Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics pp 475–491Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Suffering for Science and How Science Supports the End of Animal Experiments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series ((PMAES))

Abstract

Experimentation that uses non-human animals is justified by its defenders on the basis of the two-fold premise that: a) non-human animals make sufficient models of human biology and diseases, and b) non-human animals lack cognitive and emotional abilities that would require higher moral consideration. The irony with this defense is that experiments that use non-human animal subjects actually reveal how the opposite is in fact true. Medical experiments conducted on non-human animals reveal how similar they are to humans in their ability to suffer, while also proving that they are unreliable for studying human diseases and improving human health.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    K. Taylor et al., “Estimates for Worldwide Animal Use in 2005,” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 327–42.

  2. 2.

    R. Monastersky, “Protesters Fail to Slow Animal Research,” Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (2008): 1.

  3. 3.

    Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of Research Involving Animals (May 25, 2005), 184, http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-ethics-of-research-involving-animals-full-report.pdf.

  4. 4.

    A. Allen, “Of Mice and Men: The Problems with Animal Testing,” Slate, June 1, 2006, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html.

  5. 5.

    P. Perel et al., “Comparison of Treatment Effects between Animal Experiments and Clinical Trials: Systematic Review,” BMJ 334 (2007): 197.

  6. 6.

    S. H. Curry, “Why Have So Many Drugs with Stellar Results in Laboratory Stroke Models Railed in Clinical Trials? A Theory Based on Allometric Relationships,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 993 (2003): 69–74; U. Dirnagl, “Bench to Bedside: The Quest for Quality in Experimental Stroke Research,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 26 (2006): 1465–78.

  7. 7.

    B. van der Worp et al., “Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?” PLoS Medicine 7, no. 3 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Dirnagl, “Bench to Bedside”; E. Sena et al., “How Can We Improve the Pre-Clinical Development of Drugs for Stroke?” Trends in Neurosciences 30 (2007): 433–39.

  9. 9.

    D. O. Wiebers, H. P. Adams, and J. P. Whisnant, “Animal Models of Stroke: Are They Relevant to Human Disease?” Stroke 21 (1990): 1–3.

  10. 10.

    A. Akhtar, J. J. Pippin, and C. B. Sandusky, “Animal Models in Spinal Cord Injury: A Review,” Reviews in the Neurosciences 19 (2008): 47–60; N. Lonjon et al., “Minimum Information about Animal Experiments: Supplier Is Also Important,” Journal of Neuroscience Research 87 (2009): 403–7.

  11. 11.

    J. S. Mogil et al., “Heritability of Nociception I: Responses of 11 Inbred Mouse Strains on 12 Measures of Nociception,” Pain 80 (1999): 67–82.

  12. 12.

    H. Ledford, “Flaws Found in Mouse Model of Diabetes,” Nature, May 28, 2009.

  13. 13.

    D. F. Horrobin, “Modern Biomedical Research: An Internally Self-Consistent Universe with Little Contact with Medical Reality?” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2 (2003): 151–54.

  14. 14.

    C. M. Spencer et al., “Modifying Behavioral Phenotypes in Fmr1KO Mice: Genetic Background Differences Reveal Autistic-Like Responses,” Autism Research 4, no. 1 (2011): 40–56.

  15. 15.

    Horrobin, “Modern Biomedical Research: 152”.

  16. 16.

    A. Akhtar, Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 148.

  17. 17.

    J. Bailey, “An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research,” ATLA 36 (2008): 381–428.

  18. 18.

    J. Pippin, “Animal Research in Medical Sciences: Seeking a Convergence of Science, Medicine, and Animal Law,” South Texas Law Review 54 (2013): 469–511.

  19. 19.

    Allen, “Of Mice and Men.”

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    H. Attarwala, “TGN1412: From Discovery to Disaster,” Journal of Young Pharmacists 2, no. 3 (2010): 332–36; T. Hanke, “Lessons from TGN1412,” Lancet 368 (2006): 1569–70.

  22. 22.

    K. N. Morgan and C. T. Tromborg, “Sources of Stress in Captivity,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, no. 3–4 (2007): 262–302.

  23. 23.

    P. C. Hart et al., “Analysis of Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors in Experimental Animal Models,” in Translational Neuroscience in Animal Research: Advancement, Challenges, and Research Ethics, ed. J. E. Warnick and A. V. Kalueff (New York: Nova Science, 2009), 71–82; C. Lutz, A. Well, and M. Novak, “Stereotypic and Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Macaques: A Survey and Retrospective Analysis of Environment and Early Experience,” American Journal of Primatology 60, no. 1 (2003): 1–15.

  24. 24.

    J. P. Balcombe, J. D. Barnard, and C. Sandusky, “Laboratory Routines Cause Animal Stress,” Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 43 (2004): 42–51.

  25. 25.

    A. Baldwin and M. Bekoff, “Too Stressed to Work,” New Scientist 194 (2007): 24.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Akhtar, Pippin, and Sandusky, “Animal Models”; Lonjon et al., “Minimum Information.”

  28. 28.

    Baldwin and Bekoff, “Too Stressed to Work,” 24.

  29. 29.

    Akhtar, Pippin, and Sandusky, “Animal Models.”

  30. 30.

    J. C. Crabbe, D. Wahlsten, and B. C. Dudek, “Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment,” Science 284 (1999): 1670–72.

  31. 31.

    E. Callaway, “Fearful Memories Haunt Mouse Descendants,” Nature, December 1, 2013, http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272.

  32. 32.

    R. M. Church, “Emotional Reactions of Rats to the Pain of Others,” Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 52 (1959): 132–34.

  33. 33.

    D. J. Langford et al., “Social Modulation of Pain as Evidence for Empathy in Mice,” Science 312 (2006): 1967–70.

  34. 34.

    F. B. M. de Waal, “Commiserating Mice,” Scientific American News Blog, July 24, 2007, accessed September 14, 2013, http://63.131.142.236/blog/post.cfm?id=do-animals-feel-empathy.

  35. 35.

    J. Panksepp, “Beyond a Joke: From Animal Laughter to Human Joy?” Science 308 (2005): 62–63.

  36. 36.

    B. E. Rollin, “Animal Pain,” in The Animal Ethics Reader, ed. S. J. Armstrong and R. G. Botzler, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2008), 136.

  37. 37.

    National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, “Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory,” accessed June 6, 2014, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., emphasis added.

  39. 39.

    R. L. Walker, “Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2006): 305–31.

  40. 40.

    F. B. Orlans, “Ethical Decision Making about Animal Experiments,” Ethics and Behavior 7 (1997): 163–71; B. E. Rollin, “The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2006): 285–304; Walker, “Human and Animal Subjects of Research”; R. Kolar, “Animal Experimentation,” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 111–22.

  41. 41.

    M. Sullivan, “The Animal Welfare Act—What’s That?” NYSBA Journal (July–August 2007).

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

Bibliography

  • Akhtar, A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar, A., J. J. Pippin, and C. B. Sandusky. “Animal Models in Spinal Cord Injury: A Review.” Reviews in the Neurosciences 19 (2008): 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, A. “Of Mice and Men: The Problems with Animal Testing.” Slate, June 1, 2006. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html.

  • Attarwala, H. “TGN1412: From Discovery to Disaster.” Journal of Young Pharmacists 2, no. 3 (2010): 332–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. “An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research.” ATLA 36 (2008): 381–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe, J. P., N. D. Barnard, and C. Sandusky. “Laboratory Routines Cause Animal Stress.” Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 43 (2004): 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, A., and M. Bekoff. “Too Stressed to Work.” New Scientist 194 (2007): 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, E. “Fearful Memories Haunt Mouse Descendants.” Nature, December 1, 2013. http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272.

  • Church, R. M. “Emotional Reactions of Rats to the Pain of Others.” Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 52 (1959): 132–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe, J. C., D. Wahlsten, and B. C. Dudek. “Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment.” Science 284 (1999): 1670–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, S. H. “Why Have So Many Drugs with Stellar Results in Laboratory Stroke Models Railed in Clinical Trials? A Theory Based on Allometric Relationships.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 993 (2003): 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. B. M. “Commiserating Mice.” Scientific American News Blog, July 24, 2007. Accessed September 14, 2013. http://63.131.142.236/blog/post.cfm?id=do-animals-feel-empathy.

  • Dirnagl, U. “Bench to Bedside: The Quest for Quality in Experimental Stroke Research.” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 26 (2006): 1465–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, T. “Lessons from TGN1412.” Lancet 368 (2006): 1569–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, P. C., C. L. Bergner, B. D. Dufour, A. N. Smolinsky, R. J. Egan, J. L. LaPorte, and A. V. Kalueff. “Analysis of Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors in Experimental Animal Models.” In Translational Neuroscience in Animal Research: Advancement, Challenges, and Research Ethics, edited by J. E. Warnick and A. V. Kalueff, 71–82. New York: Nova Science, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D. F. “Modern Biomedical Research: An Internally Self-Consistent Universe with Little Contact with Medical Reality?” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2 (2003): 151–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolar, R. “Animal Experimentation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 111–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, D. J, S. E. Crager, Z. Shehzad, S. B. Smith, S. G. Sotocinal, J. S. Levenstadt, M. L. Chanda, D. J. Levitin, and J. S. Mogil. “Social Modulation of Pain as Evidence for Empathy in Mice.” Science 312 (2006): 1967–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, H. “Flaws Found in Mouse Model of Diabetes.” Nature, May 28, 2009: 523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonjon, N., M. Prieto, H. Haton, C. B. Brøchner, L. Bauchet, V. Costalat, A. Privat, M. Gaviria, and F. E. Perrin. “Minimum Information about Animal Experiments: Supplier Is Also Important.” Journal of Neuroscience Research 87 (2009): 403–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, C., A. Well, and M. Novak. “Stereotypic and Self-Injurious Behavior in Rhesus Macaques: A Survey and Retrospective Analysis of Environment and Early Experience.” American Journal of Primatology 60, no. 1 (2003): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogil, J. S., S. G. Wilson, K. Bon, S. E. Lee, K. Chung, P. Raber, J. O. Pieper, et al. “Heritability of Nociception I: Responses of 11 Inbred Mouse Strains on 12 Measures of Nociception.” Pain 80 (1999): 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monastersky, R. “Protesters Fail to Slow Animal Research.” Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (2008): A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. N., and C. T. Tromborg. “Sources of Stress in Captivity.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102, no. 3–4 (2007): 262–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. “Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory.” Accessed June 6, 2014. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. May 25, 2005. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-ethics-of-research-involving-animals-full-report.pdf.

  • Orlans, F. B. “Ethical Decision Making about Animal Experiments.” Ethics and Behavior 7 (1997): 163–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panksepp, J. “Beyond a Joke: From Animal Laughter to Human Joy?” Science 308 (2005): 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perel, P., I. Roberts, E. Sena, P. Wheble, C. Briscoe, P. Sandercock, M. Macleod, L. E. Mignini, P. Jayaram, and K. S. Khan. “Comparison of Treatment Effects between Animal Experiments and Clinical Trials: Systematic Review.” BMJ 334 (2007): 197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pippin, J. “Animal Research in Medical Sciences: Seeking a Convergence of Science, Medicine, and Animal Law.” South Texas Law Review 54 (2013): 469–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. “Animal Pain.” In The Animal Ethics Reader, edited by S. J. Armstrong and R. G. Botzler, 2nd ed., 135–140. New York: Routledge, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. “The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2006): 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sena, E., B. van der Worp, D. Howells, and M. Macleod. “How Can We Improve the Pre-Clinical Development of Drugs for Stroke?” Trends in Neurosciences 30 (2007): 433–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, C. M., O. Alekseyenko, S. M. Hamilton, A. M. Thomas, E. Serysheva, L. A. Yuva-Paylor, and R. Paylor. “Modifying Behavioral Phenotypes in Fmr1KO Mice: Genetic Background Differences Reveal Autistic-Like Responses.” Autism Research 4, no. 1 (2011): 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. “The Animal Welfare Act—What’s That?” NYSBA Journal (July–August 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K., N. Gordon, G. Langley, and W. Higgins. “Estimates for Worldwide Animal Use in 2005.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008) 327–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Worp, H. B., D. W. Howells, E. S. Sena, M. J. Porritt, S. Rewell, V. O’Collins, and M. R. Macleod. “Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?” PLoS Medicine 7, no. 3 (2010): e1000245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. L. “Human and Animal Subjects of Research: The Moral Significance of Respect versus Welfare.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2006): 305–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebers, D. O., H. P. Adams, and J. P. Whisnant. “Animal Models of Stroke: Are They Relevant to Human Disease?” Stroke 21 (1990): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

During the preparation of this article, the author was invited to contribute to the Report of the Working Group of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. The labours of the Working Group, under the stewardship and editorial guidance of Andrew and Clair Linzey have subsequently been published as Normalising the Unthinkable: The Ethics of Using Animals in Research (Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, 2015). As a consequence, a few passages in the present appear in both publications.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, UK

    Aysha Akhtar

Authors
  1. Aysha Akhtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aysha Akhtar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, UK

    Andrew Linzey

  2. Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, UK

    Clair Linzey

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Akhtar, A. (2018). Suffering for Science and How Science Supports the End of Animal Experiments. In: Linzey, A., Linzey, C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-36671-9_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation