How Many Animals Are Killed In Animal Testing

Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others accept their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. In add-on to the torment of the bodily experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are bars to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than than disposable laboratory equipment.

Brute Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Centre poll found that 52 percentage of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific inquiry, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress.^v,6 The majority of animal experiments practise not contribute to improving human being health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious nearly extrapolating the finding of prominent brute inquiry to the care of homo affliction … poor replication of even high-quality fauna studies should exist expected past those who comport clinical enquiry."^seven

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in man beings. And because brute species differ from one another biologically in many meaning ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will exist correctly interpreted and applied to the man condition in a meaningful style.

For example, co-ordinate to former National Cancer Constitute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and information technology only didn't work in humans."^viii This decision was echoed by former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Managing director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "Nosotros take moved away from studying homo disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that it hasn't worked, and it'southward time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans."^nine

The information is sobering: Although at to the lowest degree 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans.¹⁰ In ane case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in homo clinical trials because information technology did not preclude people from developing AIDS, and some believe that information technology fabricated them more susceptible to the disease. Co-ordinate to a written report in the British newspaper The Independent, 1 conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work."¹¹

These are not anomalies. The National Institutes of Health has stated, "Therapeutic development is a costly, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is almost 14 years. The failure charge per unit during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug can be $1 billion or more."¹²

Research published in the journal Register of Internal Medicine revealed that universities commonly exaggerate findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories and "frequently promote enquiry that has uncertain relevance to human health and do not provide key facts or acknowledge important limitations."¹³ One study of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories frequently omit crucial information and that "the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented."^xiv Considering experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies, other scientists and the public do not have ready access to information on the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation.

What's the subconscious toll of animal experiments? Our augmented reality feel will prove yous.

Endeavor It Now

Funding and Accountability

Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly—fund fauna experimentation. One of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such equally NIH. Approximately 47 per centum of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted near $42 billion for enquiry and development.^15,16 In addition, many charities––including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Order, and endless others—employ donations to fund experiments on animals. Ane-3rd of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society involve beast experimentation.¹⁷

Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal experimentation, information technology is nearly impossible for the public to obtain current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are existence carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. State open up-records laws and the U.S. Freedom of Information Deed tin be used to obtain documents and information from state institutions, regime agencies, and other federally funded facilities, simply individual companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. In many cases, institutions that are subject to open-records laws fight vigorously to withhold information about creature experimentation from the public.¹⁸

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, virtually countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in identify to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from beingness used when a non-animal approach is readily bachelor. In the U.South., the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories simply are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Deed (AWA).^xix,20 Many laboratories that use but these species are not required by police to provide animals with pain relief or veterinarian care, to search for and consider alternatives to animate being use, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.South. Department of Agronomics (USDA) or any other entity. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject field to federal laws and inspections considering they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose apply is largely unregulated.²¹

As for the more than 11,000 facilities that the USDA does regulate (of which more 1,200 are designated for "research"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations.²² Reports have repeatedly ended that fifty-fifty the minimal standards set forth past the AWA are not being met past these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Animal Intendance and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to carry out their mandate. A 1995 report past the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "found that the activities of the IACUCs did not always come across the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not be performed on laboratory animals."²³ In 2000, a USDA survey of the agency'due south laboratory inspectors revealed serious issues in numerous areas, including "the search for alternatives [and] review of painful procedures."²⁴ A September 2005 inspect report issued past the OIG institute ongoing "problems with the search for alternative inquiry, veterinarian care, review of painful procedures, and the researchers' use of animals."²⁵ In December 2014, an OIG report documented standing problems with laboratories failing to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA'due south weak enforcement actions failing to deter future violations. The inspect highlighted that from 2009 to 2011, USDA inspectors cited 531 experimentation facilities for 1,379 violations stemming from the IACUCs' failure to adequately review and monitor the utilise of animals. The audit also determined that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators by an average of 86 percent, even in cases involving brute deaths and egregious violations.²⁶

Research co-authored by PETA documented that, on boilerplate, fauna experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 per centum of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. institutions. A whopping 98.six percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also made upward of brute experimenters. The authors observed that the dominant part played by fauna experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving animate being experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight organization."²⁷ Even when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may exist, are prohibited by federal police. When valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal police requires experimenters to utilize such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Fauna Testing

A loftier-profile report published in the prestigious BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) documenting the ineffectiveness and waste of experimentation on animals concluded that "if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what tin can be expected in humans, the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced."²⁸

Research with human volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on human cells and tissues are disquisitional to the advancement of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animal research methods are available and have been shown time and once more to be more than accurate than crude beast experiments.²⁹ However, this modern research requires a different outlook, one that is creative and empathetic and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Man health and well-being can likewise be promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of illness before information technology occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of farther environmental pollution and degradation. The public is condign more enlightened and more song about the cruelty and inadequacy of the current research system and is demanding that taxation dollars and charitable donations not exist used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Animal Testing

PETA created "Without Consent"—an interactive timeline featuring nearly 200 stories of animal experiments from the past century—to open people's optics to the long history of suffering that's been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit "Without Consent" to learn more near harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how y'all tin assistance create a better futurity for living, feeling beings.

Without Consent

You Tin can Aid Finish Fauna Testing

Virtually all federally funded inquiry is paid for with your tax dollars. Your lawmakers needs to know that you don't desire your coin used to pay for fauna experiments.

Urge your members of Congress to endorse PETA's Inquiry Modernization Deal, which provides a roadmap for modernizing U.Due south. investment in inquiry past ending funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in constructive inquiry that's relevant to humans.

Take Activity

Not a U.S. Resident? Take Action Here

Animate being Testing Facts and Figures

United States (2019)^i,ii

• Almost i million animals are held captive in laboratories or used in experiments (excluding rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used in agricultural experiments), plus an estimated 100 one thousand thousand mice and rats

Canada (2020)³

• 5.07 million animals used in experiments
• 94,543 animals subjected to "severe hurting near, at, or in a higher place the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals"

United kingdom(2020)^four

• two.88 one thousand thousand procedures on animals
• Of the 1.4 million experiments completed in 2020, 57,600 were assessed as "severe," including "long-term disease processes where aid with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where pregnant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Annual Report Beast Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Inquiry Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and "Annual Written report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 Apr. 2021.
²Madhusree Mukerjee, "Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory," Scientific American, Aug. 2004.
³Canadian Quango on Brute Care,"CCAC 2020 Animal Data Report," 2021
^four U.Thousand. Government, "Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Britain 2020," Home Function, 15 July 2021.
⁵Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, "Nearly Americans Take Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human being Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Inquiry Eye, 16 Aug. 2018
^half-dozenPeter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, "Let the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
⁷Daniel G. Hackam, One thousand.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, 1000.D., "Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human," The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
⁸Marlene Simmons et al., "Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions," Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
⁹Rich McManus, "Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Enquiry," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
^xJarrod Bailey, "An Assessment of the Function of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, "Is It Time to Give Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Health, "About New Therapeutic Uses," National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ix Oct. 2019.
^xiiiSteve Woloshin, M.D., M.Due south., et al., "Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not Then Academic?" Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-8.
^fourteenSteven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, "Media Reporting on Enquiry Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed," The Medical Periodical of Australia 184 (2006): 576-eighty.
^xvDiana E. Pankevich et afifty., "International Animal Enquiry Regulations: Impact on Neuroscience Enquiry," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, "Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et al.
^xviiiDeborah Ziff, "On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Enquiry Records," Wisconsin State Journal 5 April. 2010.
¹⁹U.Southward. Department of Agriculture, Creature and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Fauna Welfare, Definition of Animal," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
^twentyJustin Goodman et al., "Trends in Animal Apply at US Research Facilities," Periodical of Medical Ideals 0(2015): 1-three.
²¹The Associated Printing, "Brute Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.Due south. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animal Care: Search."
²³U.S. Department of Agriculture, Role of Inspector Full general, "APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit written report, xxx Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.Southward. Section of Agriculture, Fauna and Plant Health Inspection Service, "USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Intendance Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, thirty Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Section of Agriculture, Part of Inspector General, "Animal and Constitute Wellness Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit study, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et a50., "Assay of Creature Inquiry Ideals Committee Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, "Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Enquiry?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., "Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Man Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National University of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

Source: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/

Posted by: evanshiscia.blogspot.com

Share this post