Editing Animal testing (section)

===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>