How Many Animals Die From Animal Testing Animal Abuse

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

Beast Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Center poll found that 52 percent of U.Southward. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking grouping that does accept fauna experimentation does then only because it believes it to be necessary for medical progress.^5,6 The bulk of animal experiments exercise non contribute to improving human wellness, and the value of the role that fauna experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Clan, researchers establish that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animate being enquiry to the care of human disease … poor replication of fifty-fifty loftier-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research."⁷

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human being beings. And considering creature species differ from one another biologically in many meaning ways, information technology becomes even more unlikely that creature experiments will yield results that volition be correctly interpreted and practical to the man condition in a meaningful way.

For instance, according to former National Cancer Constitute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't piece of work in humans."⁸ This conclusion was echoed by former National Institutes of Wellness (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who best-selling that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We accept moved away from studying human illness in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Aid on that ane, me included. … The trouble is that it hasn't worked, and it'due south time we stopped dancing around the trouble. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biological science in humans."⁹

The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines accept been successful in nonhuman primate studies, equally of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans.¹⁰ One time, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to exist constructive in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because information technology did not preclude people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more than susceptible to the disease. According to a report in the British paper The Contained, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work."^eleven

These are non anomalies. The National Institutes of Health has stated, "Therapeutic development is a plush, complex and time-consuming process. The average length of time from target discovery to blessing of a new drug is about 14 years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95 percent, and the cost per successful drug tin be $1 billion or more than."¹²

Enquiry published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that universities usually exaggerate findings from animal experiments conducted in their laboratories and "often promote research that has uncertain relevance to human being health and practise not provide key facts or acknowledge important limitations."¹³ One report of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories often omit crucial data and that "the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented."¹⁴ Because experimenters rarely publish results of failed animal studies, other scientists and the public do not take prepare access to data on the ineffectiveness of brute experimentation.

What'south the hidden price of animate being experiments? Our augmented reality experience will show you.

Try It Now

Funding and Accountability

Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly—fund animal experimentation. One of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded regime granting agencies such as NIH. Approximately 47 pct of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted nearly $42 billion for research and development.^15,16 In addition, many charities––including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Club, and endless others—utilise donations to fund experiments on animals. 1-3rd of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Order involve animate being experimentation.¹⁷

Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal experimentation, it is nearly incommunicable for the public to obtain electric current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are being carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. State open-records laws and the U.S. Liberty of Data Human action tin can be used to obtain documents and data from state institutions, government agencies, and other federally funded facilities, but private companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. In many cases, institutions that are subject to open-records laws fight vigorously to withhold information near animal experimentation from the public.¹⁸

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, nigh countries accept grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to forestall them from beingness used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the species most unremarkably used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories but are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Fauna Welfare Act (AWA).^xix,20 Many laboratories that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with hurting relief or veterinary intendance, to search for and consider alternatives to fauna apply, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity. Some estimates indicate that every bit many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject area to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is largely unregulated.²¹

As for the more than eleven,000 facilities that the USDA does regulate (of which more than 1,200 are designated for "enquiry"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations.²² Reports have repeatedly concluded that even the minimal standards gear up forth by the AWA are non existence met by these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Beast Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to carry out their mandate. A 1995 study by the USDA'due south Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "institute that the activities of the IACUCs did not always meet the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not be performed on laboratory animals."²³ In 2000, a USDA survey of the agency's laboratory inspectors revealed serious problems in numerous areas, including "the search for alternatives [and] review of painful procedures."²⁴ A September 2005 audit report issued by the OIG found ongoing "problems with the search for alternative research, veterinary intendance, review of painful procedures, and the researchers' use of animals."²⁵ In December 2014, an OIG report documented continuing issues with laboratories declining to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA's weak enforcement deportment declining to deter future violations. The audit highlighted that from 2009 to 2011, USDA inspectors cited 531 experimentation facilities for 1,379 violations stemming from the IACUCs' failure to adequately review and monitor the use of animals. The inspect also adamant that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators past an average of 86 per centum, even in cases involving beast deaths and egregious violations.²⁶

Enquiry co-authored by PETA documented that, on average, animal experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 percent of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.S. institutions. A whopping 98.6 percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also made upward of creature experimenters. The authors observed that the dominant role played by beast experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing animal welfare and the full general public, contribute to previously-documented committee bias in favor of approving fauna experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight organization."²⁷ Fifty-fifty when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered tin be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how niggling or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law. When valid non-animal research methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to employ such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

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

Enquiry with human being volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on man cells and tissues are critical to the advocacy of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animal inquiry methods are available and have been shown time and once more to be more accurate than rough animal experiments.²⁹ Yet, this modern enquiry requires a different outlook, one that is creative and compassionate and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Human wellness and well-being can also exist promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of affliction before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public is condign more enlightened and more vocal virtually the cruelty and inadequacy of the electric current inquiry organization and is demanding that tax dollars and charitable donations not be used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Creature Testing

PETA created "Without Consent"—an interactive timeline featuring almost 200 stories of brute experiments from the past century—to open people'due south optics to the long history of suffering that'southward been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit "Without Consent" to acquire more than about harrowing fauna experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

Without Consent

You Can Help End Animal Testing

Near all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Your lawmakers needs to know that you don't want your money used to pay for fauna experiments.

Urge your members of Congress to endorse PETA's Research Modernization Bargain, which provides a roadmap for modernizing U.S. investment in research past catastrophe funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in effective research that'southward relevant to humans.

Accept Action

Not a U.S. Resident? Take Action Here

Animal Testing Facts and Figures

United States (2019)^1,two

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

Canada (2020)^three

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

Great britain(2021)^four

• 3.06 one thousand thousand procedures on animals
• Of the ane.9 one thousand thousand experiments completed, 149,917 were assessed every bit "severe," including "long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such every bit feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Annual Written report Animal Usage by Financial Twelvemonth: Full Number of Animals Inquiry Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and "Annual Study Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Inquiry Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 April. 2021.
²Madhusree Mukerjee, "Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory," Scientific American, Aug. 2004.
^threeCanadian Quango on Creature Care,"CCAC 2020 Animal Data Report," 2021
⁴ U.K. Government, "Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Uk 2021," Abode Office, 30 June 2022.
⁵Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, "Well-nigh Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Inquiry Center, 16 Aug. 2018
^{half dozen}Peter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, "Permit the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
^viiDaniel Thou. Hackam, Yard.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, Thousand.D., "Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Man," The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-ii.
^eightMarlene Simmons et al., "Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions," Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
⁹Rich McManus, "Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Enquiry," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
^xJarrod Bailey, "An Assessment of the Office of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Enquiry," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, "Is It Time to Requite Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Health, "About New Therapeutic Uses," National Middle for Advancing Translational Sciences nine October. 2019.
^xiiiSteve Woloshin, Yard.D., K.Southward., et al., "Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not And so Academic?" Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-viii.
¹⁴Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, "Media Reporting on Enquiry Presented at Scientific Meetings: More than Caution Needed," The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-80.
¹⁵Diana E. Pankevich et al., "International Animal Research Regulations: Bear on on Neuroscience Research," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, "Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et al.
^xviiiDeborah Ziff, "On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Admission to Research Records," Wisconsin State Journal five Apr. 2010.
¹⁹U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animate being and Found Health Inspection Service, "Creature Welfare, Definition of Fauna," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
²⁰Justin Goodman et al., "Trends in Animal Employ at U.s.a. Inquiry Facilities," Journal of Medical Ethics 0(2015): 1-three.
²¹The Associated Printing, "Animal Welfare Act May Non Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Animate being Care: Search."
²³U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animate being Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, thirty Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.South. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Constitute Health Inspection Service, "USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.South. Department of Agronomics, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Care Programme, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Section of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "Brute and Institute Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit report, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et al., "Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, "Is Animal Enquiry Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., "Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

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

Posted by: morganknor1997.blogspot.com

Share this post