DEBATE

Animal Testing

O:

Affects to the animals:

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the
human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease,
or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to
mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by
wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different
personal experiences. It is not surprising to find that treatments showing ‘promise’ in animals rarely work in humans.

Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments
are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based
largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there. Despite many
decades of studying conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in
animals, we do not yet have reliable and fully effective cures.

"The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for
decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings." Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer
Institute

Unreliable animal testing

90% of drugs fail in human trials even though they passed preclinical tests (including animal tests) – whether on safety
grounds or because they do not work.

Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate (only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry
drugs (6% success rate), heart drugs (7% success rate) and neurology drugs (8% success rate).

Using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides little statistically
useful insight, our analysis found. The study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using
any other species in predicting the effects on humans.

Out of 93 dangerous drug side effects a recent study found that only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.

Of over 1,000 potential stroke treatments that had been ‘successful’ in animal tests, only approximately 10%
progressed to human trials. None worked sufficiently well in humans.

Dangerous animal testing

Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but
has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide.

Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK in 2006
suffered a severe allergic reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers
totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.

A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The
drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in
four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.

A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven
patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types
of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.

Only one third of substances known to cause cancer in humans have been shown to cause cancer in animals.

An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice
could be matched with human DNA.
The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys), are resistant to
doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.

Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in people but toxic to dogs.

Aspirin is toxic to many animals, including cats, mice and rats and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had
been tested according to current animal testing standards.

-------

Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in
laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long
to be free. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be
performed on them. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause
some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth,
pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of
them will be killed.

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing. Not only are these non-animal
tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans. While some of
the experimentation conducted on animals today is required by law, most of it isn’t. In fact, a number of countries
have implemented bans on the testing of certain types of consumer goods on animals, such as the cosmetics-testing
bans in the European Union, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and elsewhere.

•Millions of Animals Suffer and Die in Testing, Training, and Other Experiments

More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests
as well as in medical training exercises and curiosity-driven medical experiments at universities. Animals also suffer
and die in classroom biology experiments and dissection, even though modern non-animal tests have repeatedly been
shown to have more educational value, save teachers time, and save schools money. Exact numbers aren’t available
because mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 99 percent of animals used in
experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go
uncounted.

Examples of animal tests include forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and
dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes. Even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to
consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe
to use in humans.

•Taxpayer and Health Charities’ Dollars Fund Experiments on Animals

Animals are also used in toxicity tests conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded
by U.S. taxpayers’ money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National
Toxicology Program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject
animals to crude, painful tests.

The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and well-meaning donors
on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories, instead of supporting promising clinical, in vitro,
epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that could actually benefit humans.

•A Century of Suffering

Experimenters have tortured animals in laboratories throughout history. “Without Consent,” PETA’s interactive
timeline, features almost 200 stories of twisted experiments, including ones in which dogs were forced to inhale
cigarette smoke for months, mice were cut up while still conscious, and cats were deafened, paralyzed, and drowned.
Visit “Without Consent” to learn about more harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help
create a better future for living, feeling beings.

-------

Human beings create temporary and arbitrary boundaries to exclude beings who aren’t like them. Human beings have
justified wars, slavery, sexual violence, and military conquests through the mistaken belief that those who are
“different” do not experience suffering and are not worthy of moral consideration.

These boundaries change throughout history, and we’re horrified now to recall the abuse inflicted on others once
classified as outsiders: the extermination of Jewish people by the Nazis, the enslavement of African people by
American plantation owners, and the slaughter of Christian people for entertainment by Roman centurions. Laws now
forbid discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ability, age, and sexual orientation. Yet just a century ago,
human beings who were seen as different by those with power faced torture, exploitation, and death.
Sometimes those in power claimed that juvenile or dark-skinned human beings couldn’t feel pain. Sometimes the
powerful claimed that their superiority was granted by God. Our society no longer believes that any human being has
the right to rape, torture, or enslave another human being for any reason. We accept that all human beings share a
fundamental value and celebrate our differences.

We are taught the Golden Rule as young children, and all major religions teach principles of nonviolence and
kindness. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Ethical
treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds,
amphibians, and crustaceans.

Would we imprison our children in cages too small for them to move? Would we violate our sisters and steal their
babies? Would we deliberately infect our friends with diseases and leave them untreated? Of course not—so why
would we do the same to other beings? We must abandon the archaic and incorrect boundary of “human,” which we
use to justify the ongoing massacre of billions of beings. More than a century ago, Charles Darwin showed that all
beings had the same common ancestor. All beings share the desire to live. We all feel pain, joy, grief, and pleasure.
We all have worth.

All beings desire freedom to live a natural life, according to their inherent desires and instincts. While the lives of all
beings necessarily involve some amount of suffering, human beings must stop deliberately inflicting suffering on all
beings for our own selfish desires. We lose nothing in replacing a cheeseburger with a veggie burger or a leather
purse with a fabric one. But beings we exploit lose their lives just for our fleeting fancy.

We are taught from a young age to discriminate among beings. We are fooled into eating the flesh of some beings,
ignoring the cries of hunted beings, and cuddling with furry baby beings. We grow up confused—as adults, most of us
feel sick and sad when we see living beings tortured and killed, yet we purchase and consume the flesh, fur,
secretions, and skin of living beings every day. We work hard to deceive ourselves and each other in order to maintain
the illusion of a real boundary around “human.”

The threats of economic collapse, the defiant claims of inherent rights, and the stubborn refusal to change behavior—
these tired arguments have been heard and overcome many times in the past. Every time a boundary shifts, the
suffragists or the abolitionists or the emancipators are at first ridiculed and belittled for their stance of equal
consideration. Eventually, the lies are exposed, and freedom is won—for women, blacks, Christians, gays, Asians, the
Irish, Catholics, Jews. Let freedom now include all beings.

Regardless of their capabilities, no living being deserves to be abused. We believe that it’s wrong to torture infant and
disabled human beings who don’t have the same abilities as adults. In the same way, all beings deserve liberty and
respect not because they share the characteristics we admire in ourselves but because they are living beings. We
share the same evolutionary origins, we inhabit the same Earth, and we are ruled by the same laws of nature. We are
all the same.

These Answers to Arguments for Animal Testing Prove It’s Bad Science

Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal testing is bad science and
wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they
would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a
brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal
experimentation followed by the arguments against them.

“Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.”

This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even
evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are
not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken
simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under
the misconception that these experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and
lobbying groups exaggerate the potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical
advances.

Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities published a paper in The BMJ titled
“Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” The researchers systematically examined studies
that used animals and concluded that little evidence exists to support the idea that experimentation on animals has
benefited humans.

In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of
the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the
isolation of the AIDS virus.
Between 1900 and 2000, life expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal
experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and
other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible
for the fact that people are living longer lives.

While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that
animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would
not have been made without using animals. Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the
development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to
humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals.

“If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people.”

The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken,
someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those
human trials all the more risky. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has noted that 95 percent of all drugs that are
shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of
the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were
not identified in tests on animals.

Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the
market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them. Despite rigorous animal
tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people each year, making them our nation’s fourth-largest killer.

Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and
human health.

“We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and organs in living animals.”

Taking healthy beings from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never
normally contract, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to
naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously
from species to species (and even within a species). Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth
defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats,
and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and
experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data
produced.Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, remarked, “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal
tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of
antibiotics might never have been realized.” Modern non-animal research methods are faster, cheaper, and more
relevant to humans than tests on animals.

Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of
new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. The HμREL biochip uses living human cells to detect the effects of a
drug or chemical on multiple interacting organs, VaxDesign’s Modular Immune in vitro Construct (MIMIC®) system
uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing vaccines, and Harvard researchers
have developed a human tissue-based “lung-on-a-chip” that can “breathe” and be used to estimate the effects of
inhaled chemicals on the human respiratory system. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential
toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer.

Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. A
research method called microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it’s
metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that’s well below the threshold necessary
for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced
imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron “Animals help in the fight against
cancer.”

Through taxes, donations, and private funding, Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on cancer
research since 1971. However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer
drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of
human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals. The authors of this study point out that
animal “models” of human cancer created through techniques such as grafting human tumors onto mice can be poor
predictors of how a drug will work in humans.Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI),
has observed, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice
of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Studies have found that the chemicals that cause cancer
in rats only caused cancer in mice 46 percent of the time. If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can
we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans?

The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-
cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at
combating cancer.
Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health
organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education.

Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat
foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives. We can beat
cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to
encourage healthier lifestyle choices.

“Science has a responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures for all the horrible diseases that people suffer
from.”

Every year in the U.S., animal experimentation gobbles up billions of dollars (including 40 percent of all research
funding from the National Institutes of Health), and nearly $3 trillion is spent on health care. While funding for animal
experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U.S. still ranks 42nd in the
world in life expectancy and has a high infant mortality rate compared to other developed countries. A 2014 review
paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the
overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. It concluded that “if research conducted
on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing
endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.”

While incidences of heart disease and strokes have recently shown slight declines—because of a change in lifestyle
factors, such as diet and smoking, rather than any medical advances—cancer rates continue to rise, and alcohol- and
drug-treatment centers, prenatal care programs, community mental health clinics, and trauma units continue to close
because they lack sufficient funds.

More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of
avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and
cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world.

“Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified.”

The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be
burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No
experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when
alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t.
Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the
animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they
aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief.

Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were
subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle
University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn
experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.

Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal testing is bad science and
wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they
would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a
brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal
experimentation followed by the arguments against them.

“Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.”

This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even
evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are
not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken
simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under
the misconception that these experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and
lobbying groups exaggerate the potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical
advances.

Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities published a paper in The BMJ titled
“Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” The researchers systematically examined studies
that used animals and concluded that little evidence exists to support the idea that experimentation on animals has
benefited humans.

In fact, many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, including the discovery of
the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and smoking and cancer, the development of X-rays, and the
isolation of the AIDS virus.
Between 1900 and 2000, life expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal
experimenters take credit for this improvement, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and
other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible
for the fact that people are living longer lives.

While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that
animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would
not have been made without using animals. Human health is more likely to be advanced by devoting resources to the
development of non-animal test methods, which have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to
humans, instead of to chasing leads in often inaccurate tests on animals.

“If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people.”

The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken,
someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those
human trials all the more risky. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has noted that 95 percent of all drugs that are
shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of
the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were
not identified in tests on animals.

Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn, and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the
market in recent years because of adverse reactions experienced by people taking them. Despite rigorous animal
tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people each year, making them our nation’s fourth-largest killer.

Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and
human health. More information about the failure of experiments on animals can be found here.

“We have to observe the complex interactions of cells, tissues, and organs in living animals.”

Taking healthy beings from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never
normally contract, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to
naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously
from species to species (and even within a species). Penicillin kills guinea pigs. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth
defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats,
and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and
experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced.

Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, remarked, “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the
1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics
might never have been realized.” Modern non-animal research methods are faster, cheaper, and more relevant to
humans than tests on animals.

Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of
new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds. The HμREL biochip uses living human cells to detect the effects of a
drug or chemical on multiple interacting organs, VaxDesign’s Modular Immune in vitro Construct (MIMIC®) system
uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing vaccines, and Harvard researchers
have developed a human tissue-based “lung-on-a-chip” that can “breathe” and be used to estimate the effects of
inhaled chemicals on the human respiratory system. Human tissue-based methods are also used to test the potential
toxicity of chemicals and for research into burns, allergies, asthma, and cancer.

Clinical research on humans also gives great insights into the effects of drugs and how the human body works. A
research method called microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it’s
metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that’s well below the threshold necessary
for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced
imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron.

“Animals help in the fight against cancer.”

Through taxes, donations, and private funding, Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on cancer
research since 1971. However, the return on that investment has been dismal. A survey of 4,451 experimental cancer
drugs developed between 2003 and 2011 found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of
human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals. The authors of this study point out that
animal “models” of human cancer created through techniques such as grafting human tumors onto mice can be poor
predictors of how a drug will work in humans.

Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has observed, “The history of cancer research
has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work
in humans.” Studies have found that the chemicals that cause cancer in rats only caused cancer in mice 46 percent of
the time. If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea
pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans?
The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-
cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at
combating cancer.

Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health
organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education.

Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat
foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives. We can beat
cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to
encourage healthier lifestyle choices.

“Science has a responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures for all the horrible diseases that people suffer
from.”

Every year in the U.S., animal experimentation gobbles up billions of dollars (including 40 percent of all research
funding from the National Institutes of Health), and nearly $3 trillion is spent on health care. While funding for animal
experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U.S. still ranks 42nd in the
world in life expectancy and has a high infant mortality rate compared to other developed countries. A 2014 review
paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the
overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. It concluded that “if research conducted
on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing
endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.”

While incidences of heart disease and strokes have recently shown slight declines—because of a change in lifestyle
factors, such as diet and smoking, rather than any medical advances—cancer rates continue to rise, and alcohol- and
drug-treatment centers, prenatal care programs, community mental health clinics, and trauma units continue to close
because they lack sufficient funds.

More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of
avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and
cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world.

“Many experiments are not painful to animals and are therefore justified.”

The only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be
burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No
experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required. Even when
alternatives to the use of animals are available, U.S. law does not require that they be used—and often they aren’t.
Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the
animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Because they
aren’t protected, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief.

Between 2010 and 2014, nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were
subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A 2009 survey by researchers at Newcastle
University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn
experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.

In addition to the actual pain of experiments, a comprehensive view of the situation for animals in laboratories should
take into account the totality of the suffering imposed on them, including the stress of capture, transportation, and
handling; the extreme confinement and unnatural living conditions; the deprivation that constitutes standard
husbandry procedures; and the physical and psychological stress experienced by animals used for breeding, who
endure repeated pregnancies, only to have their young torn away from them, sometimes immediately after birth.

Animals in laboratories endure lives of deprivation, isolation, stress, trauma, and depression even before they are
enrolled in any sort of protocol. This fact is especially apparent when one considers the specialized needs of each
species. In nature, many primates, including rhesus macaques and baboons, stay for many years or their entire lives
with their families and troops. They spend hours together every day, grooming each other, foraging, playing, and
making nests to sleep in each night. But in laboratories, primates are often caged alone. Laboratories often do not
allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces
softer than metal.

Indeed, in many laboratories, animals are handled roughly—even for routine monitoring procedures that fall outside
the realm of an experimental protocol—and this only heightens their fear and stress. Video footage from inside
laboratories shows that many animals cower in fear every time someone walks by their cage.

A 2004 article in Nature magazine indicated that mice housed in standard laboratory cages suffer from “impaired
brain development, abnormal repetitive behaviours (stereotypies) and an anxious behavioural profile.” This appalling
level of suffering results simply from standard housing conditions—before any sort of procedure is implemented.
A November 2004 article in Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science examined 80 published papers and
concluded that “significant fear, stress, and possibly distress are predictable consequences of routine laboratory
procedures” including seemingly benign practices such as blood collection and handling.

“We don’t want to use animals, but we don’t have any other options.”

The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the
human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers,
sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more
reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced
microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow
researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used
human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and
bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM),
produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing
rabbits.

Experimentation using animals persists not because it’s the best science but because of archaic habits, resistance to
change, and a lack of outreach and education.

“Don’t medical students have to dissect animals?”

Not a single medical school in the U.S. uses animals to train medical students, and experience with animal dissection
or experimentation on live animals isn’t required or expected of those applying to medical school. Medical students
are trained with a combination of sophisticated human-patient simulators, interactive computer programs, safe
human-based teaching methods, and clinical experience.

Today, one can even become a board-certified surgeon without harming any animals. Some medical professional
organizations, like the American Board of Anesthesiologists, even require physicians to complete simulation training—
not animal laboratories—to become board-certified.

In the United Kingdom, it’s against the law for medical (and veterinary) students to practice surgery on animals.

“Animals are here for humans to use. If we have to sacrifice 1,000 or 100,000 animals in the hope of benefiting one
child, it’s worth it.”

If experimenting on one intellectually disabled person could benefit 1,000 children, would we do it? Of course not!
Ethics dictate that the value of each life in and of itself cannot be superseded by its potential value to anyone else.
Additionally, money wasted on experiments on animals is money that could instead be helping people, through the
use of modern, human-relevant non-animal tests.

Experimenters claim a “right” to inflict pain on animals based on any number of arbitrary physical and cognitive
characteristics, such as animals’ supposed lack of reason. But if lack of reason truly justified animal experimentation,
experimenting on human beings with “inferior” mental capabilities, such as infants and the intellectually disabled,
would also be acceptable.

The argument also ignores the reasoning ability of many animals, including pigs who demonstrate measurably
sophisticated approaches to solving problems and primates who not only use tools but also teach their offspring how
to use them.

The experimenters’ real argument is “might makes right.” They believe it’s acceptable to harm animals because they
are weaker, because they look different, and because their pain is less important than human pain. This is not only
cruel but also unethical.

IMPORTANCE

Typically, animal studies are essential for research that seeks to understand complex questions of disease
progression, genetics, lifetime risk or other biological mechanisms of a whole living system that would be unethical,
morally unacceptable or technically unfeasible or too difficult to perform in human subjects.

Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?

Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems that affect both humans and animals, and to assure the
safety of new medical treatments. Some of these problems involve processes that can only be studied in a living
organism. Scientists study animals when there is no alternative and it is impractical or unethical to study humans.

Animals are good research subjects for a variety of reasons. They are biologically similar to humans and susceptible to
many of the same health problems. Also, they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their
whole life-span or across several generations. In addition, scientists can control the environment around the animal
(diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. However, the most important reason
why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to
observe the course of a disease.

Animals are needed in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover
such drugs and procedures using research methods that do not involve animals. If the new therapy seems promising,
it is then tested in animals to see whether it seems to be safe and effective. If the results of the animal studies are
favorable, human volunteers are asked to take part in a clinical trial. The animal studies are done first to give medical
researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.

Forty reasons why we need animals in research

• Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade.

• Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research.

• We share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.

• Animals and humans are very similar; we have the same organ systems performing the same tasks in more or less
the same way.

• Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma.

• All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research.

• While non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals.

• In vitro methods and computer modelling play an important part complementing data from animal models.

• Many veterinary medicines are the same as those used for human patients: examples include antibiotics, pain killers
and tranquillisers.

• Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development.

• Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood
transfusions were all perfected in animals.

• Scanning techniques including CT and MRI were developed using non-human animals.

Medical Examples

Thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise.

• Herceptin – a humanised mouse protein – has helped to increase the survival rate of those with breast cancer; it
could not have been attained without animal research in mice.

• Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS
is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago.

• While Fleming discovered penicillin without using animals, he shared the Nobel Prize with Florey and Chain who, by
testing it on mice, discovered how penicillin could be used to fight infections inside the body.

• Animal research is responsible for the development of asthma inhalers; asthma still kills around 2,000 people in the
UK every year.

• Animal research has helped develop modern vaccines including those against Polio, TB, Meningitis and, recently, the
human papillomavirus (HPV) which has been linked to cervical cancer.

• The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s.

• The 450,000 people in the UK suffering from Type I diabetes rely on Insulin – which was developed through
experiments in rabbits and dogs.

•Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals.

Statistics

••Dogs, cats and primates altogether account for less than 0.2% of research animals.

• 97% of research in the UK is done on mice, rats, fish and birds.

• The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research
each year.
• Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week – more than the total number of animals used in
medical research every year.

• The UK will consume more chickens this year than the total number of all animals used in medical research over the
past two centuries in Britain.

Regulation

• The UK has some of the highest standards of laboratory animal welfare in the world.

• All research in the UK must be approved by the Home Office, furthermore, the researchers and the institutions
doing the research must be licensed by the Home Office.

• Ethics committees exist to ensure that the potential benefits of research outweigh any suffering to the animals.
Animal welfare is underpinned by the 3Rs – there is a legal requirement to replace animals with alternatives, refine
experimental techniques and reduce the numbers of animals used in research.

• Animal research can only be carried out in the UK where there is no suitable non-animal alternative.

Why animal research is necessary

Animal experiments are performed in Belgium and in many other countries. These experiments are performed on
animals, in most instances because it is impossible to perform them on humans. Animal experiments are performed
for scientific – particularly biomedical – research, for the testing of the safety of certain consumer products and for
the testing of the safety of chemical substances. In some cases the animal experiments are performed specifically due
to legal requirements.

Small rodents, particularly mice and rats, are used for the vast majority of animal experiments. The use of animals for
the testing of certain consumer products is a sensitive issue - and rightly so. A number of alternatives have been
developed over the years, particularly for these types of animal experiments. These are primarily tests that are
performed on cells that are grown in test tubes.

On top of normal cell cultures as an alternative, there are now also certain stem cell derived human cells, 3D cell
cultures, organoids and mini-organs on a chip that can be used to answer specific research questions. These are more
complex models than normal cell cultures and can therefore in certain cases provide answers to more complex
research questions. So depending on the question you need to answer these more complex tissue culture models are
a valid alternative to the use of animals. But also these new models cannot fully replace animals. They are a step in
between simple cell cultures and the complete animal.

Animal experiments are unavoidable if we want to make the necessary progress in medical-scientific
research.

Medical-scientific research aims to contribute to the improvement of health care. It aims to contribute to the
development of new methods to prevent, diagnose and treat diseases. In order to achieve this, it is important first to
gain a better understanding of the human body in sickness and in health. The various molecular mechanisms that
cause disease need to be unraveled. This is currently not possible without some use of animals. After all, many
diseases are a complex interaction between various components, cells and tissues, in a three-dimensional structure.
This interaction and communication cannot always be copied in cell cultures and that makes animals - at least in part -
essential to understanding these complex interactions. In many cases so-called animal models are used: animals in
which certain disease symptoms are elicited genetically, chemically or in some other way. The human disease is
copied. Such experiments provide a lot of relevant information and many of the new drugs being marketed today
were in part created thanks to this process.

The “three Rs” are a central concept in the use of animals in scientific research. They stand for Replacement,
Reduction and Refinement of animal experiments. These principles have been enshrined in the animal welfare
legislation and should always be applied when considering an animal experiment.

Replacement

This principle means that - wherever possible - an animal experiment must always be replaced by an alternative that
does not require animals. For example, an experiment using cells in a test tube as an alternative.

Reduction

This principle entails that when you perform an animal experiment, you should always use the lowest possible
number of animals that will still give you a scientifically and statistically relevant result.

Refinement

This principle entails that for each action that you want to perform using a lab animal, you should determine whether
there is another way of performing this action so that the animal suffers less hindrance or pain. For example, this
means that you should use anesthetic where possible, or that you should replace a large needle with a small one. But
there is much more to it than that.

~~~~~

It may be unpalatable to some, but testing on animals cannot be totally avoided at present - it and saves lives every
day

The primatologist Dr Jane Goodall has proposed setting up a Nobel prize for advancing medical knowledge without
experimenting on animals. Throughout the world, people enjoy a better quality of life because of new medicines and
other treatments made possible through medical research. A small but vital part of that work involves the use of
animals.

Most research is already carried out with alternative methods, such as cell cultures, computer simulations and human
volunteers. But with current scientific knowledge, it is not yet possible to replace all use of animals in the near future.

Animal research has contributed to many medical advances which we now take for granted. Antibiotics, anaesthetics,
organ transplants and insulin for diabetes are just some of the breakthroughs that have depended on animal
research. The polio vaccine alone has saved millions of lives. And Herceptin was not only developed and tested in
mice, it actually comes from mice. This modern medicine can save the lives of women with breast cancer.

The welfare of animals used in research is important. Animals do suffer for the benefit of people, and we recognise
that people are concerned about that. In the UK we have the most rigorous laws in the world to ensure that animals
are only used after careful consideration.

The government has set up a national centre which has now become a world leader in finding ways to reduce animal
tests and discover alternatives to replace them. Animals are properly looked after in modern research centres, not
just because the staff care about them, but because we want the best results from our research. Well-trained animal
technicians care for the animals personally and professionally, because that is the job they have chosen. And vets
oversee the wellbeing of animals in every research institution in the country.

SCENARIO/EXAMPLE:

Someone I knew with children once told me she didn't agree with animal research. But she thought again when I
pointed out that both of our children had had the meningitis vaccine. This was developed in about a hundred mice,
but has saved the lives of thousands of children. Sometimes it really is a matter of life or death.

Of course, not all research gives great results. Animal rights activists are right that the results of research, whether
from animals or cell cultures, cannot always be applied directly to humans. But just because a method isn't perfect,
that doesn't mean it is of no value. Over 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine have involved the use of animals. And
veterinary research still relies heavily on animals. It's a difficult ethical dilemma, but researchers and doctors all over
the world believe that some continued animal research is essential if we are to save lives and prevent people
suffering.

------

Animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant
procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. millions of lives have been saved or improved as a result. Animal
research has been important in the development of many major medical advances.

Surgical procedures, pain relievers, psychoactive drugs, medications for blood pressure, insulin, pacemakers, nutrition
supplements, organ transplants, treatments for shock trauma and blood diseases—all have been developed and
tested in animals before being used in humans.

Vaccines, antibiotics, prostheses… Most of the major advances in medicine would not have been possible without
animal testing. Here are, in chronological order, a selection of ten medical breakthroughs carried out in animals:

~~~~

10 medical breakthroughs carried out in animals

Vaccines, antibiotics, prostheses… Most of the major advances in medicine would not have been possible without
animal testing. Here are, in chronological order, a selection of ten medical breakthroughs carried out in animals:

1) 1920 : use of insulin as a treatment against diabetes in dogs.

2) 1930 : discovery of the effects of anaesthesia in laboratory rats.

3) 1940 : the effectiveness of penicillin as an antibiotic was proven in mice.

4) 1950 : development of hip prostheses following studies in sheep.

5) 1960 : the antidepressant effect of some molecules that act on the brain was demonstrated in rats.

6) 1970 : manufacture of the asthma inhaler after tests on guinea pigs.

7) 1980 : implementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a diagnostic tool in pigs.

8) 1990 : discovery of antiretroviral drugs against HIV in monkeys.

9) 2000 : development of a vaccine against cervical cancer in rabbits.

10) 2010 : use of stem cells to repair heart tissue in zebrafish.

Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research

Given by the National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT), 2018.

These guidelines have been prepared by the National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology
(NENT). Their purpose is to provide ethical guidelines for researchers and other people who are considering
experiments on animals. The guidelines will be useful when planning projects, assessing them, and when reporting
and publishing findings and results. They are also intended to contribute to reflection on research ethics and the use
of animals in research in both research communities and in the public debate.

The overarching framework for these guidelines is provided by the Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and
Technology (2016), particularly guidelines 12 and 13. A consultation process and a subsequent workshop organised by
NENT in the autumn of 2016 found that relevant players see a need for a set of guidelines that can systematise and
elaborate on the ethical responsibility inherent in the use of animals in research. This is the background for the
current guidelines.

In Norway, the use of laboratory animals is governed by the Regulations Relating to the Use of Animals in Research,
which follow from the Animal Welfare Act. The EEA Agreement obliges Norway to implement EU Directive
2010/63/EU on the Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes. These rules provide a zero vision for research
using animals. In Norway, the Gene Technology Act provides the legal framework for research on such organisms.

Many of the ethical obligations stipulated in these guidelines are also laid down in applicable legislation. Researchers
who violate the guidelines can face legal sanctions. In that case, it is because they have broken the law, not primarily
because they have violated the guidelines for research ethics. NENT does not have access to any sanctions of its own.
NENT's role in following up the guidelines is to provide advice and recommendations, help increase awareness of
animal welfare, and to stimulate continued discussion about research that involves animals.

Ethics and Experiments on Animals

The ethical assessments related to the use of animals in research are wide-ranging. It is generally thought that it may
be necessary to use laboratory animals in some cases in order to create improvements for people, animals or the
environment. At the same time, the general opinion is that animals have a moral status, and that our treatment of
them should be subject to ethical considerations. Such views are reflected in the following positions:

(i) Animals have an intrinsic value which must be respected.

(ii) Animals are sentient creatures with the capacity to feel pain, and the interests of animals must therefore be taken
into consideration.

(iii) Our treatment of animals, including the use of animals in research, is an expression of our attitudes and influences
us as moral actors.
The guidelines reflect all these positions, and stipulate principles and considerations that can be used as tools when
balancing between harm and benefit. The three Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine) are established principles that are also
enshrined in legislation. These principles can establish absolute limits for experiments on animals, even when there
are great benefits. These principles also state what can reasonably be considered harm and benefit, and the principles
thus facilitate good assessments. Assessments of harm and benefit associated with experiments on animals are
particularly demanding, because experiments may result in researchers intentionally causing actual harm to animals,
while the future benefits are often uncertain.

The guidelines are dynamic and must be reviewed in line with technological

developments and the appearance of new ethical issues. New gene technology methods create new opportunities
for the use of genetically modified animals in research, which is a growing trend. Genetically modifying laboratory
animals, i.e. changing the genetic material of laboratory animals using gene technology, gives rise to a special
responsibility in that this method entails a double intervention: first, intervention in the animal's genetic material and
second, use of the animal as a research object. This practice has the potential to change our view of humans and our
attitudes towards generating or eliminating genetic characteristics in ourselves.

These guidelines provide a framework that also covers ethical questions associated with the use of genetically
modified animals in research.

Guidelines

1. Respect for animals' dignity

Researchers must have respect for animals' worth, regardless of their utility value, and for animals' interests as living,
sentient creatures. Researchers must be respectful when choosing their topic and methods, and when disseminating
their research. Researchers must provide care that is adapted to the needs of each laboratory animal.

2. Responsibility for considering options (Replace)

Researchers are responsible for studying whether there are alternatives to experiments on animals. Alternative
options must be prioritised if the same knowledge can be acquired without using laboratory animals. If no good
options are available, researchers should consider whether the research can be postponed until alternative methods
have been developed. When justifying experiments on animals, researchers therefore must be able to account for the
absence of options and the need to acquire knowledge immediately.

3. The principle of proportionality: responsibility for considering and balancing suffering and benefit

Researchers must consider the risk that laboratory animals experience pain and other suffering (see guideline 5) and
assess them in relation to the value of the research for animals, people or the environment. Researchers are
responsible for considering whether the experiment may result in improvements for animals, people or the
environment. The possible benefits of the study must be considered, substantiated and specified in both the short
and the long term. The responsibility also entails an obligation to consider the scientific quality of the experiments
and whether the experiments will have relevant scientific benefits.

Suffering can only be caused to animals if this is counterbalanced by a substantial and probable benefit for animals,
people or the environment.

There are many different methods for analysing harm and benefit. Research institutions should provide training on
suitable models, and researchers are responsible for using such methods of analysis when planning experiments on
animals.

4. Responsibility for considering reducing the number of animals (Reduce)

Researchers are responsible for considering whether it is possible to reduce the number of animals the experiment
plans to use and must only include the number necessary to maintain the scientific quality of the

experiments and the relevance of the results. This means, among other things, that researchers must conduct
literature studies, consider alternative experiment designs and perform design calculations before beginning
experiments.
5. Responsibility for minimising the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare (Refine)

Researchers are responsible for assessing the expected effect on laboratory animals. Researchers must minimise the
risk of suffering and provide good animal welfare. Suffering includes pain, hunger, thirst, malnutrition, abnormal cold
or heat, fear, stress, injury, illness and restrictions on the ability to behave normally/naturally.

A researcher's assessment of what is considered acceptable suffering should

be based on the animals that suffer the most. If there are any doubts regarding perceived suffering, consideration of
the animals must be the deciding factor.

Researchers must not only consider the direct suffering that may be endured during the experiment itself, but also
the risk of suffering before and after the experiment, including trapping, labelling, anaesthetising, breeding,
transportation, stabling and euthanising. This means that researchers must also take account of the need for periods
of adaptation before and after the experiment.

6. Responsibility for maintaining biological diversity

Researchers are responsible for ensuring that the use of laboratory animals does not endanger biological diversity.
This means that researchers must consider the consequences to the stock and to the ecosystem as a whole. The use
of endangered and vulnerable species must be reduced to an absolute minimum. When there is credible, but
uncertain, knowledge that the inclusion of animals in research or the use of certain methods may have ethically
unacceptable consequences for the stock and the ecosystem as a whole, researchers must observe the precautionary
principle.[1]

7. Responsibility when intervening in a habitat

Researchers are responsible for reducing disruption and any impact on the natural behaviour of individual animals,
including those that are not direct subjects of research, as well as of populations and their surroundings. Certain
research and technology-related projects, like those regarding environmental technology and environmental
surveillance, may impact on animals and their living conditions, for example as a result of installing radar masts,
antennas or other measurement instruments. In such cases, researchers must seek to observe the principle of
proportionality (see guideline 3) and minimise the possible negative impact.

8. Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material

Researchers are responsible for ensuring that there is transparency about research findings and facilitating the
sharing of data and material from experiments on animals. Such transparency and sharing are important in order to
avoid unnecessary repetition of experiments. Transparency is also important in order to ensure that the public are
informed and is part of researchers' responsibility for dissemination.

In general, the negative results of experiments on animals should be public knowledge. Disclosing negative results
may give other researchers information about which experiments are not worth pursuing, shine a light on
unfortunate research design, and help reduce the use of animals in research.

9. Requirement of expertise on animals

Researchers and other parties who handle live animals must have adequately updated and documented expertise on
animals. This includes specific knowledge about the biology of the animal species in question, and a willingness and
ability to take care of animals properly.

10. Requirement of due care

There are national laws and rules and international conventions and agreements regarding the use of laboratory
animals, and both researchers and research managers must comply with these. Any person who plans to use animals
in experiments must familiarise themselves with the current rules.