scientific research of animals

Research using animals: an overview

Around half the diseases in the world have no treatment. Understanding how the body works and how diseases progress, and finding cures, vaccines or treatments, can take many years of painstaking work using a wide range of research techniques. There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress.

Animal research in the UK is strictly regulated. For more details on the regulations governing research using animals, go to the UK regulations page .

Why is animal research necessary?

There is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some animals are still needed in order to make medical progress.

Where animals are used in research projects, they are used as part of a range of scientific techniques. These might include human trials, computer modelling, cell culture, statistical techniques, and others. Animals are only used for parts of research where no other techniques can deliver the answer.

A living body is an extraordinarily complex system. You cannot reproduce a beating heart in a test tube or a stroke on a computer. While we know a lot about how a living body works, there is an enormous amount we simply don’t know: the interaction between all the different parts of a living system, from molecules to cells to systems like respiration and circulation, is incredibly complex. Even if we knew how every element worked and interacted with every other element, which we are a long way from understanding, a computer hasn’t been invented that has the power to reproduce all of those complex interactions - while clearly you cannot reproduce them all in a test tube.

While humans are used extensively in Oxford research, there are some things which it is ethically unacceptable to use humans for. There are also variables which you can control in a mouse (like diet, housing, clean air, humidity, temperature, and genetic makeup) that you could not control in human subjects.

Is it morally right to use animals for research?

Most people believe that in order to achieve medical progress that will save and improve lives, perhaps millions of lives, limited and very strictly regulated animal use is justified. That belief is reflected in the law, which allows for animal research only under specific circumstances, and which sets out strict regulations on the use and care of animals. It is right that this continues to be something society discusses and debates, but there has to be an understanding that without animals we can only make very limited progress against diseases like cancer, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and HIV.

It’s worth noting that animal research benefits animals too: more than half the drugs used by vets were developed originally for human medicine. 

Aren’t animals too different from humans to tell us anything useful?

No. Just by being very complex living, moving organisms they share a huge amount of similarities with humans. Humans and other animals have much more in common than they have differences. Mice share over 90% of their genes with humans. A mouse has the same organs as a human, in the same places, doing the same things. Most of their basic chemistry, cell structure and bodily organisation are the same as ours. Fish and tadpoles share enough characteristics with humans to make them very useful in research. Even flies and worms are used in research extensively and have led to research breakthroughs (though these species are not regulated by the Home Office and are not in the Biomedical Sciences Building).

What does research using animals actually involve?

The sorts of procedures research animals undergo vary, depending on the research. Breeding a genetically modified mouse counts as a procedure and this represents a large proportion of all procedures carried out. So does having an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan, something which is painless and which humans undergo for health checks. In some circumstances, being trained to go through a maze or being trained at a computer game also counts as a procedure. Taking blood or receiving medication are minor procedures that many species of animal can be trained to do voluntarily for a food reward. Surgery accounts for only a small minority of procedures. All of these are examples of procedures that go on in Oxford's Biomedical Sciences Building. 

How many animals are used?

Figures for 2023 show numbers of animals that completed procedures, as declared to the Home Office using their five categories for the severity of the procedure.

# NHPs - Non Human Primates

Oxford also maintains breeding colonies to provide animals for use in experiments, reducing the need for unnecessary transportation of animals.

Figures for 2017 show numbers of animals bred for procedures that were killed or died without being used in procedures:

Why must primates be used?

Primates account for under half of one per cent (0.5%) of all animals housed in the Biomedical Sciences Building. They are only used where no other species can deliver the research answer, and we continually seek ways to replace primates with lower orders of animal, to reduce numbers used, and to refine their housing conditions and research procedures to maximise welfare.

However, there are elements of research that can only be carried out using primates because their brains are closer to human brains than mice or rats. They are used at Oxford in vital research into brain diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Some are used in studies to develop vaccines for HIV and other major infections.

What is done to primates?

The primates at Oxford spend most of their time in their housing. They are housed in groups with access to play areas where they can groom, forage for food, climb and swing.

Primates at Oxford involved in neuroscience studies would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work. This is sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. No suffering is involved and indeed many of the primates appear to find the games stimulating. They come into the transport cage that takes them to the computer room entirely voluntarily.

After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery to remove a very small amount of brain tissue under anaesthetic. A full course of painkillers is given under veterinary guidance in the same way as any human surgical procedure, and the animals are up and about again within hours, and back with their group within a day. The brain damage is minor and unnoticeable in normal behaviour: the animal interacts normally with its group and exhibits the usual natural behaviours. In order to find out about how a disease affects the brain it is not necessary to induce the equivalent of full-blown disease. Indeed, the more specific and minor the brain area affected, the more focussed and valuable the research findings are.

The primate goes back to behavioural testing with the computers and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed games, are monitored.

At the end of its life the animal is humanely killed and its brain is studied and compared directly with the brains of deceased human patients. 

Primates at Oxford involved in vaccine studies would simply have a vaccination and then have monthly blood samples taken.

How many primates does Oxford hold?

* From 2014 the Home Office changed the way in which animals/ procedures were counted. Figures up to and including 2013 were recorded when procedures began. Figures from 2014 are recorded when procedures end.

What’s the difference between ‘total held’ and ‘on procedure’?

Primates (macaques) at Oxford would typically spend a couple of hours a day doing behavioural work, sitting in front of a computer screen doing learning and memory games for food rewards. This is non-invasive and done voluntarily for food rewards and does not count as a procedure. After some time (a period of months) demonstrating normal learning and memory through the games, a primate would have surgery under anaesthetic to remove a very small amount of brain tissue. The primate quickly returns to behavioural testing with the computers, and differences in performance, which become apparent through these carefully designed puzzles, are monitored. A primate which has had this surgery is counted as ‘on procedure’. Both stages are essential for research into understanding brain function which is necessary to develop treatments for conditions including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and schizophrenia.

Why has the overall number held gone down?

Numbers vary year on year depending on the research that is currently undertaken. In general, the University is committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research.

You say primates account for under 0.5% of animals, so that means you have at least 16,000 animals in the Biomedical Sciences Building in total - is that right?

Numbers change daily so we cannot give a fixed figure, but it is in that order.

Aren’t there alternative research methods?

There are very many non-animal research methods, all of which are used at the University of Oxford and many of which were pioneered here. These include research using humans; computer models and simulations; cell cultures and other in vitro work; statistical modelling; and large-scale epidemiology. Every research project which uses animals will also use other research methods in addition. Wherever possible non-animal research methods are used. For many projects, of course, this will mean no animals are needed at all. For others, there will be an element of the research which is essential for medical progress and for which there is no alternative means of getting the relevant information.

How have humans benefited from research using animals?

As the Department of Health states, research on animals has contributed to almost every medical advance of the last century.

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. It has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections (which were developed in Oxford laboratories), vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses, and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities.

Life expectancy in this country has increased, on average, by almost three months for every year of the past century. Within the living memory of many people diseases such as polio, tuberculosis, leukaemia and diphtheria killed or crippled thousands every year. But now, doctors are able to prevent or treat many more diseases or carry out life-saving operations - all thanks to research which at some stage involved animals.

Each year, millions of people in the UK benefit from treatments that have been developed and tested on animals. Animals have been used for the development of blood transfusions, insulin for diabetes, anaesthetics, anticoagulants, antibiotics, heart and lung machines for open heart surgery, hip replacement surgery, transplantation, high blood pressure medication, replacement heart valves, chemotherapy for leukaemia and life support systems for premature babies. More than 50 million prescriptions are written annually for antibiotics. 

We may have used animals in the past to develop medical treatments, but are they really needed in the 21st century?

Yes. While we are committed to reducing, replacing and refining animal research as new techniques make it possible to reduce the number of animals needed, there is overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide that some research using animals is still essential for medical progress. It only forms one element of a whole research programme which will use a range of other techniques to find out whatever possible without animals. Animals would be used for a specific element of the research that cannot be conducted in any alternative way.

How will humans benefit in future?

The development of drugs and medical technologies that help to reduce suffering among humans and animals depends on the carefully regulated use of animals for research. In the 21st century scientists are continuing to work on treatments for cancer, stroke, heart disease, HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s, and very many more diseases that cause suffering and death. Genetically modified mice play a crucial role in future medical progress as understanding of how genes are involved in illness is constantly increasing. 

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

Animal Research Saves Lives

The benefits of studying animals.

Since the ancient Greeks first began studying animals to learn about anatomy and physiology around 500 BC, researchers and physicians have relied on animal studies as an irreplaceable source of scientific knowledge. Studying animals enables scientists to understand how living creatures, both human and animal, function. 

Studying animals helps us get an up-close look at living organisms, and how their physical, chemical and functional life systems work. Whether it’s dissecting a frog in high school biology class or conducting experiments on rats to find cures for cancer, studying living creatures remains an essential step in the continuous process of learning more about how to save lives, improve human and animal health, cure diseases, repair injuries and protect us from emerging diseases.

Animals in the laboratory

Animal rights groups have created an aura of controversy around the topic of biomedical research. However, in reality, there is little disagreement among qualified medical and scientific authorities that animal research is absolutely vital to human and animal health.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) credits animal research with the recent first-time drop in annual cancer deaths, a 70 percent decline over the last 30 years in stroke deaths, and a 63 percent drop in deaths from coronary disease. 

Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) , a national advocacy and outreach organization for animal research, highlights some other impressive victories for animal research, including:

• The virtual eradication of polio through a vaccine developed using monkeys, and the creation of other vaccines to conquer measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, and smallpox.
• The development and purification of insulin and new artificial pancreas technology to treat diabetes. Read more
• The development of Herceptin and Tamoxifen, two medicines that have saved the lives of thousands of women with breast cancer;
• The development of a respiratory therapy, pioneered in animal models, that has reduced by two-thirds the number of infant deaths due to respiratory distress syndrome;
• The development of treatments for childhood leukemia that have improved survival rates from 4 percent to 80 percent.

In addition to drugs and treatments, animal research has also been important in the development of surgical techniques and life-saving implants. Pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, artificial joints, spinal cord stimulators- these types of implants needed living animal models for early testing in order to monitor long-term safety. Not only is it important to make sure that these implants work effectively in a living animal, but when these devices were developed, they needed to be tested in ways that doctors would not be able to do in human patients. For example, when developing new types of implants using different materials for hip replacements, it was important to perform surgery and then do follow-up surgery at a later date to monitor the state of the implant. If the materials used to make the implant wore down sooner than expected, or the implant didn’t stay in place, it’s important for researchers to make adjustments before starting human trials in order to make sure that surgeries are successful as possible.

One Health Research  is an organization that communicates recent research to the public in an attempt to improve understanding of the way health care for humans, animals, and the environment are connected.

Understanding Animal Research offers Virtual Lab Animal Tours  of four locations, providing an invaluable mixture of transparency and education. Viewers can not only see multiple settings, they learn why animal research is necessary and valuable — and just as importantly, the animal welfare standards and considerations of lab animal science.

The National Association for Biomedical Research , an organization representing almost 300 public and private universities, medical and veterinary schools, teaching hospitals, voluntary health agencies, professional societies, pharmaceutical companies and other animal research-related firms, also speaks out on behalf of the responsible use of animals in research. The organization’s website clearly states its position:

The Association recognizes that now and in the foreseeable future it is not possible to completely replace the use of animals and that the study of the whole, living organisms is an indispensable element of biomedical research and testing that benefits all animals.

The Association’s sister organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research , notes the benefits of biomedical research for animal health as well as human medical progress. According to the Foundation, many lifesaving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife, and endangered species were developed through research on animals. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, and freedom from arthritic pain are just a few of the breakthroughs made in veterinary medicine thanks to animal research.

The most commonly used animals in research—more than 98 percent—are rodents, reptiles, and fish. Contrary to the claims of animal rights proponents, the number of dogs, cats and non-human primates used in research comprise less than one percent of all animals studied. 

Over the past 50 years, the total number of animals in research has declined by about 30 percent. In recent years, scientists have worked hard on what they call “the three R’s”—Reducing the number of animals needed; Replacing animals with other models whenever possible, and Refining techniques to improve animal welfare. Before researchers can even begin to work with animals, they need to prove that there are no acceptable alternatives. They also need to justify the number of animals necessary for their research. The institution’s Animal Care and Use Committee reviews a research proposal before approving any animal work, making sure that the research protocol complies with the Animal Welfare Act, the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, as well as any applicable FDA, USDA, OLAW, and institutional regulations.

The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. Over 950 companies, agencies and research institutions with animal research programs have received AAALAC accreditation. This accreditation speaks volumes about these research institutions, as participation is voluntary. AAALAC accreditation demonstrates accountability, stimulates continuous improvement through in-depth peer review, and communicates a commitment to excellence and quality within the scientific community.

While AAALAC accreditation is a way for organizations to show their commitment to excellence, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) provides ways for animal care technicians to show this commitment on an individual level. Most animal care technicians have a strong background working with animals, and this type of job tends to attract animal lovers who really enjoy their day-to-day interactions with their animals. AALAS offers several certification levels for animal care technicians who are interested in furthering their careers and continuing education.

Through AALAS, individuals can achieve certification at the following levels, with content increasing in difficulty: Assistant Laboratory Animal Technician (ALAT), Laboratory Animal Technician (LAT), Laboratory Animal Technologist (LATG), and Certified Manager of Animal Resources (CMAR). After achieving these certifications, technicians and managers earn continuing education credits by attending seminars, workshops, and training programs in order to stay on top of new information in the field.

It is well known that physiological responses to stress can affect experimental data, so excellent animal care is extremely important to animal care technicians and scientists. All animals, including research animals, have very specific physical, social, and emotional needs, and animal care technicians work hard to provide their animals with the best care possible. Programs that focus on ways to create enriching and stimulating habitats are important to animal welfare, and a critical component of any animal research program. Compassion and an understanding of the animal and its needs are also extremely important to the success of animal-based research.

Understanding an entire living system is essential to research that will lead to treatments for human and animal diseases. You can study cancer cells in a dish (in vitro) and try to figure out whether or not a new drug will kill those cells, but that alone doesn’t give you enough information to determine whether or not the drug will kill those cancer cells safely in the body. Bleach will kill cancer cells in a dish, but I hope you wouldn’t use that information to inject bleach into a human patient. There have to be steps in between these two points, and those steps need to give researchers information that computer systems and cell cultures can’t. Drug A might kill breast cancer cells in culture, but what if estrogen affects the way Drug A works? What if it causes kidney failure or brain damage? These are all questions that need answers before Drug A is put into human clinical trials.

Often, arguments are made that computer technology is so advanced that we shouldn’t need to rely on animals for testing. Fortunately, past animal testing has provided extensive information that has allowed scientists to develop computer models that can improve the quality of research. Researchers can pre-screen compounds to determine which ones will be the most effective, and this screening has been able to reduce the number of animals needed for early testing. But while computers have been able to give us valuable information, they have limits. As AMP notes, “Even the most sophisticated computers cannot simulate physiological functions that must be studied to understand how compounds may affect an entire living system.” To program a computer to behave like a living system, the programmers need to completely understand the living system they’re trying to model. The brain and body are so complex that we still don’t completely understand how and why they work the way they do. It’s like trying to write a screenplay for a movie that is supposed to accurately depict the 2020 Presidential election. We might be able to guess who some of the candidates will be, or accurately predict some of the hot topic issues that will be argued, but until it’s actually 2020 and the election has been won, we can’t say that our movie will be accurate. It’s more likely that the movie will turn into a comedy of errors that we’d laugh at. But the consequences of attempting to use a predictive computer model to determine drug safety, medication interactions, or treatment outcomes could be devastating.

At this point in time, even IF researchers had a complete understanding of the living system they were trying to model, processing speed is another limiting factor.  Researchers working to model HALF a mouse brain said that it put “tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform.” And this was only modeling HALF a mouse brain! Their simulation wasn’t able to run at full speed, either; it ran about ten times slower than real life. It also lacked structures seen in real mouse brains. It seems more reasonable to say that computer modeling can help reduce the number animals used in research by replacing some early stages of testing, but ultimately, it’s not at the point where it can replace animals completely.

Researchers don’t make the decision to work with animals out of convenience. Computer models or cell cultures require less care and maintenance than live animals. If there’s a power outage, chances are, your computer will restart when the power is restored and you’ll be right where you left off. In vitro experiments (cells in a dish) can be timed around when it’s convenient for the lab members. In vivo (in living animals) experiments usually don’t have that flexibility. If the power goes out, someone needs to ensure that animals have an adequate supply of food and water and that the ventilation and habitat temperatures stay at acceptable levels for the animals to remain healthy and happy. Animal research requires round the clock attention and specialized care. Researchers that work with animals do so because animals are the best models for their research.

However, one doesn’t need to be a researcher or scientist to recognize the need for animal research. Would any of us want to undergo surgery at the hands of a surgeon who had never operated on a live being before? Would we want a veterinarian who had never used a scalpel on a live animal operating on our dog or cat? Of course not. And after understanding the limitations of computer models and in vitro cell research, we probably wouldn’t want to receive a new medication or treatment without knowing that it had already been successfully tested in a living animal (in vivo).

Researchers are able to create animal models of human disease in an attempt to model disease mechanisms. A mouse model of bronchopulmonary dysplasia is helping researchers develop ways of preventing lung and heart problems in premature human infants .

Nematode worms and humans have the same protein on the surface of their sperm cells; this protein helps the egg recognize the sperm, and research with these worms may lead to a better understanding of human infertility .

Animal models for late-onset diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, are particularly important. For example, laboratory mice have much shorter lifespans than humans, so researchers can determine whether or not a particular drug or treatment will work in a matter of weeks or months instead of years or decades. In a research setting, variables can be carefully controlled, so scientists can determine exactly which variable made a difference. Mice have given scientists clues about the role of estrogen , the immune system , and certain enzymes  that may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease in humans.

Information gained through animal research does more than help humans - it also helps animals. The Foundation for Biomedical Research reports that dogs, cats, sheep, and cattle now live healthier lives because of vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus, and feline leukemia, all developed through animal research. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer, hip dysplasia, and traumatic injuries are saving, extending, and enhancing the lives of beloved pets.

In addition, animal research has led to advanced techniques that have helped preserve and protect threatened and endangered species. The National Zoo, a program of the Smithsonian Institution, operates two important research centers. The Center for Species Survival conducts basic and applied research, especially in the fields of reproductive science and animal management, to understand biological mysteries and to implement practical solutions to help rare species survive in zoos so that they will not become extinct in the wild.  Scientists at the Center for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics  specialize in genetic research to help manage wild and captive populations to maintain their genetic diversity. Improving knowledge of the genetics of threatened and endangered species enables scientists to understand how genetic variations affect their ability to survive and to identify effective approaches for sustaining these species in the wild.

Animal research has played an important role in our understanding of diseases that affect humans and animals today, and it will continue to be important in the development of new drugs, treatments, and therapies in the future. At this point in time, there is no substitute for live animal models at necessary stages of research. The message here, though, is that animal-based research is carefully regulated and performed by individuals who believe that animal welfare is a top priority. To perform animal research responsibly, one must have a respect for the animals in their care and for what those animals are able to teach us.

There are a lot of misunderstandings surrounding animal-based research, in part because it’s difficult for members of the scientific community to communicate their work. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of negative perceptions surrounding animal research, mostly due to this lack of understanding. Please do some research for yourself, and learn more about the ways that animals continue to advance science and medicine.

Animals in the classroom

The leading national organization representing science teachers has examined carefully the pros and cons and effectiveness of live study, textbook learning, computer models and other approaches and has taken a position supporting the inclusion of live animals as well as dissection in the classroom. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)  contends that having students interact with animals is “one of the most effective methods of achieving many of the goals outlined in the National Science Education Standards.” 

Educators recommend that dissection activities be conducted in a way that helps students develop hands-on skills of observation and comparison; understand the shared as well as unique structures and processes of specific organisms, and develop an enhanced appreciation for the complexity of life.

Teaching students respect for animals and an ethical awareness of their obligation for humane treatment is an important byproduct of dissection activities. The NSTA sets forth a number of recommendations for teachers who include dissection activities in their classes. They include:

• Conducting laboratory and dissection activities with consideration and appreciation for the organism;
• Planning laboratory and discussion activities that are appropriate to the maturity level of the students;
• Using specimens from reputable and reliable scientific supply companies or FDA-inspected facilities;
• Ensuring that dissection occurs in a clean and organized workspace with proper ventilation, lighting, equipment, and access to hot water and soap for clean-up;
• Using personal safety protective equipment such as gloves, goggles, and aprons, and ensuring the safe and appropriate use of scissors, scalpels and other tools.
• Ensuring that specimens are handled and disposed of properly;
• Addressing issues such as allergies or squeamishness about dealing with animal specimens;
• Basing laboratory and dissection activities on carefully planned and educationally sound curriculum objectives;

Most science educators agree that it is important to offer alternatives to dissection for students who might be uncomfortable handling real animals in this way. Modern computer simulations make “virtual dissection” a lesser option for those students. However, the NSTA continue to support the decision of science teachers and schools to integrate live animals and dissection in the classroom and opposes any rules or laws that would deny students the best opportunity to learn biology: through actual animal dissection.

One Miraculous Moment

Diabetes is a very manageable illness; in fact, it is so common for people with diabetes to lead long, healthy lives today, it might be shocking to learn that the disease was a death sentence less than 100 years ago. At that time, an adult diagnosed with diabetes would be lucky to live another decade, and the recommended treatment was a strict starvation diet , which at best merely prolonged your life.

Children suffering from diabetes passed more quickly than adults. They were often kept in large hospital wards with 50 or more other children, visited by family as they wasted away toward a tragic, inevitable death. This was the reality of diabetes in early 1922.

But in 1922, in one of the most dramatic moments in the history of medicine, that reality was changed forever. Three men visited one of these hospital wards, traveling from bed to bed giving each child an injection… a shot that proved so effective, by the time the men reached the last child in the ward, some of the first children to receive the injection had already awakened from their comas. For these children and their families, diabetes – just like that – was no longer a death sentence.

How did this happen?

The three men, Frederick Banting, Charles Best, and James Collip, had recently discovered how to treat diabetes with insulin following research trials with dogs and the purification of animal insulin. Having restored normal glucose levels in a near-death 14-year-old boy , and armed with enough insulin for multiple patients, it was time to treat larger groups. To the grateful joy of parents and their awakening children, insulin was, quite literally, a new lease on life.

Thanks to the work of these scientists, diabetes – a confounding disease that had been described in medical literature for thousands of years – transformed from a death sentence into manageable disease virtually overnight. Today, it is estimated that 29 million people in the United States have diabetes and their generation may be the first to experience cures as well as treatments.

For more information:

• The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR)
• Americans for Medical Progress
• The American Diabetes Association
• Diabetes UK
• National Animal Interest Alliance

PARTICIPATE

Using animals for scientific research is still indispensable for society as we know it

Senior Advisor Animal Ethics and Outreach, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud University

Professor, Radboud University

Associate Professor in Neuroinformatics, Radboud University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Kenya’s national airline – Kenya Airways – made headlines when it announced it would stop transporting monkeys for animal research. This followed an accidental highway crash in Pennsylvania , in the US, which involved a truck transporting monkeys that had been bred in Mauritius for laboratory experiments in the US.

Following the accident, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) US, an animal rights group, contacted Kenya Airways urging them to reconsider transporting the animals, putting forward their view that animal experimentation is a cruel industry.

Read more: The macaque monkeys of Mauritius: an invasive alien species, and a major export for research

Such an incident is indeed tragic. But if we consider the number of people who would have died without the existence of medication and novel medical technologies developed thanks to animal research, then ending animal research could lead to a more tragic outcome in the longer term.

Most countries do animal research, perhaps not very tiny countries or very poor countries. There is a nationwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics throughout the European Union, Israel, Norway, as well as in India. But animal testing for other reasons is still widely accepted.

Most of the animals used come from commercial breeders – one is Jackson Laboratory in the US. Other sources include specialist breeders and large breeding centres which can provide genetically modified animals for specific research. The animal testing facilities themselves may also rear animals.

In general, all over the world, policymakers do aim to move towards animal-free methods of scientific research and have introduced very strict regulations for animal research.

Scientists and policymakers share the long-term goal of reducing animal use in scientific research and where possible eventually even stopping it. It’s an ambitious goal. For this to happen, animal-free methods need to be developed and validated before they can become a new standard.

Animal-free innovations have been developed for some areas of biomedical research, such as toxicology . However, most parties recognise that at present, not all research questions can be answered using only animal-free methods.

Based on decades of doing research on the human brain, which involves using animals, to us it’s clear that – for the foreseeable future – there remains a crucial need for animal models to understand health and disease and to develop medicines.

Unique knowledge

It is animal research that provides researchers with unique knowledge about how humans and animals function. Perhaps more than in any other field of biomedical research, complete living animals are needed to understand brain function, behaviour and cognition.

Behaviour and cognition, the final outputs of a brain organ, cannot be mimicked using any existing animal-free technologies. We currently simply do not understand the brain well enough to make animal-free solutions.

Another striking, very recent example that showed the current need for animal research is the COVID-19 pandemic . The way out of the pandemic required the development of a functioning vaccine. Researchers amazed the world when they made targeted vaccines available within one year. This, however, has relied greatly on the use of animals for testing the efficacy and safety of the vaccine.

A key fact that remains often invisible is that the rules and regulations for conducting animal research are, in comparison, perhaps even stricter and more regulated, by for example the Animal Welfare act in the US and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in Europe. Than, for example, in the food and entertainment industry, although regulations are in place here too such as governmental rules for the treatment of animals in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

Should it be banned?

In the world as we know it today, animal research is still generally accepted as part of society. There are many important reasons why laboratory animal research is still needed:

To learn about biological processes in animals and humans.

To learn about the cause of diseases.

To develop new treatments and vaccines and evaluate their effects.

To develop methods that can prevent disease both in animals and humans.

To develop methods for the management of animals such as pests but also for the conservation of endangered species.

Of course many, animal researchers included, are hopeful that one day animal experiments will no longer be necessary to achieve the much needed scientific outcomes. However, the situation is that for many research questions related to human and animal health we still need animals.

As long as we cannot replace animals, there should be more focus on transparency and animal welfare, to benefit the animals as well as science. Awareness and financial support of this at the governmental level is key to enable animal researchers to always strive for the highest level of animal welfare possible.

• Scientific research
• Science and innovation for development

Project Officer, Student Volunteer Program

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

Loading metrics

Open Access

Essays articulate a specific perspective on a topic of broad interest to scientists.

See all article types »

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Contributed equally to this work with: Kai Diederich, Kathrin Schmitt

Affiliation German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), Berlin, Germany

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Kai Diederich, 
• Kathrin Schmitt, 
• Philipp Schwedhelm, 
• Bettina Bert, 
• Céline Heinl

Published: September 15, 2022

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810
• Reader Comments

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Citation: Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C (2022) A guide to open science practices for animal research. PLoS Biol 20(9): e3001810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810

Copyright: © 2022 Diederich et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors are employed at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and part of the German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R) which developed and hosts animalstudyregistry.org , a preregistration platform for animal studies and animaltestinfo.de, a database for non-technical project summaries (NTS) of approved animal study protocols within Germany.

Abbreviations: CC, Creative Commons; CIRS-LAS, critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science; COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019; DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals; DOI, digital object identifier; EDA, Experimental Design Assistant; ELN, electronic laboratory notebook; EU, European Union; IMSR, International Mouse Strain Resource; JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee; LIMS, laboratory information management system; MGI, Mouse Genome Informatics; NC3Rs, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research; NTS, non-technical summary; RRID, Research Resource Identifier

Introduction

Over the past decade, the quality of published scientific literature has been repeatedly called into question by the failure of large replication studies or meta-analyses to demonstrate sufficient translation from experimental research into clinical successes [ 1 – 5 ]. At the same time, the open science movement has gained more and more advocates across various research areas. By sharing all of the information collected during the research process with colleagues and with the public, scientists can improve collaborations within their field and increase the reproducibility and trustworthiness of their work [ 6 ]. Thus, the International Reproducibility Networks have called for more open research [ 7 ].

However, open science practices have not been adopted to the same degree in all research areas. In psychology, which was strongly affected by the so-called reproducibility crisis, the open science movement initiated real practical changes leading to a broad implementation of practices such as preregistration or sharing of data and material [ 8 – 10 ]. By contrast, biomedical research is still lagging behind. Open science might be of high value for research in general, but in translational biomedical research, it is an ethical obligation. It is the responsibility of the scientist to transparently share all data collected to ensure that clinical research can adequately evaluate the risks and benefits of a potential treatment. When Russell and Burch published “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” in 1959, scientists started to implement their 3Rs principle to answer the ethical dilemma of animal welfare in the face of scientific progress [ 11 ]. By replacing animal experiments wherever possible, reducing the number of animals to a strict minimum, and refining the procedures where animals have still to be used, this ethical dilemma was addressed. However, in recent years, whether the 3Rs principle is sufficient to fully address ethical concerns about animal experiments has been questioned [ 12 ].

Most people tolerate the use of animals for scientific purposes only under the basic assumption that the knowledge gained will advance research in crucial areas. This implies that performed experiments are reported in a way that enables peers to benefit from the collected data. However, recent studies suggest that a large proportion of animal experiments are never actually published. For example, scientists working within the European Union (EU) have to write an animal study protocol for approval by the competent authorities of the respective country before performing an animal experiment [ 13 ]. In these protocols, scientists have to describe the planned study and justify every animal required for the project. By searching for publications resulting from approved animal study protocols from 2 German University Medical Centers, Wieschowski and colleagues found that only 53% of approved protocols led to a publication after 6 years [ 14 ]. Using a similar approach, Van der Naald and colleagues determined a publication rate of 60% at the Utrecht Medical Center [ 15 ]. In a follow-up survey, the respective researchers named so-called “negative” or null-hypothesis results as the main cause for not publishing outcomes [ 15 ]. The current scientific system is shaped by publishers, funders, and institutions and motivates scientists to publish novel, surprising, and positive results, revealing one of the many structural problems that the numerous efforts towards open science initiatives are targeting. Non-publication not only strongly contradicts ethical values, but also it compromises the quality of published literature by leading to overestimation of effect sizes [ 16 , 17 ]. Furthermore, publications of animal studies too often show poor reporting that strongly impairs the reproducibility, validity, and usefulness of the results [ 18 ]. Unfortunately, the idea that negative or equivocal findings can also contribute to the gain of scientific knowledge is frequently neglected.

So far, the scientific community using animals has shown limited resonance to the open science movement. Due to the strong controversy surrounding animal experiments, scientists have been reluctant to share information on the topic. Additionally, translational research is highly competitive and researchers tend to be secretive about their ideas until they are ready for publication or patent [ 19 , 20 ]. However, this missing openness could also point to a lack of knowledge and training on the many open science options that are available and suitable for animal research. Researchers have to be convinced of the benefits of open science practices, not only for science in general, but also for the individual researcher and each single animal. Yet, the key players in the research system are already starting to value open science practices. An increasing number of journals request open sharing of data, funders pay for open access publications and institutions consider open science practices in hiring decisions. Open science practices can improve the quality of work by enabling valuable scientific input from peers at the early stages of research projects. Furthermore, the extended communication that open science practices offer can draw attention to research and help to expand networks of collaborators and lead to new project opportunities or follow-up positions. Thus, open science practices can be a driver for careers in academia, particularly those of early career researchers.

Beyond these personal benefits, improving transparency in translational biomedical research can boost scientific progress in general. By bringing to light all the recorded research outputs that until now have remained hidden, the publication bias and the overestimation of effect sizes can be reduced [ 17 ]. Large-scale sharing of data can help to synthesize research outputs in preclinical research that will enable better decision-making for clinical research. Disclosing the whole research process will help to uncover systematic problems and support scientists in thoroughly planning their studies. In the long run, we predict that the implementation of open science practices will lead to the use of fewer animals in unintentionally repeated experiments that previously showed unreported negative results or in the establishment of methods by avoiding experimental dead ends that are often not published. More collaborations and sharing of materials and methods can further reduce the number of animal experiments used for the implementation of new techniques.

Open science can and should be implemented at each step of the research process ( Fig 1 ). A vast number of tools are already provided that were either directly conceptualized for animal research or can be adapted easily. In this Essay, we provide an overview of open science tools that improve transparency, reliability, and animal welfare in translational in vivo biomedical research by supporting scientists to clearly communicate their research and by supporting collaborative working. Table 1 lists the most prominent open science tools we discuss, together with their respective links. We have structured this Essay to guide you through which tools can be used at each stage of the research process, from planning and conducting experiments, through to analyzing data and communicating the results. However, many of these tools can be used at many different steps. Table 1 has been deposited on Zenodo and will be updated continuously [ 21 ].

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Application of open science practices at each step of the research process can maximize the impact of performed animal experiments. The implementation of these practices will lead to less time pressure at the end of a project. Due to the connection of most of these open science practices, spending more time in the planning phase and during the conduction of experiments will save time during the data analysis and publication of the study. Indeed, consulting reporting guidelines early on, preregistering a statistical plan, and writing down crucial experimental details in an electronic lab notebook, will strongly accelerate the writing of a manuscript. If protocols or even electronic lab notebooks were made public, just citing these would simplify the writing of publications. Similarly, if a data management plan is well designed before starting data collection, analyzing, and depositing data in a public repository, as is increasingly required, will be fast. NTS, non-technical summary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.t001

Planning the study

Transparent practices can be adopted at every stage of the research process. However, to ensure full effectivity, it is highly recommended to engage in detailed planning before the start of the experiment. This can prevent valuable time from being lost at the end of the study due to careless decisions being made at the beginning. Clarifying data management at the start of a project can help avoiding filing chaos that can be very time consuming to untangle. Keeping clear track of a project and study design will also help if new colleagues are included later on in the project or if entire project parts are handed over. In addition, all texts written on the rationale and hypothesis of the study or method descriptions, or design schemes created during the planning phase can be used in the final publications ( Fig 1 ). Similarly, information required for preregistration of animal studies or for reporting according to the ARRIVE guidelines are an extension of the details required for ethical approval [ 22 , 23 ]. Thus, the time burden within the planning phase is often overestimated. Furthermore, the thorough planning of experiments can avoid the unnecessary use of animals by preventing wrong avenues from being pursued.

Implementing open scientific practices at the beginning of a project does not mean that the idea and study plan must be shared immediately, but rather is critical for making the entire workflow transparent at the end of the project. However, optional early sharing of information can enable peers to give feedback on the study plan. Studies potentially benefit more from this a priori input than they would from the classical a posteriori peer-review process.

Most people perceive guidelines as advice that instructs on how to do something. However, it is sometimes useful to consider the term in its original meaning; “the line that guides us”. In this sense, following guidelines is not simply fulfilling a duty, but is a process that can help to design a sound research study and, as such, guidelines should be consulted at the planning stage of a project. The PREPARE guidelines are a list of important points that should be thought-out before starting a study involving animal experiments in order to reduce the waste of animals, promote alternatives, and increase the reproducibility of research and testing [ 24 ]. The PREPARE checklist helps to thoroughly plan a study and focuses on improving the communication and collaboration between all involved participants of the study (i.e., animal caretakers and scientists). Indeed, open science begins with the communication within a research facility. It is currently available in 33 languages and the responsible team from Norecopa, Norway’s 3R-center, takes requests for translations into further languages.

The UK Reproducibility Network has also published several guiding documents (primers) on important topics for open and reproducible science. These address issues such as data sharing [ 25 ], open access [ 26 ], open code and software [ 27 ], and preprints [ 28 ], as well as preregistration and registered reports [ 27 ]. Consultation of these primers is not only helpful in the relevant phases of the experiment but is also encouraged in the planning phase.

Although the ARRIVE guidelines are primarily a reporting guideline specifically designed for preparing a publication containing animal data, they can also support researchers when planning their experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. Going through the ARRIVE website, researchers will find tools and explanations that can support them in planning their experiments [ 29 ]. Consulting the ARRIVE checklist at the beginning of a project can help in deciding what details need to be documented during conduction of the experiments. This is particularly advisable, given that compliance to ARRIVE is still poor [ 18 ].

Experimental design

To maximize the validity of performed experiments and the knowledge gained, designing the study well is crucial. It is important that the chosen animal species reflects the investigated disease well and that basic characteristics of the animal, such as sex or age, are considered carefully [ 30 ]. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research provides a collection of resources on the integration of sex and gender in biomedical research with animals, including tips and tools for researchers and reviewers [ 31 ]. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid unnecessary standardization of biological and environmental factors that can reduce the external validity of results [ 32 ]. Meticulous statistical planning can further optimize the use of animals. Free to use online tools for calculating sample sizes such as G*Power or the inVivo software package for R can further support animal researchers in designing their statistical plan [ 33 , 34 ]. Randomization for the allocation of groups can be supported with specific tools for scientists like Research Randomizer, but also by simple online random number generators [ 35 ]. Furthermore, it might be advisable when designing the study to incorporate pathological analyses into the experimental plan. Optimal planning of tissue collection, performance of pathological procedures according to accepted best practices, and use of optimal pathological analysis and reporting methods can add some extra knowledge that would otherwise be lost. This can improve the reproducibility and quality of translational biomedicine, especially, but not exclusively, in animal studies with morphological endpoints. In all animal studies, unexpected deaths in experimental animals can occur and be the cause of lost data or missed opportunities to identify health problems [ 36 , 37 ].

To support researchers in designing their animal research, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) has also developed the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) [ 38 , 39 ]. This online tool helps researchers to better structure in vivo research by creating detailed schemes of the study design. It provides feedback on the entered design, drawing researcher’s attention to crucial decisions in the project. The resulting schemes can be used to transparently share the study design by uploading it into a study preregistration, enclosing it in a grant application, or submitting it with a final manuscript. The EDA can be used for different study designs in diverse scenarios and helps to communicate researcher plans to others [ 40 ]. The EDA might be particularly of interest to clarify very complex study designs involving multiple experimental groups. Working with the EDA might appear rather complex in the beginning, but the NC3R provides regular webinars that can help to answer any questions that arise.

Preregistration

Preregistration is an effective tool to improve the quality and transparency of research. To preregister their work, scientists must determine crucial details of the study before starting any experiment. Changes occurring during a study can be outlined at the end. A preregistered study plan should include at least the hypothesis and determine all the parameters that are known in advance. A description of the planned study design and statistical analysis will enable reviewers and peers to better retrace the workflow. It can prevent the intentional use of the flexibility of analysis to reach p -values under a certain significance level (e.g., p-hacking or HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known)). With preregistration, scientists can also claim their idea at an early stage of their research with a citable individual identifier that labels the idea as their own. Some open preregistration platforms also provide a digital object identifier (DOI), which makes the registered study citable. Three public registries actively encourage the preregistration of animal studies conducted around the world: OSF registry, preclinicaltrials.eu, and animalstudyregistry.org [ 41 – 45 ]. Scientists can choose the registry according to their needs. Preregistering a study in a public registry supports scientists in planning their study and later to critically reevaluate their own work and assess its limitations and potentials.

As an alternative to public registries, researchers can also submit their study plan to one of hundreds of journals already publishing registered reports, including many journals open to animal research [ 8 ]. A submitted registered report passes 2 steps of peer review. In the first step, reviewers comment on the idea and the study design. After an “in-principle-acceptance,” researchers can conduct their study as planned. If the authors conduct the experiments as described in the accepted study protocol, the journal will publish the final study regardless of the outcome. This might be an attractive option, especially for early career researchers, as a manuscript is published at the beginning of a project with the guarantee of a future final publication.

The benefits of preregistration can already be observed in clinical research, where registration has been mandatory for most trials for more than 20 years. Preregistration in clinical research has helped to make known what has been tested and not just what worked and was published, and the implementation of trial registration has strongly reduced the number of publications reporting significant treatment effects [ 46 ]. In animal research, with its unrealistically high percentage of positive results, preregistration seems to be particularly worthwhile.

Research data management

To get the most out of performed animal experiments, effective sharing of data at the end of the study is essential. Sharing research data optimally is complex and needs to be prepared in advance. Thus, data management can be seen as one part of planning a study thoroughly. Many funders have recognized the value of the original research data and request a data management plan from applicants in advance [ 25 , 47 ]. Various freely available tools such as DMPTool or DMPonline already exist to design a research data management plan that complies to the requirements of different funders [ 48 , 49 ]. The data management plan defines the types of data collected and describes the handling and names responsible persons throughout the data lifecycle. This includes collecting the data, analyzing, archiving, and sharing it. Finally, a data management plan enables long-term access and the possibility for reuse by peers. Developing such a plan, whether it is required by funders or not, will later simplify the application of the FAIR data principle (see section on the FAIR data principle). The Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group from the Harvard Medical School developed a checklist to assist researchers in optimally managing their data throughout the data lifecycle [ 50 ]. Similarly, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provides a great research data management toolkit including a checklist for researchers planning their project [ 51 ]. Consulting this checklist in the planning phase of a project can prevent common errors in research data management.

Non-technical project summary

One instrument specifically conceived to create transparency on animal research for the general public is the so-called non-technical project summary (NTS). All animal protocols approved within the EU must be accompanied by these comprehensible summaries. NTSs are intended to inform the public about ongoing animal experiments. They are anonymous and include information on the objectives and potential benefits of the project, the expected harm, the number of animals, the species, and a statement of compliance with the requirements of the 3Rs principle. However, beyond simply informing the public, NTSs can also be used for meta-research to help identify new research areas with an increased need for new 3R technologies [ 52 , 53 ]. NTSs become an excellent tool to appropriately communicate the scientific value of the approved protocol and for meta-scientists to generate added value by systematically analyzing theses summaries if they fulfill a minimum quality threshold [ 54 , 55 ]. In 2021, the EU launched the ALURES platform ( Table 1 ), where NTSs from all member states are published together, opening the opportunities for EU-wide meta-research. NTSs are, in contrast to other open science practices, mandatory in the EU. However, instead of thinking of them as an annoying duty, it might be worth thoroughly drafting the NTS to support the goals of more transparency towards the public, enabling an open dialogue and reducing extreme opinions.

Conducting the experiments

Once the experiments begin, documentation of all necessary details is essential to ensure the transparency of the workflow. This includes methodological details that are crucial for replicating experiments, but also failed attempts that could help peers to avoid experiments that do not work in the future. All information should be stored in such a way that it can be found easily and shared later. In this area, many new tools have emerged in recent years ( Table 1 ). These tools will not only make research transparent for colleagues, but also help to keep track of one’s own research and improve internal collaboration.

Electronic laboratory notebooks

Electronic laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are an important pillar of research data management and open science. ELNs facilitate the structured and harmonized documentation of the data generation workflow, ensure data integrity, and keep track of all modifications made to the original data based on an audit trail option. Moreover, ELNs simplify the sharing of data and support collaborations within and outside the research group. Methodological details and research data become searchable and traceable. There is an extensive amount of literature providing advice on the selection and the implementation process of an ELN depending on the specific needs and research area and its discussion would be beyond the scope of this Essay [ 56 – 58 ]. Some ELNs are connected to a laboratory information management system (LIMS) that provides an animal module supporting the tracking of animal details [ 59 ]. But as research involving animals is highly heterogeneous, this might not be the only decision point and we cannot recommend a specific ELN that is suitable for all animal research.

ELNs are already established in the pharmaceutical industry and their use is on the rise among academics as well. However, due to concerns around costs for licenses, data security, and loss of flexibility, many research institutions still fear the expenses that the introduction of such a system would incur [ 56 ]. Nevertheless, an increasing number of academic institutions are implementing ELNs and appreciating the associated benefits [ 60 ]. If your institution already has an ELN, it might be easiest to just use the option available in the research environment. If not, the Harvard Medical School provides an extensive and updated overview of various features of different ELNs that can support scientists in choosing the appropriate one for their research [ 61 ]. There are many commercial ELN products, which may be preferred when the administrative workload should be outsourced to a large extent. However, open-source products such as eLabFTW or open BIS provide a greater opportunity for customization to meet specific needs of individual research institutions [ 62 – 64 ]. A huge number of options are available depending on the resources and the features required. Some scientists might prefer generic note taking tools such as Evernote or just a simple Word document that offers infinite flexibility, but specific ELNs can further support good record keeping practice by providing immutability, automated backups, standardized methods, and protocols to follow. Clearly defining the specific requirements expected might help to choose an adequate system that would improve the quality of the record compared to classical paper laboratory notebooks.

Sharing protocols

Adequate sharing of methods in translational biomedical sciences is key to reproducibility. Several repositories exist that simplify the publication and exchange of protocols. Writing down methods at the end of the project bears the risk that crucial details might be missing [ 65 ]. On protocols.io, scientists can note all methodological details of a procedure, complete them with uploaded documents, and keep them for personal use or share them with collaborators [ 66 ]. Authors can also decide at any point in time to make their protocol public. Protocols published on protocols.io receive a DOI and become citable; they can be commented on by peers and adapted according to the needs of the individual researcher. Protocol.io files from established protocols can also be submitted together with some context and sample datasets to PLOS ONE , where it can be peer-reviewed and potentially published [ 67 , 68 ]. Depending on the affiliation of the researchers to academia or industry and on an internal or public sharing of files, protocols.io can be free of charge or come with costs. Other journals also encourage their authors to deposit their protocols in a freely accessible repository, such as protocol exchange from Nature portfolio [ 69 ]. Another option might be to separately submit a protocol that was validated by its use in an already published research article to an online and peer-reviewed journal specific for research protocols, such as Bio-Protocol. A multitude of journals, including eLife and Science already collaborate with Bio-Protocol and recommend authors to publish the method in Bio-Protocol [ 70 ]. Bio-Protocol has no submission fees and is freely available to all readers. Both protocols.io and Bio-Protocol allow the illustration of complex scientific methods by uploading videos to published protocols. In addition, protocols can be deposited in a general research repository such as the Open Science Framework (OSF repository) and referenced in appropriate publications.

Sharing critical incidents

Sharing critical or even adverse events that occur in the context of animal experimentation can help other scientists to avoid committing the same mistakes. The system of sharing critical incidents is already established in clinical practice and helps to improve medical care [ 71 , 72 ]. The online platform critical incident reporting system in laboratory animal science (CIRS-LAS) represents the first preclinical equivalent to these clinical systems [ 73 ]. With this web-based tool, critical incidents in animal research can be reported anonymously without registration. An expert panel helps to analyze the incident to encourage an open dialogue. Critical incident reporting is still very marginal in animal research and performed procedures are very variable. These factors make a systemic analysis and a targeted search of incidence difficult. However, it may be of special interest for methods that are broadly used in animal research such as anesthesia. Indeed, a broad feed of this system with data on errors occurring in standard procedures today could help avoid critical incidences in the future and refine animal experiments.

Sharing animals, organs, and tissue

When we think about open science, sharing results and data are often in focus. However, sharing material is also part of a collaborative and open research culture that could help to greatly reduce the number of experimental animals used. When an animal is killed to obtain specific tissue or organs, the remainder is mostly discarded. This may constitute a wasteful practice, as surplus tissue can be used by other researchers for different analyses. More animals are currently killed as surplus than are used in experiments, demonstrating the potential for sharing these animals [ 74 , 75 ].

Sharing information on generated surplus is therefore not only economical, but also an effective way to reduce the number of animals used for scientific purposes. The open-source software Anishare is a straightforward way for breeders of genetically modified lines to promote their surplus offspring or organs within an institution [ 76 ]. The database AniMatch ( Table 1 ) connects scientists within Europe who are offering tissue or organs with scientists seeking this material. Scientists already sharing animal organs can support this process by describing it in publications and making peers aware of this possibility [ 77 ]. Specialized research communities also allow sharing of animal tissue or animal-derived products worldwide that are typically used in these fields on a collaborative basis via the SEARCH-framework [ 78 , 79 ]. Depositing transgenic mice lines into one of several repositories for mouse strains can help to further minimize efforts in producing new transgenic lines and most importantly reduce the number of surplus animals by supporting the cryoconservation of mouse lines. The International Mouse Strain Resource (IMSR) can be used to help find an adequate repository or to help scientists seeking a specific transgenic line find a match [ 80 ].

Analyzing the data

Animal researchers have to handle increasingly complex data. Imaging, electrophysiological recording, or automated behavioral tracking, for example, produce huge datasets. Data can be shared as raw numerical output but also as images, videos, sounds, or other forms from which raw numerical data can be generated. As the heterogeneity and the complexity of research data increases, infinite possibilities for analysis emerge. Transparently reporting how the data were processed will enable peers to better interpret reported results. To get the most out of performed animal experiments, it is crucial to allow other scientists to replicate the analysis and adapt it to their research questions. It is therefore highly recommended to use formats and tools during the analysis that allow a straightforward exchange of code and data later on.

Transparent coding

The use of non-transparent analysis codes have led to a lack of reproducibility of results [ 81 ]. Sharing code is essential for complex analysis and enables other researchers to reproduce results and perform follow-up studies, and citable code gives credit for the development of new algorithms ( Table 1 ). Jupyter Notebooks are a convenient way to share data science pipelines that may use a variety of coding languages, including like Python, R or Matlab, and also share the results of analyses in the form of tables, diagrams, images, and videos. Notebooks contain source code and can be published or collaboratively shared on platforms like GitHub or GitLab, where version control of source code is implemented. The data-archiving tool Zenodo can be used to archive a repository on GitHub and create a DOI for the archive. Thereby contents become citable. Using free and open-source programming language like R or Python will increase the number of potential researchers that can work with the published code. Best practice for research software is to publish the source code with a license that allows modification and redistribution.

Choice of data visualization

Choosing the right format for the visualization of data can increase its accessibility to a broad scientific audience and enable peers to better judge the validity of the results. Studies based on animal research often work with very small sample sizes. Visualizing these data in histograms may lead to an overestimation of the outcomes. Choosing the right dot plots that makes all recorded points visible and at the same time focusses on the summary instead of the individual points can further improve the intuitive understanding of a result. If the sample size is too low, it might not be meaningful to visualize error bars. A variety of freely available tools already exists that can support scientists in creating the most appropriate graphs for their data [ 82 ]. In particular, when representing microscopy results or heat maps, it should be kept in mind that a large part of the population cannot perceive the classical red and green representation [ 83 ]. Opting for the color-blind safe color maps and checking images with free tools such as color oracle ( Table 1 ) can increase the accessibility of graphs. Multiple journals have already addressed flaws in data visualization and have introduced new policies that will accelerate the uptake of transparent representation of results.

Publication of all study outcomes

Open science practices have received much attention in the past few years when it comes to publication of the results. However, it is important to emphasize that although open science tools have their greatest impact at the end of the project, good study preparation and sharing of the study plan and data early on can greatly increase the transparency at the end.

The FAIR data principle

To maximize the impact and outcome of a study, and to make the best long-term use of data generated through animal experiments, researchers should publish all data collected during their research according to the FAIR data principle. That means the data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The FAIR principle is thus an extension of open access publishing. Data should not only be published without paywalls or other access restrictions, but also in such a manner that they can be reused and further processed by others. For this, legal as well as technical requirements must be met by the data. To achieve this, the GoFAIR initiative has developed a set of principles that should be taken into account as early as at the data collection stage [ 49 , 84 ]. In addition to extensively described and machine-readable metadata, these principles include, for example, the application of globally persistent identifiers, the use of open file formats, and standardized communication protocols to ensure that humans and machines can easily download the data. A well-chosen repository to upload the data is then just the final step to publish FAIR data.

FAIR data can strongly increase the knowledge gained from performed animal experiments. Thus, the same data can be analyzed by different researchers and could be combined to obtain larger sample sizes, as already occurs in the neuroimaging community, which works with comparable datasets [ 85 ]. Furthermore, the sharing of data enables other researchers to analyze published datasets and estimate measurement reliabilities to optimize their own data collection [ 86 , 87 ]. This will help to improve the translation from animal research into clinics and simultaneously reduce the number of animal experiment in future.

Reporting guidelines

In preclinical research, the ARRIVE guidelines are the current state of the art when it comes to reporting data based on animal experiments [ 22 , 23 ]. The ARRIVE guidelines have been endorsed by more than 1,000 journals who ask that scientists comply with them when reporting their outcomes. Since the ARRIVE guidelines have not had the expected impact on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications, a more rigorous update has been developed to facilitate their application in practice (ARRIVE 2.0 [ 23 ]). We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines can be more effective if they are implemented at a very early stage of the project (see section on guidelines). Some more specialized reporting guidelines have also emerged for individual research fields that rely on animal studies, such as endodontology [ 88 ]. The equator network collects all guidelines and makes them easily findable with their search tool on their website ( Table 1 ). MERIDIAN also offers a 1-stop shop for all reporting guidelines involving the use of animals across all research sectors [ 89 ]. It is thus worth checking for new reporting guidelines before preparing a manuscript to maximize the transparency of described experiments.

Identifiers

Persistent identifiers for published work, authors, or resources are key for making public data findable by search engines and are thus a prerequisite for compliance to FAIR data principles. The most common identifier for publications will be a DOI, which makes the work citable. A DOI is a globally unique string assigned by the International DOI Foundation to identify content permanently and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. An ORCID ID is used as a personal persistent identifier and is recommendable to unmistakably identify an author ( Table 1 ). This will avoid confusions between authors with the same name or in the case of name changes or changes of affiliation. Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are unique ID numbers that help to transparently report research resources. RRID also apply to animals to clearly identify the species used. RRID help avoid confusion between different names or changing names of genetic lines and, importantly, make them machine findable. The RRID Portal helps scientists find a specific RRID or create one if necessary ( Table 1 ). In the context of genetically altered animal lines, correct naming is key. The Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) Database is the authoritative source of official names for mouse genes, alleles, and strains ([ 90 ]).

Preprint publication

Preprints have undergone unprecedented success, particularly during the height of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when the need for rapid dissemination of scientific knowledge was critical. The publication process for scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals usually requires a considerable amount of time, ranging from a few months to several years, mainly due to the lengthy review process and inefficient editorial procedures [ 91 , 92 ]. Preprints typically precede formal publication in scientific journals and, thus, do not go through a peer review process, thus, facilitating the prompt open dissemination of important scientific findings within the scientific community. However, submitted papers are usually screened and checked for plagiarism. Preprints are assigned a DOI so they can be cited. Once a preprint is published in a journal, its status is automatically updated on the preprint server. The preprint is linked to the publication via CrossRef and mentioned accordingly on the website of the respective preprint platform.

After initial skepticism, most publishers now allow papers to be posted on preprint servers prior to submission. An increasing number of journals even allow direct submission of a preprint to their peer review process. The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust, among other funders, also encourage prepublication and permit researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications. There are now numerous preprint repositories for different scientific disciplines. BioASAP provides a searchable database for preprint servers that can help in identifying the one that best matches an individual’s needs [ 93 ]. The most popular repository for animal research is bioRxiv, which is hosted by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ( Table 1 ).

The early exchange of scientific results is particularly important for animal research. This acceleration of the publication process can help other scientists to adapt their research or could even prevent animal experiments if other scientists become aware that an experiment has already been done before starting their own. In addition, preprints can help to increase the visibility of research. Journal articles that have a corresponding preprint publication have higher citation and Altmetric counts than articles without preprint [ 94 ]. In addition, the publication of preprints can help to combat publication bias, which represents a major problem in animal research [ 16 ]. Since journals and readers prioritize cutting-edge studies with positive results over inconclusive or negative results, researchers are reluctant to invest time and money in a manuscript that is unlikely to be accepted in a high-impact journal.

In addition to the option of publishing as preprint, other alternative publication formats have recently been introduced to facilitate the publication of research results that are hard to publish in traditional peer-reviewed journals. These include micro publications, data repositories, data journals, publication platforms, and journals that focus on negative or inconclusive results. The tool fiddle can support scientists in choosing the right publication format [ 95 , 96 ].

Open access publication

Publishing open access is one of the most established open science strategies. In contrast to the FAIR data principle, the term open access publication refers usually to the publication of a manuscript on a platform that is accessible free of charge—in translational biomedical research, this is mostly in the form of a scientific journal article. Originally, publications accessible free of charge were the answer to the paywalls established by renowned publishing houses, which led to social inequalities within and outside the research system. In translational biomedical research, the ethical aspect of urgently needed transparency is another argument in favor of open access publication, as these studies will not only be findable, but also internationally readable.

There are different ways of open access publishing; the 2 main routes are gold open access and green open access. Numerous journals offer now gold open access. It refers to the immediate and fully accessible publication of an article. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) provides a complete and updated list for high-quality, open access, and peer-reviewed journals [ 97 ]. Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin offers a specific tool for biomedical open access journals that supports animal researchers to choose an appropriate journal [ 49 ]. In addition, the Sherpa Romeo platform is a straightforward way to identify publisher open access policies on a journal-by-journal basis, including information on preprints, but also on licensing of articles [ 51 ]. Hybrid open access refers to openly accessible articles in otherwise paywalled journals. By contrast, green open access refers to the publication of a manuscript or article in a repository that is mostly operated by institutions and/or universities. The publication can be exclusively on the repository or in combination with a publisher. In the quality-assured, global Directory of Open Access Repositories (openDOAR), scientists can find thousands of indexed open access repositories [ 49 ]. The publisher often sets an embargo during which the authors cannot make the publication available in the repository, which can restrict the combined model. It is worth mentioning that gold open access is usually more expensive for the authors, as they have to pay an article processing charge. However, the article’s outreach is usually much higher than the outreach of an article in a repository or available exclusively as subscription content [ 98 ]. Diamond open access refers to publications and publication platforms that can be read free of charge by anyone interested and for which no costs are incurred by the authors either. It is the simplest and fairest form of open access for all parties involved, as no one is prevented from participating in scientific discourse by payment barriers. For now, it is not as widespread as the other forms because publishers have to find alternative sources of revenue to cover their costs.

As social media and the researcher’s individual public outreach are becoming increasingly important, it should be remembered that the accessibility of a publication should not be confused with the licensing under which the publication is made available. In order to be able to share and reuse one’s own work in the future, we recommend looking for journals that allow publications under the Creative Commons licenses CC BY or CC BY-NC. This also allows the immediate combination of gold and green open access.

Creative commons licenses

Attributing Creative Commons (CC) licenses to scientific content can make research broadly available and clearly specifies the terms and conditions under which people can reuse and redistribute the intellectual property, namely publications and data, while giving the credit to whom it deserves [ 49 ]. As the laws on copyright vary from country to country and law texts are difficult to understand for outsiders, the CC licenses are designed to be easily understandable and are available in 41 languages. This way, users can easily avoid accidental misuse. The CC initiative developed a tool that enables researchers to find the license that best fits their interests [ 49 ]. Since the licenses are based on a modular concept ranging from relatively unrestricted licenses (CC BY, free to use, credit must be given) to more restricted licenses (CC BY-NC-ND, only free to share for non-commercial purposes, credit must be given), one can find an appropriate license even for the most sensitive content. Publishing under an open CC license will not only make the publication easy to access but can also help to increase its reach. It can stimulate other researchers and the interested public to share this article within their network and to make the best future use of it. Bear in mind that datasets published independently from an article may receive a different CC license. In terms of intellectual property, data are not protected in the same way as articles, which is why the CC initiative in the United Kingdom recommends publishing them under a CC0 (“no rights reserved”) license or the Public Domain Mark. This gives everybody the right to use the data freely. In an animal ethics sense, this is especially important in order to get the most out of data derived from animal experiments.

Data and code repositories

Sharing research data is essential to ensure reproducibility and to facilitate scientific progress. This is particularly true in animal research and the scientific community increasingly recognizes the value of sharing research data. However, even though there is increasing support for the sharing of data, researchers still perceive barriers when it comes to doing so in practice [ 99 – 101 ]. Many universities and research institutions have established research data repositories that provide continuous access to datasets in a trusted environment. Many of these data repositories are tied to specific research areas, geographic regions, or scientific institutions. Due to the growing number and overall heterogeneity of these repositories, it can be difficult for researchers, funding agencies, publishers, and academic institutions to identify appropriate repositories for storing and searching research data.

Recently, several web-based tools have been developed to help in the selection of a suitable repository. One example is Re3data, a global registry of research data repositories that includes repositories from various scientific disciplines. The extensive database can be searched by country, content (e.g., raw data, source code), and scientific discipline [ 49 ]. A similar tool to help find a data archive specific to the field is FAIRsharing, based at Oxford University [ 102 ]. If there is no appropriate subject-specific data repository or one seems unsuitable for the data, there are general data repositories, such as Open Science Framework, figshare, Dryad, or Zenodo. To ensure that data stored in a repository can be found, a DOI is assigned to the data. Choosing the right license for the deposited code and data ensures that authors get credit for their work.

Publication and connection of all outcomes

If scientists have used all available open science tools during the research process, then publishing and linking all outcomes represents the well-deserved harvest ( Fig 2 ). At the end of a research process, researchers will not just have 1 publication in a journal. Instead, they might have a preregistration, a preprint, a publication in a journal, a dataset, and a protocol. Connecting these outcomes in a way that enables other scientists to better assess the results that link these publications will be key. There are many examples of good open science practices in laboratory animal science, but we want to highlight one of them to show how this could be achieved. Blenkuš and colleagues investigated how mild stress-induced hyperthermia can be assessed non-invasively by thermography in mice [ 103 ]. The study was preregistered with animalstudyregistry.org , which is referred to in their publication [ 104 ]. A deviation from the originally preregistered hypothesis was explained in the manuscript and the supplementary material was uploaded to figshare [ 105 ].

Application of open science practices can increase the reproducibility and visibility of a research project at the same time. By publishing different research outputs with more detailed information than can be included in a journal article, researchers enable peers to replicate their work. Reporting according to guidelines and using transparent visualization will further improve this reproducibility. The more research products that are generated, the more credit can be attributed. By communicating on social media or additionally publishing slides from delivered talks or posters, more attention can be raised. Additionally, publishing open access and making the work machine-findable makes it accessible to an even broader number of peers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810.g002

It might also be helpful to provide all resources from a project in a single repository such as Open Science Framework, which also implements other, different tools that might have been used, like GitHub or protocols.io.

Communicating your research

Once all outcomes of the project are shared, it is time to address the targeted peers. Social media is an important instrument to connect research communities [ 106 ]. In particular, Twitter is an effective way to communicate research findings or related events to peers [ 107 ]. In addition, specialized platforms like ResearchGate can support the exchange of practical experiences ( Table 1 ). When all resources related to a project are kept in one place, sharing this link is a straightforward way to reach out to fellow scientists.

With the increasing number of publications, science communication has become more important in recent years. Transparent science that communicates openly with the public contributes to strengthening society’s trust in research.

Conclusions

Plenty of open science tools are already available and the number of tools is constantly growing. Translational biomedical researchers should seize this opportunity, as it could contribute to a significant improvement in the transparency of research and fulfil their ethical responsibility to maximize the impact of knowledge gained from animal experiments. Over and above this, open science practices also bear important direct benefits for the scientists themselves. Indeed, the implementation of these tools can increase the visibility of research and becomes increasingly important when applying for grants or in recruitment decisions. Already, more and more journals and funders require activities such as data sharing. Several institutions have established open science practices as evaluation criteria alongside publication lists, impact factor, and h-index for panels deciding on hiring or tenure [ 108 ]. For new adopters, it is not necessary to apply all available practices at once. Implementing single tools can be a safe approach to slowly improve the outreach and reproducibility of one’s own research. The more open science products that are generated, the more reproducible the work becomes, but also the more the visibility of a study increases ( Fig 2 ).

As other research fields, such as social sciences, are already a step ahead in the implementation of open science practices, translational biomedicine can profit from their experiences [ 109 ]. We should thus keep in mind that open science comes with some risks that should be minimized early on. Indeed, the more open science practices become incentivized, the more researchers could be tempted to get a transparency quality label that might not be justified. When a study is based on a bad hypothesis or poor statistical planning, this cannot be fixed by preregistration, as prediction alone is not sufficient to validate an interpretation [ 110 ]. Furthermore, a boom of data sharing could disconnect data collectors and analysts, bearing the risk that researchers performing the analysis lack understanding of the data. The publication of datasets could also promote a “parasitic” use of a researcher’s data and lead to scooping of outcomes [ 111 ]. Stakeholders could counteract such a risk by promoting collaboration instead of competition.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an explosion of preprint publications. This unseen acceleration of science might be the adequate response to a pandemic; however, the speeding up science in combination with the “publish or perish” culture could come at the expense of the quality of the publication. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis comparing the quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles showed that the quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is at most slightly lower on average compared to peer-reviewed articles [ 112 ]. Additionally, preprints and social media have shown during this pandemic that a premature and overconfident communication of research results can be overinterpreted by journalists and raise unfounded hopes or fears in patients and relatives [ 113 ]. By being honest and open about the scope and limitations of the study and choosing communication channels carefully, researchers can avoid misinterpretation. It should be noted, however, that by releasing all methodological details and data in research fields such as viral engineering, where a dual use cannot be excluded, open science could increase biosecurity risk. Implementing access-controlled repositories, application programming interfaces, and a biosecurity risk assessment in the planning phase (i.e., by preregistration) could mitigate this threat [ 114 ].

Publishing in open access journals often involves higher publication costs, which makes it more difficult for institutes and universities from low-income countries to publish there [ 115 ]. Equity has been identified as a key aim of open science [ 116 ]. It is vital, therefore, that existing structural inequities in the scientific system are not unintentionally reinforced by open science practices. Early career researchers have been the main drivers of the open science movement in other fields even though they are often in vulnerable positions due to short contracts and hierarchical and strongly networked research environments. Supporting these early career researchers in adopting open science tools could significantly advance this change in research culture [ 117 ]. However, early career researchers can already benefit by publishing registered reports or preprints that can provide a publication much faster than conventional journal publications. Communication in social media can help them establish a network enabling new collaborations or follow-up positions.

Even though open science comes with some risks, the benefits easily overweigh these caveats. If a change towards more transparency is accompanied by the implementation of open science in the teaching curricula of the universities, most of the risks can be minimized [ 118 ]. Interestingly, we have observed that open science tools and infrastructure that are specific to animal research seem to mostly come from Europe. This may be because of strict regulations within Europe for animal experiments or because of a strong research focus in laboratory animal science along with targeted research funding in this region. Whatever the reason might be, it demonstrates the important role of research policy in accelerating the development towards 3Rs and open science.

Overall, it seems inevitable that open science will eventually prevail in translational biomedical research. Scientists should not wait for the slow-moving incentive framework to change their research habits, but should take pioneering roles in adopting open science tools and working towards more collaboration, transparency, and reproducibility.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input and comments from Sebastian Dunst, Daniel Butzke, and Nils Körber that have improved the content of this work.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 6. Cary Funk MH, Brian Kennedy, Courtney Johnson. Americans say open access to data and independent review inspire more trust in research findings. Pew Research Center Website: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/americans-say-open-access-to-data-and-independent-review-inspire-more-trust-in-research-findings/ .
• 7. International Reproducibility Networks. International Networks Statement UK Reproducibility Network Website: UK Reproducibility Network. 2021. Available from: https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/b/631/files/2021/09/International-Networks-Statement-v1.0.pdf .
• 13. Article 36 of Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 amended by Regilation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019. OJEU. 2010;L276:36.
• 19. American Association for Cancer Research. Editorial Policies. 2021. Available from: https://aacrjournals.org/content/authors/editorial-policies .
• 21. Diederich K, Schmitt K, Schwedhelm P, Bert B, Heinl C. Open Science Toolbox for Animal Research. Zenodo. 2022. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/6497560 .
• 29. NC3R. ARRIVE guidelines. NC3R Website. Available from: https://arriveguidelines.org/ .
• 31. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. How to integrate sex and gender into research. Website of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html .
• 33. Simon T, Bate RAC. InVivoStat. Available from: https://invivostat.co.uk/ .
• 35. Urbaniak G, Plous S. Research randomizer (version 4.0) [computer software]. 2013.
• 47. Medical Research Council’s. Data sharing policy. UK Research and Innovation Website 2021. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/publications/mrc-data-sharing-policy/ .
• 48. University of California Curation Center. DMPTool. 2021. Available from: https://dmptool.org/ .
• 49. Digital Curation Centre. DMPOnline. Available from: https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ . Digital Curation Centre; 2021.
• 50. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Biomedical Data Lifecycle. Harvard Medical School Website: Harvard Medical School; 2021. Available from: https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/about/what-research-data-management/biomedical-data-lifecycle .
• 51. Joint Information Systems Committee. Research data management toolkit JISC Website: JISC; 2018. Available from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/rdm-toolkit .
• 54. German Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R). NTPs—Nicht Technische Projektzusammenfassungen 3R-SMART; 2020. Available from: https://www.3r-smart.de/index.php?id=6895 .
• 55. Understanding Animal Research. Guide to writing non-technical summaries concordat on openness on animal research in the UK2018. Available from: https://concordatopenness.org.uk/guide-to-writing-non-technical-summaries .
• 56. Gerlach B, Untucht C, Stefan A. Electronic Lab Notebooks and Experimental Design Assistants. In: Bespalov A, Michel MC, Steckler T, editors. Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 257–75.
• 58. Adam BL, Birte L. ELN Guide: electronic laboratory notebooks in the context of research data management and good research practice–a guide for the life sciences. Cologne, Germany: ZB MED–Information Centre for Life Sciences; 2021.
• 59. AgileBio. LabCollector Website https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/2022 . Available from: https://labcollector.com/labcollector-lims/features/modules/animals-module/ .
• 61. Harvard Longwood Medical Area Research Data Management Working Group. Electronic Lab Notebook Comparison Matrix. Zenodo. 2021.
• 70. Bio-protocol. Collaborating Journals bio-protocol website2021. Available from: https://bio-protocol.org/default.aspx?dw=Collaborating .
• 76. Dinkel H. anishare: GitHub; [updated June 2018]. Available from: https://github.com/hdinkel/anishare .
• 89. O’Connor AM. MERIDIAN: Menagerie of Reporting guidelines Involving Animals. Iowa State University; 2022. Available from: https://meridian.cvm.iastate.edu/ .
• 90. The Jackson Laboratory. Mouse Nomenclature Home Page at the Mouse Genome Informatics website World Wide Web: The Jackson Laboratory,Bar Harbor, Maine. Available from: http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/index.shtml .
• 97. Directory of Open Access Journals. Find open access journals & articles. Available from: https://doaj.org/ . Directory of Open Access Journals, [DOAJ]; 2021.
• 98. Gold Open Access research has greater societal impact as used more outside of academia [press release]. Springer Nature Website: Springer. Nature. 2020;30:2020.
• 104. Franco NH. Can we use infrared thermography for assessing emotional states in mice?—A comparison between handling-induced stress by different techniques. Available from: animalstudyregistry.org . German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR); 2020. https://doi.org/10.17590/asr.0000224

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

Social Sciences | 7.25.2019

From the Archives: Animal Research

Every year, scientists use millions of animals—mostly mice and rats—in experiments. the practice provokes passionate debates over the morality and efficacy of such research—and how to make it more humane..

Click image to see full cover: The original January-February 1999 issue that this article appeared in

Read the original article as it appeared in 1999.

The volume of biomedical research, and of trials of new therapies, has increased dramatically in recent decades, fueled by advances in understanding of the genome and how to manipulate it, methods of processing huge data sets, and fundamental discoveries such as targeted and immunological approaches to attacking cancer (see “Targeting Cancer,” May-June 2018). Greater Boston, and Harvard, are major participants in academic biomedical research, in close proximity to the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, which have set up shop locally to tap into the wealth of talent and ideas. Along the way, new research techniques that are driven by more sophisticated imaging, bioinformatics (see “Toward Precision Medicine,” May-June 2015), and “organ-on-a-chip” technology have made it possible to conduct science with less reliance on various kinds of animal-testing. Given rising social concern for and interest in animal welfare (see “Are Animals ‘Things’?” March-April 2016), these converging trends make rereading this in-depth 1999 report by John F. Lauerman on the use of animals in biomedical research still timely and important. ~The Editors

“What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man.”

~ Chief Seattle

Frederick Banting would never have begun his research without access to research animals. Before he had even spoken of his ideas, his first note to himself on the subject read: "Ligate the pancreatic ducts of dogs." The quiet Ontario doctor envisioned that severing the connection between the pancreas and the digestive system in a living animal would allow him to isolate the mysterious substance that would control diabetes.

During the first week in the laboratory, Banting and his assistant, Charles Best, operated on 10 dogs; all 10 died. Finally, in 1921, after months of experimentation, Banting and his colleagues isolated a material that kept a depancreatized dog named Marjorie alive for about 70 days. Exactly what information was gained from using dogs, and how many dogs were absolutely needed, is not clear. Work previous to Banting and Best’s, some of it in humans, had indicated the presence and importance of a hormone involved in glucose transport. Many more experienced scientists in the diabetes-research community believed that Marjorie had never been fully depancreatized, and thus may have never been diabetic. More likely, they said, the dog died of infection caused by her pancreatectomy. It’s possible that even the death of the famous Marjorie was unnecessary for the great discovery.

But the two Toronto researchers had isolated insulin, providing the first step toward producing it from pig and cow pancreas, available in bulk from slaughterhouses. The result—that Banting and Best "saw insulin"—appears to have justified all sacrifices. What’s the life of a dog, 10 dogs, a hundred? Before Banting and Best operated on dogs, we had no insulin; afterwards, we did.

Stories such as these are the reason our society and the vast majority of societies in the world accept the use of animals as a vital component of medical research.

Deeply entrenched traditions support the notion that animal welfare must bow to the best interests of humans. Animal domestication was among the first labor-saving devices. Humans have experimented with animal breeding, feeding, and disease control for thousands of years—not to benefit the animals themselves, but to insure that the owners obtained a maximum yield.

Today, those traditional practices have evolved into a scientific institution, the appropriateness of which is subject to perennial debate. In the United States alone, there are an estimated 17 million to 22 million animals in laboratory research facilities. To many people, animal research represents a doorway to the medical treatment of tomorrow. But to animal protectionists, and a growing number of other Americans, animal experimentation is a barbaric, outdated practice that—on the basis of a few notable past successes—has somehow retained its vestigial acceptability.

"Let’s say that it’s true, that animals were indispensable to the discovery of insulin," says Neal Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-protection group. "That was a long time ago. I think to say, ‘It was done this way and there’s no other way it could have been done’ is a bit of a leap of faith, but let’s say that at the time there was no other way. You could also say that you couldn’t have settled the South without slavery. Would you still do it that way today? Just because something seemed necessary or acceptable at the time is not to say that we should do it in our time."

The Animal Debate

The legitimation of the animal-research debate challenges one of the most important and widely used scientific approaches to discovery about the human body and its diseases. Animal experimentation is often considered as much of a sine qua non to research as the Bunsen burner. But animal protectionists reply that the importance of animals to research is overrated, and that their pressure has exposed profligacy among experimenters.

In February 1997, a highly controversial collection of articles appeared in  Scientific American  on the subject of laboratory-animal research. The first, written by Barnard and Stephen Kaufman, M.D., of the Medical Research Modernization Committee, another protectionist group, advanced the view that data collected from animal experimentation are almost always redundant and unnecessary, frequently misleading, and by their very nature unlikely to provide reliable information about humans and their diseases. "Animal ‘models’ are, at best, analagous to human conditions," the authors wrote, "but no theory can be refuted or proved by analogy. Thus, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals."

A rebuttal in support of animal research followed, by Jack Botting, Ph.D., former scientific adviser to the Research Defense Society in London, and Adrian Morrison, Ph.D., D.V.M., of the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. Their reply cited examples of scientists from Louis Pasteur to John Gibbon, a twentieth-century pioneer in open-heart surgery, who made important breakthroughs in the treatment of human disease through animal research.

Many scientists—both supporters of animal research and advocates for its diminution—simply refused to discuss the difficult topic, recalls Madhusree Mukerjee, the editor who proposed that  Scientific American  explore the controversy and who wrote a third article, reporting on the overall state of animal research in the sciences. (Similar difficulties were encountered in researching the present article.) Mukerjee suspects that possible interviewees feared the criticism of their colleagues.

Reader response, on the other hand, was overwhelming, both pro and con. "We got a huge amount of flak for dealing with the subject at all," recalls Mukerjee. "Some of it was fairly frightening." To many animal-research supporters, it was as though the floodgates had been opened. "I am simply stunned that  Scientific American,  a paragon of promotion of scientific research, would actually offer up for debate whether animal research should occur," wrote one reader. "Please leave this question of animal research to animal-rights activists, and stop yourselves from turning into scientific wimps." "A lot of the scientific community felt [ Scientific American’ s editors] had overstepped their bounds and compromised their values by printing the Barnard-Kaufman article," says Joanne Zurlo, associate director of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing and a specialist in chemical carcinogenesis.

Those researchers who supported animal use and wrote in said the animal-protectionists’ side of the  Scientific American  debate was fraught with misstatements and scientific errors, although Mukerjee maintains that all the articles were painstakingly fact-checked. "We annoyed a lot of influential scientists," she says. "Our publication has spent more than a century describing advances in medical research, including some by fairly controversial figures. We’d never addressed the question of research on animals before, and in a sense it was a necessary thing to do. We probably lost some subscriptions because of it. But we are a bridge between the researchers who write for us and the public who read us, and we decided to let our readers decide for themselves."

Animal Welfare

Animal protectionists date their movement back to the times of Leonardo da Vinci and even Pythagoras, who are alleged to have been vegetarians. Numerous essayists and animal lovers have detailed their objections to the misuse of animals. Yet not long ago, virtually anyone who wanted to could conduct experiments on animals. In the 1960s, it was not uncommon to walk into a laboratory and find mice, dogs, cats, even monkeys, housed on the premises in whatever conditions researchers saw fit to provide. Banting himself frequently bought pound dogs and may even have caught dogs on his own; his collaborators recalled that he once arrived at the lab with a dog he had leashed with his tie.

Only in the nineteenth century did animal research begin to draw explicit objections from protectionists. A pivotal event occurred in England in 1874, when a lecturer at the University of Norwich demonstrated how to induce epileptic symptoms in a dog through the administration of absinthe. Objections were raised by students in the audience, and the dog was set free. Later, charges were filed against the lecturer under Dick Martin’s Act, an 1822 law that called for a fine of 10 shillings from anyone committing acts of cruelty against animals. Two years later, in 1876, Parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act, requiring a license for animal experimentation and placing restrictions on some painful forms of experimentation.

In the United States, minimal restrictions on animal experimentation prevailed until 1966, when the first federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (now known as the Animal Welfare Act, or AWA) was passed by Congress. In 1970 the AWA was broadened to require the use of appropriate pain-relieving drugs, and to include commercially bred and exhibited animals. Six years later, provisions were added covering animal transport and prohibiting animal-fighting contests. In 1985, Congress passed the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act, which again strengthened the AWA by providing laboratory-animal-care standards, enforced by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors, and also aimed to reduce unnecessarily duplicative animal-research experimentation.

In 1976, however, the AWA was amended in a rather curious way: rats, mice, birds, horses, and farm animals were specifically excluded from its purview for reasons that are not fully clear, although the USDA’s limited resources—along with political pressure from interested parties—are likely to be among them. Since rats and mice make up more than 95 percent of all research animals in this country, the amendment effectively put the vast majority of laboratory animals outside the reach of the USDA. Since then, at least one court has ruled the 1976 amendment "arbitrary and capricious."

The Mouse Warehouse

As associate professor of surgery Arthur Lage, D.V.M., walks through the doors of Harvard Medical School’s Alpert Building, people recognize him, smile, and let us pass without showing identification. He is director of the Center for Animal Resources and Comparative Medicine and the Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery at the medical school and director of the Office of Animal Resources for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as well. We take an elevator down to a basement, where Lage swipes a card through a reader, unlocking a door to a hallway, where he speaks into a phone. A minute later, a young man clad in blue scrubs opens the door. Lage explains that he’s bringing a reporter in for a tour and that we’ll need keys to see certain rooms. The young man hands over the keys and closes the door.

At the other end of the short hallway are two doors, each leading to a sanitary changing room. When you turn the lights on in the changing rooms, the doors at either end lock automatically. After we’ve pulled blue scrubs over our clothes, Lage douses the lights and we step out of the room into another brightly lit hallway.

We’re in one of Harvard’s 16 animal facilities now, a moderately "clean" facility—meaning that it requires only minimal preparations for entry. Some laboratories would require us to remove our clothes and shower before entering; others don’t even stock scrubs. But this facility is full of mice—transgenic mice. A stray pathogen in one of the animal rooms could wipe out millions of dollars’ worth of experiments or, just as disastrous, infect a colony of mice with viruses or bacteria that might confound the results of a study.

Of course, the security isn’t intended only to repel microbes. Perhaps in frustration with perceived shortcomings in the oversight of animal experimentation, some animal-protection groups have gained a reputation for tactics that are rash and often destructive. On several occasions, animals have been "liberated" from laboratories, erasing potential results and sometimes careers. In 1989, the Animal Liberation Front took credit for the release of more than 1,200 laboratory animals, some of them infected with cryptosporidium, which can be harmful to infants and immunocompromised people. The total damage was estimated at $250,000. In 1987, a laboratory under construction at the University of California at Davis was burned; the loss was estimated at $3 million.

Although there is little evidence of violence toward animal researchers here in the United States, in Europe, where the animal- protection movement is more firmly entrenched, activists have taken aim at individuals, sometimes with disastrous results. In 1990, the infant daughter of a researcher was injured by a car bomb believed to have been set by animal protectionists. In separate, related incidents, a furrier and a breeder of cats used in experimentation were injured by letter bombs. Responsibility for the mail bombs was assumed by "The Justice Department," a militant, underground, animal-protection organization.

Even today, animal-protection groups find ways to gain access to research and testing facilities. In 1997, Michelle Rokke of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) infiltrated Huntingdon Life Sciences, a drug- and cosmetic-testing firm in East Millstone, New Jersey. Using a surveillance camera embedded in her eyeglasses, Rokke took hours of films that PETA claimed showed animals being slammed into cages and roughly handled. PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk said their investigation also revealed that young beagles’ legs were broken for another study at Huntingdon. Movie star Kim Basinger gave a press conference on Huntingdon’s lawn. In April 1998, the USDA fined Huntingdon $50,000 for AWA violations.

In the basement of the Alpert building, there is no evidence of such fury. Each room holds literally hundreds of mice in shoebox-sized cages, and there are so many of them it looks like a shoe warehouse. There are about 55,000 mice involved in research at Harvard at any one time, but that number is growing constantly. In 1997 it was closer to 50,000; by the end of 1998 it approached 58,000. By comparison, the numbers of other animals are almost negligible: about 1,300 rats, 145 rabbits, 115 hamsters, 70 guinea pigs, 67 primates, 35 pigs, 30 gerbils, 25 chicks, 20 dogs, 18 sheep, 6 cats, and 1 ferret. In addition, the New England Regional Primate Research Center in Southborough, Massachusetts, houses another 1,500 monkeys and other primates. Established at Harvard in 1966 with a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the NERPRC is one of seven such centers created by Congress in the early 1960s to serve as regional resources for scientists.

Surprisingly, there is no hint of animal smell within the basement facility. Temple Grandin of Colorado State University, a specialist in the behavior of captive animals, says that what mice really crave is some form of bedding—wood chips, paper, or shavings—which not all these animals have. Still, these laboratory animals, born and bred under fluorescent lights, are comfortable enough to live out lifespans they would never approach in the wild and, of course, to reproduce. And since almost all of them are involved in genetic studies, making sure they’re happy and healthy enough to reproduce is of vital importance. Keeping these buildings clean and free of infection is a triumph of research design. All the soiled animal cages are shuttled to one end of the laboratory where, before they re-enter, they pass through an enormous autoclaving machine that sanitizes the cages as well as the carts they sit on.

Amid the towers and technology of the medical area, animals one normally associates with a farm are a jarring sight. But Lage (pronounced lah-gee) led me through animal laboratories in the basement of the Seeley Mudd Building where we saw pigs, sheep, and rabbits held in small, clean pens. At one point, we watched eight sheep slated for experimental surgery frisk around a room that looked almost exactly like an office. If the straw were swept away, one could easily have moved in a desk and gone to work.

"We care for all these animals just as though they were covered by the [Animal Welfare] Act," Lage says proudly. "I think most of us believe that the act should cover rats and mice."

Although the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), like the USDA, inspects laboratory-animal facilities, including those of rats and mice, AAALAC accreditation isn’t legally required to conduct animal research. "AAALAC conducts something like a ‘peer review’ assessment," Lage says. "It’s a voluntary process, subscribed to by many, many research organizations. If you decide not to go through accreditation, you have to describe your entire program every time you apply to the government for funding for animal research."

Many laboratories and commercial drug-testing companies that receive no funding from federal sources and use only rats and mice proceed with only minimal oversight from their own institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs). But restrictions on animal research are, if anything, increasing, not abating. Not content with the level of state and federal regulation, for example, the city of Cambridge in 1989 passed its own law creating an inspector’s office with the power to make USDA-type inspections of all research facilities housing vertebrate animals, including rats and mice.

Cambridge’s current commissioner of laboratory animals, Julie Medley, D.V.M., annually inspects 34 laboratories, makes follow-up visits to some facilities (sometimes unannounced), and reviews "hundreds and hundreds" of research protocols to ensure that all experiments meet federal standards for pain control. Investigators readily comply with Medley’s suggestions for better animal care and pain control, she says, but she perceives an undercurrent among some researchers who chafe under what they perceive as excessive government intervention in their work. "I’m sure some of the principal investigators resent these regulations," she says. "It doesn’t happen that often, but there are rare occasions when I run into resistance from an investigator."

Still, for animal protectionists, the intentions of the Animal Welfare Act, AAALAC, and state inspectors are not enough. Sandi Larson, a scientific adviser to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, who has a master’s degree in microbiology, concedes that "not all researchers are Dr. Frankensteins. But," she adds, "they have been trained to look at animals as tools. It’s ingrained in them to shut off their compassion and act like scientists. They think there’s no room for emotions." A significant portion of the animal-protection movement believes that most experimentation on animals is without merit. If animals are different enough from humans that we can dismiss their suffering as inconsequential, isn’t it just a little too convenient that they resemble us enough to be considered a source of reliable information about human physiology?

Animal Liberation 

Peter Singer was an Oxford philosophy student who had little interest in animals, domesticated or otherwise, until he had lunch with a vegetarian friend one day and they began talking about the use and abuse of animals. Singer was quickly converted to the cause, and within a few years became its champion. One of the pivotal events in the treatment of laboratory animals in this country and throughout the world was the publication of his manifesto,  Animal Liberation,  in 1975.

Just 25 years ago, some proponents of animal experimentation still held that animals’ intellectual inferiority to humans meant that they could not be accorded the same rights as humans. Some argued that animals had no consciousness or memory, that they did not think as humans did. The quality and intensity of the pain felt by animals was still subject to debate. Singer, recently appointed DeCamp professor of bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values, refuted the assertion of animals’ inequality, pointing out that our society grants equal rights to all humans without regard to IQ or ability to function. "If the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality," he wrote. "...[T]he claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact."

As for consciousness and the ability to feel pain, Singer pointed out that we have no reason to believe animals lack either one. Some of the experiments he recounts make their emotional vulnerability all too clear. In the late 1950s, for instance, psychologist Harry Harlow of the University of Wisconsin embarked on a series of experiments in which he deprived young rhesus monkeys of contact with their mothers. Young monkeys who were most completely deprived of parental contact developed very bizarre behavior, and would cling to objects that supplied the most minimal comfort, such as a scrap of terrycloth. Many of his fellow researchers considered Harlow a genius for having established the importance of interpersonal contact to normal childhood development. Singer, on the other hand, pointed out that the experiments demonstrated just how much like us monkeys really are, and he condemned the inhumanity of torturing them to obtain information that could have been elucidated in many other ways, perhaps through epidemiological studies of children who had been separated from their mothers at critical periods of development.

"You can’t have it both ways," says biochemist Karin Zupko ’77, an animal-rights advocate formerly with the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. "You can’t say that animals are different enough from people so that it’s acceptable to experiment on them, but enough like people so that the results of the experiments are valid."

Models for Medicine

Scientists, however, counter that you can, in fact, gather useful information about humans from animals that seem vastly different from us. They point to the many surgical experiments performed on pigs, dogs, and monkeys that have led to advances in transplantation, heart-valve replacement, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

"Research on live organisms is essential for medical advance," asserts Francis D. Moore ’35, M.D. ’39, S.D. ’82, Moseley professor and surgeon-in-chief emeritus at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, respectively. As Moore has pointed out in testimony to the Massachusetts legislature and in his autobiographical book,  A Miracle and A Privilege,  the first successful human kidney transplant, in which Moore played a pivotal role in 1963, would not have been possible at that time without an understanding of immunology based on experiments in rats and mice. Important aspects of the surgery were developed in larger animals. "There’s no substitute for it," says Moore. "Some people say you can set up a computer program to act like a dog. Well, forget it. All animals have responses that we don’t understand, and there’s no way to set that up on a computer."

A great deal of our understanding of basic human physiology comes from experiments in large animals, like dogs and chimpanzees. Harvard physiologist Walter B. Cannon, A.B. 1896, M.D. ’00, S.D. ’37, for example, performed experiments on dogs for many years to understand the basic dynamics of digestion. Different animals may be selected for different purposes. A dog’s prostate differs from that of a human in having only two lobes, yet dogs, like humans, can develop benign prostatic hyperplasia.

"Not all animal models are ideal, but some cases are a perfect fit," says Arthur Lage. "Mice are certainly a very good model for studying human genes. Much of the genetic makeup of the mouse is very similar to that of a human; there are large regions of shared identity." That’s why, Lage explains, Harvard will probably double its use of mice over the next five years—to about 100,000 mice annually. The chief reason for this is transgenic-mouse technology—which allows the insertion and deletion of key disease genes into the mouse genome. These techniques allow researchers to study the impact of both subtle and drastic changes in the genome, and to make key predictions about how similar changes would affect humans. Mice can be bred, for example, with varying ability to express the  p53  gene, which has been implicated in a wide variety of cancers. Understanding how the activity of such genes affects cancer development promises to vastly increase our knowledge of treatment and prevention.

Philip Leder ’56, M.D. ’60, Andrus professor of genetics and head of the medical school’s department of genetics, who pioneered the technology, points out that transgenic mice have been used to test the safety and efficacy of new therapeutics; to detect biohazards; and to advance our knowledge of cancer. Yet he concedes this widely embraced methodology has yet to produce new therapies itself. "It’s impossible as yet to bring it home to lives of patients," he says, "because the development of diagnostics and therapeutics takes time."

There are many areas, however, where a direct connection between animal research and patient welfare can be argued. In the field of AIDS, for instance, research on animals has been making important contributions to the basic understanding, prevention, and treatment of this life-threatening disease.

In 1981, Norman Letvin ’71, M.D. ’75, received a call that would change his life. It concerned an epidemic of mysterious deaths, all caused by unusual pathogens and cancers, such as pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus, and rare lymphomas. But the patients suffering from these infections were not humans, but laboratory monkeys.

We now recognize these so-called "opportunistic infections" as signals of the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS. But at that time, the disease was just being recognized in humans, the term "AIDS" itself was unknown, and the cause of all these infections was still a frightening mystery.

Letvin, now professor of medicine at Harvard, says HIV probably began as a relatively harmless virus that infected some species of African monkeys. When it crossed species lines, it did so in several directions, spreading simultaneously into both human and additional non-human primate populations. In these new populations, the infection had much more serious consequences than in the African monkeys: it was lethal. But to Letvin, the realization that a parallel syndrome was occurring in man and monkeys was a tremendous opportunity.

"A great deal of effort has been expended on trying to find rodent and rabbit models for studying HIV infections, but they have not proven terribly useful," Letvin notes. "The only way we can see what happens in the first few minutes, hours, and days after infections—questions that are essential to answer in order to develop an HIV vaccine—is by working in animal models. We are forced to work in these models if we want to answer these questions." (The number of monkeys needed for such an experiment, he hastens to point out, is relatively small: usually about six.)

In Letvin’s experiments, monkeys are inoculated with candidate vaccines against HIV. After a brief period during which the vaccine draws a response from the host monkeys’ immune system, the animals are inoculated with a strain of immunodeficiency virus that brings on an AIDS-like disease. Periodic blood samples are taken to monitor their white blood cell counts and viral replication. An experimental model that causes the monkeys to get sick is more informative, Letvin explains, because even if the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection, it may slow the course of the disease enough to be useful.

"There’s little question that exciting animal data is a major drive for the initiation of human studies," Letvin says. "It’s not a gatekeeper, but an important piece of a complex puzzle we use to determine whether to go forward with the long march into humans. There are hundreds of approaches one could take. If a strategy does look promising, an animal trial makes it easier to determine whether it’s worth spending millions of dollars to measure its safety and efficacy in humans."

Letvin points out that an AIDS vaccine would save millions of human lives, particularly in populations where expensive treatment is not available. Thus the use of animals in research on diseases such as AIDS seems fated to continue for years to come. If the past is any indication, it will probably yield a rich crop of new medical information.

Perhaps the more accurate question then—under the circumstances—is, how much do we care about animal suffering? Is it worthwhile to consider that issue in our quest for better treatment for diseases?

The Three R’s

Since Peter Singer formulated his ideas, the animal-protection movement has gone from a series of staccato eruptions to a steady influence on the course of medical research. Everyone involved in the animal-research debate admits that the situation has changed considerably during the last 25 years. Ernie Prentice, a nationally recognized expert in the regulation and ethics of animal research and a member of the institutional animal care and use committee at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, can remember a time when animals were routinely subjected to painful measures without pain control. In one well-publicized experiment, pigs were burned without anesthetic; in another long-running research project, monkeys were subjected to traumatic blows to the head without analgesics. Animals progressed to the end stages of artificially induced malignancies, renal failure, and heart disease, all without any form of pain control.

"Those kinds of projects would not be permitted now. They would be unacceptable for at least two reasons," says Prentice. "One is that we now have regulations that clearly ban this kind of experimentation, and those regulations are adequately enforced to make sure that they’re followed. At the same time, there is heightened ethical sensitivity among both researchers and IACUCs. If you had sat in on a meeting of an IACUC in 1985 and were able to compare the level of discussion back then with what goes on today, you would see a tremendous difference."

Increasingly, members of the protection community are taking legal steps to gain input into animal-treatment guidelines, and have found more conventional ways to exert pressure. Marc Jurnove, a member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), is suing the USDA for "aesthetic and recreational injuries" that he suffered when seeing the living conditions of chimpanzees and apes at a Long Island zoo. Jurnove charged that the USDA failed to adopt and enforce adequate standards for the animals’ well-being, as is required by the AWA. This past September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the nation’s most influential circuit court, upheld Jurnove’s right to sue. Recently, the ALDF also led animal-rights groups in successfully suing the National Academy of Sciences for access to records and to committee meetings pertaining to a guide on the care and use of laboratory animals.

Some major funding organizations have also embraced the animal-rights movement. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, with assets of $1.25 billion, is one of the 25 wealthiest philanthropies in the country. Although it funds medical research, one of its restrictions is that animals not be used as subjects. This creates a sticky situation for the board, which hopes to fund research on AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and sickle-cell anemia, areas heavily dependent on animal research in the past.

But the effort to occupy a middle ground, supporting the principles of reduction, replacement, and refinement of animal research while acknowledging its necessity, has been extremely frustrating.

Several research institutions have established centers of animal-rights advocacy. The Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University and the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University, for example, have tried to establish liaisons with both protectionists and researchers. "I wasn’t running around throwing bombs," says Andrew Rowan, Ph.D., former director of the Tufts Center and now senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. "I was engaging colleagues in scientific debate without being obstreperous. People were shouting past each other." Veterinarian Peter Theran, vice president of the health and hospitals division of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and director of the MSPCA’s Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare, says that his group has had to walk a fine line. "We try to maintain a rapport with both sides," he stresses. "I have to say that we often don’t agree with some of the more aggressive groups, like PETA. But there’s a tendency to paint the animal-welfare community with a broad brush. And that makes dialogue extremely difficult."

"When you say you’re for animal welfare, you’re perceived as rabid," says Joanne Zurlo of the Johns Hopkins center. "At the same time, we can’t deal with groups like PETA because they believe in abolition of animal use. When we organized the first World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences in 1993, we invited representatives from every organization to sit at the table. PETA would not join. Even the American AntiVivisection Society sent a representative, but members of the hard-line groups who were picketing outside hounded her and called her a murderer."

Human Lives, Humane Experiments

The growth of the animal-protection debate has been fraught with acrimony. The results, however, go beyond the additional credibility that has been afforded animal protectionists. Scientists, too, find that they can be more open about the feelings they have or may have had for the creatures in their care, and are more free to explore alternative methods of experimentation.

"All of us, whether we’re doing research on animals or not, recognize that this is something that is not optimal," Andrew Rowan says. "If society didn’t feel that we needed the information, we wouldn’t do research on animals. But society feels we do, and so do scientists. There’s a tension between our concern about causing pain and distress and killing animals and our need for new knowledge. No one would say that the animals in research benefit from it, and in a world that was perfect we wouldn’t be doing this. We’re engaged in encouraging people to make animal welfare a higher priority without compromising their ability to gather information."

Neal Barnard, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, argues that the route away from animal research should carry us toward population-based efforts like the Framingham Heart Study, in which heart researchers have closely followed the health habits and outcomes of 5,000 adults for just over 50 years. That study was a key factor in galvanizing current national efforts to lower cholesterol, combat hypertension, and encourage proper diet and exercise to reduce mortality from heart disease.

"Those areas where we struggle the most, clinically, are those where we haven’t exploited good clinical research and are relying on animal models," Barnard says. "Look at cardiac defects. We don’t know how they’re caused because no one has done the equivalent of the Framingham study for heart defects, even though it’s quite feasible. The Centers for Disease Control and organizations study these congenital abnormalities only in a very haphazard way.

"Of course," he continues, "there have been some brilliant exceptions, such as the research on neural tube defects. It was found through observation of humans that these defects were associated with deficiencies in folic acid, and that by taking vitamin supplements you can reduce the risk. The same with fetal alcohol syndrome: the breakthroughs came in studying humans, not animals."

Politics frequently obscures our view of research bias, Barnard says. He has called for a Framingham-style study of the health implications of cow’s milk consumption, which has been implicated in some studies as a possible cause of Type 1 diabetes in children. Barnard believes that the political strength of the dairy industry has kept such a study from becoming a reality even though some 700,000 Americans suffer from Type 1 diabetes.

Even within the scientific community, there is an increasing willingness to admit that current research methods can be improved upon. A wide variety of in vitro tests have been proposed (among them, the use of human tissue culture and in vitro cell-culture assays), as well as increased reliance on computer modeling and the creative application of human epidemiological studies. Both government and industry experts agree that if new techniques eliminate or reduce the use of animals, so much the better. "[T]he current rodent bioassay for assessing carcinogenicity costs $1 million to $3 million and requires at least 3 years to complete," reads the summary of a January 1997 meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals. The main topic of the meeting was the development of alternatives to animal research, and the report continues, "More efficient testing methods may reduce the time required to bring new products to the marketplace and increase the amount of useful information that can be obtained."

Most researchers recognize that the humane treatment of animals isn’t only compassionate—it’s also good science. Imagine trying to measure the effect of blood-pressure medication on a dog that hasn’t been walked in days. We now know that animals’ feelings, behavior, and emotions have a profound effect on their physiological functioning—as is the case with humans. Consequently, after strong initial opposition to the Animal Welfare Act, most researchers have come to support it.

The Humane Society of the United States represents one example of how animal protectionists can set reasonably limited goals that promote animal welfare in ways that better serve both animals and humans. "We’ve contacted animal care and use committees and asked them to work with us to identify techniques that cause pain and distress and figure out ways to share ways to eliminate that in research," says HSUS’s Andrew Rowan. "Some of the committees are rather suspicious; they see a hidden attempt to stop all animal research. The response has been slight so far. But we think that most researchers are bright people and will understand that our primary goal is just to eliminate animal suffering wherever possible."

Norman Letvin, who frequently debates animal protectionists, knows that there are many who would like to end the practice of animal research for good. Although he is ready and willing to discuss the morality and ethics of his work, he thinks that calling an end to the practice would hurt society enormously.

"It is very easy to take an absolutist position and say it is wrong to cause the death of another living animal," Letvin says. "The difficulty in what [researchers] do comes in saying, ‘I understand that what I’m doing is causing the death of a limited number of animals, but I’m making a judgment that the information gained from this limited, focused experiment will yield results that will justify doing the study.’ Many humans infected with viruses or suffering from cancer or heart disease enter into studies that allow the development of new therapeutics. Every day, thousands of humans say, ‘It is worth it for me to be involved in those studies because, even though I probably won’t benefit, others will.’ In the end, the decisions I’m making with respect to experimental animals are not dissimilar."

As we walked to a new facility on Longwood Avenue, Arthur Lage reminded me that it was the former site of Angell Memorial Animal Hospital, which has since moved to Huntington Avenue in Jamaica Plain. He points out where horses were tethered in the courtyard as they waited to be seen by a veterinarian. He indicates a barely visible tower protruding from the rear roof where distempered dogs were once quarantined. "It was hard work," he recalls, somewhat wistfully, of the internship and residency he served at Angell. "But it was rewarding. You might sit up all night with a sick dog or cat, trying to save its life."

Today, Lage cannot devote as much time to saving animals’ lives. Instead, as he says, he’s helping save human lives through animal research, while ensuring that animals are used humanely. Embodied in his work are many of the contradictions that many of us feel when we consider the millions of animals—from mice to monkeys—that annually give their lives for human health. The use of animals in research will not end today, nor tomorrow, but opinions on the matter appear to be evolving, perhaps toward a better life for animals in the laboratory, and toward better science.

John Lauerman used to write the magazine’s " Harvard Health " column. He is coauthor of a book on diabetes and, with Thomas Perls, M.P.H. ’93, M.D., and Margery H. Silver, Ed.D. ’82, of  Living to 100,  forthcoming from Basic Books in March.

You might also like

Civil Discourse and Institutional Neutrality Task Forces

Two Harvard working groups assess constructive dialogue, institutional voice

Making the Public Record Public

Harvard legal database released

Paying Student-Athletes?

As NIL money flows, Harvard’s approach remains unchanged.

Most popular

The World’s Costliest Health Care

Administrative costs, greed, overutilization—can these drivers of U.S. medical costs be curbed?

AWOL from Academics

Behind students' increasing pull toward extracurriculars

Post-COVID Learning Losses

Children face potentially permanent setbacks

More to explore

Mysterious Minis

Intricate mosaics shrouded in mystery

How Birds Lost Flight

Scott Edwards discovers evolution’s master switches.

Why Americans Love to Hate Harvard

The president emeritus on elite universities’ academic accomplishments—and a rising tide of antagonism

• Policy & Compliance
• Animals In NIH Research
• Why Animals Are Used In Research

Why Animals are Used in Research

Animals have unique and important roles in biomedical and behavioral research. Many medical advances that enhance the lives of humans are developed from research studies with animals.

Good animal care and good science go hand in hand. NIH takes the involvement, role, and respectful use of animals in research seriously. The integrity of the research depends on ensuring that they are well cared for throughout the research process. Of note, NIH does not support research into cosmetic testing.

Scientists thoughtfully and carefully choose and justify the specific animal models used in research based on their similarity to humans in anatomy, physiology, and/or genetics, or even everyday living conditions. Animals serve as “models” that represent certain aspects of a biological phenomenon to study. There are also times when certain animal models are used, like fish and frogs, whose anatomy and physiology may be quite different from humans, but still can help researchers address fundamental biological processes similar across species to develop knowledge to improve human health.

When researchers develop hypotheses (which are scientifically backed ideas) about the possible causes of diseases and potential treatments, these hypotheses must be evaluated very carefully so that benefits and risks from the proposed new approaches are clearly understood. When necessary, new hypotheses are tested in animal models first to gather sufficient evidence of these benefits and risks before considering use in humans or additional animals. Also, translational research often involves preclinical trials on animals before clinical trials with human participants can begin.

Animal studies conducted in the laboratory allow scientists to control factors that might affect the outcome of the experiments. This includes factors like temperature, humidity, light, diet, or medications. Even the genetics of many animal models can be known and well understood, so only the factor being tested is changed and examined. These rigorous controls allow for more precise understanding of biological factors at hand and provide greater certainty about experimental outcomes when developing treatments. The findings also move the scientific process forward, setting the stage for future research and studies in humans. This is called translational research. Though not all research with animal models may result in human treatments, some research builds fundamental knowledge to enhance our understanding of physiological systems. This includes research to understand what might contribute to unexpected outcomes within animal research and to develop new models of health and disease.

Scientists must clearly explain why animals are necessary for their research and that the minimal number needed to ensure rigor and reproducibility will be used when proposing ideas to NIH for funding and throughout the research activity itself. Every NIH-funded activity involving live vertebrate animals must describe in their NIH grant application:

• How it is scientifically important, hypothesis driven, and relevant to public health
• What specific animals and how many will be involved as well as why they were selected
• Why the specific animal is appropriate for the questions being asked
• A complete description of all procedures that will be performed on the animals
• How any potential discomfort, distress, injury, and pain the animals may experience will be minimized
• Why the study cannot be done using another model or approach
• The research findings and outcomes, and their potential benefits

This page last updated on: August 19, 2022

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

Periodical Cicadas Emerge Every 13 or 17 Years. How Do They Keep Track of Time?

Periodical cicadas have a clever hack to help them figure out when to emerge after more than a decade underground

Meghan Bartels

How Rats Took Over North America

Rat remains from shipwrecks and dig sites show how two rodent species duked it out in eastern North America

Allison Parshall

Chickadees Use Brain-Cell ‘Barcodes’ to Remember Where They Stashed Their Snacks

Unique patterns of neuron activation help tiny birds catalog thousands of scattered food caches

Jack Tamisiea

What Google’s New AI Fruit Fly Can Teach Us about Real Behavior

To learn how to move, groom itself and flap its wings, a fruit fly AI devoured hours of video of real insects

Charlotte Hu

Orca Groups with Radically Different Cultures Are Actually Separate Species

“Resident” and “transient” killer whales, or orcas, have unique hunting habits and genetics, proving they are in fact separate species

Douglas Main

How Do Animals Respond to a Total Solar Eclipse?

Scientists are finally getting their hands on enough data to begin to understand how animals react to a total solar eclipse

Wild Birds Gesture ‘After You’ to Insist Their Mate Go First

Like humans, these small Japanese birds communicate abstract concepts with gestures

Olivia Ferrari

Kitten Season Is Out of Control. Are Warmer Winters to Blame?

The summer “kitten season” is starting earlier and lasting longer, which is bad news for both animal shelters and wildlife

Sachi Mulkey, Grist

Female Mosquitoes Follow Each Other to Breeding Sites

Aedes aegypti  mosquitoes use social cues to decide where to lay their eggs, scientists discover

Kaylee Marrero, Andre Luis da Costa da Silva, Matthew DeGennaro, The Conversation US

Hummingbirds Control Their Flight with a Newfound Mechanism

When zooming forward, hummingbirds rely on a unique internal “cruise control”

Ellyn Lapointe

Why Cicadas Power Spray Their Pee

Thirsty cicadas produce more powerful jets of urine than some mammals

The Science behind Humpback Whales ’ Eerie Songs

Scientists have long wondered how baleen whales make their songs, and a new study has finally uncovered the anatomical workings behind their melodies.

Devin Farmiloe

• News/Events
• Arts and Sciences
• Design and the Arts
• Engineering
• Global Futures
• Health Solutions
• Nursing and Health Innovation
• Public Service and Community Solutions
• University College
• Thunderbird School of Global Management
• Polytechnic
• Downtown Phoenix
• Online and Extended
• Lake Havasu
• Research Park
• Washington D.C.
• Biology Bits
• Bird Finder
• Coloring Pages
• Experiments and Activities
• Games and Simulations
• Quizzes in Other Languages
• Virtual Reality (VR)
• World of Biology
• Meet Our Biologists
• Listen and Watch
• PLOSable Biology
• All About Autism
• Xs and Ys: How Our Sex Is Decided
• When Blood Types Shouldn’t Mix: Rh and Pregnancy
• What Is the Menstrual Cycle?
• Understanding Intersex
• The Mysterious Case of the Missing Periods
• Summarizing Sex Traits
• Shedding Light on Endometriosis
• Periods: What Should You Expect?
• Menstruation Matters
• Investigating In Vitro Fertilization
• Introducing the IUD
• How Fast Do Embryos Grow?
• Helpful Sex Hormones
• Getting to Know the Germ Layers
• Gender versus Biological Sex: What’s the Difference?
• Gender Identities and Expression
• Focusing on Female Infertility
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Pregnancy
• Ectopic Pregnancy: An Unexpected Path
• Creating Chimeras
• Confronting Human Chimerism
• Cells, Frozen in Time
• EvMed Edits
• Stories in Other Languages
• Virtual Reality
• Zoom Gallery
• Ugly Bug Galleries
• Ask a Question
• Top Questions
• Question Guidelines
• Permissions
• Information Collected
• Author and Artist Notes
• Share Ask A Biologist
• Articles & News
• Our Volunteers
• Teacher Toolbox

show/hide words to know

Ethical: relating to a person's moral principles.

United States Department of Agriculture: United States agency that is responsible for federal laws related to farming, agriculture, forestry, and food.

Animals Used in Research

Any animal can be used in research. But which animal will be chosen will depend on the research question. If a biologist is interested in the mating behavior of toads or zebras, then it will only make sense for her or him to study that specific animal.

Scientists select the animal they use for research carefully. But in general mice and rats are the most commonly used. Image by metalgearsolid5.

This approach may have some limitations, for example when the species of interest is endangered. But, in general, scientists can study any animal of interest to their work. This is  basic research —studying an animal to learn more about it.

Choosing the Right Animal

Sometimes a scientist won’t pick an animal they are interested in studying, but one that helps them to answer a specific question. For example, if scientists are interested in studying a new medication or a pathway in the brain, they will use whatever animal will best allow them to do that.

For such research questions, scientists can use a wide range of animals. The United States Department of Agriculture  (USDA) is one agency in the U.S. that keeps track of how many animals are used each year for research. The animals that this agency reported being used in research in 2014 include a total of 834,453 animals. The table below shows the animals included in their data:

Other Animals Used in Research

Other animals not included in this list include birds, fish, mice and rats. It turns out that mice and rats are the most commonly used animals in research. Because of this, some argue that the numbers mentioned above don't properly report the total number of animals used in research. In fact, this number is likely to be much higher than it's currently reported by the USDA. 

Approving the Use of an Animal for Research

As mentioned above, there are some limitations for scientists when choosing the animal to best help them to answer a research question. And in addition to endangered animals, others such as chimpanzees and cephalopods, have special rules for use.  

If a scientist would like to use one of these animals for their work, she or he must clearly explain why this choice is important for the proposed work. This is in addition to the other documentation that must be filled out for using an animal in a research setting.

Human Participation in Research

Humans will be used in place of animals for research purposes, at least at first, when there is no expected harm to the human. Image by Kris D.

While oftentimes an animal is used for a research study, there are also cases when humans are used. One example of this is when there is no harm to using a human for a study, such as taking blood pressure, heart rate, or other similar data. When there is little to no risk related to a study it is common for only humans to be used.

When the work may cause harm to humans, this testing  will often only occur after the work has been done using an animal model. Here scientists will study a particular topic in animals, and once they have successful results they will then apply their work to humans. There are many advantages to first using animals for a research study. Despite this, the decision to use animals first (before humans) is one that many scientists and non-scientists debate about. This is an ethical debate  related to animal research that is still ongoing. 

The requirement of both human  and  other animal studies relates to a  disadvantage of animal research . The physiology of humans and non-human animals can be very different, so the results of animal studies cannot always be directly compared to humans. One example of this is in drug research. A drug may have different effects on the body when given to a non-human animal versus when it is given to a human.

When human research occurs, scientists will ask people to volunteer to be a part of the study. The people who volunteer to particpate will be informed of any risks involved before the experiment begins. And similar to animal research, there are many guidelines in place to protect the safety of any person participating in a given research project. The guidelines for using humans in research are unique to those for animal use.

Additional images via Wikimedia Commons. Frog image via Fredlyfish4.

Read more about: Using Animals in Research

View citation, bibliographic details:.

• Article: What Animals Are Used in Research?
• Author(s): Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross
• Publisher: Arizona State University School of Life Sciences Ask A Biologist
• Site name: ASU - Ask A Biologist
• Date published: December 4, 2016
• Date accessed: March 24, 2024
• Link: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/research-animals

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. (2016, December 04). What Animals Are Used in Research?. ASU - Ask A Biologist. Retrieved March 24, 2024 from https://askabiologist.asu.edu/research-animals

Chicago Manual of Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "What Animals Are Used in Research?". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 December, 2016. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/research-animals

MLA 2017 Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "What Animals Are Used in Research?". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 Dec 2016. ASU - Ask A Biologist, Web. 24 Mar 2024. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/research-animals

Scientists use a variety of animals for research purposes. These include different types of reptiles, insects, mammals, and amphibians, among others.

Using Animals in Research

Be part of ask a biologist.

By volunteering, or simply sending us feedback on the site. Scientists, teachers, writers, illustrators, and translators are all important to the program. If you are interested in helping with the website we have a Volunteers page to get the process started.

Share to Google Classroom

ScienceSphere.blog

Unlocking Nature’s Secrets: How Zoos Drive Valuable Scientific Research

Table of Contents

A Captivating World of Zoos and Their Role in Scientific Research

Zoos have always been a source of fascination for people of all ages. The opportunity to observe and learn about various animal species up close is an experience that captivates and educates. However, beyond their role as entertainment venues, zoos also play a crucial role in driving valuable scientific research. They provide unique opportunities for studying and understanding various animal species, unlocking nature’s secrets in the process.

Unlocking Nature’s Secrets Through Zoos

Zoos have evolved over the years, with conservation becoming a primary goal. They have transformed into safe havens for endangered species, contributing significantly to conservation efforts. But their importance extends far beyond that. Zoos serve as living laboratories for scientific research, offering researchers access to diverse animal species and their natural behaviors. They also act as educational institutions, promoting awareness and understanding of wildlife conservation among the public.

Zoos’ Crucial Role in Driving Valuable Scientific Research

Zoos are not just places where animals are kept for display. They actively contribute to scientific research in several ways. By understanding the importance of zoos in conservation efforts, we can appreciate the significant role they play in driving valuable scientific discoveries.

Conservation as a Primary Goal of Modern Zoos

Modern zoos prioritize conservation as a primary goal. They work tirelessly to protect and preserve endangered species, ensuring their survival for future generations. Through breeding programs and reintroduction efforts, zoos provide a safe haven for endangered animals, helping to increase their population and prevent their extinction.

Zoos as Safe Havens for Endangered Species

Zoos act as sanctuaries for endangered species, offering them protection from habitat loss, poaching, and other threats they face in the wild. By providing a controlled environment, zoos can closely monitor and manage the well-being of these animals, ensuring their survival and contributing to their long-term conservation.

Zoos play a vital role in breeding programs, focusing on the reproduction of endangered species. Through careful selection and controlled breeding, zoos help increase the genetic diversity of these species, reducing the risk of inbreeding and improving their chances of survival. Additionally, zoos participate in reintroduction efforts, preparing animals for life in the wild and releasing them into protected habitats when they are ready.

Zoos are not just places of entertainment; they are invaluable contributors to scientific research. Through their conservation efforts, they protect endangered species and ensure their survival. As living laboratories, they provide researchers with unique opportunities to study animal behavior, physiology, and health. Moreover, they serve as educational institutions, inspiring the public and future generations of scientists and conservationists. The importance of zoos in scientific research cannot be overstated, and continued support and collaboration between zoos and research institutions are crucial for unlocking nature’s secrets and driving valuable scientific discoveries.

The Importance of Zoos in Conservation Efforts

Conservation has become a primary goal of modern zoos, as they strive to protect and preserve endangered species. Zoos serve as safe havens for these animals, providing them with a protected environment where they can thrive and reproduce. This is particularly crucial for species that are on the brink of extinction.

One of the key roles that zoos play in conservation efforts is through their breeding programs. These programs aim to increase the population of endangered species and prevent their extinction. By carefully managing breeding pairs and ensuring genetic diversity, zoos contribute to the long-term survival of these species. Additionally, zoos often collaborate with other institutions and organizations to reintroduce captive-bred animals back into their natural habitats.

Zoos also play a vital role in raising awareness about the importance of conservation. Through educational programs and exhibits, they educate the public about the threats faced by wildlife and the need for conservation efforts. Visitors to zoos gain a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by endangered species and the role they can play in their protection.

Moreover, zoos engage visitors through interactive exhibits that showcase the beauty and diversity of wildlife. These exhibits not only entertain but also inspire visitors to develop a connection with nature and become advocates for conservation. By fostering a sense of wonder and appreciation for the natural world, zoos inspire future generations of scientists and conservationists.

However, it is important to acknowledge the ethical considerations and challenges associated with zoo-based research. Balancing the welfare of animals with research objectives is a complex task. Zoos must ensure that their research practices are conducted responsibly and with the utmost respect for the well-being of the animals involved.

Addressing public concerns and controversies surrounding zoos is another challenge that needs to be addressed. Some individuals question the ethics of keeping animals in captivity, even if it is for conservation purposes. Zoos must be transparent in their operations and actively address these concerns to maintain public trust and support.

In conclusion, zoos play a crucial role in conservation efforts. They provide a safe haven for endangered species, contribute to breeding programs, and collaborate with research institutions to advance our understanding of wildlife. Additionally, zoos serve as educational institutions, raising awareness about the importance of conservation and inspiring future generations. While ethical considerations and challenges exist, the potential of zoos to unlock nature’s secrets and drive valuable scientific discoveries cannot be overlooked. Continued support and collaboration between zoos and research institutions are essential to ensure the long-term survival of endangered species and the preservation of our natural world.

Zoos as Living Laboratories for Scientific Research

Zoos have long been recognized as more than just places for entertainment and recreation. They serve as living laboratories for scientific research, providing unique opportunities for studying and understanding various animal species. In this section, we will explore the importance of zoos as living laboratories and the valuable contributions they make to scientific research.

Access to Diverse Animal Species and Their Natural Behaviors

One of the key advantages of zoos as living laboratories is the access to diverse animal species . Zoos house a wide range of animals, including those that are rare, endangered, or difficult to study in the wild. This allows researchers to observe and study these animals up close, gaining insights into their behavior, physiology, and ecology.

By studying animals in captivity, researchers can observe natural behaviors that may be difficult to observe in the wild. Zoos provide a controlled environment where animals can be closely monitored, allowing researchers to gather data on their feeding habits, social interactions, and reproductive behaviors. This information is crucial for understanding the natural history and biology of these species.

Studying Animal Behavior and Social Dynamics in Controlled Environments

Zoos offer a unique opportunity to study animal behavior and social dynamics in controlled environments . By observing animals in captivity, researchers can manipulate variables and conduct experiments that would be challenging or unethical to perform in the wild.

For example, researchers can study the effects of social hierarchy on animal behavior by observing animals in zoo exhibits. They can investigate how individuals interact with each other, establish dominance, and form social bonds. These studies provide valuable insights into the social structure and behavior of animals, which can have implications for conservation and management strategies.

Investigating Animal Physiology and Health through Veterinary Research

Another important aspect of zoos as living laboratories is their contribution to veterinary research . Zoos have dedicated veterinary teams that provide medical care to the animals in their care. This presents an opportunity for researchers to investigate animal physiology, health, and disease.

Veterinary research conducted in zoos can help identify and treat health issues in captive animals. It can also provide insights into the health and well-being of wild populations. By studying the physiology and health of animals in zoos, researchers can contribute to the development of medical treatments and protocols that benefit both captive and wild animals.

In addition, zoos often collaborate with research institutions and universities to conduct cutting-edge research in various fields, such as genetics, nutrition, and reproductive biology. These collaborations allow scientists to access state-of-the-art facilities and expertise, further enhancing the scientific value of zoos as living laboratories.

In conclusion, zoos serve as living laboratories for scientific research, offering unique opportunities to study and understand various animal species. They provide access to diverse animal species, allowing researchers to observe natural behaviors and investigate social dynamics. Zoos also contribute to veterinary research, advancing our understanding of animal physiology and health. Through collaborations with research institutions, zoos facilitate cutting-edge research in various fields. The scientific discoveries made in zoos not only benefit captive animals but also contribute to the conservation and management of wild populations.

Contributions of Zoos to Wildlife Research and Conservation

Zoos have made significant contributions to wildlife research and conservation efforts. Through collaborations with universities and research institutions, zoos have played a crucial role in advancing our understanding of animal cognition, communication, and intelligence. By studying diverse animal species in controlled environments, zoos have provided valuable insights into the natural behaviors, social dynamics, and physiological health of animals. These contributions have not only enhanced our knowledge but have also helped in the conservation of endangered species.

Collaborations with universities and research institutions

Zoos have established strong partnerships with universities and research institutions, fostering a collaborative environment for scientific research. These collaborations have allowed researchers to access zoo populations and conduct studies that would otherwise be challenging in the wild. By working together, zoos and research institutions have been able to gather data, analyze it, and publish scientific papers that contribute to the body of knowledge in wildlife research and conservation.

Advancements in understanding animal cognition and intelligence

One of the significant contributions of zoos to wildlife research is the advancement in our understanding of animal cognition and intelligence. Through various experiments and observations, researchers have been able to study the cognitive abilities of animals in zoos. These studies have revealed fascinating insights into the problem-solving skills, memory, and learning capabilities of different species. Such knowledge is crucial for developing effective conservation strategies and improving animal welfare in captivity.

Research on animal communication and language

Zoos have also played a vital role in studying animal communication and language. By closely observing animal behavior and vocalizations, researchers have been able to decipher the complex communication systems of various species. This research has shed light on how animals communicate within their social groups, establish territories, and convey important information. Understanding animal communication is essential for conservation efforts as it helps in identifying threats, monitoring population dynamics, and developing effective conservation plans.

In addition to these contributions, zoos have also been actively involved in breeding programs and reintroduction efforts. By providing safe havens for endangered species, zoos have played a crucial role in preventing their extinction. Through carefully managed breeding programs, zoos have successfully bred and reintroduced several species back into the wild. These efforts have helped in restoring populations and conserving genetic diversity, which is vital for the long-term survival of endangered species.

Overall, the contributions of zoos to wildlife research and conservation are invaluable. Through collaborations with universities and research institutions, zoos have advanced our understanding of animal cognition, communication, and intelligence. By studying diverse animal species in controlled environments, zoos have provided valuable insights into their natural behaviors and physiological health. Additionally, zoos have actively participated in breeding programs and reintroduction efforts, contributing to the conservation of endangered species. These contributions highlight the importance of continued support and collaboration between zoos and research institutions in unlocking nature’s secrets and driving valuable scientific discoveries.

Zoos as Educational Institutions for the Public

Zoos are not just places for entertainment and recreation; they also serve as valuable educational institutions for the public. Through interactive exhibits and educational programs, zoos play a crucial role in promoting awareness and understanding of wildlife conservation. They have the power to engage visitors of all ages and inspire future generations of scientists and conservationists. Let’s explore the various ways in which zoos fulfill their educational mission.

Promoting awareness and understanding of wildlife conservation

One of the primary goals of zoos is to raise awareness about the importance of wildlife conservation. By showcasing a wide variety of animal species, zoos provide visitors with a unique opportunity to observe and learn about different ecosystems and the challenges they face. Through informative signage and guided tours, visitors can gain a deeper understanding of the threats to wildlife and the need for conservation efforts.

Engaging visitors through interactive exhibits and educational programs

Zoos go beyond traditional exhibits by offering interactive experiences that engage visitors on a deeper level. Many zoos have hands-on exhibits where visitors can touch and interact with certain animals under the supervision of trained staff. These interactive experiences not only create memorable moments but also foster a sense of connection and empathy towards animals.

In addition to exhibits, zoos organize educational programs such as workshops, lectures, and demonstrations. These programs provide visitors with the opportunity to learn from experts in the field and gain insights into various aspects of animal behavior, conservation, and research. By actively involving visitors in the learning process, zoos make education an enjoyable and immersive experience.

Inspiring future generations of scientists and conservationists

Zoos have the power to inspire and ignite a passion for wildlife conservation in young minds. By exposing children to the wonders of the natural world, zoos can spark curiosity and encourage them to pursue careers in science and conservation. Many zoos offer educational programs specifically designed for children, such as summer camps and school field trips, where they can learn about animals, their habitats, and the importance of conservation.

Furthermore, zoos often collaborate with schools and universities to provide educational resources and research opportunities. These partnerships allow students to gain hands-on experience in fields such as animal behavior, veterinary science, and wildlife conservation. By nurturing the next generation of scientists and conservationists, zoos contribute to the long-term sustainability of our planet.

In conclusion, zoos serve as invaluable educational institutions for the public. They play a vital role in promoting awareness and understanding of wildlife conservation through interactive exhibits, educational programs, and collaborations with schools and universities. By engaging visitors of all ages, zoos inspire a love for nature and foster a sense of responsibility towards the preservation of our planet’s biodiversity. It is essential to continue supporting and collaborating with zoos to ensure that future generations can unlock nature’s secrets and drive valuable scientific discoveries.

Ethical Considerations and Challenges in Zoo-based Research

Zoos have long been at the center of scientific research, providing valuable insights into the behavior, physiology, and conservation of various animal species. However, this research comes with its own set of ethical considerations and challenges. In this section, we will explore the ethical considerations and challenges that researchers face when conducting zoo-based research.

Balancing the welfare of animals with research objectives

One of the primary ethical considerations in zoo-based research is the need to balance the welfare of animals with the objectives of the research. While scientific research can provide valuable knowledge and contribute to conservation efforts, it is essential to ensure that the well-being of the animals is not compromised.

Researchers must take into account the physical and psychological needs of the animals involved in the study. This includes providing appropriate housing, nutrition, and enrichment to ensure their overall welfare. Additionally, researchers must minimize any potential harm or stress that may be caused during the research process.

Ensuring ethical treatment and responsible research practices

Ethical treatment of animals is of utmost importance in zoo-based research. Researchers must adhere to strict ethical guidelines and regulations to ensure that animals are treated with respect and dignity throughout the research process.

This includes obtaining proper consent from the zoo authorities and ensuring that the research is conducted in a manner that minimizes any potential harm to the animals. Researchers must also ensure that the research methods used are scientifically valid and reliable, and that the data collected is used for the intended purpose.

Furthermore, it is crucial to consider the long-term impact of the research on the animals involved. Researchers should assess whether the benefits of the research outweigh any potential risks or negative consequences for the animals.

Addressing public concerns and controversies surrounding zoos

Zoos have faced criticism and controversies regarding their treatment of animals and the ethics of conducting research in captivity. Public concerns about animal welfare, conservation, and the educational value of zoos have led to increased scrutiny of zoo-based research.

To address these concerns, researchers must be transparent about their research objectives, methods, and findings. They should actively engage with the public and provide clear explanations of the benefits and ethical considerations of their research. This can help build trust and understanding among the public and alleviate any concerns or controversies surrounding zoo-based research.

Additionally, researchers should actively collaborate with animal welfare organizations and conservation groups to ensure that their research aligns with the broader goals of animal welfare and conservation.

Zoo-based research plays a vital role in advancing our understanding of animal behavior, physiology, and conservation. However, it is essential to approach this research with careful consideration of the ethical implications and challenges involved.

By balancing the welfare of animals with research objectives, ensuring ethical treatment and responsible research practices, and addressing public concerns and controversies, researchers can conduct zoo-based research in a manner that is both scientifically valuable and ethically sound.

Ultimately, the continued support and collaboration between zoos and research institutions are crucial for unlocking nature’s secrets and driving valuable scientific discoveries. By navigating the ethical considerations and challenges, zoo-based research can continue to contribute to our knowledge of the natural world and aid in the conservation of endangered species.

Unveiling The Shelf Life: How Long Does Citric Acid Last?

Unveiling The True Value: How Much Is Jcoin Worth In Today’s Market?

Rebooting Your Booze: How To Reset Alcohol Content

Quick And Easy: Mastering The Art Of Thawing Tuna

Unveiling The Dynamic Interplay: How Physical And Human Systems Shape A Place

Unlocking The Power: How Long Does It Take For Royal Honey To Activate?

Mastering Residency: A Guide On How To Study Effectively

Mastering The Art Of Die Cast Mold Making: A Step-By-Step Guide

Unveiling The Energy Consumption Of Water Coolers: How Much Electricity Do They Really Use?

Mastering Virtual Reality: Unlocking The Secrets To Altering Your Height

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Once lost to science, these "uncharismatic" animals are having their moment

Rebecca Ramirez

Margaret Cirino

A researcher holds up a sandy De Winton's golden mole. Nicky Souness/Endangered Wildlife Trust hide caption

A researcher holds up a sandy De Winton's golden mole.

Historic numbers of animals across the globe have become endangered or extinct. And according to the United Nations , the rate at which species are being pushed to extinction is accelerating.

But, some of these species sit in limbo. They're not definitively extinct, yet they're missing from the scientific record.

Species gain this "lost" status when there hasn't been a trace of them in 10 years, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature .

Environment

21 species have been declared extinct, the u.s. fish and wildlife service says.

"Species become lost quite often because they're threatened by impacts caused by humans. So for example, climate change, pollution, habitat clearance," says Thomas Evans , a conservation scientist at the Free University in Berlin. "Their populations are shrinking in size, and that's why they can't be found. It means they're likely to be on the verge of extinction."

These species raise a conundrum for scientists and local communities.

If a lost species is indeed still alive, they need protections to save them from the brink of extinction. But if there's little or no evidence a species is around, the money needed to conserve land or to fund studies confirming their current existence can be difficult to muster.

To complicate matters, there is a disparity in which species are searched for and protected, as evidenced by a recent study in the journal Global Change Biology . For the study, Evans and his collaborators created a database all lost and rediscovered tetrapods in order to understand what factors contribute to the likelihood that a species is rediscovered.

"Charismatic" animals have better odds of being rediscovered and reaping the associated protective benefits of that rediscovery. They tend to be large, cute or furry. This has left some "uncharismatic" lost species to wither away outside of human view, when they might have been saved with measures like captive breeding or habitat conservation.

Tiny Elephant Shrew Resurfaces After More Than 50 Years On Lost Species List

Historically, rodents have been one group of animals to bear the brunt of this discrepancy. Around a third of the mammals Evans studied were rodents, but they made up half of the lost mammal species. They are often small, live in remote areas, only come out at night and spend most of their time in burrows — all things that make it difficult for scientists to pin them down.

Evans says this is compounded by the fact that "rodents aren't particularly charismatic. They're not well loved, so people aren't searching for them as much as they are for larger, more charismatic species."

The long journey to rediscover a species

Rediscovering a lost species is not easy. It can require trips to remote areas and canvassing a large area in search of only a handful of animals. The difficulty has forced scientists to reach for the newest technology available to find evidence of animals on the fringes.

One example is in South Africa, where Samantha Mynhardt , a conservation biologist at Endangered Wildlife Trust, has spent years researching golden moles. After seeing a conservation organization list the De Winton's golden mole as one of the most important species to rediscover, she began to talk to collaborators, with whom she would eventually rediscover the mole.

But even starting the project was an uphill battle.

De Winton's mole hadn't been seen in nearly a century, so many of her colleagues were skeptical that it was still around. The burrowing mole was known to elude many of the tools conservationists rely on to identify and track down animals weren't enough to pin down the iridescent critters. For instance, no previous team had successfully trapped the mole. Trapping is a necessary step for traditional DNA collection.

Holy Mole-y: A sniffer dog helps rediscover a rare mole

So, her team ended up settling for a mix of scent detection dogs and collecting eDNA, or environmental DNA. As animals go through their lives, they leave small traces of their DNA – hair follicles, skin cells, excrement and other things – that scientists can test for in the lab. The researchers used the dogs to home in on areas where the moles had been and then collected soil samples to test the eDNA in the area.

On an expedition to the west coast of South Africa, Mynhardt and her crew were able to catch a mole. But it wasn't until they later returned to their lab and analyzed eDNA from the soil that they could confirm it was the species of mole they were looking for.

"It was really a fantastic feeling. I mean, the anticipation that had built up to that moment," says Mynhardt. "Once we confirmed it, we were just ecstatic."

A group of local scientists finally found De Winton's golden mole on a recent expedition. Nicky Souness/Endangered Wildlife Trust hide caption

A group of local scientists finally found De Winton's golden mole on a recent expedition.

From rediscovery to stronger protections

An ocean away, University of Melbourne biologist Tyrone Lavery has a similar story. He spent 14 years researching the Vangunu giant rat that had been lost to western science but was still well known to the people of the Vangunu Islands as "vika," a rodent they saw occasionally.

He struggled to do so — in part, because there are likely very few of them left.

"It's just such a rare animal that few people have been able to see it," Lavery says. Even he, in 14 years of searching for the Vangunu giant rat, has yet to come face-to-face with one.

Researchers found a rare octopus nursery off the coast of Costa Rica

Lavery's earliest concrete sign that the rodent was alive came from an interaction between the vika and a logging company.

As he was working in the area, the local government greenlit logging in the forests that the rodent lived in. One day, as a tree was chopped down, a vika ran out of it – and one of Lavery's collaborators was able to catch it. The injured rat died shortly after, but Lavery finally had proof that there were rats in this forest.

He redoubled his efforts to find clear evidence it was living in the forests of Vangunu. The work paid off after he planting camera traps around the forest for six months and finally got photographic evidence.

Since his research came out in the journal Ecology and Evolution several months ago, there haven't been any official moves to protect the rat. In fact, before his work was published, the government had approved more logging around the vika's habitat. But shortly after it was published, "all of a sudden, they've now removed their machines and pulled out. So officially, nothing's happened. But unofficially, it seems like there's been a little bit of a change."

A camera trap captures an image of a giant rat on Vangunu Island. Kevin Sese & Tyrone Lavery hide caption

A camera trap captures an image of a giant rat on Vangunu Island.

While both the De Winton's golden mole and the Vangunu giant rat could be on their way to vital protections, the same may not be true for all "uncharismatic" animals.

"People are often keen to go and look for the primates or the large cats or other really charismatic animals, and many people have not even heard of a golden mole," Mynhardt says. "It is sad, because all species on our planet are valuable and worth protecting."

Have other scientific gray areas you want us to cover in a future episode? Email us at [email protected] !

Listen to Short Wave on Spotify , Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts .

Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave .

This episode was produced by Margaret Cirino and Rebecca Ramirez. It was also edited by Rebecca. Anil Oza checked the facts. The audio engineer was Robert Rodriguez.

• lost species
• De Winton's golden mole
• extinct animals
• endangered animals

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

How do animals respond to eclipses? Help NASA find out.

A massive citizen science project will study how the animal kingdom reacts to April 8’s total solar eclipse. Here’s how and where to partake.

Tens of millions of sky-gazers are expected to watch the total solar eclipse above North America on April 8. Cheers, shrieks, and cries will welcome totality—the few fleeting minutes when day turns to haunting dusk. But humans won’t be the only species affected.  

The early onset of darkness disrupts animals’ circadian rhythms, sparking a possible chorus of owl hoots, cricket chirps, or even coyote calls, depending on the eclipse-viewing location. For centuries, biologists and spectators have shared stories about how animals respond to eclipses , yet few formal studies have tested this. NASA hopes to change that this year—and you could help.

Through the citizen-science project Eclipse Soundscapes , NASA is studying how these interstellar marvels impact the animal kingdom. Eclipse enthusiasts have a host of ways to participate : recording data, analyzing audio, or submitting their own multisensory observations, says Henry Trae Winter III, co-lead on the Eclipse Soundscapes project and chief scientist and co-founder of the ARISA Lab .

The project, inspired by a similar citizen-science study from the 1932 eclipse over New England, centers on how crickets respond to the event’s false dusk. These insects, which are largely dispersed across the U.S.’s path of totality from Texas to Maine , provide an ideal opportunity for widespread comparison. “If there’s something different in the south than the north, we can pull out why,” says Winter, noting they can analyze everything from temperature differences to eclipse duration (which will begin approximately 1:45 p.m. to about 4:30 p.m. EST) to analyze varying reactions. This intel could help scientists model how future weather events like storms could impact animals.

( 2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip .)

While Eclipse Soundscapes focuses on crickets, which Winter says eclipse-chasers could hear any place that’s above 55 degrees Fahrenheit on eclipse day, the team’s massive data set—expected to be among the largest soundscapes recordings in history—will be free and open to the public.

To partake as an Eclipse Soundscapes observer, Winter suggests avoiding large-scale eclipse gatherings where crowd chatter will drown out critter sounds. Instead, eavesdrop on the animal kingdom via wild and more remote natural spaces—such as these five wildlife-packed getaways along April 8’s path of totality.

Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas

Arkansas ’ stretch of the 1.8-million-acre Ouachita National Forest , a mosaic of streams, peaks, rivers, and dense pine forests, brims with wildlife, including many species that could audibly respond to the area’s four minutes of totality. Listen for the barred owl, known for its “ who cooks for you ” call, or the long-eared owl, which often communicates via low hoots . Crickets will likely also join the eclipse symphony, as could the forest’s numerous bands of coyotes .

Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois

This swampy, 18,000-acre getaway in southern Illinois is known for its frogs , which experts say could get particularly noisy on eclipse day. Listen for bird-voiced tree frogs, southern leopard frogs, and bullfrogs, or watch for foxes and opossums , which could make unusual midday appearances. Travelers may enjoy these sounds throughout the park, but for a particularly unique totality seat, join Cache Bayou Outfitters’ solar-eclipse kayak trip .

Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio

Cuyahoga Valley National Park’s thick oak, hickory, and beech forests will see roughly 3.5 minutes of totality on April 8. These dusky skies could kick off a harmony of animal calls, from frogs and toads, which reappear here in the early spring months, to the barn, barred, or great horned owls. For a multisensory perch, hit the Beaver Marsh , a former trash heap turned biodiverse wetland habitat with numerous frogs, turtles, birds, and its namesake and nocturnal beavers—which scientists say could skitter out from their daytime abodes as the skies dim.

( It was a toxic wasteland. Now it’s a national park .)

Letchworth State Park, New York

Birds are among the most boisterous animals during solar eclipses . The darkness may stimulate their urge to roost, increase their activity levels, or alter their song patterns. Watch and listen to the avian eclipse responses from one of New York State’s best birding locales, Letchworth State Park , which will experience around three minutes of totality. This patchwork of soaring cliffs, maples and beeches, and thunderous waterfalls, known as the “Grand Canyon of the East,” is a state Bird Conservation Area , as well as an Audubon Important Bird Area . It’s home to dozens of avian species, including turkey vultures and great horned owls, as well as beavers and river otters, which may emerge during totality near the Genesee riverbanks.

Congress Avenue Bridge, Austin

For a unique eclipse-response experiment, head to Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin . From spring to late fall, this concrete link over Lady Bird Lake is home to an estimated 1.5 million Mexican free-tailed bats—the largest urban bat population in North America. Experts say the area’s nearly two minutes of totality’s darkness could see throngs of the winged mammals swooping out to the east for their feasts.

( Bats are the real superheroes of the animal world. Here's why .)

Related Topics

• CITIZEN SCIENCE
• SOLAR ECLIPSES
• ANIMAL BEHAVIOR
• EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL

You May Also Like

Surprising ways animals react to solar eclipses

Will bats fly during the solar eclipse? We’re about to find out.

Free bonus issue.

A total solar eclipse is coming. Here's how to photograph it.

How to watch a solar eclipse safely

What is a solar eclipse—and when is the next one?

20 of the coolest travel adventures for 2024

9 spectacular night sky events to see in 2024

• History & Culture
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

share this!

April 3, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Q&A: Experiencing the solar eclipse from an animal's perspective

by Dan Bernardi, Syracuse University

Awe, amazement and wonder are a few of the reactions humans have to a solar eclipse. The extremely rare occasion of being in the path of totality—where the moon's disk completely blocks the sun for a few short moments—captivates audiences and inspires a sense of excitement.

While the phenomenon of a total solar eclipse may be fascinating to humans, it can be downright confusing for wild animals and pets who depend on the sun to know what time of day it is. Austin Garner, a biology professor in the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S), studies animal behaviors in his research on the biomechanics of animal movement and attachment. He recently sat down with A&S Communications to talk about what animals experience in the leadup and aftermath of a total solar eclipse.

Why is the sun so important to animals in their daily lives?

Sunrise and sunset make light a very prominent feature that dictates the behavioral patterns of animals. Many diurnal animals, those that are active during the day like humans, increase their activity following sunrise and subsequently decrease their activity following sunset.

Animals that are active at night (nocturnal), on the other hand, typically display the opposite activity patterns as diurnal animals. Thus, many animal biologists have theorized that animals should display their typical nighttime behavior in response to a total solar eclipse.

Have there been many studies exploring how solar eclipses affect animals?

Surprisingly, there are fewer than one might expect.

Total solar eclipses in a particular region are relatively infrequent (the next total solar eclipse visible in the U.S. is not projected to occur until August 2044) and have a short duration , meaning that studies happen infrequently and must be carefully executed.

Additionally, studying animal behavior in large regions and at large scales is notoriously difficult to achieve.

Have animal biologists been able to draw any results from these limited research opportunities?

By and large, researchers have found that most animals react to a solar eclipse by beginning their nighttime routines as totality approaches. Common animal vocalists in evening choruses, such as frogs and crickets, may begin singing, while animals that vocalize during the daytime, such as most cicadas, may stop.

Honeybees that forage for nectar and pollen during the day have been observed to return to their hives, nocturnal moths begin to take flight and spiders that trap insects in their webs during the day begin to take their webs down during a total solar eclipse. Birds and insects that migrate at night have also been shown to take off in flight during solar eclipses.

Do all animals react this way, or are there exceptions?

Some research has shown that domesticated animals such as dogs and horses, and exotic zoo animals, including baboons and flamingos, along with some wild birds , exhibit nervous behaviors during solar eclipses, such as becoming silent and still, beginning to pace or cluster, and being particularly vigilant. And yet other studies have indicated that some animals, such as certain species of rodent, warthogs and crocodiles, do not respond to solar eclipses at all.

What should we watch out for regarding our pets or other animals during the eclipse?

How or if animals respond to these celestial events likely depends on several factors ranging from their typical activity period to their baseline behavioral patterns to whether they are domesticated or not. So, while you're experiencing the total solar eclipse this year, take a look around you and see what other animals are doing during this uncommon event.

Provided by Syracuse University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

What do scientists hope to learn from total solar eclipse in US?

15 hours ago

Rare Javan rhino calf spotted in Indonesia

Scientists investigate information propagation in interacting bosonic systems

21 hours ago

DESI first-year data delivers unprecedented measurements of expanding universe

Apr 6, 2024

Saturday Citations: AI and the prisoner's dilemma; stellar cannibalism; evidence that EVs reduce atmospheric CO₂

Huge star explosion to appear in sky in once-in-a-lifetime event

Innovative sensing platform unlocks ultrahigh sensitivity in conventional sensors

Nonvolatile quantum memory: Discovery points path to flash-like memory for storing qubits

Can language models read the genome? This one decoded mRNA to make better vaccines

A simple, inexpensive way to make carbon atoms bind together

Relevant physicsforums posts, what do large moles on the body indicate.

Mar 30, 2024

Avian flu - A new study led by a team from the University of Maryland

Mar 27, 2024

Are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic?

Mar 20, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 18, 2024

Biological culture and cultural biology

Mar 17, 2024

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the Colorado River

Mar 15, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

How do animals react during a total solar eclipse? Scientists plan to find out in April

Mar 8, 2024

Sense the solar eclipse with NASA's eclipse soundscapes project

Feb 12, 2024

Mar 28, 2024

Solar eclipse could scramble bird behavior

Mar 26, 2024

How to safely watch a solar eclipse with children

Apr 1, 2024

A lunar eclipse is coming Sunday: Will Colorado be able to see it?

Mar 25, 2024

Recommended for you

Corals can bounce back after heat waves, but only if there's enough time between them

Apr 5, 2024

Insect immune insights: Researchers unveil immune system dynamics

Amphibians use scream inaudible to humans for self-defense against predators, study suggests

Apr 4, 2024

What four decades of canned salmon reveal about marine food webs

Study shows impacts of invasive species transcend ecosystem boundaries

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Nudging in a virtual supermarket for more animal welfare

A study indicates that gentle pushes can change purchasing behavior.

It may be possible to change the purchasing behavior of consumers noticeably using some simple strategies. At least this is what a study, carried out by the University of Bonn and the Technical University of Munich, indicates. The researchers investigated the effect of nudging on the sale of products produced with high animal welfare standards in a virtual supermarket. Nudges are gentle prods or pushes designed to promote certain behaviors -- such as placing some products in more visible positions. In the experiment, the participants in the nudging group selected products produced with high animal welfare standards about twice as frequently as the control group. The extent to which these results can be transferred to real purchasing decisions is still unclear. The study has now been published in the journal Appetite.

Nudging describes the act of pushing or prodding someone in a certain direction. In the field of economics, it is used to describe measures that can influence human behavior in a gentle way without banning things or offering monetary incentives. "We tested this strategy in a virtual supermarket," explains Dr. Nina Weingarten from the Institute for Food and Resource Economics at the University of Bonn. "We wanted to find out whether it could motivate consumers to pay more attention to animal welfare aspects when making purchases."

Food produced according to high animal welfare standards has only been moderately successful up to now in Germany. It is unlikely that this is due to a lack of information because various organic labels are now available and a four-stage animal husbandry labeling system has been used over the last few years to label the packaging on many meat products in red, blue, orange or green. Nevertheless, animal welfare products are still considered niche items in many supermarket ranges. As a result, only 13 percent of the meat products offered in supermarkets are produced according to husbandry standards that exceed the minimum legal guidelines.

Footsteps on the floor as guides

"Therefore, we wanted to test whether it was possible to improve sales of animal welfare products by increasing their availability and visibility," says Weingarten. The researchers used two digital supermarkets in the form of 3D simulations with graphics based on modern video games for this purpose. The customers saw the shelves from a first-person perspective and were able to pick up and examine the products from all sides, place them in their shopping cart and finally purchase them at the end. "However, the purchasing decision was only hypothetical," explains Prof. Monika Hartmann, Head of the Department of Agricultural and Food Market Research at the University of Bonn. "The participants were not expected to actually pay for their shopping and no real products were delivered to them afterwards."

The researchers divided the test subjects into two groups. One group were asked to go shopping in a conventional supermarket, while the other group visited a supermarket containing various nudging elements. For example, markings on the floor shaped like footprints guided customers to a special "animal welfare shelf." "Consumers in this group were able to find meat, milk and eggs produced with high animal welfare standards in one central location on an additional shelf," says Weingarten. Large banners placed in various different locations also made the customers aware of this additional shelf. The implementations were a huge success: The nudging group selected animal welfare products almost twice as frequently as the control group on average.

Further studies needed

The extent to which the results can be transferred to the purchase of real food is still unclear. "Many people are extremely price sensitive and animal welfare products are generally significantly more expensive," explains the psychologist. "In our experiment, however, we suspect that this only played a minor role because the purchases were only virtual." Nevertheless, the data from the study did show that price-sensitive customers also selected the more expensive animal welfare products less frequently from the digital counters in the supermarket than customers who are less price sensitive. They thus behaved in a similar way to what we would also expect in reality.

Another aspect was also interesting in this context: These price-sensitive test subjects were also influenced by the nudging measures and purchased more food produced according to high animal welfare standards. It thus appears that these gentle nudges also had an effect on these people. "However, we need to carry out more studies to see how reliable these effects actually are," says Prof. Hartmann. In addition, there has been little research up to now into whether nudging has a long-term effect or whether the effect of these measures wears off quickly. "This is another question that we are not yet able to answer."

Participating institutes and funding

The University of Bonn and the Technical University of Munich participated in the study. The project was funded by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL).

• Consumer Behavior
• Nutrition Research
• Agriculture and Food
• Behavioral Science
• Food and Agriculture
• Consumerism
• Scientific Conduct
• STEM Education
• Vegetarianism
• Social psychology
• Exocrine gland
• Mustang horse

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Bonn . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Nina Weingarten, Leonie Bach, Jutta Roosen, Monika Hartmann. Every step you take: Nudging animal welfare product purchases in a virtual supermarket . Appetite , 2024; 197: 107316 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107316

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Drug Development Made Easier
• RNA That Doesn't Age
• 'Rainbow' Detected On an Exoplanet
• Spears and Throwing Sticks 300,000 Years Old
• High Carbon Impact of Tourism at Yellowstone
• Extreme Starburst Galaxy
• Asthma: Disease May Be Stoppable
• Stellar Collisions and Zombie-Like Survivors
• Tiny Robot Swarms Inspired by Herd Mentality
• How the Brain Regulates Emotions

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

NC State leading research in rare study on animal behavior, response during solar eclipse

RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- During the total solar eclipse on April 8, several NC State University professors and dozens of students will travel to Texas to conduct rare research on how animals respond to the celestial event.

Dr. Adam Hartstone-Rose is a Professor of Biological Sciences at NCSU leading the study.

During the 2017 eclipse, Hartstone-Rose was at the University of South Carolina and conducted a study watching 17 different species at a zoo in the path of totality. His findings in 2017 were groundbreaking since the only broad study of animal behavior during a solar eclipse had been conducted in New England in 1932.

"It was the most comprehensive study in almost 100 years," Hartstone-Rose said.

For the 2024 eclipse, Hartstone-Rose, colleagues, and students will head to a zoo in the path of totality in Fort. Worth, Texas. The researchers will gather more data to build on their past study in 2017, which found odd behavior from animals during the eclipse, such as nocturnal activities, anxiety, and mating.

"During the eclipse, several species started having anxiety-related behavior," Hartstone-Rose said. "The flamingos, all the adults grouped around the chicks to kind of protect them. So, that was really like, endearing. And, the craziest reaction was what happens with the giraffes. Giraffes are really calm animals and really only run when they're being chased by something or startled. And, actually, during our observations, they started running around again and it was amazing. So, we will be studying the giraffes again. Another interesting behavior was with slow-moving Galápagos tortoises. During the last eclipse, they began moving much faster and some started mating."

ALSO SEE | Morehead Planetarium and Science Center to host Solar Eclipse party

Hartstone-Rose will be looking to see whether the animals repeat the behaviors in this eclipse. He's also working on another project as a principal investigator of Solar Eclipse Safari , a citizen scientist project to collect data and observations from people viewing the eclipse across the nation.

"They could either fill out animal observations on their phones or their tablets, or we've made versions that they can print and bring into the fields and watch animals themselves," Hartstone-Rose said.

Hartstone said they are excited to get information from potentially other zoos, and other places like farms.

"Nobody's ever published what roosters are doing during an eclipse. Shouldn't they crow? We don't know," he said. "I'm really interested about what people see in their own neighborhoods or even their backyard. And, from this giant wealth of data that we hope to get, we'll finally be able to answer, very subtle questions about what do squirrels do or even how much of totality is necessary to cause a reaction in some species."

Related Topics

• SOLAR ECLIPSE
• NC STATE UNIVERSITY
• WILD ANIMALS

Top Stories

What you need to know for NC's partial eclipse

• 8 minutes ago

Wolfpack arrive home to hundreds of adoring fans on campus

Man shot near Speedway Gas Station in Fayetteville

• 33 minutes ago

Dreamville wraps up successful weekend filled with music and art

Dreamville organizers invite Raleigh chef to curate festival dining

Police plea for info in Blake Deven, London Deven disappearance cases

April 8 partial solar eclipse times and magnitudes across the US

Morehead Planetarium and Science Center to host Solar Eclipse party

Office of Science Policy

FAQs for Research on Genetically Modified (Transgenic) Animals – April 2024

Under which section of the nih guidelines does the generation of transgenic rodents fall.

The creation of transgenic rodents falls under one of three sections of the NIH Guidelines depending on the containment level required to house the rodents. Experiments involving the creation of transgenic rodents that can be housed under Biosafety Level 1 conditions are covered under Section III-E-3. Experiments involving the generation of transgenic rodents requiring BL2, BL3 and BL4 containment are covered under Section III-D-4. Experiments specifically involving gene drive modified rodents always require, at minimum, BL2 containment and are covered under Section III-D-8.

Under which section of the NIH Guidelines does the generation of transgenic animals other than rodents fall?

The creation of transgenic animals (other than rodents that can be housed under BL1 containment conditions) is covered under Section III-D-4 of the NIH Guidelines . Gene drive modified animals are covered under Section III-D-8. Such animals require a minimum of BL2 containment.

Would the breeding of two different lines of knock-out mice require IBC approval under the NIH Guidelines?

If the technique used to create the knock-out mice involves the stable introduction of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules into the animal’s genome, the animals will be considered transgenic. As the breeding of two different lines of knock-out animals will potentially generate a novel line of transgenic animal, the work may be covered under the NIH Guidelines and require IBC review and approval. Sections in the NIH Guidelines that cover work with rodents include III-E-3 for work that requires Biosafety Level (BL) 1 containment and III-D-4 for work that requires BL2, BL3 and BL4 containment. If the breeding results in the creation of gene drive modified rodents, such work is covered under Section III-D-8 and requires a minimum containment of BL2. Certain breeding experiments are exempt under Appendix C-VIII of the NIH Guidelines . This exemption covers the breeding of two different lines of transgenic rodents or the breeding of a transgenic rodent and a non-transgenic rodent with the intent of creating a new line of transgenic rodent that can be housed at BL1 if:

• both parental rodents can be housed under BL1 containment; and
• incorporation of more than one-half of the genome of an exogenous eukaryotic virus from a single family of viruses; or
• incorporation of a transgene that is under the control of a gammaretroviral long terminal repeat (LTR); and
• the transgenic rodent that results from this breeding is not expected to contain more than one-half of an exogenous viral genome from a single family of viruses.

Is IBC registration and approval needed for the maintenance of a transgenic animal colony?

The maintenance of a transgenic rodent colony (i.e . breeding within a particular transgenic line) that can be housed at BL1 is an activity that is exempt from the NIH Guidelines and, as such, does not require IBC registration and approval. The maintenance of a transgenic rodent colony at BL2 or higher falls under Section III-D-4-b and requires IBC approval. Colonies of gene drive modified animals must be maintained at a minimum of BL2 containment as specified under Section III-D-8. The breeding of all other transgenic animals is subject to the NIH Guidelines under Section III-D-4-a or III-D-4-b depending on the containment level required.

Is the purchase and transfer of transgenic rodents exempt from the NIH Guidelines?

Under Appendix C-VII of the NIH Guidelines , the purchase or transfer of transgenic rodents that may be housed under BL1 containment are activities that are exempt from the NIH Guidelines . The purchase or transfer of transgenic rodents that require BL2 or higher containment, which includes all gene drive modified transgenic rodents, is not exempt from the NIH Guidelines . These animals are covered under Section III-D-4, and purchase and transfer of such animals requires IBC registration and approval.

It should be noted that the subsequent use of transgenic rodents may not be exempt from the NIH Guidelines . Experiments using transgenic rodents at BL1 are exempt from the NIH Guidelines if the research does not involve the use of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. If the protocol does involve the use of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, then the work falls under III-D-4 of the NIH Guidelines and as such requires IBC review and approval prior to initiation.

Is the purchase and transfer of transgenic animals other than rodents exempt from the NIH Guidelines?

No, only the purchase or transfer of transgenic rodents that may be maintained at BL1 containment is exempt from the NIH Guidelines . The purchase or transfer of any other animal for research purposes at any biosafety level (including BL1) is not exempt, nor is the purchase and transfer of transgenic rodents that require BL2 or higher containment, which includes any gene drive modified transgenic rodents.

Are gene ablation studies covered by the NIH Guidelines?

The answer to this question depends on the technique employed in the study. If recombinant techniques are used to knock out the gene, then the work would be covered under the  NIH Guidelines .

Who has the responsibility to review the generation of transgenic animals if an institution is generating animals for investigators who are not affiliated with that institution?

The generation (creation) of transgenic animals is an activity covered under the  NIH Guidelines . The IBC at the institution where that activity is occurring has the responsibility to review and approve that activity (if the institution is subject to the requirements of the  NIH Guidelines ). The subsequent use of the animals by an investigator not at that institution would need to be reviewed and approved by the IBC at that investigator’s institution if that institution conducts or supports research with recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules, receives NIH support for such research, and the activity is covered under the  NIH Guidelines .

When a core facility generates transgenic mice as a “fee for service” for a Principal Investigator (PI), is it the responsibility of the PI or the core facility to register the generation of the mice with the IBC?

Section IV-B-7-a-(1) of the  NIH Guidelines  articulates one of the responsibilities of the PI as ‘initiating no recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules research which requires IBC approval prior to initiation until that research has been approved by the IBC and has met all other requirements of the  NIH Guidelines .’ It would be acceptable for either the PI of the core facility or the PI purchasing the transgenic animals to fulfill the responsibility to register the generation of the animals. In many cases, the animals being generated will be subsequently used in experiments that are subject to the  NIH Guidelines , and the registration of the research with the IBC may encompass both the generation and subsequent experimentation with the animals.

When existing transgenic animals at an institution are purchased or transferred to an investigator outside the institution, who should review and approve the use of these animals?

An institution’s IBC does not need to review and approve the use of transgenic animals at another institution. If the receiving institution is subject to the  NIH Guidelines  (i.e. receives NIH support for research with recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules), then the purchase and transfer of animals (other than rodents that can be housed under BL1 containment), along with any experiments subject to the  NIH Guidelines , would require review and approval by the IBC at that institution.

What are the NIH Guidelines requirements for research with large transgenic animals (sheep, pigs, etc.), or research with recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid-modified microorganisms in such animals?

When conducting research with recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules in large animals, the work is covered under Appendix M of the NIH Guidelines . Research involving gene drive modified animals, which includes large transgenic animals, requires containment and considerations outlined in Section III-D-8. Appendix M specifies containment and confinement practices when animals are of a size or have growth requirements that preclude the use of laboratory containment of animals. The NIH Guidelines include provisions for tracking and inventorying these animals (Appendix M – 1-B-2 states that a permanent record must be maintained of the experimental use and disposal of each animal). Animal carcasses must be disposed of as to avoid their use as food for human beings or animals unless food use is specifically authorized by an appropriate federal agency (Appendix M – 1-B-1). An acceptable method, for example, would be incineration.

Are recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid modifications to the somatic cells of nontransgenic animals subject to the NIH Guidelines?

Yes, these experiments are subject to the  NIH Guidelines .

• Sections III-D-1-a through III-D-1-d cover experiments using Risk Group 2, 3, 4, or restricted agents in whole animals. See the  NIH Guidelines  for the appropriate containment for such experiments
• Section III-D-4-a covers experiments involving viable recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid-modified microorganisms tested on whole animals. Recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid from any source except for greater than two-thirds of a eukaryotic viral genome may be transferred to any animal and propagated under conditions of physical containment comparable to BL1 or BL1-N and appropriate to the organism under study.
• Section III-D-4-b covers recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid, or DNA or RNA derived therefrom, involving whole animals, including transgenic animals that are not covered by Sections III-D-1 or III-D-4-a. The appropriate containment for these experiments is determined by the IBC.
• Experiments not included in Sections III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, III-F, fall into Section III-E. Experiments covered by Section III-E may be conducted at BL1 containment.

For further information about the requirements of the  NIH Guidelines , please email:  [email protected] .

What are the NIH Guidelines requirements for research involving gene drive modified animals?

Research involving gene drive modified organisms (GDMOs), including animals, is covered under Section III-D-8 of the NIH Guidelines . Experiments involving GDMOs must be conducted at a minimum of BL2 containment. More stringent containment may be necessary depending on the outcome of the mandatory risk assessment, which should include assessing the impact on ecosystems. This risk assessment and the containment level determination must be approved by the IBC. The IBC is required to have adequate expertise and training (using ad hoc consultants as deemed necessary) to evaluate GDMO research. This includes a requirement to have a BSO on the IBC.

For further information about the requirements of the NIH Guidelines , please email: [email protected] .

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

1495084 Why animals shouldn't be used for scientific research.edited

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Lab Anim Res

Role of animal models in biomedical research: a review

P. mukherjee.

1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Complex, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Mohanpur, Nadia, India

2 Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, India

S. K. Nandi

Associated data.

The data in the present manuscript were collected by searching of literatures as well as involving authors own materials.

The animal model deals with the species other than the human, as it can imitate the disease progression, its’ diagnosis as well as a treatment similar to human. Discovery of a drug and/or component, equipment, their toxicological studies, dose, side effects are in vivo studied for future use in humans considering its’ ethical issues. Here lies the importance of the animal model for its enormous use in biomedical research. Animal models have many facets that mimic various disease conditions in humans like systemic autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular diseases, Atherosclerosis, diabetes, etc., and many more. Besides, the model has tremendous importance in drug development, development of medical devices, tissue engineering, wound healing, and bone and cartilage regeneration studies, as a model in vascular surgeries as well as the model for vertebral disc regeneration surgery. Though, all the models have some advantages as well as challenges, but, present review has emphasized the importance of various small and large animal models in pharmaceutical drug development, transgenic animal models, models for medical device developments, studies for various human diseases, bone and cartilage regeneration model, diabetic and burn wound model as well as surgical models like vascular surgeries and surgeries for intervertebral disc degeneration considering all the ethical issues of that specific animal model. Despite, the process of using the animal model has facilitated researchers to carry out the researches that would have been impossible to accomplish in human considering the ethical prohibitions.

The animals used in various studies and investigations are related to the evolution of human history. Though there are many shreds of evidence that Aristotle in ancient Greece successfully used animals in understanding the human body, the main breakthrough in animal models happened in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the scientists like Jean Baptiste Van Helmont, Francesco Redi, John Needham, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Lavoisier and Pasteur who studied the origin of life using animal models [ 1 ]. At the same time, human physiology, anatomy, pathology as well as pharmacology were also studied using animal models. With the remarkable advancements in drug development, biomedicine and pre-clinical trials, the importance of animal models has increased many folds in the last decades, as the therapeutic outcome and drug safety are the foremost important criteria for a drug and medical device considered to be used in the human model [ 2 ]. The scientific apply of animal models in the arena of biological research and drug development is an age-old practice because of the notable resemblance in physiology and anatomy between humans and animals, especially mammals [ 3 ]. One must consider that the physiological processes of humans, as well as mammals, are complex in terms of circulatory factors, hormones, cellular structures, and tissue systems. Hence, investigation of various aspects such as molecular structures, cellular and organ functions in physiological and pathological conditions must be taken into consideration.

The process of selection of an animal model for biomedical research is a very intricate part, as all models are not acceptable due to various limitations. Many factors should be taken into consideration during the selection of an ideal animal model for biomedical trials. The most important criteria are the proper selection of models in terms of resemblance between animal species and humans in terms of physiological and/or pathophysiological aspects. Detailed evaluation during the application of certain drugs/molecules/devices and their capacity to reproduce the disease or pathology at the same level as that of humans. Availability and the size of animal species under consideration. Long life duration of the animal species under study. A Large animal population in a model facilitates the availability of multiple sub-species.

Many animal species such as  Drosophila  (insects),  Danio rerio , or zebrafish (fish),  Caenorhabditis elegans  (nematodes),  Xenopus  (frogs), and mammals such as mice, rabbits, rats, cats, dogs, pigs, and monkeys have been accepted worldwide for their phylogenetic resemblance to humans [ 4 ].

Choice of an appropriate animal model is most of the time a tedious job and sometimes depends on assumptions and convenience of the study and researchers without considering whether the model will be appropriate or not. Irrational selection of an inappropriate animal model for scientific investigations will yield incorrect findings, as well as fetch misusage of resources and lives. Moreover, it results in erroneous, duplicative, and inappropriate experiments [ 5 ]. To minimize these problems, recently researchers have advanced their researches to produce animal models that are very specific to the research under consideration. They produced custom-made transgenic animal models by incorporating genetic information directly into the embryo either by injecting foreign DNA or through retroviral vectors [ 6 ]. Through the incorporation of human cells into the recipient animals, researchers can study the effects of pathogens similar to the way in the human body [ 7 ]. Proper selection of animal models is mainly related to the nature of the drug or medical devices under study. In many instances, a single animal model is not able to signify a human disease alone, in that case, the combination of several models can potentially signify the procedure [ 8 ].

The significance and challenges of animals in biomedical research

There has always been a debate among the researchers about the significance of animal models, as many experiments yield promising results, whereas, others couldn’t produce desired outcomes, so, that model could be translated to humans too. Owing to their close phylogenetic closeness to humans, non-human primates are proved to be the most potential candidate. They have genetic, biochemical, and psychological activities similar to humans. In this context, the necessity of non-human primates continues to grow in several areas of research of human diseases viz. AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, hepatitis, dentistry, orthopaedic surgical techniques, cardiovascular surgeries, psychological disorders, toxicological studies, drug development, toxicological studies as well as vaccine development [ 4 ]. The discovery of vaccines and diagnostic modalities with the animal model does not only benefit humans but also enhances the lifespan of animals and prevents many zoonotic diseases, with the production of many vaccines and drugs like rabies, tetanus, parvo virus, feline leukemia, etc (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Significance and challenges of different animal models

Ethical matters on the use of animals

Animal research adheres to a few dimensions like government legislation, public opinion, moral stand, and search for appropriate alternatives for the research. Mahatma Gandhi opined that to judge the greatness and moral progress of a nation, one should judge the way its animals are being treated. Government legislation restricts the researchers and institutes from likely injury, pain, or suffering that may arise during animal research [ 33 ]. On the contrary, many modern countries ruled that before human administration, vaccine testing, lethal dose testing should be done on animals [ 34 ]. Social acceptance has also an influential role in animal experiments as it utilizes public money [ 33 ]. In their moral view, many people think that dog has more moral impact than pig, rat, fishes, mouse, etc.

Ethical issues on animal experimentation started in 1959, where the emphasis has been given on principles of 3Rs, reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use [ 35 ]. According to this principle, minimum necessary numbers of animals are to be used for scientific experiments i.e. reduction. Pain or distress of the animals during experiments has to be minimized, i.e. refinement. Wherever applicable replacements of the animals are to be done with other non-animal alternatives, i.e. replacement. Though these principles are considered as the cornerstone of animal experimentations, but there are questions regarding the implementation of these regulations [ 36 ].

Laboratory (small) and large animal models for human diseases

The importance of rat and mouse models has proved their outstanding importance in biomedical research. Besides, other mammalian and non-mammalian small domestic animals like the guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, ferrets, birds, amphibians, fishes, flies, worms have equal importance in terms of anatomical and physiological resemblance with humans. Large animal models also proved their uniqueness due to specific anatomical and physiological characteristics pertinent to those specific researches (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

Biomedical significances and limitations of small animal models

Transgenic animal models in biomedical research

The gene rule and role in the biological system of human diseases has improved many folds with the introduction of the transgenic animal model in biomedical research within the last three decades. The early example of most unique biological research started, when structural gene coding for the human growth hormone (GH) was initiated into mice after fusion with the regulatory region of mouse metallothionein-I gene, as a result, transgenic mouse produced and showed excess GH production [ 157 ].

Linking of the genotype with disease phenotype has been expedited with the genome editing with the introduction of the CRISPR–Cas9 system by which disease-causing mutations are done in animal models [ 158 ]. Moreover, the production of transgenic animals has been radically changed by the introduction of the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Through the successful use of this model accurate human disease models in animals have been produced and possible therapies have been potentiated. Recapitulation of various disease-causing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in animal models is achieved by the introduction of gRNA with the combination of Cas9 and donor template DNA [ 159 ], viz. mouse model has enormous importance in carrying human genetic traits, developmental similarities as well as disease translation [ 158 , 160 – 162 ]. Zhang and Sharp labs at MIT/Broad Institute used CRISPR–Cas9 through AAV and lentivirus [ 163 ] both in vivo and ex vivo in neurons as well as endothelial cells of mice for the production of lung cancer model in mice where lung causing genes namely Kras, Tp53, and Lkb1 were mutated. On the other hand, an MIT-Harvard team [ 164 ] disrupted the tumor suppressor genes Pten and Tp53, and consequently liver cancer was produced in mice.

Animal models in pharmaceutical drug development

In recent advancements, animal models are the most practical tools for pre-clinical drug screening before application into clinical trials. Animal models are considered as most important in vivo models in terms of basic pharmacokinetic parameters like drug efficiency, safety, toxicological studies, as these pre-clinical data are required before translating into humans. Toxicological tests are performed on a large number of animals like general toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratogenicity and to evaluate whether the drugs are irritant to eyes and skin. In most instances, both in vitro and in vivo models are corroborated before proceeding to medical trials. In vivo models are mostly conducted in mice, rats, and rabbits [ 2 ]. Certain stages are involved in pre-clinical trials with animal models: firstly, if the trial drug shows desirable efficacy then only further studies are carried out; secondly, if a drug in pre-clinical trials on animals proved to be safe, then it is administered in small human volunteer groups, at the same time, the animal trial will go on to evaluate the effect of the drug when administered for an extended period [ 8 , 165 ]. Mostly, rodents are used for these trials as they have similar biological properties to humans and are easy to handle and rear in laboratories. In new regulations, it is mandatory to carry on the trials on non-rodents such as rabbits, dogs, cats, or primates simultaneously with rodents [ 166 ].

Animal models in orthopedic research

There are many conditions involving bone pathologies such as osteomyelitis, osteosarcoma, osteoporosis, etc. Being a complex organ, the treatment of bone needs special care and extensive researches that involves specialized techniques as well as specific animal models for the studies of specific diseases. Herein, the animal models emphasize mostly related to fracture healing (critical size defect), osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, and osteosarcoma (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Different animal models in orthopaedic research

Animal models in diabetic and burn wound healing

Type 2 diabetes and associated foot ulcer have turned into an epidemic worldwide in recent years causing severe socio-economic trouble to the patients as well as the health care system of the nation as a whole [ 208 ]. Various researches depicted that chance of developing an ulcer in diabetic patients varies between 15–25% [ 209 , 210 ] and the chance of recurrence is about 20–58% among the patients within a year after recovery [ 211 ]. Hence, many researchers studied different materials or drugs to treat diabetic wounds. Similarly, burn wounds occur due to exposure to flames, hot surfaces, liquids, chemicals, or even cold exposure [ 212 ]. Though with the recent modalities like skin grafting prognosis has improved however, the mortality rate is high [ 213 – 215 ].

Diabetic wound rat model

For developing this model, clinically healthy male Wistar rats (150 ~ 250 g body weight) are used. To induce hyperglycemia, injection nicotinamide (NAD)@ 150 mg/kg BW intraperitoneally, after 15 min injection Streptozotocin (STZ) @ 65 mg/kg BW intraperitoneally [ 216 ] are to be injected. The same procedure has to be repeated after 24 h. Blood is to be collected from the tail after 72 h to check hyperglycemia. Rats having high blood glucose levels (≥ 10 mmol/L) are considered to be diabetic [ 217 ]. For wound creation, rats are to be anesthetized with a combination of xylazine @10 mg/kg (intramuscular injection) and ketamine @90 mg/kg (intramuscular injection) [ 218 ]. After marking the dorsal back area with methylene blue, the site is to be prepared aseptically after shaving [ 219 ]. Full-thickness wound creation is to be done with a sterile 6 mm biopsy punch measuring 6 mm diameter and 2 mm depth and left open [ 218 ] (Fig.  1 c).

a . Bone defect model and implantation of implant b . Vascular graft mode c . Diabetic wound model d . Osteomyelitis model development e . Creation of burn wound model f . Cartilage graft model—All in rabbit

Burn wound models

Because of the severity and types of cause, the management of burn injuries poses a significant challenge to plastic surgeons in humans. In general, primary and secondary burn wounds heal by the primary healing process, but, third-degree burn injuries with the destruction of all the skin layers are resistant to the normal healing process and necessitate the added surgical procedures, such as skin grafting, and the relevance of advanced wound dressing [ 220 ]. Several researchers used the albino Winstar male rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) model weighing 250 ± 50 g for the study of burn wounds. Anesthesia was achieved with intramuscular administration of atropine sulfate (0.04 mg/kg BW) and after 10 min a combination of 10% ketamine (90 mg/kg) and 2% xylazine (10 mg/kg) intramuscularly produced adequate anesthesia [ 221 ]. After aseptic preparation of the dorsal back area, thermal injury has to be made with a 10 mm aluminium rod previously heated with 100 °C boiling water. The aluminium rod has to be kept in situ for 15 s. Immediately after the procedure analgesic is to be provided and to be continued for at least 3 days [ 222 – 224 ]. A hot air blower has been used to produce a 6% third-degree burn injury in a mouse model [ 225 ]. In pig, a partial-thickness burn model in the skin was produced by placing a glass bottle having heated water at 92 °C for 14 s [ 226 ] In other studies, a homemade heating device was placed over the skin for 35 s to create burn wound [ 227 ]. In rabbits, it was demonstrated to use a dry-heated brass rod for 10 and 20 s at 90 °C to create a deep partial-thickness burn wound in the ear [ 228 ]. In mice, a full-thickness burn was created under 3–5% isoflurane anesthesia and intraperitoneal caprofen 5 mg/kg as analgesia. Here, a 4 cm 2 brass rod attached to a temperature probe was first heated to 260 °C and then cool to 230 °C and finally placed on the dorsum skin for 9 s [ 229 ] (Fig.  1 e).

Animal models in cartilage repair

Animal models have enormous importance in the study of cartilage repair. Though in vitro models have been reported, it could not replace the necessity of using animal models prior to clinical implementation [ 230 – 236 ] (Table ​ (Table4 4 ).

Different animal models for cartilage rejuvenation or repair

Animal models in vascular grafting

With the increase of cardiovascular complications, there is a need for surgical intervention using vascular grafts. Vascular grafting and cardiac valve repair have become important issues to the clinicians for the replacement of damaged vessels [ 249 , 250 ], hence there is an increased demand for tissue-engineered blood vessel substitute [ 250 , 251 ]. The main prosthetic options are synthetic grafts such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyurethane [ 252 ], and autologous conduits. Although these types of synthetic grafts provide reasonable outcomes in large-diameter vascular applications, long-term patency is questionable as compared to autologous conduits in small-diameter (< 6 mm) applications due to their inclination to various complications [ 253 ]. Despite the superior outcome of autologous grafts, it has some disadvantages such as limited availability and prior use. Moreover, the determination of a suitable animal model needs considerations of various factors. The factors for the selection of animal species depend on diameter and length of conduits, period of implantation, anastomotic site, price, accessibility, reaction to anesthesia and surgery, and flow of blood at sites of graft implantation. Animal applications of these tissue-engineered vessels are, therefore, an utmost necessity as pre-clinical studies before use in humans (Fig.  1 b, Table ​ Table5 5 ).

In vivo animal studies of different vascular grafts

Animal models in disc degeneration

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) and herniation manifested as lower back pain cause a massive socio-economic burden to the patient and society as a whole [ 264 – 267 ]. But there is a lack of treatment modalities to cure mildly to moderate degeneration as well as complications associated with surgical interventions associated with the advanced stage; hence, researchers are enormously trying to reinforce regenerative strategies and to lower the suffering by controlling the pain with the injection of stem cells, growth factors hydrogels for replacement of the disc [ 268 ]. Diverse animal models have been reported as a pre-clinical trial to translate the procedure in humans (Table ​ (Table6 6 ).

Different animal models for the study of IVDD

Conclusions

The importance of animal models is unquestionable in terms of in vivo study for the implementation of any biomedical research to humans. It serves not only the human race but also well being of veterinary patients. Animal models have not only important roles in drug development, toxicity studies, pharmacokinetic studies of a drug, but also the pre-clinical study of medical and tissue engineering devices that are intended to be used in humans. Laboratory animal models are more cost-effective and agreeable to high throughput testing as compared to large animal models. Yet, to obtain preclinical data and to ascertain the clinical potential of vascular graft as well as orthopedic bone plates and implants, large animal models that mimic human anatomy and physiology are to be developed. Whatever may be the modes of using animal models for biomedical researches, it should abide by the principles of 3Rs, i.e., reduction, refinement, and replacement of animals.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the kind support of Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, India.

Abbreviations

Author contributions.

SKN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision and final correction of draft. PM and SR: Data curation, Writing-Original draft preparation. DG: Editing . All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

There was no funding support for this study.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The authors declare that there is no competing of interest in this manuscript.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

P. Mukherjee and S. Roy equally contributed and joint first author

Understanding the Significance of the Total Solar Eclipse for Scientific Research

T he upcoming total solar eclipse that will traverse North America is more than a visual spectacle—it provides a crucial moment for scientists to conduct critical research. The eclipse, which will occur on Monday, coincides with the Sun’s 11-year solar cycle apex, offering a prime opportunity to study the Sun’s atmosphere, Earth’s atmosphere, animal behavior, and even the social effects on humans.

NASA, among other scientific institutions, is poised to take advantage of the eclipse. Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy has highlighted the “incredible scientific opportunities” that are presented during an event of this nature. Here are several areas in which researchers expect to gain meaningful insights:

Sun’s Atmosphere Analysis

The unique conditions of a total solar eclipse allow scientists a rare view of the Sun’s corona. This outermost region of the Sun’s atmosphere is best observed when the Moon completely obscures the Sun, revealing solar features such as flares and prominences more clearly than through other methods. The corona’s peculiar property, where its heat intensifies with distance from the Sun’s surface, is among the phenomena under investigation. Shannon Schmoll, director of the Abrams Planetarium at Michigan State University, emphasizes the unique clarity with which the bottom part of the corona can be studied during an eclipse.

Exploration of Earth’s Atmosphere

The total eclipse will also grant insights into the Earth’s ionosphere—the part of the upper atmosphere that influences radio communications and GPS systems. NASA’s plan includes launching sounding rockets from Virginia during the eclipse to observe the immediate impact of the sudden sunlight reduction on this layer of the atmosphere, which could inform future predictions of communication disruptions.

Animal Behavior Observation

Eclipses are known to trigger unusual behavior in animals, influencing not just wildlife activity but also environmental conditions such as temperature and wind. Researcher Andrew Farnsworth will be monitoring birds, in particular, to note changes in their behavior, which can help to expand the understanding of how animals perceive their environment.

Human Psychological Impact

The eclipse is not just a point of interest for physical sciences; it also presents an opportunity to examine its psychological impact on humans. Studies, such as those analyzing Twitter data, have shown how awe-inspiring phenomena like eclipses can facilitate social bonding and alter language use, suggesting a deeper connection with others and the universe.

Citizen Science Efforts

Citizen scientists will also have a role to play in the upcoming eclipse. Numerous projects invite the public to contribute observations—from climate conditions to ambient sounds—enriching the pool of data acquired during the eclipse.

© Agence France-Presse

What is a total solar eclipse?

A total solar eclipse is an astronomical event where the Moon moves directly between the Earth and the Sun, completely blocking the Sun from view.

When will the total solar eclipse occur?

The total solar eclipse mentioned will occur on a Monday, with a path of totality stretching from Mexico to Canada across the United States. The exact date was not specified in the original content.

Why are scientists excited about the eclipse?

Scientists are excited because the total solar eclipse offers a unique opportunity to study various aspects of both the Sun’s and Earth’s atmospheres, as well as animal and human behavior.

How can the public participate in scientific observation during the eclipse?

The public is encouraged to participate in citizen science projects, such as using apps to register temperature and cloud cover or recording ambient noise during the eclipse event.

Conclusion:

The total solar eclipse presents an extraordinary opportunity for the scientific community to conduct studies that are rarely possible. NASA and other research institutions are prepared to maximize this event to gain a better understanding of the complex dynamics at play in our solar system and on Earth. From the secrets of the Sun’s corona to the influence of celestial events on wildlife and human psychology, every eclipse helps peel back another layer of our profound connection with the cosmos. This event goes far beyond a mere marvel of the skies; it is a moment of discovery, reflection, and unity.