some animals such as mice (however, it does cause birth defects in rabbits).<ref name=":1">{{cite journal|last=Bracken|first=Michael B|date=2009-03-01|title=Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure|journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine|volume=102|issue=3|pages=120–22|doi=10.1258/jrsm.2008.08k033|issn=0141-0768|pmc=2746847|pmid=19297654}}</ref> A 2004 paper concluded that much animal research is wasted because systemic reviews are not used, and due to poor methodology.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pound|first1=Pandora|last2=Ebrahim|first2=Shah|last3=Sandercock|first3=Peter|last4=Bracken|first4=Michael B|last5=Roberts|first5=Ian|date=2004-02-28|title=Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?|journal=BMJ: British Medical Journal|volume=328|issue=7438|pages=514–17|issn=0959-8138|pmid=14988196|pmc=351856|doi=10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514}}</ref> A 2006 review found multiple studies where there were promising results for new drugs in animals, but human clinical studies did not show the same results. The researchers suggested that this might be due to researcher bias, or simply because animal models do not accurately reflect human biology.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Perel|first1=Pablo|last2=Roberts|first2=Ian|last3=Sena|first3=Emily|last4=Wheble|first4=Philipa|last5=Briscoe|first5=Catherine|last6=Sandercock|first6=Peter|last7=Macleod|first7=Malcolm|last8=Mignini|first8=Luciano E.|last9=Jayaram|first9=Pradeep|last10=Khan|first10=Khalid S.|date=2007-01-25|title=Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review|journal=BMJ|volume=334|issue=7586|pages=197|doi=10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE|issn=0959-8138|pmc=1781970|pmid=17175568}}</ref> Lack of meta-reviews may be partially to blame.<ref name=":1"/> Poor methodology is an issue in many studies. A 2009 review noted that many animal experiments did not use [[blinded experiment]]s, a key element of many scientific studies in which researchers are not told about the part of the study they are working on to reduce bias.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Schulz|first1=Kenneth F.|last2=Chalmers|first2=Iain|last3=Altman|first3=Douglas G.|date=2002-02-05|title=The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials|journal=Annals of Internal Medicine|volume=136|issue=3|pages=254–59|doi=10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00022|pmid=11827510|s2cid=34932997|issn=0003-4819}}</ref> A 2021 paper found, in a sample of Open Access Alzheimer Disease studies, that if the authors omit from the title that the experiment was performed in mice, the News Headline follow suit, and that also the Twitter repercussion is higher.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Triunfol|first1=Marcia|last2=Gouveia|first2=Fabio C.|date=2021-06-15|editor-last=Bero|editor-first=Lisa|title=What's not in the news headlines or titles of Alzheimer disease articles? #InMice|journal=PLOS Biology|language=en|volume=19|issue=6|pages=e3001260|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001260|pmid=34129637|pmc=8205157|issn=1545-7885|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Activism===
There are various examples of activists utilizing [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)]] requests to obtain information about taxpayer funding of animal testing. For example, the White Coat Waste Project, a group of activists that hold that taxpayers should not have
[[File:Animal Testing Protestors.jpg|thumb|Anti-animal testing activists protesting in the streets of London in 2009]]
to pay $20 billion every year for experiments on animals,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/|title=White Coat Waste Project|access-date=8 March 2022}}</ref> highlighted that the [[National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]] provided $400,000 in taxpayer money to fund experiments in which 28 beagles were infected by disease-causing parasites.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/11/15/saving-dogs-from-government-research-labs-gets-some-bipartisan-attention/|title=Should dogs be guinea pigs in government research? A bipartisan group says no.|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=15 November 2016}}</ref> The White Coat Project found reports that said dogs taking part in the experiments were "vocalizing in pain" after being injected with foreign substances.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/|title=WCW EXPOSÉ: FAUCI SPENT $424K ON BEAGLE EXPERIMENTS, DOGS BITTEN TO DEATH BY FLIES|date=30 July 2021}}</ref> Following public outcry, [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)]] made a call to action that all members of the [[National Institute of Health]] resign effective immediately<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/peta-calls-for-dr-fauci-to-resign-our-position-is-clear|title=PETA calls for Dr. Fauci to resign: 'Our position is clear'|website=[[Fox News]] |date=5 November 2021}}</ref> and that there is a "need to find a new NIH director to replace the outgoing [[Francis Collins]] who will shut down research that violates the dignity of nonhuman animals."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.peta.org/blog/fauci-niaid-puppies-animal-testing/|title=Experimenters Fed Puppies' Heads to Infected Flies, but That's Not All Fauci's NIH Funded|date=25 October 2021}}</ref>

===Historical debate===
[[File:Claude Bernard 5.jpg|right|thumb|[[Claude Bernard]], regarded as the "prince of vivisectors",<ref name=Croce11/> argued that experiments on animals are "entirely conclusive for the [[toxicology]] and hygiene of man".<ref name=Bernard>[[Claude Bernard|Bernard, Claude]] ''An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine'', 1865. First English translation by Henry Copley Greene, published by Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1927; reprinted in 1949, p. 125.</ref>]]
As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of [[Galen]]ic physiology [[Edmund O'Meara]] said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state".<ref name=Ryder54>[[Richard D. Ryder|Ryder, Richard D.]] (2000). ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg Publishers, p. 54 {{ISBN|1-85973-330-1}}.</ref><ref name=ANZCCART>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20090327033757/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/resources/AnimalExperimentation.pdf "Animal Experimentation: A Student Guide to Balancing the Issues"]}}, Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), accessed 12 December 2007, cites original reference in Maehle, A-H. and Tr6hler, U. ''Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments''. In N. A. Rupke (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. Croom Helm, London, 1987, p. 22.</ref> O'Meara and others argued pain could affect animal physiology during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections ethically, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals.<ref name=ANZCCART/> Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle—many people believed animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.<ref name="Ethical"/><ref name=ANZCCART/>

On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. [[Claude Bernard]]—who is sometimes known as the "prince of vivisectors"<ref name=Croce11>Croce, Pietro. ''Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health''. Zed Books, 1999, {{ISBN|1-85649-732-1}} p. 11.</ref> and the father of physiology, and whose wife, [[Marie Françoise Bernard|Marie Françoise Martin]], founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883<ref>Rudacille, Deborah (2000). ''The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict'', University of California Press, p. 19 {{ISBN|0-520-23154-6}}.</ref>—famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen".<ref name=TelegraphNov2003>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080213180427/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2003%2F11%2F24%2Fhsick23.xml "In sickness and in health: vivisection's undoing"]}}, ''The Daily Telegraph'', November 2003</ref> Arguing that "experiments on animals {{nowrap|[.{{hsp}}.{{hsp}}.]}} are entirely conclusive for the [[toxicology]] and hygiene of man {{nowrap|[.{{hsp}}.{{hsp}}. T]he}} effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree",<ref name=Bernard/> Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard [[scientific method]].<ref name=LaFollette>LaFollette, H., Shanks, N., [http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/BERNARD.HTM Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200110205729/http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/BERNARD.HTM |date=10 January 2020 }}, ''International Studies in the Philosophy of Science'' (1994) pp. 195–210.</ref>

In 1896, the physiologist and physician [[Walter Cannon|Dr. Walter B. Cannon]] said "The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, 'Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.{{'"}}<ref>{{cite journal | author = Nicoll CS | title = A Physiologist's Views on the Animal Rights/Liberation Movement | journal = The Physiologist | volume = 34 | issue = 6 | pages = 303, 306–08, 315 | year = 1991 | pmid = 1775539 }}</ref> These divisions between pro- and anti-animal testing groups first came to public attention during the [[Brown Dog affair]] in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.<ref name=Mason>Mason, Peter. [http://www.london-books.co.uk/books/browndog.html ''The Brown Dog Affair''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201006123454/http://www.london-books.co.uk/books/browndog.html |date=6 October 2020 }}. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997.</ref>

In 1822, the first [[Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822|animal protection law]] was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the [[Cruelty to Animals Act 1876|Cruelty to Animals Act (1876)]], the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. The legislation was promoted by [[Charles Darwin]], who wrote to [[Ray Lankester]] in March 1871: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for proper investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Life-and-Letters-of-Charles-Darwinx29407.html |title=''The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II'' |publisher=Fullbooks.com }}</ref><ref>Bowlby, John (1991). ''Charles Darwin: A New Life'', W. W. Norton & Company, p. 420 {{ISBN|0-393-30930-4}}.</ref> In response to the lobbying by anti-vivisectionists, several organizations were set up in Britain to defend animal research: [[The Physiological Society]] was formed in 1876 to give physiologists "mutual benefit and protection",<ref>{{cite book|last=Ilman|first=John|title=Animal Research in Medicine: 100 years of politics, protest and progress. The Story of the Research Defence Society|year=2008|publisher=Research Defence Society|isbn=978-0-9560008-0-4|page=16}}</ref> the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research was formed in 1882 and focused on policy-making, and the [[Research Defence Society]] (now [[Understanding Animal Research]]) was formed in 1908 "to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them".<ref>{{cite book|title=Publications of the Research Defence Society: March 1908–1909; Selected by the committee|url=https://archive.org/details/b21509025|year=1909|publisher=Macmillan|location=London|page=xiv}}</ref>

Opposition to the use of animals in medical research first arose in the United States during the 1860s, when [[Henry Bergh]] founded the [[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] (ASPCA), with America's first specifically anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS), founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spread of mercy was the great cause of civilization, and vivisection was cruel. However, in the USA the antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, overwhelmed by the superior organization and influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the passing of the [[Laboratory Animal Welfare Act]], in 1966.<ref>Buettinger, Craig (1 January 1993) {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080215121937/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-13506650.html Antivivisection and the charge of zoophil-psychosis in the early twentieth century.]}} ''The Historian''.</ref>

Real progress in thinking about animal rights build on the "theory of justice" (1971) by the philosopher John Rawls and work on ethics by philosopher Peter Singer.<ref name="Ethical"/>