Skip to main content

Research: Animals

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Abstract

Over the past 100 years, scientific research using animals has expanded greatly in scope and complexity and now occupies a central place as an investigative tool in biomedicine. Animals are used in basic research to generate fundamental knowledge about biological processes; in preclinical research to test the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, biologics, and medical devices; in toxicologic research to test the safety of industrial and consumer products; in research training and education; and in other areas. Today, at least 100 million animals are used in research each year worldwide, though this might represent a significant underestimate. A review of published statistics indicates that much important information about the nature of animal use in research is unavailable, and this itself is a significant ethical problem. On the basis of available information, however, it is clear that most animal research harms animals to a significant degree, involving suffering, confinement, and death. Philosophical work in animal ethics conducted over the past 40 years has cast significant doubt upon the ethical defensibility of much and perhaps all harmful animal research. Some “equal moral consideration” (EC) views might judge all nontrivially harmful animal research to be indefensible, except perhaps in the most extreme and urgent circumstances. “Unequal moral consideration” (UC) and utilitarian views would permit some harmful animal research, but with significant restrictions and qualifications that go far beyond the status quo. Thus, when one considers animal research in actual practice in regulation, it is clear that significant reform is necessary in order to bring regulation and practice in line with any reasonable moral view about what animals are owed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akhtar, A. (2012). Animals and public health: Why treating animals better is critical to human welfare. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, R. (2012). Lives in the balance: Utilitarianism and animal research. In J. Garrett (Ed.), The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy (pp. 81–105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). (n.d.). Annual statistics reports (year 2011) (online resource). Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/en_/audf/annual-statistics-reports. Accessed 17 Jan 2015.

  • Carbone, L. (2004). What animals want: Expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal welfare policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conlee, K.M. & Rowan, A.N. (2012). The case for phasing out experiments on primates. Hastings Center Report (Special report: Animal research ethics: Evolving views and practices), S31–S34.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. (1999). The ethics of animal research: What are the prospects for agreement? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. (2002). Animal rights: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (EU). (2010). Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:en:PDF. Accessed 17 Jan 2014.

  • Guillén, J. (Ed.). (2013). Laboratory animals: Regulations and recommendations for global collaborative research. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humane Research Australia. (n.d.). Statistics: animal use in research and teaching (2012) (Online resource). Available at: http://www.humaneresearch.org.au/statistics/. Accessed 17 Jan 2015.

  • Hutchinson, E., Avery, A., & VandeWoude, S. (2005). Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents. ILAR Journal, 46(2), 148–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A. (2011). The costs and benefits of animal experiments. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nobis, N. (2004). Carl Cohen’s “kind” argument for animal rights and against human rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The ethics of research involving animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available at: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/animal-research/.

  • Pippin, J. (2013). Animal research in medical sciences: Seeking a convergence of science, medicine and law. South Texas Law Review, 54, 469–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, V., & Reinhardt, A. (Eds.). (2002). Comfortable quarters for laboratory animals. Washington, DC: Animal Welfare Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B.E. (2012). The moral status of invasive animal research. Hastings Center Report (Special report: Animal research ethics: Evolving views and practices), S4–S7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, J. (2010). Is equal moral consideration really compatible with unequal moral status? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20(3), 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, A. (2012). Debating the value of animal research. In J. Garrett (Ed.), The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy (pp. 197–214). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2002/1st ed. 1975). Animal liberation. New York: Ecco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K., Gordon, N., Langley, G., & Higgins, W. (2008). Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. ATLA, 36, 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Home Office. (2014). Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. London: UK Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). Research facility annual reports (year 2013) (online resource). Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_obtain_research_facility_annual_report/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOK9_D2MDJ0MjDzd3V2dDDz93HwCzL29jAyCzfQLsh0VAbJgL_A!/. Accessed 17 Jan 2015.

  • Waldau, P. (2001). The specter of speciesism: Buddhist and christian views of animals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yagami, K., Mashimo, T., Sekiguchi, F., Sugiyama, F., Yamamura, K., & Serikawa, T. (2010). Survey of live laboratory animals reared in Japan (2009). Experimental Animals, 59(4), 531–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • DeGrazia, D. (2002). Animal rights: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, J. (Ed.). (2012). The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillén, J. (Ed.). (2013). Laboratory animals: Regulations and recommendations for global collaborative research. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The ethics of research involving animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available at: http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/animal-research/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Rossi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Rossi, J. (2015). Research: Animals. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_373-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_373-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics