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

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


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.



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.


  1. Akhtar, A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Allen, A. “Of Mice and Men: The Problems with Animal Testing.” Slate, June 1, 2006.
  4. Attarwala, H. “TGN1412: From Discovery to Disaster.” Journal of Young Pharmacists 2, no. 3 (2010): 332–36.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, J. “An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research.” ATLA 36 (2008): 381–428.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Baldwin, A., and M. Bekoff. “Too Stressed to Work.” New Scientist 194 (2007): 24.Google Scholar
  8. Callaway, E. “Fearful Memories Haunt Mouse Descendants.” Nature, December 1, 2013.
  9. Church, R. M. “Emotional Reactions of Rats to the Pain of Others.” Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 52 (1959): 132–34.Google Scholar
  10. Crabbe, J. C., D. Wahlsten, and B. C. Dudek. “Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment.” Science 284 (1999): 1670–72.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. de Waal, F. B. M. “Commiserating Mice.” Scientific American News Blog, July 24, 2007. Accessed September 14, 2013.
  13. 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
  14. Hanke, T. “Lessons from TGN1412.” Lancet 368 (2006): 1569–70.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Kolar, R. “Animal Experimentation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 111–22.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Ledford, H. “Flaws Found in Mouse Model of Diabetes.” Nature, May 28, 2009: 523.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Monastersky, R. “Protesters Fail to Slow Animal Research.” Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (2008): A1.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. “Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory.” Accessed June 6, 2014.
  26. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. May 25, 2005.
  27. Orlans, F. B. “Ethical Decision Making about Animal Experiments.” Ethics and Behavior 7 (1997): 163–71.Google Scholar
  28. Panksepp, J. “Beyond a Joke: From Animal Laughter to Human Joy?” Science 308 (2005): 62–63.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Sullivan, M. “The Animal Welfare Act—What’s That?” NYSBA Journal (July–August 2007).Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Centre for Animal EthicsOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations