use of animals for medical research

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ethics of animal experimentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizations and Resources

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

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

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

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

Research using animals: an overview

Around half the diseases in the world have no treatment. Understanding how the body works and how diseases progress, and finding cures, vaccines or treatments, can take many years of painstaking work using a wide range of research techniques. There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress.

Animal research in the UK is strictly regulated. For more details on the regulations governing research using animals, go to the UK regulations page .

Why is animal research necessary?

There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some animals are still needed in order to make medical progress.

Where animals are used in research projects, they are used as part of a range of scientific techniques. These might include human trials, computer modelling, cell culture, statistical techniques, and others. Animals are only used for parts of research where no other techniques can deliver the answer.

A living body is an extraordinarily complex system. You cannot reproduce a beating heart in a test tube or a stroke on a computer. While we know a lot about how a living body works, there is an enormous amount we simply don’t know: the interaction between all the different parts of a living system, from molecules to cells to systems like respiration and circulation, is incredibly complex. Even if we knew how every element worked and interacted with every other element, which we are a long way from understanding, a computer hasn’t been invented that has the power to reproduce all of those complex interactions - while clearly you cannot reproduce them all in a test tube.

While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse (like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup) that you could not control in human subjects.

Is it morally right to use animals for research?

Most people believe that in order to achieve medical progress that will save and improve lives, perhaps millions of lives, limited and very strictly regulated animal use is justified. That belief is reflected in the law, which allows for animal research only under specific circumstances, and which sets out strict regulations on the use and care of animals. It is right that this continues to be something society discusses and debates, but there has to be an understanding that without animals we can only make very limited progress against diseases like cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and HIV.

It’s worth noting that animal research benefits animals too: more than half the drugs used by vets were developed originally for human medicine. 

Aren’t animals too different from humans to tell us anything useful?

No. Just by being very complex living, moving organisms they share a huge amount of similarities with humans. Humans and other animals have much more in common than they have differences. Mice share over 90% of their genes with humans. A mouse has the same organs as a human, in the same places, doing the same things. Most of their basic chemistry, cell structure and bodily organisation are the same as ours. Fish and tadpoles share enough characteristics with humans to make them very useful in research. Even flies and worms are used in research extensively and have led to research breakthroughs (though these species are not regulated by the Home Office and are not in the Biomedical Sciences Building).

What does research using animals actually involve?

The sorts of procedures research animals undergo vary, depending on the research. Breeding a genetically modified mouse counts as a procedure and this represents a large proportion of all procedures carried out. So does having an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan, something which is painless and which humans undergo for health checks. In some circumstances, being trained to go through a maze or being trained at a computer game also counts as a procedure. Taking blood or receiving medication are minor procedures that many species of animal can be trained to do voluntarily for a food reward. Surgery accounts for only a small minority of procedures. All of these are examples of procedures that go on in Oxford's Biomedical Sciences Building. 

How many animals are used?

Figures for 2023 show numbers of animals that completed procedures, as declared to the Home Office using their five categories for the severity of the procedure.

# NHPs - Non Human Primates

Oxford also maintains breeding colonies to provide animals for use in experiments, reducing the need for unnecessary transportation of animals.

Figures for 2017 show numbers of animals bred for procedures that were killed or died without being used in procedures:

Why must primates be used?

Primates account for under half of one per cent (0.5%) of all animals housed in the Biomedical Sciences Building. They are only used where no other species can deliver the research answer, and we continually seek ways to replace primates with lower orders of animal, to reduce numbers used, and to refine their housing conditions and research procedures to maximise welfare.

However, there are elements of research that can only be carried out using primates because their brains are closer to human brains than mice or rats. They are used at Oxford in vital research into brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Some are used in studies to develop vaccines for HIV and other major infections.

What is done to primates?

The primates at Oxford spend most of their time in their housing. They are housed in groups with access to play areas where they can groom, forage for food, climb and swing.

Primates at Oxford involved in neuroscience studies would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work. This is sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. No suffering is involved and indeed many of the primates appear to find the games stimulating. They come into the transport cage that takes them to the computer room entirely voluntarily.

After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery to remove a very small amount of brain tissue under anaesthetic. A full course of painkillers is given under veterinary guidance in the same way as any human surgical procedure, and the animals are up and about again within hours, and back with their group within a day. The brain damage is minor and unnoticeable in normal behaviour: the animal interacts normally with its group and exhibits the usual natural behaviours. In order to find out about how a disease affects the brain it is not necessary to induce the equivalent of full-blown disease. Indeed, the more specific and minor the brain area affected, the more focussed and valuable the research findings are.

The primate goes back to behavioural testing with the computers and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed games, are monitored.

At the end of its life the animal is humanely killed and its brain is studied and compared directly with the brains of deceased human patients. 

Primates at Oxford involved in vaccine studies would simply have a vaccination and then have monthly blood samples taken.

How many primates does Oxford hold?

* From 2014 the Home Office changed the way in which animals/ procedures were counted. Figures up to and including 2013 were recorded when procedures began. Figures from 2014 are recorded when procedures end.

What’s the difference between ‘total held’ and ‘on procedure’?

Primates (macaques) at Oxford would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work, sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. This is non-invasive and done voluntarily for food rewards and does not count as a procedure. After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery under anaesthetic to remove a very small amount of brain tissue. The primate quickly returns to behavioural testing with the computers, and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed puzzles, are monitored. A primate which has had this surgery is counted as ‘on procedure’. Both stages are essential for research into understanding brain function which is necessary to develop treatments for conditions including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and schizophrenia.

Why has the overall number held gone down?

Numbers vary year on year depending on the research that is currently undertaken. In general, the University is committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research.

You say primates account for under 0.5% of animals, so that means you have at least 16,000 animals in the Biomedical Sciences Building in total - is that right?

Numbers change daily so we cannot give a fixed figure, but it is in that order.

Aren’t there alternative research methods?

There are very many non-animal research methods, all of which are used at the University of Oxford and many of which were pioneered here. These include research using humans; computer models and simulations; cell cultures and other in vitro work; statistical modelling; and large-scale epidemiology. Every research project which uses animals will also use other research methods in addition. Wherever possible non-animal research methods are used. For many projects, of course, this will mean no animals are needed at all. For others, there will be an element of the research which is essential for medical progress and for which there is no alternative means of getting the relevant information.

How have humans benefited from research using animals?

As the Department of Health states, research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century.

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. It has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections (which were developed in Oxford laboratories), vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses, and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities.

Life expectancy in this country has increased, on average, by almost three months for every year of the past century. Within the living memory of many people diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, leukaemia and diphtheria killed or crippled thousands every year. But now, doctors are able to prevent or treat many more diseases or carry out life-saving operations - all thanks to research which at some stage involved animals.

Each year, millions of people in the UK benefit from treatments that have been developed and tested on animals. Animals have been used for the development of blood transfusions, insulin for diabetes, anaesthetics, anticoagulants, antibiotics, heart and lung machines for open heart surgery, hip replacement surgery, transplantation, high blood pressure medication, replacement heart valves, chemotherapy for leukaemia and life support systems for premature babies. More than 50 million prescriptions are written annually for antibiotics. 

We may have used animals in the past to develop medical treatments, but are they really needed in the 21st century?

Yes. While we are committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research as new techniques make it possible to reduce the number of animals needed, there is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress. It only forms one element of a whole research programme which will use a range of other techniques to find out whatever possible without animals. Animals would be used for a specific element of the research that cannot be conducted in any alternative way.

How will humans benefit in future?

The development of drugs and medical technologies that help to reduce suffering among humans and animals depends on the carefully regulated use of animals for research. In the 21st century scientists are continuing to work on treatments for cancer, stroke, heart disease, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s, and very many more diseases that cause suffering and death. Genetically modified mice play a crucial role in future medical progress as understanding of how genes are involved in illness is constantly increasing. 

Animal Use in Research

The AAMC recognizes the extraordinary contribution that high-quality, ethical research using animal models has made to our understanding of biological systems and advancement of treatments that improve both human and animal life.

We also join the broader scientific community in our support of the robust oversight of animal research, including the laws, regulations, and institutional policies that ensure the humane treatment, welfare, and safety of animals utilized in scientific research.

As stated in a 2022 joint letter to Congress, “Animal research remains vital to our mission to understand diseases, discover targeted therapies, alleviate suffering, and improve our quality of life. ... Indeed, the success of the biomedical research community to deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, was only possible because of research using animal models including non-human primates. To remain at the forefront of pandemic preparedness and discovery for other diseases in search of a cure, animal research remains critical.”

The AAMC strongly condemns harassment and threats against scientists, educators, and institutions that use animals in research. AAMC-member institutions are encouraged to work closely with local, state, and federal law officials to protect students, faculty, staff, animals, and facilities.

Related Organizations

Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care

NIH Animals in Research

NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare

USDA Animal Welfare

NASEM Board on Animal Health Sciences, Conservation, and Research

Foundation for Biomedical Research

National Association for Biomedical Research

• Research & Technology
• Basic Science

• Policy & Compliance
• Animals In NIH Research
• Why Animals Are Used In Research

Why Animals are Used in Research

Animals have unique and important roles in biomedical and behavioral research. Many medical advances that enhance the lives of humans are developed from carefully planned and highly regulated research studies with animals.

Good animal care and good science go hand in hand. NIH takes the involvement, role, and respectful use of animals in research seriously. The integrity of the research results depend on ensuring that the animals are well cared for throughout the research process. Well cared for animals that have their physical and behavioral needs met introduce fewer unwanted variables that can negatively affect the study results.

Note, NIH funded studies do not include research for cosmetic testing

Similarities to laboratory animals can help researchers understand important biological and physiological processes in humans. This understanding may inform how we can better prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure diseases. 

Scientists thoughtfully and carefully choose and justify the specific animal models used in research based on their similarity and relevance to humans in anatomy, physiology, and/or genetics, or even everyday living conditions. Animals serve as "models"  that allow study of certain aspects of a biological phenomenon being investigated. There are times when certain animal models are used, like fish, frogs, fruit flies, and roundworms. Their anatomy and physiology may be quite different from humans in some respects, but they can still help researchers address fundamental biological processes similar across species.  In NIH funded research, these models are carefully selected to study those aspects of biology and health that are most likely to be similar and relevant to those of humans.  

Investigating a Hypothesis 

When researchers develop hypotheses (which are scientifically backed ideas) about the possible causes of diseases and potential treatments, these hypotheses must be meticulously evaluated to ensure that findings are correct. When necessary, such as for studies of a possible treatment, new hypotheses are studied in animal models first to gather sufficient evidence of these benefits and risks before considering use in humans or additional animals.

Controlling Potential Variables 

Animal studies conducted in the laboratory allow scientists to control potentially confounding factors that might affect the outcome of the experiments. This includes factors like temperature, humidity, light, diet, or medications. Even the genetics of many animal models can be known and well understood, so only the factor being tested is changed and examined. These rigorous controls allow for more precise understanding of biological factors and provide greater certainty about experimental outcomes when developing treatments.

The findings also move the scientific process forward, setting the stage for future research and studies in humans. This is called translational research. But first, preclinical research into new possible treatments and interventions may be performed in animals before clinical trials in humans begin. Some research builds fundamental knowledge to enhance our understanding of physiological systems. This includes research to understand what might contribute to unexpected outcomes within animal research and to develop new models of health and disease.

What Researchers Consider when Planning Studies involving Animals 

Scientists must clearly explain why animals are necessary for their research and that the minimal number needed to ensure rigorous and reproducible studies will be used when proposing ideas to NIH for funding and throughout the research activity itself. Every NIH-funded activity involving live vertebrate animals must describe in their NIH grant application:

• How it is scientifically important, hypothesis driven, and relevant to public health
• What specific animals and how many will be involved as well as why they were selected
• Why the specific animal is appropriate for the questions being asked
• A complete description of all procedures that will be performed on the animals
• How any potential discomfort, distress, injury, and pain the animals may experience will be minimized
• Why the study cannot be done using another model or approach
• The research findings and outcomes, and their potential benefits

The 3Rs: Replace, Refine, and Reduce 

The “3Rs” refer to the basic principles of responsible animal use. NIH requires researchers consider these principles when designing studies.

• Reduction: Design experiments with proper statistical analyses, appropriate timelines, and appropriate comparison groups so the fewest number of animals are used (related to the second bullet above)
• Replacement: Use non-animal models at every possible opportunity that is appropriate for the science (related to the sixth bullet point above)
• Refinement: Carefully choose experimental procedures that will minimize pain or distress (related to the fourth and fifth bullet points above)

This page last updated on: May 6, 2024

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

Science, Medicine, and Animals (1991)

Chapter: why are animals used in research, why are animals used in research.

Human beings use animals for a wide variety of purposes, including research. The approximately 260 million people in the United States keep about 110 million dogs and cats as pets. More than 5 billion animals are killed in the United States each year as a source of food. Animals are used for transportation, for sport, for recreation, and for companionship. 7

Animals are also used to learn more about living things and about the illnesses that afflict human beings and other animals. By studying animals, it is possible to obtain information that cannot be learned in any other way. When a new drug or surgical technique is developed, society deems it unethical to use that drug or technique first in human beings because of the possibility that it would cause harm rather than good. Instead, the drug or technique is tested in animals to make sure that it is safe and effective.

Animals also offer experimental models that would be impossible to replicate using human subjects. Animals can be fed identical and closely monitored diets. As with inbred mice, members of some animal species are genetically identical, enabling researchers to compare different procedures on identical animals. Some animals have biological similarities to humans that make them particularly good models for specific diseases, such as rabbits for atherosclerosis or monkeys for polio. (The polio vaccine was developed, and its safety is still tested, in monkeys.) Animals are also indispensable to the rapidly growing field of biotechnology, where they are used to develop, test, and make new products such as monoclonal antibodies.

Researchers draw upon the full range of living things to study life, from bacteria to human beings. 8 Many basic biological processes are best studied in single cells, tissue cultures, or plants, because they are the easiest to grow or examine. But researchers also investigate a wide range of animal species, from insects and nematodes to dogs, cats, and monkeys. In particular, mammals are essential to researchers because they are the closest to us in evolutionary terms. For example, many diseases that affect human beings also affect other mammals, but they do not occur in insects, plants, or bacteria.

Far fewer animals are used in research than are used for other purposes. An estimated 17 to 22 million vertebrate animals are used each year in research, education, and testing—less than 1 percent of the number killed for food. 9 About 85 percent of these animals are rats and mice that have been bred for research. In fiscal year 1988, about 142,000 dogs and 52,000 cats were used in experimentation, with 40,000 to 50,000 of those dogs being bred specifically for research and the others being acquired from pounds. 10 Between 50,000 and 60,000 nonhuman primates, such as monkeys and chimpanzees, are studied each year, many of them coming from breeding colonies in the United States. 11

The necessity for animal use in biomedical research is a hotly debated topic in classrooms throughout the country. Frequently teachers and students do not have access to balanced, factual material to foster an informed discussion on the topic. This colorful, 50-page booklet is designed to educate teenagers about the role of animal research in combating disease, past and present; the perspective of animal use within the whole spectrum of biomedical research; the regulations and oversight that govern animal research; and the continuing efforts to use animals more efficiently and humanely.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Academic Departments
• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Faculty Directory
• Offices & Programs
• Patient Care
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources

Can't find what you're looking for?

• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Offices & Programs

This is a site-wide search. if you already know what you're looking for, try visiting a section of the site first to see A-Z listings.

Results for " "

Section Menu

Introduction.

Non-human animals are used in medical and other scientific research at academic institutions, hospitals, and in industries such pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Scientific research on animals helps develop antibiotics and other medications, as well as immunizations and surgical procedures.  Animals are used in the testing of consumer products such as perfumes and shampoos.  Animals are also used to educate students in biology, medicine, and related fields.  We will call all such efforts “animal research.” 

Rats and mice are the main animals used, but also used are birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and other mammals.  In the course of animal research many animals suffer discomfort, fear, and pain, and some animals die.  Of course, many animals in the wild suffer and die also, hence the famous expression:

“nature red in tooth and claw.”

Animal research is morally controversial.  Many scientists just assume that it is morally permissible, but animal rights advocates claim that it is not.

Arguments For Animal Research

Humans use animals for their purposes and do so for the most part without thinking the practice needs moral justification.  People have used and continue to use animals for transportation, farming, recreation, companionship, sport, and food.

Likewise the use of animals in research has occurred largely without researchers thinking they needed to morally justify this practice.  But if a justification is thought to be needed, the main one given by supporters is that such research brings great benefit to humans, enough benefit to outweigh any possible animal suffering or sacrifice involved.

Furthermore, those who support animal research usually hold that most scientific results obtained through animal research are not available in any other way or that the use of animals in research is more effective than other possible methods that might be used to obtain this scientific knowledge.

Here is a sketch of some important claims assumed or given in support of animal research:

• It is morally permissible for humans to use animals, that is, to raise them and keep them for our purposes, to do things with them and to them, and to make things out of them.  For example, we may eat them, use them for clothing, use them for farm work, put them in service as guard animals and guide animals, use them as pets, do research on them, etc.
• Animals have no right to life, no right to live their own lives, and no right not to be used for human purposes.
• Any suffering endured by animals in research contexts is justified by the benefits to humans from such research.
• Computer modeling and other study methods not involving animals would not be able to fully replace the use of animals in research because we would not gain as much knowledge by these other techniques.

In recent years there has been some discussion among ethicists about animal rights and how we should treat animals, and as a result we can add a few modifications or qualifications that those who support animal research usually now will concede:

• Animals may have no right to life, but they deserve some sort of moral consideration that disallows some kinds of treatment of animals.  For example, it would be wrong to torture animals for fun.  If possible, they should be treated humanely and not made to suffer unnecessarily.
• Controls should be in place to protect research animals from unnecessary harm (pain and suffering).

This modern qualified version of support for animal research grants animals some sort of moral consideration or moral status; some animal research advocates may go so far as to allow that animals have some limited moral rights.  Most people grant that it would be wrong to make or allow an animal to suffer or torture an animal just to provide us with amusement or entertainment.  This could be stated in terms of human moral obligations – we have a moral obligation not to torture animals – or in terms of animal rights – animals have the right not to be tortured.  Also, there have been concerns during the last few decades that animals in zoos should be provided with better, more realistic habitats so that they have more of a life.  None of this is taken to preclude scientific research, though it might complicate it, but it is now commonly recognized that steps should be taken by researchers, sometimes at significant cost to the research project, to treat research animals humanely and limit any suffering.

An example of a defender of a more or less traditional view supporting animal research is Carl Cohen.  Cohen thinks that the tremendous benefit to humans from animal research outweighs any possible suffering on their part.  Efforts are and should be made to prevent mistreatment of research animals.  Cohen does not believe it makes sense to speak in terms of animals having moral rights, even limited rights not to be tortured, though Cohen would think it is wrong to torture animals.  Cohen’s view is that to have moral rights, a creature must have the capacity to have their own moral duties or engage in moral reflection or deliberation.  While humans can do this, non-human animals cannot.  Research animals therefore are not part of the moral community and can have no moral rights.

Animal Rights Advocacy

A position against traditional and more modern views supporting animal research is represented by diverse opponents we will group together as “animal rights advocates.”  Animal rights advocates often concede animal research has benefitted humans, though some advocates believe the benefit has been overblown and could have been provided in other ways.  But on their view no benefit from animal research could make such research morally permissible.

A number of distinct views are held by animal rights advocates:

• Animals are not on this earth to be used for human purposes.  They have their own lives.
• Animals have moral rights which are violated by using them for research or killing them for food or clothing.
• Animals used in research are often mistreated, despite the presence of controls meant to prevent this.
• Any human benefits through animal research are outweighed by the suffering of those animals.
• Benefits from animal research are greatly exaggerated: many research results are insignificant or useless (because animals are not like humans, results are often inconclusive) or could have been obtained in other ways.

Utilitarianism and Animals

Probably the most important theoretical perspectives from animal rights advocates come from Peter Singer and Tom Regan.

One tradition in ethics is that when faced with several alternative courses of action, one should choose the course of action that will result in the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number.  Versions of this tradition are called “utilitarianism.” 

One interpretation of utilitarianism interprets the “greatest number” to mean the greatest number of human beings.  A different view of “greatest number,” one represented by Singer, claims we should take into account not just human beings but any creature who can have conscious experience, feel happiness, and experience pain and suffering.  In judging the rightness or wrongness of a practice, everyone’s interests, happiness, pain, and suffering, including those of research animals, need to be taken into account. 

What of the claim that research benefits to humans outweigh any possible suffering of research animals?  According to Singer, the suffering of research animals is on par with that of humans, so for such research to be justified by future benefits, those future benefits would have to be able to justify it if the research were carried out on human infants.  Only if the pain, suffering, and other harm to human infant research subjects were considered justified by future benefits would it be justified to use animals instead of infants.  If one objects that human infants have greater potential than animals, and so should count for more or count in a more significant way, Singer suggests we consider whether we would do such research on brain-damaged infants who have no more intellectual potential than animals.

Singer and those who agree with him are not advocating we test new drugs on normal infants or brain-damaged infants instead of on non-human animals.  They merely want to make us see that we have no real grounds to consider only the interests of humans and treat animal interests, happiness, and suffering as if they don’t really matter.  Singer considers the view that human lives and interests are preferable to animal lives and interests to be a prejudice, a prejudice of “speciesism” that he considers analogous to racism.  Singer thinks we should consider speciesism wrong just as we consider racism wrong.

Singer at times speaks of animals as having rights.  His view that animals have interests and can experience happiness, pain, and suffering is consistent with them having moral rights, but note that, traditionally, utilitarians think of moral rights as akin to “useful fictions” rather than ultimate “metaphysical” possessions of conscious beings.

Regan’s Defense of Animal Rights

For Tom Regan, to say human beings have moral rights to life and liberty means others are not free to harm individuals or ordinarily interfere with their free choices.  Why do humans have moral rights to life and liberty?  Regan thinks it is because humans are subjects whose lives matter to them; a human being is (in his terms) a “subject-of-a-life.” 

But then, Regan notes, nonhuman animals are likewise subjects-of-a-life.  Nonhuman animals are aware of what happens to them and what happens to them matters to them.  Their lives can go “better or worse for them.”  They are subjects, not just objects, and one can say in the case of a nonhuman animal there is “somebody there.”   So, according to Regan, like humans, nonhuman animals have moral rights to life and liberty.

Regan holds that the use of animals in research violates their moral rights.  Subjecting an animal to suffering and death as part of scientific research violates the animal’s rights to life and to live that life in a way meaningful to the animal.  Their rights “trump” any purported justification of animal research as benefitting humans.

Regan is suspicious of the common claim that human benefits justify animal suffering anyway.  No one has ever worked out any kind of intelligible methodology that would enable one to compare benefits to one species with the harm to another species so as to show the former outweighed the latter.  The usual assumption seems to be that the suffering of an animal counts for less than the suffering of a human, but Regan questions this.

Issues in the Dispute

The controversy between the views supporting animal research and the view of animal rights advocates involves disputes about both factual (empirical) and moral issues.  Disputed factual issues include:

• whether scientific results obtained through animal research are significant
• whether the same or similar results could have been obtained through other means, and
• whether effective controls are in place to protect research animals from mistreatment.

Moral issues include:

• the moral status and moral rights, if any, possessed by nonhuman animals, and
• whether research animal suffering is justified in light of the benefits of such research to humans. 

This latter issue has empirical aspects too, because it involves answering factual questions of how much suffering occurs to research animals and how much humans really benefit from animal research.

A thorough discussion of all these issues is too much for this introduction, but the following comments on some of the issues may help you decide on your position on the morality of animal research. 

Factual issues :  It seems beyond argument that the use of animals in medical research has benefitted humans in many ways, for example in developing immunizations for measles and polio, in the development of antibiotics, and in the development of surgical techniques such as organ transplants and joint replacements.  Developed through animal research, vaccines for rabies and distemper have benefitted family pets as well.  It’s hard to imagine all this being done by computer modeling, and in fact much of this was done before computers were commonly available.  But it is worth considering whether, going forward, for some kinds of research more use of testing by means other than on animals might be just as effective.

In the context of research in the United States, controls are in place or being put into place to try to minimize animal suffering.  Whether or not these controls are fully effective and optimal is open to debate.  In this regard research seems to have come a long way from practices of decades ago, but we may need to police current policies better or put in place more stringent ones.

Moral issues :  The moral issue of whether human benefit justifies animal suffering and sacrifice itself has both moral and factual aspects:

• what constitutes human benefit (moral) and how to quantify that (factual)
• how to value the life of a research animal (moral)
• what constitutes animal suffering and sacrifice (moral) and how to quantify that (factual), and
• how to compare benefits and sacrifices across species (moral and factual). 

Regan is correct that the math of any “justification equation” is rarely even discussed, much less spelled out in any noncontroversial fashion.  In other words, there is no clear way to precisely quantify the suffering of research animals and compare this amount to a calculated quantity of human benefit to see if one outweighs the other.

In another respect, some people might seem confused about the issue of justification itself, sometimes assuming no justification is needed and yet at other times thinking animal research is justified by human benefit, as if justification were needed.

Obviously a key moral issue in the dispute is the precise moral status of nonhuman animals.  The moral status of something is whether the thing is a moral agent and/or a moral patient, whether it has moral rights, and if not whether it deserves some other sort of moral consideration.  For most people the sense of moral patiency possessed by such animals is very limited and gives them limited rights.  They may have the right not to be harmed for fun.  (But not everyone who believes this would be comfortable talking of such animals as possessing rights.  They might be more comfortable saying such animals deserve some moral consideration.)

Animal rights advocates of course would be comfortable with the view that animals are full-blown moral patients; Regan claims they have a right to life.  Animal right advocates just disagree here with Cohen that animals are not part of the moral community.  They are not moral agents, but they are moral patients.

Why do some things have a different moral status than do other things?  It might be that we implicitly base the moral status of something on some physical or metaphysical feature of that thing.  So for instance human beings are thought to have moral rights to life and liberty while trees do not because humans are conscious, rational, can express wishes and desires, have their lives matter to them, have an interest in their futures, etc. (physical features in the broad sense -  including mental), while the same cannot be said of trees.  Or human persons have immaterial souls (metaphysical features) while trees do not.  Or animals are considered to be subjects (a metaphysical category), just as humans are.

Regan thinks the moral status of a thing depends on it being the subject of a life, having a future that matters to it.  Regan’s type of view tends to see things as black or white.  If it is the subject of a life, it has the moral right to life, otherwise not.

To be consistent we should grant the same moral status to creatures that are relevantly similar physically or metaphysically, depending on what it is we think that grounds moral status.  Aliens from another planet who acted like human beings in certain essential ways might be given a similar moral status, though they were not human.  However, one could argue that moral status comes in degrees and is not absolute in the way Regan thinks.

Another consideration is whether the moral status of a being could be overridden by other factors.  So, for example, one might claim that nonhuman animals deserve a certain kind of moral treatment but in the case of crucially important research trying to save human lives that status can be overridden.

Carl Cohen and Tom Regan,  The Animal Rights Debate Peter Singer,  Animal Liberation Tom Regan,  Empty Cages

More Centers, Institutes and Labs

• Baker Research Lab
• Becevic Telehealth Lab
• Biomedical Informatics
• Cardiac Cell Physiology Lab
• Center for Education and Development
• Center for Health Ethics
• Center for Health Policy
• Center for Medical Epidemiology and Population Health (CMEPH)
• Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
• Center for Precision Medicine
• Child Health Research Institute
• Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center
• Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory
• Cosmopolitan International Diabetes Center
• Craniofacial Research Center
• Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center
• Electron Microscopy Core Facility
• Ellis Fischel Cancer Center
• Fay Research Lab
• Functional Assessment Screening Team
• Health Informatics in Diabetes Research (HIDR) Core
• Health Intervention and Treatment Research Lab
• Immunity & Autoimmunity Research Lab
• International Institute of Nano and Molecular Medicine
• Lei Research Lab
• Microcirculation Laboratory
• Missouri Orthopaedic Bioskills Laboratory
• Mizzou OneHealth Biorepository
• Mizzou Sleep Research Lab
• MU Center for Translational Neuroscience
• MU Student Health Center
• MU Surgical Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (MUSCORE)
• Narrative Medicine and Health Innovation Lab
• Pulmonary Imaging Research Lab
• Rural Health Research Center
• Shelden Clinical Simulation Center
• Subramanian Research Lab
• Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment
• Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics

Happenings at MU School of Medicine

Stories that inspire.

Alumni Spotlight: Jennifer Hsu, MD ‘05 and Benson Hsu, MD ‘05

University of Missouri Partnering with State to Address Childhood Immunizations

Ellis Fischel Cancer Center celebrates 2024 Cancer Research Day

COVID-19 Virus Could Damage Vision

See All News

Columbia, MO 65212 Contact

Emergency Information

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Copyright © 2023 — Curators of the University of Missouri . All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information . Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action/Pro Disabled & Veteran Employer . For website issues, contact MU Health Care Communications . Contact the MU School of Medicine .

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Book Review
• Published: 01 November 2001

Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research

• Judith K Blackshaw 1  

Heredity volume  87 ,  page 609 ( 2001 ) Cite this article

2124 Accesses

Metrics details

Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research.

E. F. Paul and J. Paul. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, USA. 2001. Pp. 224. Price $49.95, hardback. ISBN 0-7658-0025-X

This thought-provoking book comes out of the Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation, an independent corporation established to promote advanced research in political philosophy and in philosophical analysis of public policy questions. The use of animals for medical research is being threatened by animal rights activists who propose severe restrictions or abolition of experimental work.

In their essays, the eleven American authors challenge many flawed perceptions promoted by animal rights groups. These include misrepresentation of historical facts, and the contributions to human and animal health, by the use of experimental animals. Fortunately, activists efforts so far have not slowed down progress of biomedical and pharmacological research. In much of the world with epidemiological and nutritional challenges any animal activist agenda to shut down or hinder animal research is, as one author comments “fanatical, even suicidal”. Several authors go further and argue that to deny much of the world's population hope for vaccines and other medical cures is inhumanity towards humans.

Some animal rights groups concede that applied research is justifiable but that basic research should be prohibited. As the author of one essay points out, this view jeopardises both the advancement of knowledge and the remediation of human disease.

The question is raised of how human and animal interests can be balanced. The European view gives greater significance to animal interests than the American approach. However, both are closer to the human-priority view than either the UK or German statutes, which are more towards equality in human and animal interests.

Several authors argue from the evolutionary perspective in defending animal experimentation. They suggest that to disallow the acquisition of medical and agricultural knowledge would be a maladaptive strategy, that may endanger human survival. The philosophical bases of the animal rights groups are discussed and the reader is required to carefully follow often unfamiliar arguments. However the end result is well worthwhile.

At the end of the book's introduction the hope is expressed that, ‘these essays will advance public debate on this vital issue.’ It is hard to imagine that the general public will read such a book, but hopefully the scientists and students who carry out animal based research will use the arguments when explaining and justifying their research.

There is a useful index and I found the endnotes for each chapter interesting. I would have liked an alphabetical list of literature references at the end of the book.

It becomes evident after reading this book that animal rights movements are only sustainable in affluent societies. It is the responsibility of these societies to work towards the alleviation of diseases, which much of the world suffers. This book should be welcomed by the research communities in all countries where animal based research is conducted.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Veterinary Science The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia

Judith K Blackshaw

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Blackshaw, J. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Heredity 87 , 609 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.0809a.x

Download citation

Published : 01 November 2001

Issue Date : 01 November 2001

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.0809a.x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Research & Innovation Office

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

• Regulatory Charge
• Governing Principles
• Regulatory Documents
• Institutional Official
• Committee Membership
• Member Sign In
• Submit & Maintain Protocols
• Criteria of Review
• Help Submitting Protocols
• Finding Models & Alternatives
• Research with Client-Owned Animals
• Research Involving Surgery
• Responding to Committee Stipulations
• Requesting Changes
• Inspections
• Animal Use Guidelines & Exceptions
• Mandatory Training
• Optional Training
• Recordkeeping
• Ethics of Animal Use in Research

Jump to: 

Laws & Regulations

Reporting concerns, other guidelines.

• Pain & Distress  

The use of animals in research, teaching and testing is a controversial ethical and political issue. Much of the discussion about this issue revolves around the relative value, often referred to as 'moral value', of humans and animals. When the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precedence? Today there exists a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerned with animal 'rights' to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. All of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use. These in turn have shaped animal use regulations promulgated by the USDA and the Public Health Service, and reinforced by organizations such as AAALAC , AALAS and the AVMA .

Current legislation also recognizes that there are diverse viewpoints about the moral value of animals. Thus, all live animal use in research, teaching or testing must be reviewed by a committee (the IACUC) with diverse membership. This evaluation includes an emphasis on minimizing the overall use of animals.

Proposals for animal use are reviewed based on the potential for learning new information, or for teaching skills or concepts that cannot be obtained using an alternative. There are provisions for ensuring that animal use is performed in as humane a manner as possible, minimizing pain, distress or discomfort. These provisions include a requirement for a veterinarian to be employed at each institution, so that the needs of the animals are looked after by someone trained in, and sympathetic toward animals' needs. It is also required that all personnel with animal contact be trained in appropriate handling techniques and that they be skilled in any experimental procedures that will be performed. Finally, basic husbandry requirements are specified, ensuring that an animal's food, water and shelter will be provided for in an optimal manner. Deviations from the numerous requirements are granted by the IACUC only if adequate scientific justification is given that the proposed experiment is scientifically and socially important, and that any methods to alleviate pain or distress would frustrate the experimental objectives.

Animals have been used throughout history for anatomical and physiological research as well as for testing new medications and toxic substances. Many medical advances, including vaccines for polio and rabies, the development of certain antibiotics, cancer treating agents and transplant medicines, have been developed thanks to the use of animals in research.

The use of animals in research is a privilege and not a right. A research institution that receives money and support from the public is responsible for conducting research humanely and responsibly according to the limits set by society and regulatory bodies.  

Animal Welfare Act

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966. This act licenses dealers, exhibitors and breeders of animals, regulates research facilities that use animals, sets standards for the humane care and treatment of animals, and regulates the transportation of animals. The Act has been amended multiple times adding further protections for animals covered by the Act. The AWA specifically exempts birds, mice, rats, amphibians and reptiles used in research as well as agricultural animals that are used for agricultural production.

The United States Department of Agriculture is the government agency that is responsible for the enforcement of this act. Facilities must submit an annual report to the USDA. The USDA conducts unannounced inspections of research facilities at least once a year. If violations of the Act are found, fines can be imposed or research activities can be stopped.

Public Health Service Policy

The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is based on the United States Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training. This policy covers all research that is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) using vertebrate species of animals including birds, mice, and rats.

Institutions covered by this policy must follow the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (see below) and annually submit a written document called an Animal Welfare Assurance to NIH, which documents how the institution is complying with all the regulations covering animals used in research. The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) at NIH is the agency that is responsible for enforcement of the PHS policy.

Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals ("The Guide"), first developed in 1963, is a manual for research facilities receiving public funding for research using animals. The latest (2011) version of the Guide , sets specific standards for the care and use of laboratory animals. It addresses institutional responsibilities, husbandry and housing standards, veterinary care and physical plant specifications. It is written by experts in laboratory animal care and is published by the National Research Council.

AAALAC stands for the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. This is an independent (non-government) and voluntary accreditation organization. AAALAC accredits laboratory animal facilities through a process of intensive inspections (every 3 years) and reports (yearly). AAALAC follows the high standards put forth in the Guide. Accreditation, while voluntary, represents commitment to excellence in animal care and is an important factor to many funding agencies.

University of Minnesota Policy

The Regents Policy on Animal Care and Use addresses the use of all animals in research, teaching or display at the University of Minnesota. This policy follows from the federal and other laws and regulations. It addresses the roles and responsibilities of the Institutional Official, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), Research Animal Resources, and the University Community.

The Institutional Official (IO) is appointed by the University President and reports directly to him/her as well as to the federal authorities regarding compliance with all laws and regulations governing the use of laboratory animals in research and teaching. The President has formally delegated responsibility to appoint IACUC members to the Institutional Official.

The IACUC, which is a committee mandated by the AWA and the PHS policy, reviews and approves all activities involving animals at the University of Minnesota. The AWA and PHS policy have specific membership requirements for the committee. There must be at least:

• one veterinarian (with laboratory animal background and programmatic responsibility at the institution),
• one member of the community (non-affiliated member to represent the public interest),
• one scientist who uses animals in research, and
• one non-scientist member.

University policy states that the committee should have at least 5 members, but the committee has many members, including several student members and ex-officio representatives from Occupational Health & Safety and the Department of Environmental Health and Safety.

The committee reviews all animal care and use protocols to ensure:

• that the use of animals is necessary to achieve the stated objectives,
• that pain and distress is minimized, and
• that all the laws and policies for the use of animals are followed.

The committee also ensures the humane care of animals through the inspection of animal housing and use facilities twice a year and by investigating any complaints made regarding animal use. The committee is also responsible for reporting any instances of non-compliance and recommending corrective action.

Research Animal Resources (RAR) is designated by University policy as the program that provides the housing and husbandry as well as the veterinary care for the laboratory animals on the Twin Cities campus. They are also designated to serve as a consultation resource for the care and use of animals in research and teaching.

University policy also lists the roles and responsibilities of the University community. The University researchers and staff are to be appropriately trained and qualified to conduct activities with animals and are to abide by the decisions of the University and the IACUC.  

For serious questions or concerns about animal welfare, the process of review, or about committee decisions, contact:

Shashank Priya Institutional Official (612) 624-5054 [email protected]

Joanne Billings Deputy Institutional Official (612) 624-0999 [email protected]

You may also report animal welfare concerns or policy violations via the University of Minnesota's reporting system.  The UReport provides a way for University community members to report violations of rules, regulations and policies. The report can be made anonymously.

Note that, by federal law, no facility employee, Committee member, or laboratory personnel shall be discriminated against or be subject to any reprisal for reporting violations of any regulation or standards.  

Agricultural

The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching is a text published by the Federation of Animal Sciences Societies. This Guide addresses standards for agricultural animal husbandry, housing and veterinary care. It does not apply to agricultural animals used for biomedical type research or teaching.

The standards are slightly different than those listed in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. For example, cage space requirements may differ slightly between the two texts. Although this text is not regulatory, the University uses its provisions and principles as the basis for its care and use programs involving animals used for production or agricultural research.

There are several references available for the use of fish , amphibians and mammals in wildlife research . Again, these documents are not regulatory documents but are excellent references for the care and handling of these animals.  

Pain & Distress

The AWA defines a painful procedure in an animal as: "any procedure that would reasonably be expected to cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress in a human being to which that procedure was applied, that is, pain in excess of that caused by injections or other minor procedures." Pain can be acute, short lived - or chronic, lasting a long time. The signs manifesting acute or chronic pain may differ and may be different in different species. Prey species of animals can be adept at hiding signs of pain or illness and may be more difficult to assess discomfort.

Signs of Acute Pain in Animals

• vocalization
• attempts to escape the stimulus
• aggressive responses
• increased heart and respiratory rates
• anorexia or shaking

Signs of Chronic Pain

• weight loss
• poor or unkempt hair coats
• depression or lethargy
• general debilitation

Distress is currently defined as "a state in which an animal cannot escape from or adapt to the external or internal stressors or conditions it experiences resulting in negative effects upon its well being…" Distress differs from stress, which is a physiological reaction that can lead to an adaptive response.

Principle IV of the US Government Principles states that unless the contrary is established, the assumption must be made that a procedure that causes pain or distress in a human being will cause pain and distress in an animal.

Alternatives

Current regulations stress the need to search for and utilize alternatives to procedures on animals that cause more than momentary pain or distress. The concept of the three "R"s has been used when thinking about alternatives to animal use. This concept was developed in 1959 by Russell and Burch in their book: The Principles of Humane Animal Experimental Techniques.

The three "R"s are Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Investigators at the University of Minnesota, who use animals that may undergo more than momentary pain or distress, should consider the three “R”s when conducting procedures which may be painful or distressful.

Replacement of animals with other systems may be an option. Computer modeling or in vitro testing may be a substitute for animal models. "Lower" or non-vertebrate animals, such as the fruit fly may be used in some situations rather than a higher order animal.

Reduction of the number of animals used for research is also an important concept. This is done mostly through experimental design and the use of statistics. The use of too few animals could result in statistically invalid results, which could necessitate the use of even more animals in subsequent experiments. Pilot studies to help determine statistical parameters can sometimes assist in determination of group sizes. Reduction of pain and distress may also actually require the use of more animals so that repeated procedures are not conducted on the same animal.

Refinement refers to methods that decrease the amount of pain and distress experienced by the animals that are actually needed to perform an experiment. This is not only done through the use of pain relieving measures such as anesthetics and analgesics whenever possible, but also through environmental enrichment.

The use of early endpoints can also be a form of refinement. For instance if an animal were to suffer from an early indicator of disease or a tumor reaches a certain measurable size, this could be used as the endpoint. The animals should be humanely euthanized at this point rather than waiting until the death of the animal.

For more examples of replacement/reduction/refinement and searches for alternatives, see IACUC's web page, “Finding Models and Alternatives”.

Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research

Richard R. Sharp, PhD Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Baylor College of Medicine

Historical Perspectives

The use of animals in biomedical research has a lengthy history. Early Greek writings (circa 500 B.C.), for example, describe the dissection of living animals by physician-scientists interested in physiological processes. These early vivisections appear to have been done mostly for exploratory purposes, however, to describe the inner workings of animals. Later, Roman physicians--including perhaps the single most influential figure in the emergence of the medical sciences, the physician Galen--began to perform what we would now regard as the first genuine experiments involving animals. Using vivisections to test specific hypotheses and explore competing explanations of biological phenomena, these early physician-researcher were among the first advocates of the idea that the use of animals in research was morally justifiable in light of the potential health benefits associated with those experiments.

Beginning with Galen, animal vivisection quickly emerged as an important tool for the study of anatomical structures and their functioning. Remarkably, Galen’s teachings on human anatomy, which were widely used by physicians and scientists for nearly 1500 years, were derived from animal dissections and external examinations of the human body--he conducted no human autopsies. Later, as modern scientific principles were increasingly incorporated into the study of human physiology, physician-researchers such as Andrea Vesalius and William Harvey continued to employ animal vivisection in their investigations of the functioning of various anatomical structures, particularly the heart and lungs.

Throughout this historical period, few philosophical or moral objections were voiced regarding the use of animals in biomedical studies. This is perhaps surprising for two reasons. First, anesthetics were poorly understood and rarely used in animal vivisections. Second, the medical benefits of using animals in research were at best ambiguous during this period. Although both of these considerations would appear to argue strongly against the use of animals in research, there was clear moral consensus that the practice of animal vivisection was not unethical.

A Changing Moral Landscape

In the early and mid 19th century, this moral consensus becomes less clear. The availability of general anesthetics and the increasingly popularity of domestic pets (particularly in England), fueled anti-vivisection sentiments. By 1865, these reformist sentiments had become strong enough to prompt a response by the medical establishment. In his work, Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine , Claude Bernard was among the first to advance a moral argument in support of the use of animals in research. Arguing that the sacrifice of animals lives was essential to the advancement of medicine, and thus the relief of human suffering and extension of human life, Bernard argued that animal experimentation was ethically acceptable.

Changes in moral philosophy around that time, however, made Bernard’s argument less compelling than it might have been were it introduced a generation earlier. In the early modern period, prevailing metaphysical beliefs about non-human animals included the Cartesian notion that animals were non-sentient automatons incapable of experiencing pain or pleasure. Only human beings were endowed with these special capacities, which they possessed in virtue of the fact that they had souls (which animals lacked). However, the emergence of utilitarianism as an influential moral paradigm called this perspective into question. Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham questioned whether animals truly lacked the capacity to experience pain or pleasure. In addition, Bentham argued that this capacity was a defining feature of membership in the moral community. For him, all pain and suffering was important in the assessment of the moral righteousness of an action, including pain and suffering that might be experienced by animals. If an action maximized good (pleasure) and minimized harm (pain), to the fullest extent possible, then that action was morally correct. If not, then the action was subject to moral disapproval.

As the Cartesian paradigm became more suspect and moral sentiments became increasingly more concerned with the minimization of pain and promotion of pleasure, including the minimization of animal suffering, defenders of animal experimentation were increasingly more subject to public scrutiny. In 1875, the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection emerged as an important force in the anti-vivisection movement. In the following year, the public reform campaign initiated by this organization was successful in establishing the first regulations governing the use of animals in biomedical research, the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. Although it did not prohibit all animal vivisection, this Act did require the use of anesthetics for many types of animal experimentation.

The passing of the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 was not altogether successful in answering the concerns of advocates on behalf of animal interests. Further support for the use of animals in research would come shortly thereafter, however, with advances in immunology and the study of infectious disease. The use of animals in the development of a vaccine for rabies and in the treatment of diphtheria provided compelling evidence of the health benefits associated with animal experimentation. These breakthrough accomplishments demonstrated in a manner that had not been possible before that time, that the use of animals in modern medical research could result in significant improvements in human health. Animal experimentation was now seen in a much less ambiguous way as a critically important tool in the war against human (and animal) disease.

Contemporary Themes

In the mid to late 20th century, other moral perspectives on the use of animals in research have emerged. Critics of animal experimentation, for example, increasingly stress the potential harms that might befall researchers involved in performing such studies. These critics maintain that moral sentiments can be deadened by persistent exposure to animal suffering. According to these critics, it is but a short step from feeling morally comfortable with the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on a non-human animal to being morally comfortable with the infliction of pain and suffering on another human being.

Another argument that has emerged as increasingly more important to moral assessments of the use of animals in research begins with recognition of a sense of fraternity among all living things. It now appears that most animals have a variety of psychological experiences, including experiences that might be referred to as experiences of pain, pleasure, and other emotional states. If comparable human psychological states are important for the assessment of an action’s moral acceptability, then why is it the case that animal experiences should be treated differently?

These considerations have been used to suggest that dismissing these animal experiences as morally irrelevant, without providing a principled reason for such differential treatment, amounts to a form of "speciesism". Like racism or sexism, "speciesism" is intended to evoke the idea that it is morally indefensible to treat members of an entire category differently solely because they are members of that category. Rather, there must be some reason for treating those individuals differently. Thus, the challenge put forward by those critics of animal experimentation who appeal to speciesism is to provide substantive criteria for regarding animals as less-than-full-fledged members of the moral community. Lacking such substantive criteria, these critics claim that the use of animals in medical research is morally indefensible.

The appeal to speciesism is different from many of the arguments discussed above in an important way, namely, this new appeal is a rights-based argument. The claim is that animals possess cognitive faculties generally associated with membership in the moral community. Until it can be established that there are certain capacities that animals lack, and that other members of the moral community possess, animals should be treated as full-fledged members of that moral community--and with membership comes various moral rights.

This perspective stands in contrast to utilitarian-based appeals which may consider the experiences of animals in the assessment of the moral acceptability of animal experimentation. Although utilitarian perspectives frequently maintain that animal experiences are morally significant, and that animal pain and suffering should be factored into our moral assessments, utilitarians typically do not assert that animals have moral rights in the way envisioned by those who appeal to speciesism. Put in a slightly different way, anti-speciesists maintain that all animal experimentation is morally objectionable because it violates the inherent rights of the animal subject; in contrast, utilitarians maintain that some animal experimentation may be morally permissible because, on balance, the potential benefits of the research in question outweigh the potential harms to animal subjects (provided these harms have been minimized to the full extent possible).

Looking Ahead

Although moral debate regarding the use of animals in medical research continues to evolve, three main themes appear increasingly more prominent. First, the rise of radical animal-rights organizations like the Animal Liberation Front suggests that there is a small enclave of passionate individuals committed to the idea that all animal research is inherently unethical. How best to respond to those persons who are not persuaded by appeals to the potential health benefits of animal experimentation has been, and will remain, an important consideration for those research who advocate such practices.

Second, although detailed regulations governing the use of animals in research have been in place for several decades (see How to Work With Your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ), many have expressed dissatisfaction regarding institutional commitments to upholding these regulations. The extent to which outside community representatives are adequately represented in institutional deliberations, for example, has been the subject of some controversy. Others question whether researchers pay enough attention to the justification of the increasing numbers of experimental animals required to conduct biomedical studies. As more federal and private funds are used to support medical research involving the use of animals, this concern will likely become more salient to the lay public (many of whom are unaware of the millions of animals sacrificed each year in animal experiments).

Finally, it is important to remind ourselves that several decades worth of experience with current regulations regarding the use of animals in biomedical research has produced a strong moral consensus for these practices. Researchers who fail to comply with those regulations should expect to be judged by their peers as unprofessional, to be subject to various institutional sanctions, and more generally, to face significant moral disapproval. Consequently, a third emergent theme in the evolution of moral discussions regarding animal experimentation will likely be the importance of increased regulatory vigilance and attention to matters of institutional compliance.

Study Questions

1. Sharp mentions the increasing popularity of domesticated pets as one factor in the emergence of anti-vivisectionist sentiments in England. Do you think biomedical research with cats and dogs should be held to higher ethical standards because these animals are kept as pets? Why or why not?

2. Suppose you are a member of an IACUC asked to review a study of the carcinogenic potential of a widely used pesticide. In their application the investigators estimate that approximately 1500 rodents will be required to produce definitive results. Several members of the committee express concerns about the high number of animals requested for the study. Apart from statistical considerations, what other factors should be used to determine the number of experimental animals that it is appropriate to use in biomedical research studies?

3. What types of people do you think should serve on IACUC's? Should an effort be made to include animal rights activists as members? What are some of the advantages and problems with this approach?

4. Many pet owners/keepers describe relationships with their pets in terms of "love", "friendship", "loyalty", and so forth. Do you think the ability to love or befriend another could be used to determine which types of animals can be used as (involuntary) subjects of biomedical research?

5. Suppose it is discovered that a graduate student is mistreating experimental mice by not euthanizing them in a timely manner (and allowing those animals to experience an unacceptably high level of pain). What would be appropriate punishment for this behavior? How about for a second or third offense? Would it matter if the offender was a university professor and not a graduate student? Why or why not?

© 2004, Richard R. Sharp

share this!

May 27, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

written by researcher(s)

Animals self-medicate with plants—a behavior people have observed and emulated for millennia

by Adrienne Mayor, The Conversation

When a wild orangutan in Sumatra recently suffered a facial wound, apparently after fighting with another male, he did something that caught the attention of the scientists observing him.

The animal chewed the leaves of a liana vine —a plant not normally eaten by apes. Over several days, the orangutan carefully applied the juice to its wound, then covered it with a paste of chewed-up liana. The wound healed with only a faint scar. The tropical plant he selected has antibacterial and antioxidant properties and is known to alleviate pain, fever, bleeding and inflammation.

The striking story was picked up by media worldwide. In interviews and in their research paper , the scientists stated that this is "the first systematically documented case of active wound treatment by a wild animal " with a biologically active plant. The discovery will "provide new insights into the origins of human wound care."

To me, the behavior of the orangutan sounded familiar. As a historian of ancient science who investigates what Greeks and Romans knew about plants and animals, I was reminded of similar cases reported by Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, Aelian and other naturalists from antiquity. A remarkable body of accounts from ancient to medieval times describes self-medication by many different animals. The animals used plants to treat illness, repel parasites, neutralize poisons and heal wounds.

The term zoopharmacognosy—"animal medicine knowledge"—was invented in 1987. But as the Roman natural historian Pliny pointed out 2,000 years ago, many animals have made medical discoveries useful for humans. Indeed, a large number of medicinal plants used in modern drugs were first discovered by Indigenous peoples and past cultures who observed animals employing plants and emulated them.

What you can learn by watching animals

Some of the earliest written examples of animal self-medication appear in Aristotle's " History of Animals " from the fourth century BCE, such as the well-known habit of dogs to eat grass when ill, probably for purging and deworming.

Aristotle also noted that after hibernation, bears seek wild garlic as their first food. It is rich in vitamin C, iron and magnesium, healthful nutrients after a long winter's nap. The Latin name reflects this folk belief: Allium ursinum translates to "bear lily," and the common name in many other languages refers to bears.

Pliny explained how the use of dittany , also known as wild oregano, to treat arrow wounds arose from watching wounded stags grazing on the herb. Aristotle and Dioscorides credited wild goats with the discovery. Vergil, Cicero, Plutarch, Solinus, Celsus and Galen claimed that dittany has the ability to expel an arrowhead and close the wound. Among dittany's many known phytochemical properties are antiseptic, anti-inflammatory and coagulating effects.

According to Pliny, deer also knew an antidote for toxic plants: wild artichokes . The leaves relieve nausea and stomach cramps and protect the liver. To cure themselves of spider bites, Pliny wrote, deer ate crabs washed up on the beach, and sick goats did the same. Notably, crab shells contain chitosan , which boosts the immune system.

When elephants accidentally swallowed chameleons hidden on green foliage, they ate olive leaves, a natural antibiotic to combat salmonella harbored by lizards . Pliny said ravens eat chameleons, but then ingest bay leaves to counter the lizards' toxicity. Antibacterial bay leaves relieve diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress. Pliny noted that blackbirds, partridges, jays and pigeons also eat bay leaves for digestive problems.

Weasels were said to roll in the evergreen plant rue to counter wounds and snakebites. Fresh rue is toxic. Its medical value is unclear, but the dried plant is included in many traditional folk medicines. Swallows collect another toxic plant, celandine , to make a poultice for their chicks' eyes. Snakes emerging from hibernation rub their eyes on fennel. Fennel bulbs contain compounds that promote tissue repair and immunity.

According to the naturalist Aelian , who lived in the third century BCE, the Egyptians traced much of their medical knowledge to the wisdom of animals. Aelian described elephants treating spear wounds with olive flowers and oil . He also mentioned storks, partridges and turtledoves crushing oregano leaves and applying the paste to wounds.

The study of animals' remedies continued in the Middle Ages. An example from the 12th-century English compendium of animal lore, the Aberdeen Bestiary , tells of bears coating sores with mullein . Folk medicine prescribes this flowering plant to soothe pain and heal burns and wounds, thanks to its anti-inflammatory chemicals.

Ibn al-Durayhim's 14th-century manuscript " The Usefulness of Animals " reported that swallows healed nestlings' eyes with turmeric , another anti-inflammatory. He also noted that wild goats chew and apply sphagnum moss to wounds, just as the Sumatran orangutan did with liana. Sphagnum moss dressings neutralize bacteria and combat infection.

Nature's pharmacopeia

Of course, these premodern observations were folk knowledge, not formal science. But the stories reveal long-term observation and imitation of diverse animal species self-doctoring with bioactive plants. Just as traditional Indigenous ethnobotany is leading to lifesaving drugs today, scientific testing of the ancient and medieval claims could lead to discoveries of new therapeutic plants.

Animal self-medication has become a rapidly growing scientific discipline. Observers report observations of animals, from birds and rats to porcupines and chimpanzees , deliberately employing an impressive repertoire of medicinal substances. One surprising observation is that finches and sparrows collect cigarette butts . The nicotine kills mites in bird nests. Some veterinarians even allow ailing dogs, horses and other domestic animals to choose their own prescriptions by sniffing various botanical compounds.

Mysteries remain . No one knows how animals sense which plants cure sickness, heal wounds, repel parasites or otherwise promote health. Are they intentionally responding to particular health crises? And how is their knowledge transmitted? What we do know is that we humans have been learning healing secrets by watching animals self-medicate for millennia.

Provided by The Conversation

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Saturday Citations: The sound of music, sneaky birds, better training for LLMs. Plus: Diversity improves research

4 hours ago

Study investigates a massive 'spider' pulsar

5 hours ago

Greener, more effective termite control: Natural compound attracts wood eaters

7 hours ago

Shear genius: Researchers find way to scale up wonder material, which could do wonders for the Earth

New vestiges of the first life on Earth discovered in Saudi Arabia

21 hours ago

Mussels downstream of wastewater treatment plant contain radium, study reports

23 hours ago

A new way to see viruses in action: Super-resolution microscopy provides a nano-scale look

Martian meteorites deliver a trove of information on red planet's structure

New imager acquires amplitude and phase information without digital processing

May 31, 2024

AI helps scientists understand cosmic explosions

Relevant physicsforums posts, commercial scintillator solutions and clinical deployments, a dna animation.

May 29, 2024

Probability, genetic disorder related

May 28, 2024

Looking For Today's DNA Knowledge

Covid vaccines reducing infections, human sperm, egg cells mass-generated using ips.

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

First report of wound treatment by a wild animal using a pain-relieving plant

May 2, 2024

Chimpanzees rub insects on open wounds: Treating others may not be uniquely human

Feb 10, 2022

Treating wounds with insects: the strange habits of Gabon chimps

Feb 13, 2022

How plants heal wounds: Mechanical forces guide direction of cell division

Apr 4, 2024

Snail mucus yields natural adhesive for wound healing

Feb 3, 2023

Orangutans, like people, use medicinal plants to treat joint and muscle inflammation

Jan 10, 2018

Recommended for you

This tiny fern has the largest genome of any organism on Earth

Scientists map biodiversity changes in the world's forests

Jumping spider study finds offspring care extends lifespan of mothers

The missing puzzle piece: A striking new snake species from the Arabian Peninsula

May 30, 2024

Trout in mine-polluted rivers are genetically 'isolated,' new study shows

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

TechBullion

Biomimicry in action: how animals are driving breakthroughs in medical devices.

In the ever-evolving world of medical technology, nature has become an unexpected source of inspiration. From the wings of birds to the skin of sharks, animals are driving groundbreaking innovations in medical device design through biomimicry. Join us as we explore how these natural adaptations are shaping the future of healthcare and revolutionizing patient care.

Biomimicry and its Importance in Medical Devices

Biomimicry, also known as biomimetics, is the practice of looking towards nature for inspiration in design, engineering, and innovation. It involves studying and understanding the strategies, processes, and systems used by living organisms to survive and thrive in their environments. By mimicking these natural designs, scientists and engineers are able to create innovative solutions that address complex challenges in various industries.

One of the fields where biomimicry has shown significant potential is medical devices. Medical devices play a crucial role in supporting healthcare professionals in diagnosing, treating, and managing various medical conditions. With advancements in technology and materials science, medical devices have evolved to become more sophisticated and effective. However, many challenges still exist when it comes to creating safe, durable, efficient, biocompatible devices.

This is where biomimicry comes into play – by drawing inspiration from nature’s genius designs and adaptations over millions of years of evolution. The principles behind biomimicry can be applied to improve medical device design and development processes significantly.

Biological structures such as bones or shells have inspired designers to create durable materials with similar properties for prosthetics or surgical implants. For example, researchers have looked at how sea snail shells self-repair damage using proteins called “intracrystalline macromolecules.” By incorporating this concept into synthetic materials used for implantable medical devices like bone screws or joint replacements could potentially reduce complications associated with these procedures.

Another area where biomimicry has been successfully applied is improving fluid dynamics within medical equipment such as catheters or stents by studying marine creatures like sharks’ hydrodynamic bodies. Their unique skin structure reduces drag caused by friction between water molecules when swimming at high speeds. This same idea can be applied to catheters reducing the risk of blockages during insertion through blood vessels.

Not only does biomimicry offer potential solutions to design and functionality issues, but it also provides opportunities to create more biocompatible and sustainable medical devices. For instance, silk-based fibers inspired by spider webs have shown promise in promoting tissue growth and regeneration in wound healing and tissue engineering applications.

Examples of Animal-Inspired Medical Devices (e.g. Gecko-inspired bandages, Owl-inspired hearing aids)

Nature has long been a source of inspiration for human innovation, and the field of medical devices is no exception. Biomimicry, the practice of taking inspiration from nature to solve human problems, is rapidly advancing the development of new and improved medical devices. In this section, we will take a closer look at some animal-inspired medical devices that are revolutionizing healthcare.

1) Gecko-Inspired Bandages: One of the most well-known examples of biomimicry in medical devices is the gecko-inspired bandage. Researchers have long been intrigued by the incredible adhesive properties of gecko feet, which allow them to effortlessly climb vertical surfaces. This same technology has now been applied in the form of a bandage that mimics the microscopic structures on gecko feet to create a strong yet gentle adhesive. These bandages are particularly useful for patients with delicate or sensitive skin, as they provide a secure hold without causing irritation or damage.

2) Owl-Inspired Hearing Aids: Owls are known for their remarkable ability to hear and pinpoint prey with precision. Scientists have used this as inspiration for developing hearing aids that mimic the unique structure of owl ears. These hearing aids use two directional microphones placed at different angles to capture sound from multiple sources and amplify it selectively. This allows wearers to filter out background noise and focus on specific sounds they want to hear, making them ideal for noisy environments.

3) Butterfly Wing-Inspired Drug Delivery System: The mesmerizing patterns on butterfly wings not only serve an aesthetic purpose but also play an essential role in regulating temperature and moisture levels on their surface. Taking cues from this natural mechanism, researchers have developed a drug delivery system inspired by these tiny structures on butterfly wings called ‘nano-mushrooms’. These mushrooms can be loaded with drugs and precisely target cancer cells while minimizing side effects on healthy cells.

4) Shark Skin-Inspired Antibacterial Coatings: Sharks have been on this planet for millions of years, thanks in part to their unique ability to resist bacterial infections. Scientists have studied the rough surface of shark skin and developed a special coating that mimics its texture. This coating can be applied to medical devices, such as catheters and implants, to prevent bacteria from attaching and potentially causing infection.

How Animals Have Evolved Unique Adaptations for Survival – and How We Can Use Them in Technology

One of the most fascinating aspects of nature is how animals have evolved unique adaptations that enable them to survive in their specific environments. From speedy cheetahs to deep-diving whales, each species has developed specialized traits and abilities that allow them to thrive in their respective habitats.

But what if we could harness these adaptations for our own benefit? This is where biomimicry comes into play – the concept of using nature as a source of inspiration for technology and design. By studying the intricate solutions that animals have evolved over millions of years, scientists and engineers are able to develop breakthroughs in various industries, including medicine.

In the field of medical devices, biomimicry has led to innovations that have revolutionized treatments and improved patient outcomes. For example, researchers closely studied the wings of dragonflies – known for their exceptional flying abilities – and were inspired by their structure and flexibility. This ultimately led to the development of micro-needle delivery systems for vaccines and medications, reducing pain and improving accuracy in drug delivery.

Another remarkable adaptation found in nature is the ability of geckos to climb vertical surfaces with ease. Their incredible grip strength comes from tiny hair-like structures on their feet called setae. Scientists were able to mimic this structure by creating adhesive materials modeled after these natural setae, leading to advancements in surgical tools such as microneedles used in delicate procedures.

The animal kingdom also offers lessons on how to create materials with extraordinary properties. For instance, spider silk – known for its impressive strength and elasticity – has been mimicked by researchers developing new types of sutures used in surgery. Additionally, studying sea cucumbers’ ability to rapidly heal themselves when injured has led scientists towards creating wound-healing materials that can improve healing time in humans.

The Role of Biologists in Collaborating with Engineers for Product Development

The field of biomimicry, or the imitation of nature’s designs and processes in solving human problems, has gained significant traction in the medical device industry. One key aspect of this approach involves collaboration between biologists and engineers for product development. Biologists play a crucial role in this process, providing valuable insights and expertise drawn from their understanding of living organisms.

To begin with, biologists bring an intricate knowledge of different animal species to the table. They study how animals function in their natural habitats, their anatomies, behaviors, and adaptive features that allow them to survive and thrive in their environments. By examining the inner workings of various species, biologists can identify potential solutions for complex medical challenges faced by humans. For instance, studying the gecko’s ability to climb vertical surfaces led researchers to create synthetic adhesives that mimic its unique toe pads for use in surgical tools.

Moreover, biologists also have a deep understanding of physiological systems and processes at both macroscopic and microscopic levels. This knowledge is essential when developing medical devices that interact with the human body as it enables them to create devices that are compatible with biological systems. For example, studying the human cardiovascular system inspired engineers to design stents that mimic blood vessel structures for more effective treatment of heart disease.

Collaboration with biologists also allows engineers to tap into centuries of evolutionary iterations perfected by nature. Through this partnership, they can draw on millions of years’ worth of research and development done by different species that have evolved specific adaptations suited for survival in varying conditions. By mimicking these features through biomimicry techniques such as bio-inspired design or biomaterials engineering, innovators can develop high-performing medical devices rooted in sound biological principles.

Furthermore, collaboration with biologists ensures ethical considerations are taken into account during product development. They bring perspectives on animal welfare issues vital for ensuring responsible biomimicry practices are followed throughout the research process.

Ethical Considerations and Limitations of Biomimicry in Medical Devices

Ethical considerations and limitations are important aspects to consider when applying biomimicry in the field of medical devices. While nature has provided us with endless inspiration and solutions, it is crucial to also consider the potential consequences and boundaries that come with mimicking natural processes.

One ethical consideration is ensuring the well-being and ethical treatment of animals involved in studying their biological structures for medical device innovation. It is essential to obtain appropriate permissions, licenses, or approvals before using animal specimens for research purposes. This process involves adhering to strict regulations and guidelines set by ethical review boards and animal welfare organizations.

Additionally, there may be concerns regarding the cultural significance and sacredness of certain animal species that could be used as models for medical devices. It is vital to respect these cultural beliefs and avoid causing any harm or offense through biomimicry practices.

Furthermore, as with any technology or innovation, there is always a risk of unintended consequences when implementing biomimetic designs into medical devices. For instance, some researchers have raised concerns about possible ecological disturbances if a popular species becomes over-collected due to its use in biomimetic design research.

Another limitation of biomimicry in medical devices is accessibility and affordability. Some natural structures may not be easily reproduced or mass-produced at an affordable cost, making it challenging to apply them in commercial medical devices. This issue highlights the need for continuous collaboration between biologists, engineers, designers, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies to ensure practicality in terms of manufacturing costs while maintaining ethical standards throughout the development process.

There are also practical limitations related to technical expertise required for implementing complex biological systems into functional medical devices successfully. Biomimetic designs involve intricate mechanisms that require specialized skills from different disciplines such as biology, engineering, computer science, materials science, and more. Therefore it is essential to foster multidisciplinary collaborations in order achieve successful outcomes while minimizing limitations.

Future Possibilities and Potential Impact on Healthcare

One major area where biomimicry is making its mark is in the development of medical devices. From bandages inspired by gecko feet to surgical tools modeled after a cheetah’s movements, these innovations are showcasing the endless possibilities of biomimicry in action.

In terms of future possibilities, the potential for biomimetic devices seems limitless. For instance, scientists are currently looking at ways to create joints with increased flexibility and durability by mimicking the structure and mechanics of bird feathers. This could greatly benefit patients suffering from joint injuries or diseases such as arthritis.

Another promising application includes developing artificial organs using 3D printing techniques and structures inspired by marine sponges. These organs would not only be more efficient and cost-effective than traditional transplants but also have a lower risk of rejection due to their biocompatible nature.

Furthermore, advancements in robotics have enabled researchers to create prosthetic limbs that respond to nerve impulses like natural ones do. This was achieved by closely observing how octopuses use muscles within their tentacles for precise movement control – a feat that has eluded scientists for decades.

Besides spearheading scientific breakthroughs, biomimicry could also have a significant impact on healthcare costs. By creating more efficient designs based on those found in nature, medical devices can be made lighter without compromising on strength or functionality – leading to lower production costs and easier transportation.

Nonetheless, perhaps one of the most notable impacts biomimicry can have on healthcare is its potential for sustainable solutions. As climate change continues to threaten our planet’s delicate ecosystem, there is an urgent need for eco-friendly practices in all industries – including healthcare. By taking inspiration from the natural world, medical device developers can not only create more sustainable products but also reduce their carbon footprint.

In conclusion, the field of biomimicry is continually evolving and providing innovative solutions in various industries. From utilizing animal adaptations for medical device design to looking at nature’s processes for sustainable engineering, biomimicry has shown great potential in shaping a more sustainable and efficient future. As we continue to learn from nature’s designs, it is exciting to see how animals are driving breakthroughs in medical devices and other areas of technology. By embracing these concepts, we have the opportunity to not only improve our lives but also protect our planet.

Recommended for you

Trending Stories

Top 5 AI Software Testing Tools in 2024

Software quality can make a business in today’s fast-paced digital world. Ensuring that applications...

BlockDAG’s Leaderboard Reveals Astounding 800% Growth Amid Solana vs Litecoin Debate & Bittensor Price Rise

As crypto enthusiasts analyze XRP’s price target, optimism surrounds TRON (TRX) due to its...

The Rise of Fintech: How Startups are Changing the Face of Banking and Investing

In a world where technology is advancing at lightning speed, it’s no surprise that...

Leading With a Purpose – Muhammad Shafique Azam at The Forefront of the Technological Medical Billing Revolution

Amidst the ongoing technological revolution and active shifts in the healthcare sector, the importance...

A one-on-one conversation with hotelier George Dfouni discussing the main differences of hotels in different regions of the world

When you are traveling between countries, that’s how you learn how to read the...

Duke Energy and Tech Giants Partner to Support Clean Energy Options

Duke Energy, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor Partners to Support Clean Energy Options Takeaway...

NEAT+Microsoft Teams Partnership: Key Details and Benefits

In today’s dynamic working landscape, fostering collaboration and productivity across hybrid teams remains a...

In Conversation with Rahul Saoji: Unveiling the Journey of a Tech Maverick

In the dynamic landscape of technology, few individuals stand out for their exceptional vision,...

Is AI Ready for Enterprise Development

AI has had a spectacular year in 2023 and its affecting many industries. While...

Why a Career in Fintech Could Be Your Ticket to Success

Looking to pave your path to success in a rapidly evolving industry? Look no...

Exploring UAE Nol Card Roads & Transport Authority 2024

Navigating the bustling cities of the UAE can be a breeze, thanks to the...

U.S. Treasury Says No Ban on Crypto Mixers

The Treasury clarifies that it is not outlawing cryptocurrency mixers, and what is expected...

Floki Inu Burns 15B Tokens; PEPE Hits Record Highs, While BlockDAG Announces X1 Mobile Miner Launch

Cryptocurrency is marked by constant changes, with tokens such as Floki Inu and PEPE...

EvoSim Universe: Gamifying Telecommunications with a Revamped Platform for Web3

June 1, 2024 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates – EvoSim, an established Dubai-based eSIM...

How to Play the Minecraft Mobile Version for Free: Exploring the Minecraft APK

Minecraft, the iconic sandbox game developed by Mojang, has captured the imaginations of players...

Beyond the Treadmill: Exploring Alternative Cardio Workouts at the Gym

Introduction When it comes to cardio workouts at the gym, most people automatically gravitate...

The Hidden Crypto Gems: Most Promising DeFi Coins With the Biggest Potential for Growth in the 2024 Bull Run

According to many analysts, the cryptocurrency market is preparing for a massive bull run...

Understanding the Legalities: Tips for Safe and Successful Property Investing in the UK

Are you ready to take the plunge into property investing in the UK but...

Transforming Digital Solutions: The Essential Role of Professional Testing Services

In an era dominated by digital innovations, software and mobile applications are at the...

Learning Precision, Patience, and Perseverance Through Golf

Golf is often seen as a leisurely pastime, a sport played for relaxation and...

Like Us On Facebook

Latest interview.

The First Private Aviation Franchise; Interview with Joel Thomas, Founder and President of Stratos Jets

Joel Thomas is the founder and President of Stratos Jets, responsible for the strategic vision and leadership of the company. Thomas founded Stratos Jets...

Latest Press Release

Vanpowers Announces Inspiring Collaboration with Amputee Rider Jim Wilkes

Jim was told he’d never be able to ride again. But there’s no way he was leaving it at that! After grueling...

Pin It on Pinterest

Animals self-medicate with plants − behavior people have observed and emulated for millennia

Research Scholar, Classics and History and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University

Disclosure statement

Adrienne Mayor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

When a wild orangutan in Sumatra recently suffered a facial wound, apparently after fighting with another male, he did something that caught the attention of the scientists observing him.

The animal chewed the leaves of a liana vine – a plant not normally eaten by apes. Over several days, the orangutan carefully applied the juice to its wound, then covered it with a paste of chewed-up liana. The wound healed with only a faint scar. The tropical plant he selected has antibacterial and antioxidant properties and is known to alleviate pain, fever, bleeding and inflammation.

The striking story was picked up by media worldwide. In interviews and in their research paper , the scientists stated that this is “the first systematically documented case of active wound treatment by a wild animal” with a biologically active plant. The discovery will “provide new insights into the origins of human wound care.”

To me, the behavior of the orangutan sounded familiar. As a historian of ancient science who investigates what Greeks and Romans knew about plants and animals, I was reminded of similar cases reported by Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, Aelian and other naturalists from antiquity. A remarkable body of accounts from ancient to medieval times describes self-medication by many different animals. The animals used plants to treat illness, repel parasites, neutralize poisons and heal wounds.

The term zoopharmacognosy – “animal medicine knowledge” – was invented in 1987. But as the Roman natural historian Pliny pointed out 2,000 years ago, many animals have made medical discoveries useful for humans. Indeed, a large number of medicinal plants used in modern drugs were first discovered by Indigenous peoples and past cultures who observed animals employing plants and emulated them.

What you can learn by watching animals

Some of the earliest written examples of animal self-medication appear in Aristotle’s “ History of Animals ” from the fourth century BCE, such as the well-known habit of dogs to eat grass when ill, probably for purging and deworming.

Aristotle also noted that after hibernation, bears seek wild garlic as their first food. It is rich in vitamin C, iron and magnesium, healthful nutrients after a long winter’s nap. The Latin name reflects this folk belief: Allium ursinum translates to “bear lily,” and the common name in many other languages refers to bears.

Pliny explained how the use of dittany , also known as wild oregano, to treat arrow wounds arose from watching wounded stags grazing on the herb. Aristotle and Dioscorides credited wild goats with the discovery. Vergil, Cicero, Plutarch, Solinus, Celsus and Galen claimed that dittany has the ability to expel an arrowhead and close the wound. Among dittany’s many known phytochemical properties are antiseptic, anti-inflammatory and coagulating effects.

According to Pliny, deer also knew an antidote for toxic plants: wild artichokes . The leaves relieve nausea and stomach cramps and protect the liver. To cure themselves of spider bites, Pliny wrote, deer ate crabs washed up on the beach, and sick goats did the same. Notably, crab shells contain chitosan , which boosts the immune system.

When elephants accidentally swallowed chameleons hidden on green foliage, they ate olive leaves, a natural antibiotic to combat salmonella harbored by lizards . Pliny said ravens eat chameleons, but then ingest bay leaves to counter the lizards’ toxicity. Antibacterial bay leaves relieve diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress. Pliny noted that blackbirds, partridges, jays and pigeons also eat bay leaves for digestive problems.

Weasels were said to roll in the evergreen plant rue to counter wounds and snakebites. Fresh rue is toxic. Its medical value is unclear, but the dried plant is included in many traditional folk medicines. Swallows collect another toxic plant, celandine , to make a poultice for their chicks’ eyes. Snakes emerging from hibernation rub their eyes on fennel. Fennel bulbs contain compounds that promote tissue repair and immunity.

According to the naturalist Aelian , who lived in the third century BCE, the Egyptians traced much of their medical knowledge to the wisdom of animals. Aelian described elephants treating spear wounds with olive flowers and oil . He also mentioned storks, partridges and turtledoves crushing oregano leaves and applying the paste to wounds.

The study of animals’ remedies continued in the Middle Ages. An example from the 12th-century English compendium of animal lore, the Aberdeen Bestiary , tells of bears coating sores with mullein . Folk medicine prescribes this flowering plant to soothe pain and heal burns and wounds, thanks to its anti-inflammatory chemicals.

Ibn al-Durayhim’s 14th-century manuscript “ The Usefulness of Animals ” reported that swallows healed nestlings’ eyes with turmeric , another anti-inflammatory. He also noted that wild goats chew and apply sphagnum moss to wounds, just as the Sumatran orangutan did with liana. Sphagnum moss dressings neutralize bacteria and combat infection.

Nature’s pharmacopoeia

Of course, these premodern observations were folk knowledge, not formal science. But the stories reveal long-term observation and imitation of diverse animal species self-doctoring with bioactive plants. Just as traditional Indigenous ethnobotany is leading to lifesaving drugs today , scientific testing of the ancient and medieval claims could lead to discoveries of new therapeutic plants.

Animal self-medication has become a rapidly growing scientific discipline. Observers report observations of animals, from birds and rats to porcupines and chimpanzees , deliberately employing an impressive repertoire of medicinal substances. One surprising observation is that finches and sparrows collect cigarette butts . The nicotine kills mites in bird nests. Some veterinarians even allow ailing dogs, horses and other domestic animals to choose their own prescriptions by sniffing various botanical compounds.

Mysteries remain . No one knows how animals sense which plants cure sickness, heal wounds, repel parasites or otherwise promote health. Are they intentionally responding to particular health crises? And how is their knowledge transmitted? What we do know is that we humans have been learning healing secrets by watching animals self-medicate for millennia.

• Zoopharmacognosy
• Animal behavior
• Self-medication
• Phytochemicals
• Ancient world

Data Manager

Research Support Officer

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Animals Self-Medicate With Plants − Behavior People Have Observed And Emulated For Millennia

W hen a wild orangutan in Sumatra recently suffered a facial wound, apparently after fighting with another male, he did something that caught the attention of the scientists observing him.

The animal chewed the leaves of a liana vine -a plant not normally eaten by apes. Over several days, the orangutan carefully applied the juice to its wound, then covered it with a paste of chewed-up liana. The wound healed with only a faint scar. The tropical plant he selected has antibacterial and antioxidant properties and is known to alleviate pain, fever, bleeding, and inflammation.

The striking story was picked up by media worldwide . In interviews and in their research paper , the scientists stated that this is "the first systematically documented case of active wound treatment by a wild animal" with a biologically active plant. The discovery will "provide new insights into the origins of human wound care."

(Credit: Laumer et al, Sci Rep 14, 8932 (2024), CC BY) Fibraurea tinctoria leaves and the orangutan chomping on some of the leaves.

To me, the behavior of the orangutan sounded familiar. As a historian of ancient science who investigates what Greeks and Romans knew about plants and animals, I was reminded of similar cases reported by Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, Aelian, and other naturalists from antiquity. A remarkable body of accounts from ancient to medieval times describes self-medication by many different animals. The animals used plants to treat illness, repel parasites, neutralize poisons and heal wounds.

The term zoopharmacognosy – "animal medicine knowledge" – was invented in 1987. But as the Roman natural historian Pliny pointed out 2,000 years ago, many animals have made medical discoveries useful for humans. Indeed, a large number of medicinal plants used in modern drugs were first discovered by Indigenous peoples and past cultures who observed animals employing plants and emulated them.

What You Can Learn by Watching Animals

Some of the earliest written examples of animal self-medication appear in Aristotle's " History of Animals " from the fourth century BCE, such as the well-known habit of dogs to eat grass when ill, probably for purging and deworming.

Aristotle also noted that after hibernation, bears seek wild garlic as their first food. It is rich in vitamin C, iron and magnesium, healthful nutrients after a long winter's nap. The Latin name reflects this folk belief: Allium ursinum translates to "bear lily," and the common name in many other languages refers to bears.

(Credit: British Library, Harley MS 4751 (Harley Bestiary), folio 14v, CC BY) As a hunter lands several arrows in his quarry, a wounded doe nibbles some growing dittany.

Pliny explained how the use of dittany , also known as wild oregano, to treat arrow wounds arose from watching wounded stags grazing on the herb. Aristotle and Dioscorides credited wild goats with the discovery. Vergil, Cicero, Plutarch, Solinus, Celsus and Galen claimed that dittany has the ability to expel an arrowhead and close the wound. Among dittany's many known phytochemical properties are antiseptic, anti-inflammatory and coagulating effects.

According to Pliny, deer also knew an antidote for toxic plants: wild artichokes . The leaves relieve nausea and stomach cramps and protect the liver. To cure themselves of spider bites, Pliny wrote, deer ate crabs washed up on the beach, and sick goats did the same. Notably, crab shells contain chitosan , which boosts the immune system.

When elephants accidentally swallowed chameleons hidden on green foliage, they ate olive leaves, a natural antibiotic to combat salmonella harbored by lizards . Pliny said ravens eat chameleons, but then ingest bay leaves to counter the lizards' toxicity. Antibacterial bay leaves relieve diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress. Pliny noted that blackbirds, partridges, jays and pigeons also eat bay leaves for digestive problems.

(Credit: Wenceslaus Hollar/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY) A weasel wears a belt of rue as it attacks a basilisk in an illustration from a 1600s bestiary.

Weasels were said to roll in the evergreen plant rue to counter wounds and snakebites. Fresh rue is toxic. Its medical value is unclear, but the dried plant is included in many traditional folk medicines. Swallows collect another toxic plant, celandine , to make a poultice for their chicks' eyes. Snakes emerging from hibernation rub their eyes on fennel. Fennel bulbs contain compounds that promote tissue repair and immunity.

According to the naturalist Aelian , who lived in the third century BCE, the Egyptians traced much of their medical knowledge to the wisdom of animals. Aelian described elephants treating spear wounds with olive flowers and oil . He also mentioned storks, partridges and turtledoves crushing oregano leaves and applying the paste to wounds.

The study of animals' remedies continued in the Middle Ages. An example from the 12th-century English compendium of animal lore, the Aberdeen Bestiary , tells of bears coating sores with mullein . Folk medicine prescribes this flowering plant to soothe pain and heal burns and wounds, thanks to its anti-inflammatory chemicals.

Ibn al-Durayhim's 14th-century manuscript " The Usefulness of Animals " reported that swallows healed nestlings' eyes with turmeric , another anti-inflammatory. He also noted that wild goats chew and apply sphagnum moss to wounds, just as the Sumatran orangutan did with liana. Sphagnum moss dressings neutralize bacteria and combat infection.

Nature's Pharmacopoeia

Of course, these premodern observations were folk knowledge, not formal science. But the stories reveal long-term observation and imitation of diverse animal species self-doctoring with bioactive plants. Just as traditional Indigenous ethnobotany is leading to lifesaving drugs today , scientific testing of the ancient and medieval claims could lead to discoveries of new therapeutic plants.

Animal self-medication has become a rapidly growing scientific discipline. Observers report observations of animals, from birds and rats to porcupines and chimpanzees , deliberately employing an impressive repertoire of medicinal substances. One surprising observation is that finches and sparrows collect cigarette butts . The nicotine kills mites in bird nests. Some veterinarians even allow ailing dogs, horses, and other domestic animals to choose their own prescriptions by sniffing various botanical compounds.

Mysteries remain . No one knows how animals sense which plants cure sickness, heal wounds, repel parasites or otherwise promote health. Are they intentionally responding to particular health crises? And how is their knowledge transmitted? What we do know is that we humans have been learning healing secrets by watching animals self-medicate for millennia.

Adrienne Mayor is a Research Scholar in Classics and History and Philosophy of Science at Stanford University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license . Read the original article .

Collagen is the most abundant protein in the body. Its fiber-like structure is used to make connective tissue. Like the name implies, this type of tissue connects other tissues and is a major component of bone, skin, muscles, tendons, and cartilage. It helps to make tissues strong and resilient, able to withstand stretching.

In food, collagen is naturally found only in animal flesh like meat and fish that contain connective tissue. However, a variety of both animal and plant foods contain materials for collagen production in our own bodies.

Our bodies gradually make less collagen as we age, but collagen production drops most quickly due to excess sun exposure, smoking, excess alcohol, and lack of sleep and exercise . With aging, collagen in the deep skin layers changes from a tightly organized network of fibers to an unorganized maze. [1] Environmental exposures can damage collagen fibers reducing their thickness and strength, leading to wrinkles on the skin’s surface.

Collagen Supplementation

Despite its abundance in our bodies, collagen has become a top-selling supplement purported to improve hair, skin, and nails—key components of the fountain of youth. The idea of popping a pill that doesn’t have side effects and may reverse the signs of aging is attractive to many. According to Google Trends, online searches for collagen have steadily increased since 2014.

Collagen first appeared as an ingredient in skin creams and serums. However, its effectiveness as a topical application was doubted even by dermatologists, as collagen is not naturally found on the skin’s surface but in the deeper layers. Collagen fibers are too large to permeate the skin’s outer layers, and research has not supported that shorter chains of collagen, called peptides, are more successful at this feat.

Oral collagen supplements in the form of pills, powders, and certain foods are believed to be more effectively absorbed by the body and have skyrocketed in popularity among consumers. They may be sold as collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen, which are broken down forms of collagen that are more easily absorbed. Collagen supplements contain amino acids, the building blocks of protein , and some may also contain additional nutrients related to healthy skin and hair like vitamin C , biotin , or zinc .

What does the research say on collagen supplements?

Most research on collagen supplements is related to joint and skin health. Human studies are lacking but some randomized controlled trials have found that collagen supplements improve skin elasticity. [3,4] Other trials have found that the supplements can improve joint mobility and decrease joint pain such as with osteoarthritis or in athletes. [5] Collagen comprises about 60% of cartilage, a very firm tissue that surrounds bones and cushions them from the shock of high-impact movements; so a breakdown in collagen could lead to a loss of cartilage and joint problems.

However, potential conflicts of interest exist in this area because most if not all of the research on collagen supplements are funded or partially funded by related industries that could benefit from a positive study result, or one or more of the study authors have ties to those industries. This makes it difficult to determine how effective collagen supplements truly are and if they are worth their often hefty price.

A downside of collagen supplements is the unknown of what exactly it contains or if the supplement will do what the label promotes. There are also concerns of collagen supplements containing heavy metals. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration does not review supplements for safety or effectiveness before they are sold to consumers.

Another potential downside is that taking a collagen supplement can become an excuse to not practice healthy behaviors that can protect against collagen decline, such as getting enough sleep and stopping smoking.

That said, the available research has not shown negative side effects in people given collagen supplements. [3,4]

Can You Eat Collagen?

Food containing collagen

• There are foods rich in collagen, specifically tough cuts of meat full of connective tissue like pot roast, brisket, and chuck steak. However, a high intake of red meat is not recommended as part of a long-term healthy and environmentally sustainable diet . Collagen is also found in the bones and skin of fresh and saltwater fish. [2]
• Bone broth, a trending food featured prominently in soup aisles, is promoted as a health food rich in collagen. The process involves simmering animal bones in water and a small amount of vinegar (to help dissolve the bone and release collagen and minerals) anywhere from 4 to 24 hours. However, the amount of amino acids will vary among batches depending on the types of bones used, how long they are cooked, and the amount of processing (e.g., if it is a packaged/canned version).
• Gelatin is a form of collagen made by boiling animal bones, cartilage, and skin for several hours and then allowing the liquid to cool and set. The breakdown of these connective tissues produces gelatin. Collagen and its derivative, gelatin, are promoted on certain eating plans such as the paleo diet .

Foods to boost collagen production

• Several high-protein foods are believed to nurture collagen production because they contain the amino acids that make collagen—glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline. [6] These include fish, poultry, meat, eggs , dairy , legumes , and soy .
• Collagen production also requires nutrients like zinc that is found in shellfish, legumes, meats, nuts , seeds, and whole grains ; and vitamin C from citrus fruits, berries, leafy greens, bell peppers, and tomatoes.

Is bone broth healthy?

In reality, bone broth contains only small amounts of minerals naturally found in bone including calcium , magnesium , potassium , iron , phosphorus , sodium , and copper. The amount of protein , obtained from the gelatin, varies from 5-10 grams per cup.

There is some concern that bone broth contains toxic metals like lead. One small study found that bone broth made from chicken bones contained three times the lead as chicken broth made with the meat only. [7] However the amount of lead in the bone broth per serving was still less than half the amount permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency in drinking water. A different study found that bone broth, both homemade and commercially produced, contained low levels (<5% RDA) of calcium and magnesium as well as heavy metals like lead and cadmium. [9] The study noted that various factors can affect the amount of protein and minerals extracted in bone broth: the amount of acidity, cooking time, cooking temperature, and type of animal bone used. Therefore it is likely that the nutritional value of bone broths will vary widely.

Healthy Lifestyle Habits That May Help  

Along with a healthy and balanced diet , here are some habits that may help protect your body’s natural collagen:

• Wear sunscreen or limit the amount of time spent in direct sunlight (10-20 minutes in direct midday sunlight 3-4 times a week provides adequate vitamin D for most people).
• Get adequate sleep . For the average person, this means 7-9 hours a night.
• Avoid smoking or secondhand smoke.
• Control stress . Chronically high cortisol levels can decrease collagen production.
• Although the exact connection between exercise and skin quality is unclear, some studies have found that exercise slows down cell activity involved with aging skin. [10]  

Bottom Line

At this time, non-industry funded research on collagen supplements is lacking. Natural collagen production is supported through a healthy and balanced diet by eating enough protein foods , whole grains , fruits, and vegetables and reducing lifestyle risk factors.

• Rinnerhaler M, Bischof J, Streubel MK, Trost A, Richter K. Oxidative Stress in Aging Human Skin. Biomolecules . 2015 Apr 21;5(2):545-89.
• Avila Rodríguez MI, Rodriguez Barroso LG, Sánchez ML. Collagen: A review on its sources and potential cosmetic applications. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology . 2018 Feb;17(1):20-6.
• Proksch E, Segger D, Degwert J, Schunck M, Zague V, Oesser S. Oral supplementation of specific collagen peptides has beneficial effects on human skin physiology: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Skin pharmacology and physiology . 2014;27(1):47-55.
• Kim DU, Chung HC, Choi J, Sakai Y, Lee BY. Oral intake of low-molecular-weight collagen peptide improves hydration, elasticity, and wrinkling in human skin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Nutrients . 2018 Jul;10(7):826.
• Bello AE, Oesser S. Collagen hydrolysate for the treatment of osteoarthritis and other joint disorders: a review of the literature. Current medical research and opinion . 2006 Nov 1;22(11):2221-32.
• Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al. Molecular Cell Biology . New York: W. H. Freeman; 2000.
• Monro JA, Leon R, Puri BK. The risk of lead contamination in bone broth diets. Medical hypotheses . 2013 Apr 1;80(4):389-90.
• Global Market Insights. Worldwide Broth Market . Feb 26, 2018.
• Hsu DJ, Lee CW, Tsai WC, Chien YC. Essential and toxic metals in animal bone broths. Food & nutrition research . 2017 Jan 1;61(1):1347478.
• Crane JD, MacNeil LG, Lally JS, Ford RJ, Bujak AL, Brar IK, Kemp BE, Raha S, Steinberg GR, Tarnopolsky MA. Exercise‐stimulated interleukin‐15 is controlled by AMPK and regulates skin metabolism and aging. Aging cell . 2015 Aug;14(4):625-34.

Last reviewed May 2021

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.8(6); 2007 Jun

The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research

Simon festing.

1 Simon Festing is Executive Director and Robin Wilkinson is Science Communications Officer at the Research Defence Society in London, UK. ku.gro.ten-sdr@gnitsefs

Robin Wilkinson

Animal research has had a vital role in many scientific and medical advances of the past century and continues to aid our understanding of various diseases. Throughout the world, people enjoy a better quality of life because of these advances, and the subsequent development of new medicines and treatments—all made possible by animal research. However, the use of animals in scientific and medical research has been a subject of heated debate for many years in the UK. Opponents to any kind of animal research—including both animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups—believe that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or benefit. There is no middle ground for these groups; they want the immediate and total abolition of all animal research. If they succeed, it would have enormous and severe consequences for scientific research.

No responsible scientist wants to use animals or cause them unnecessary suffering if it can be avoided, and therefore scientists accept controls on the use of animals in research. More generally, the bioscience community accepts that animals should be used for research only within an ethical framework.

The UK has gone further than any other country to write such an ethical framework into law by implementing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It exceeds the requirements in the European Union's Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, which is now undergoing revision ( Matthiessen et al , 2003 ). The Act requires that proposals for research involving the use of animals must be fully assessed in terms of any harm to the animals. This involves detailed examination of the particular procedures and experiments, and the numbers and types of animal used. These are then weighed against the potential benefits of the project. This cost–benefit analysis is almost unique to UK animal research legislation; only German law has a similar requirement.

The UK has gone further than any other country to write such an ethical framework into law by implementing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

In addition, the UK government introduced in 1998 further ‘local' controls—that is, an Ethical Review Process at research institutions—which promote good animal welfare and humane science by ensuring that the use of animals at the designated establishment is justified. The aims of this additional review process are: to provide independent ethical advice, particularly with respect to applications for project licences, and standards of animal care and welfare; to provide support to licensees regarding animal welfare and ethical issues; and to promote ethical analysis to increase awareness of animal welfare issues and to develop initiatives for the widest possible application of the 3Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in research ( Russell & Burch, 1959 ). In practice, there has been concern that the Ethical Review Process adds a level of bureaucracy that is not in proportion to its contribution to improving animal welfare or furthering the 3Rs.

Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI (1999a , 2002 , 2005 ), and subsequent polls by YouGov (2006) and ICM (2006) , we now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards animal research. Although society views animal research as an ethical dilemma, polls show that a high proportion—84% in 1999, 90% in 2002 and 89% in 2005—is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the regulatory system, people chose those that—unknown to them—are already part of the UK legislation. In general, they feel that animal welfare should be weighed against health benefits, that cosmetic-testing should not be allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if there is no alternative, and that spot-checks should be carried out. It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it.

It is clear that the UK public would widely support the existing regulatory system if they knew more about it

GP Net also asked whether GPs agreed that “medical research data can be misleading”; 93% agreed. This result puts into context the results from another poll of GPs in 2004. Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP; London, UK), an anti-vivisection group, found that 82% had a “concern […] that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans” ( EMP, 2004) . In fact, it seems that most GPs think that medical research in general can be misleading; it is good scientific practice to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism and avoid over-reliance on any one set of data or research method.

Another law, which enables people to get more information, might also help to influence public attitudes towards animal research. The UK Freedom of Information (FOI) Act came into full force on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, anybody can request information from a public body in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Public bodies include government departments, universities and some funding bodies such as the research councils. The FOI Act is intended to promote openness and accountability, and to facilitate better public understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why and how they make decisions, and how they spend public money. There are two ways in which information can be made available to the public: some information will be automatically published and some will be released in response to individual requests. The FOI Act is retrospective so it applies to all information, regardless of when it was created.

In response to the FOI Act, the Home Office now publishes overviews of all new animal research projects, in the form of anonymous project licence summaries, on a dedicated website. This means that the UK now provides more public information about animal research than any other country. The Research Defence Society (RDS; London, UK), an organization representing doctors and scientists in the debate on the use of animals in research and testing, welcomes the greater openness that the FOI Act brings to discussions about animal research. With more and reliable information about how and why animals are used, people should be in a better position to debate the issues. However, there are concerns that extremist groups will try to obtain personal details and information that can identify researchers, and use it to target individuals.

As a House of Lords Select Committee report in July 2002 stated, “The availability to the public of regularly updated, good quality information on what animal experiments are done and why, is vital to create an atmosphere in which the issue of animal experimentation can be discussed productively” ( House of Lords, 2002 ). Indeed, according to a report on public attitudes to the biological sciences and their oversight, “Having information and perceived honesty and openness are the two key considerations for the public in order for them to have trust in a system of controls and regulations about biological developments” ( MORI, 1999b ).

In the past five years, there have been four major UK independent inquiries into the use of animals in biomedical research: a Select Committee in the House of Lords (2002) ; the Animal Procedures Committee (2003) ; the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) ; and the Weatherall Committee ( Weatherall et al , 2006 ), which specifically examined the use of non-human primates in scientific and medical research. All committees included non-scientists and examined evidence from both sides of the debate. These rigorous independent inquiries all accepted the rationale for the use of animals in research for the benefit of human health, and concluded that animal research can be scientifically validated on a case-by-case basis. The Nuffield Council backed the 3Rs and the need for clear information to support a constructive debate, and further stated that violence and intimidation against researchers or their allies is morally wrong.

Animal research has obviously become a smaller proportion of overall bioscience and medical R&D spending in the UK

In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA; London, UK) has investigated and ruled on 38 complaints made since 1992 about published literature—leaflets and brochures—regarding claims about the validity or otherwise of animal research and the scope of alternative methods. In 34 out of 38 cases, they found against the anti-vivisectionist groups, either supporting complaints about anti-vivisectionist literature, or rejecting the complaints by anti-vivisectionists about the literature from medical organizations. Only four complaints against scientific/medical research literature have been upheld, not because the science was flawed but as a result of either semantics or the ASA judging that the advertisement fell outside the UK remit.

Animal-rights groups also disagree with the 3Rs, since these principles still allow for the use of animals in research; they are only interested in replacement

However, seemingly respectable mainstream groups still peddle dangerously misleading and inaccurate information about the use of animals in research. As previously mentioned, EMP commissioned a survey of GPs that showed that the “majority of GPs now question the scientific worth of animal tests” ( EMP, 2004 ). The raw data is available on the website of EMP's sister group Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA; Los Angeles, CA, USA; AFMA, 2004 ), but their analysis is so far-fetched that the polling company, TNS Healthcare (London, UK), distanced itself from the conclusions. In a statement to the Coalition for Medical Progress (London, UK)—a group of organizations that support animal research—TNS Healthcare wrote, “The conclusions drawn from this research by AFMA are wholly unsupported by TNS and any research findings or comment published by AFMA is not TNS approved. TNS did not provide any interpretation of the data to the client. TNS did not give permission to the client to publish our data. The data does not support the interpretation made by the client (which in our opinion exaggerates anything that may be found from the data)” ( TNS Healthcare, 2004 ). Nonetheless, EMP has used its analysis to lobby government ministers and misinform the public.

Approximately 2.7 million regulated animal procedures were conducted in 2003 in the UK—half the number performed 30 years ago. The tight controls governing animal experimentation and the widespread implementation of the 3Rs by the scientific community is largely responsible for this downward trend, as recognized recently by then Home Office Minister, Caroline Flint: “…new technologies in developing drugs [have led] to sustained and incremental decreases in some types of animal use over recent years, whilst novel medicines have continued to be produced. This is an achievement of which the scientific community can be rightly proud” ( Flint, 2005 ).

After a period of significant reduction, the number of regulated animal procedures stabilized from 1995 until 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, the use of genetically modified animals—predominantly mice—led to a 1–2% annual increase in the number of animals used ( Home Office, 2005 ). However, between 1995 and 2005, the growth in UK biomedical research far outstripped this incremental increase: combined industry and government research and development (R&D) spending rose by 73% from £2,080 million to £3,605 million ( ABPI, 2007 ; DTI, 2005 ). Animal research has obviously become a smaller proportion of overall bioscience and medical R&D spending in the UK. This shows the commitment of the scientific community to the development and use of replacement and reduction techniques, such as computer modelling and human cell lines. Nevertheless, animal research remains a small, but vital, part of biomedical research—experts estimate it at about 10% of total biomedical R&D spending.

The principles of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in scientific research are central to UK regulation. In fact, the government established the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs; London, UK) in May 2004 to promote and develop high-quality research that takes the 3Rs into account. In support of this, then Science Minister Lord Sainsbury announced in 2005 that the Centre would receive an additional £1.5 million in funding over the next three years.

The ultimate aim of the NC3Rs is to substitute a significant proportion of animal research by investigating the development of alternative techniques, such as human studies, and in vitro and in silico studies. RDS supports this aim, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect this to be possible in every area of scientific research in the immediate future. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not yet exist, progress is likely to be slow. The main obstacle is still the difficulty of accurately mimicking the complex physiological systems of whole living organisms—a challenge that will be hard to meet. There has been some progress recently imitating single organs such as the liver, but these need further refinement to make them suitable models for an entire organ and, even if validated, they cannot represent a whole-body system. New and promising techniques such as microdosing also have the potential to reduce the number of animals used in research, but again cannot replace them entirely.

Anti-vivisectionist groups do not accept this reality and are campaigning vigorously for the adoption of other methods without reference to validation or acceptance of their limitations, or the consequences for human health. Animal-rights groups also disagree with the 3Rs, since these principles still allow for the use of animals in research; they are only interested in replacement. Such an approach would ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee report, and would not deal with public concerns about animal welfare. Notwithstanding this, the development of alternatives—which invariably come from the scientific community, rather than anti-vivisection groups—will necessitate the continued use of animals during the research, development and validation stages.

Society should push authorities to quickly adopt successfully validated techniques, while realizing that pushing for adoption without full validation could endanger human health

The scientific community, with particular commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry, has responded by investing a large amount of money and effort in developing the science and technology to replace animals wherever possible. However, the development of direct replacement technologies for animals is a slow and difficult process. Even in regulatory toxicology, which might seem to be a relatively straightforward task, about 20 different tests are required to assess the risk of any new substance. In addition, introducing a non-animal replacement technique involves not only development of the method, but also its validation by national and international regulatory authorities. These authorities tend to be conservative and can take many years to write a new technique into their guidelines. Even then, some countries might insist that animal tests are carried out if they have not been explicitly written out of the guidelines. Society should push authorities to quickly adopt successfully validated techniques, while realizing that pushing for adoption without full validation could endanger human health.

Despite the inherent limitations of some non-animal tests, they are still useful for pre-screening compounds before the animal-testing stage, which would therefore reduce rather than replace the number of animals used. An example of this is the Ames test, which uses strains of the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium to determine whether chemicals cause mutations in cellular DNA. This and other tests are already widely used as pre-screens to partly replace rodent testing for cancer-causing compounds. Unfortunately, the in vitro tests can produce false results, and tend to be used more to understand the processes of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity than to replace animal assays. However, there are moves to replace the standard mouse carcinogenicity assay with other animal-based tests that cause less suffering because they use fewer animals and do not take as long. This has already been achieved in tests for acute oral toxicity, where the LD50—the median lethal dose of a substance—has largely been replaced by the Fixed Dose Procedure, which was developed, validated and promoted between 1984 and 1989 by a worldwide collaboration, headed by scientists at the British Toxicological Society (Macclesfield, UK).

Although animals cannot yet be completely replaced, it is important that researchers maximize refinement and reduction

Furthermore, cell-culture based tests have considerably reduced the use of rodents in the initial screening of potential new medicines, while speeding up the process so that 10–20 times the number of compounds can be screened in the same period. A leading cancer charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research (Harrogate, UK), funded research into the use of cell cultures to understand better the cellular mechanisms of prostate cancer—allowing researchers to investigate potential therapies using fewer animals.

Microdosing is an exciting new technique for measuring how very small doses of a compound move around the body. In principle, it should be possible to use this method in humans and therefore to reduce the number of animals needed to study new compounds; however, it too has limitations. By its very nature, it cannot predict toxicity or side effects that occur at higher therapeutic doses. It is an unrealistic hope—and a false claim—that microdosing can completely replace the use of animals in scientific research; “animal studies will still be required,” confirmed the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME; Nottingham, UK; FRAME, 2005 ).

However, as with many other advances in non-animal research, this was never classified as ‘alternatives research'. In general, there is no separate field in biomedical research known as ‘alternatives research'; it is one of the highly desirable outcomes of good scientific research. The claim by anti-vivisection campaigners that research into replacements is neglected merely reflects their ignorance.

Good science and good experimental design also help to reduce the number of animals used in research as they allow scientists to gather data using the minimum number of animals required. However, good science also means that a sufficient number must be used to enable precise statistical analysis and to generate significant results to prevent the repetition of experiments and the consequent need to use more animals. In 1998, FRAME formed a Reduction Committee, in part to publicize effective reduction techniques. The data collected by the Committee so far provides information about the overall reduction in animal usage that has been brought about by the efforts of researchers worldwide ( FRAME Reduction Committee, 2005 ).

For example, screening potential anti-cancer drugs uses the so-called hollow-fibre system, in which tumour cells are grown in a tube-like polymer matrix that is implanted into mice. Drugs are then administered, the tubes removed and the number of cells determined. This system has increased the amount of data that can be obtained per animal in some studies and has therefore reduced the number of mice used ( Double, 2004 ). In neuroscience, techniques such as cooling regions of the brain instead of removing subsections, and magnetic resonance imaging, have both helped to reduce the number of laboratory animals used ( Royal Society, 2004 ).

The benefits of animal research have been enormous and it would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were abandoned

Matching the number of animals generated from breeding programmes to the number of animals required for research has also helped to reduce the number of surplus animals. For example, the cryopreservation of sperm and oocytes has reduced the number of genetically modified mice required for breeding programmes ( Robinson et al , 2003 ); mice lines do not have to be continuously bred if they can be regenerated from frozen cells when required.

Although animals cannot yet be completely replaced, it is important that researchers maximize reduction and refinement. Sometimes this is achieved relatively easily by improving animal husbandry and housing, for example, by enriching their environment. These simple measures within the laboratory aim to satisfy the physiological and behavioural needs of the animals and therefore maintain their well-being.

Another important factor is refining the experimental procedures themselves, and refining the management of pain. An assessment of the method of administration, the effects of the substance on the animal, and the amount of handling and restraint required should all be considered. Furthermore, careful handling of the animals, and administration of appropriate anaesthetics and analgesics during the experiment, can help to reduce any pain experienced by the animals. This culture of care is achieved not only through strict regulations but also by ensuring that animal technicians and other workers understand and adopt such regulations. Therefore, adequate training is an important aspect of the refinement of animal research, and should continually be reviewed and improved.

In conclusion, RDS considers that the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified. The benefits of animal research have been enormous and it would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were abandoned. Nevertheless, the use of the 3Rs is crucial to continuously reduce the number and suffering of animals in research. Furthermore, a good regulatory regime—as found in the UK—can help to reduce further the number of animals used. Therefore, we support a healthy and continued debate on the use of animals in research. We recognize that those who oppose animal experimentation should be free to voice their opinions democratically, and we look forward to constructive discussion in the future with organizations that share the middle ground with us.

• ABPI (2007) Facts & Statistics from the Pharmaceutical Industry . London, UK: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. http://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp?sect=3 [ Google Scholar ]
• AFMA (2004) New Survey Among Doctors Suggests Shift in Attitude Regarding Scientific Worth of Animal Testing . Listed as EFMA Survey of 500 General Practitioners. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Americans For Medical Advancement. www.curedisease.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of Cost–Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research . London, UK: Animal Procedures Committee. www.apc.gov.uk [ Google Scholar ]
• Double JA (2004) A pharmacological approach for the selection of potential anticancer agents . Altern Lab Anim 32 : 41–48 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DTI (2005) Science Funding SET Statistics . London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry. www.dti.gov.uk [ Google Scholar ]
• EMP (2004) Doctors Fear Animal Experiments Endanger Patients . Press release. London, UK: Europeans for Medical Progress. www.curedisease.net [ Google Scholar ]
• Flint C (2005) Report by the Animal Procedures Committee—Review of Cost Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research: Ministerial Response . London, UK: Home Office [ Google Scholar ]
• FRAME (2005) Human microdosing reduces the number of animals required for pre-clinical pharmaceutical research . Altern Lab Anim 33 : 439 [ Google Scholar ]
• FRAME Reduction Committee (2005) Bibliography of Training Materials on Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis . Nottingham, UK: Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. www.frame.org.uk/reductioncommittee/bibliointro.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Home Office (2005) Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2004 . London, UK: Home Office [ Google Scholar ]
• House of Lords (2002) Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, Volume I—Report . London, UK: The Stationery Office [ Google Scholar ]
• ICM (2006) Vivisection survey, conducted on behalf of BBC Newsnight. London, UK: ICM Research. www.icmresearch.co.uk
• Matthiessen L, Lucaroni B, Sachez E (2003) Towards responsible animal research . EMBO Rep 4 : 104–107 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MORI (1999a) Animals in Medicine and Science. Research Study Conducted for the Medical Research Council . London, UK: MORI. www.ipsos-mori.com [ Google Scholar ]
• MORI (1999b) The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences. Executive Summary . London, UK: MORI. www.ipsos-mori.com [ Google Scholar ]
• MORI (2002) The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Research Study Conducted for the Coalition for Medical Progress . London, UK: MORI. www.ipsos-mori.com [ Google Scholar ]
• MORI (2005) Use of Animals in Medical Research. Research Study Conducted for Coalition for Medical Progress . London, UK: MORI. www.ipsos-mori.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) The Ethics of Research Involving Animals . London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics [ Google Scholar ]
• RDS News (2006) GPs Back Animal Research . London, UK: Research Defence Society [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson V et al. (2003) Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice: Sixth report of BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement . Lab Anim 37 : 1–51 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Royal Society (2004) The Use of Non-Human Animals in Research: A Guide for Scientists . London, UK: The Royal Society [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . London, UK: Methuen [ Google Scholar ]
• TNS Healthcare (2004) Statement to the Director of Coalition for Medical Progress . London, UK: TNS Healthcare [ Google Scholar ]
• Weatherall D, Goodfellow P, Harris J, Hinde R, Johnson L, Morris R, Ross N, Skehel J, Tickell C (2006) The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research . London, UK: The Royal Society [ Google Scholar ]
• YouGov (2006) Animal Testing . Daily Telegraph Survey Results. London, UK: YouGov. www.yougov.com [ Google Scholar ]