What Percentage Of Lab Animals Are Mice And Rats

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

Animal Experiments Are Wasteful and Unreliable

A Pew Research Center poll establish that 52 percent of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific enquiry, and other surveys suggest that the shrinking group that does accept animal experimentation does so just because information technology believes it to be necessary for medical progress.^five,6 The majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that creature experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

In an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers institute that medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans and warned that "patients and physicians should remain cautious almost extrapolating the finding of prominent animal inquiry to the care of man disease … poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should exist expected past those who behave 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 man beings. And because beast species differ from ane some other biologically in many pregnant means, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful style.

For example, according to former National Cancer Institute Managing director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We accept cured mice of cancer for decades, and it merely didn't work in humans."^eight This determination was echoed by former National Institutes of Wellness (NIH) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who acknowledged that experimenting on animals has been a boondoggle. "We have moved away from studying human disease in humans," he said. "We all drank the Kool-Assist on that one, me included. … The problem is that information technology hasn't worked, and information technology'due south time nosotros stopped dancing effectually the problem. … Nosotros need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand illness biology in humans."^ix

The data is sobering: Although at least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines accept been successful in nonhuman primate studies, every bit of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans.¹⁰ In ane case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to exist effective in monkeys failed in homo clinical trials because information technology did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and some believe that it made them more than susceptible to the disease. According to a study in the British paper The Independent, one conclusion from the failed study was that "testing HIV vaccines on monkeys before they are used on humans, does not in fact work."¹¹

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

Research 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 health and do not provide key facts or admit important limitations."^xiii One study of media coverage of scientific meetings concluded that news stories often omit crucial information and that "the public may exist 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 have ready access to information on the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation.

What'due south the hidden cost of animal experiments? Our augmented reality feel will evidence yous.

Effort 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 animate being experimentation. I of the largest sources of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such as NIH. Approximately 47 per centum of NIH-funded research involves experimentation on animals, and in 2020, NIH budgeted most $42 billion for enquiry and development.^fifteen,16 In addition, many charities––including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and endless others—utilise donations to fund experiments on animals. One-third of the projects funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Lodge involve animal experimentation.¹⁷

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

Oversight and Regulation

Despite the endless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from beingness used when a non-animal approach is readily available. In the U.S., the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories only are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).^19,20 Many laboratories that employ simply these species are not required by police to provide animals with pain relief or veterinarian intendance, to search for and consider alternatives to animal apply, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected past the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or whatsoever other entity. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.Due south. laboratories are non subject 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 "research"), only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations.²² Reports accept repeatedly concluded that even the minimal standards set forth by the AWA are not beingness met by these facilities, and institutionally based oversight bodies, called Institutional Animate being Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), have failed to bear out their mandate. A 1995 written report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "found that the activities of the IACUCs did non always meet the standards of the AWA. Some IACUCs did not ensure that unnecessary or repetitive experiments would not exist 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 "bug 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 bug with laboratories declining to comply with the minimal AWA standards and the USDA's weak enforcement deportment failing 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 fairly review and monitor the use of animals. The audit also determined that in 2012, the USDA reduced its penalties to AWA violators by an average of 86 percent, even in cases involving animal deaths and egregious violations.²⁶

Research co-authored by PETA documented that, on average, animal experimenters and laboratory veterinarians comprise a combined 82 per centum of the membership of IACUCs at leading U.Due south. institutions. A whopping 98.6 percent of the leadership of these IACUCs was also fabricated upwards of fauna experimenters. The authors observed that the ascendant role played by animal experimenters on these committees "may dilute input from the few IACUC members representing fauna welfare and the general public, contribute to previously-documented commission bias in favor of approving animal experiments and reduce the overall objectivity and effectiveness of the oversight system."²⁷ Even when facilities are fully compliant with the law, animals who are covered can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law. When valid non-animal enquiry methods are available, no federal law requires experimenters to use such methods instead of animals.

Alternatives to Fauna Testing

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

Research with man volunteers, sophisticated computational methods, and in vitro studies based on human being cells and tissues are disquisitional to the advocacy of medicine. Cutting-edge non-animate being research methods are available and take been shown time and again to be more accurate than crude beast experiments.²⁹ Yet, this modern research requires a different outlook, one that is creative and empathetic and embraces the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Human health and well-existence can also exist promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public is becoming more enlightened and more vocal almost the cruelty and inadequacy of the electric current research system and is demanding that tax dollars and charitable donations non be used to fund experiments on animals.

History of Animal Testing

PETA created "Without Consent"—an interactive timeline featuring well-nigh 200 stories of creature experiments from the past century—to open up people's optics to the long history of suffering that's been inflicted on nonconsenting animals in laboratories and to challenge people to rethink this exploitation. Visit "Without Consent" to learn more about harrowing animal experiments throughout history and how you can help create a better future for living, feeling beings.

Without Consent

You Tin can Aid Stop Animal Testing

Virtually 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 beast 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 ending funding for useless experiments on animals and investing in effective research that's relevant to humans.

Take Activity

Not a U.S. Resident? Have Action Here

Animal Testing Facts and Figures

United States (2019)^ane,ii

• Almost 1 meg animals are held captive in laboratories or used in experiments (excluding rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used in agricultural experiments), plus an estimated 100 million mice and rats

Canada (2020)³

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

United Kingdom(2021)⁴

• 3.06 1000000 procedures on animals
• Of the 1.9 one thousand thousand experiments completed, 149,917 were assessed every bit "astringent," including "long-term disease processes where assistance with normal activities such as feeding and drinking are required or where significant deficits in behaviours/activities persist."

References

¹Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.Southward. Section of Agriculture, "Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: Total Number of Animals Research Facilities Used in Regulated Activities (Column B)" and "Annual Report Animal Usage by Financial Year: Full Number of Animals Inquiry Facilities used in Regulated Activities (Column F)," 27 Apr. 2021.
^twoMadhusree Mukerjee, "Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory," Scientific American, Aug. 2004.
³Canadian Quango on Animal Care,"CCAC 2020 Animal Data Report," 2021
⁴ U.Grand. Government, "Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Neat United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland 2021," Habitation Office, 30 June 2022.
^vCary Funk and Meg Hefferon, "Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, merely Many Oppose Other Uses," Pew Research Center, xvi Aug. 2018
^viPeter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, "Let the People Speak," New Scientist 22 May 1999.
^viiDaniel Grand. Hackam, Chiliad.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, Thou.D., "Translation of Inquiry Evidence From Animals to Man," The Periodical of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
^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 Research," NIH Record 21 June 2013.
¹⁰Jarrod Bailey, "An Assessment of the Part of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research," Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
¹¹Steve Connor and Chris Green, "Is It Time to Give Upward the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?" The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
¹²National Institutes of Wellness, "Nigh New Therapeutic Uses," National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences 9 Oct. 2019.
¹³Steve Woloshin, M.D., One thousand.S., et al., "Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?" Register of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-viii.
^xivSteven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, "Media Reporting on Inquiry Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed," The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-eighty.
^xvDiana E. Pankevich et al., "International Brute Research Regulations: Touch on Neuroscience Research," The National Academies (2012).
¹⁶National Institutes of Health, "Budget," (last accessed on 3 May 2021).
¹⁷Pankevich et afifty.
^eighteenDeborah Ziff, "On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Research Records," Wisconsin Country Journal 5 Apr. 2010.
¹⁹U.Southward. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Wellness Inspection Service, "Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal," Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
^twentyJustin Goodman et al., "Trends in Animal Use at US Enquiry Facilities," Periodical of Medical Ideals 0(2015): i-three.
²¹The Associated Press, "Animal Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters," 7 May 2002.
²²U.S. Section of Agriculture, Animal and Found Health Inspection Service, "Animate being Care: Search."
²³U.S. Section of Agriculture, Role of Inspector General, "APHIS Animal Intendance Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," inspect report, thirty Sept. 2005.
²⁴U.South. Department of Agriculture, Brute and Plant Wellness Inspection Service, "USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations," Apr. 2000.
²⁵U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, "APHIS Creature Care Programme, Inspection and Enforcement Activities," audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
²⁶U.S. Department of Agriculture, Role of Inspector General, "Animate being and Institute Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities," audit report, Dec. 2014.
²⁷Lawrence A. Hansen et al., "Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Commission Membership at American Institutions," Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
²⁸Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, "Is Animate being Inquiry Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Enquiry?," BMJ (2014): 348.
²⁹Junhee Seok et al., "Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Man Inflammatory Diseases," Proceedings of the National 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: hutchesonmationdeed.blogspot.com

Share this post