Course Home   Chapter One   Chapter Two   Chapter Three   Chapter Four   Chapter Five   Chapter Six


That was Then, This is Now… The Modern Use of Animals in Research

Scientific advancement began to increase exponentially in the U.S. and Europe, and as one scientific discovery after another lead to medical breakthroughs and the standard of living improved due to subsequent public health innovations, science and technology were increasingly put on a pedestal, and science usurped the church as the authority and focus of power in the 20th century. Accordingly, there was increased government support for scientific endeavors and scientists became revered.

Records in the U.K. show that the number of procedures involving research animals increased from 311 in 1880 to over 95,000 in 1910. The 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act in Great Britain was the first attempt to set down some sort of regulatory framework for the use of animals; and registration of all research animals was mandated.

As the use of anesthesia increased and animal experimentation seemed more and more linked to direct applications for human benefits, the public increasingly supported the use of animals in science. At the same time, the advent of anesthesia in the 1850s saw the beginning of opposition to vivisection by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which had received the patronage of Queen Victoria.

Animal use continued unabated throughout the 1940s and 50s, especially in the U.S., where philanthropic money for scientific work was abundant and World War II diverted public concerns about animal welfare. As commercial products made their way into the market, public health risks increased and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was enacted in the U.S. in 1938 in the wake of a therapeutic disaster the previous year. A Tennessee drug company marketed a form of a new sulfa wonder drug that would appeal to pediatric patients, Elixir Sulfanilamide. However, the solvent in this untested product was a highly toxic analogue of antifreeze; over 100 people died, many of whom were children.

As a result of this new legislation, animals became necessary for toxicity testing in order to protect the public. Increasingly, the research animals of choice were rodents, but dogs and cats were also used, particularly strays. In the 1950s there existed two factions with polar opposite positions regarding research with animals: On one side were investigators who felt they had a right to experiment with animals in any way they chose, without interference or requirements concerning how the animals were treated. On the other side were anti-vivisectionists who felt that it was unethical for any research to be conducted with animals. The mutual antagonism each had for the other, and their entrenched positions created a huge obstacle to practically addressing the welfare of animals in the laboratory.The Animal Welfare Institute was formed in 1951 by wealthy philanthropist Christine Stevens to
help animals and push for reform from a position in the “middle” – recognizing that research would continue to be conducted with animals, but striving for recognition of the responsibility incumbent on investigators to ensure that animals were obtained through legal channels and treated humanely.

The 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s brought a resurgence of interest in the

moral status of animals, including the question of using animals in science. Jane Goodall’s work with chimpanzees and gorillas, which began in the 1960s, highlighted human kinship with nonhuman primates and drew attention to the need to protect them. In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring warned of species destruction and an almost apocalyptic aftermath of the widespread use of pesticides, particularly DDT. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace were founded in 1961 and 1969, respectively. The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 was the first legislation in the U.S. addressing protection of animals in both science and agriculture. As we have seen earlier in this course, amendments to the original law established further regulations.

More than a century after Darwin, the tension between viewing animals as either members of a group or as individuals came to the fore in the emerging philosophic debate about animal research in the 1970s and ‘80s. The debate organized itself around two very different ideas. Peter Singer, with his 1975 book Animal Liberation, followed the tradition of Hume, Bentham, and John Stuart Mill with a utilitarian approach. For utilitarians, what makes an action good are the overall consequences in terms of pain or happiness. Using this yardstick, research on an animal or a group of animals is justified if a greater overall good results. Using this perspective, “cost-benefit” analyses of experimental protocols were implemented, primarily in the U.K. and Canada. Singer took the classic Utilitarian position further, stating that it is immoral to place human concerns above that of other species because, he said, extending Bentham’s tenet, animals can suffer and deserve equal moral consideration in terms of their interest in not suffering. He argued that if we fail to give animals equal consideration for equal interests we are guilty of speciesism.

Philosopher Tom Regan (The Case for Animal Rights, 1983) approached the matter differently, saying the key point was the principle of inherent value of an individual animal. Animals are “subjects of a life” to use Regan’s term, and as such, need to be morally considered not as means to an end, as objects or tools, but as ends in and of themselves. This deontological approach to ethics holds that certain actions are right only if they fulfill certain duties or moral obligations, e.g., our obligation to respect the rights of individual animals to be left alone to live out their lives. Regan’s philosophy — the ethical stance espoused by those who hold that animals have rights — resonated with many who were experiencing animals as members of their family and fit in with increasing emphasis on individual rights in our society.

Both Singer’s and Regan’s views found favor with members of the public who were uncomfortable with the increasing dominance of science and technology in society. As was the pattern two centuries earlier, the debate over animal research reflected societal concerns about the role of science.

Concurrent with the complex discussions about the moral status of animals and an increase in legislation addressing the use of animals in society in the late 20th century was an increasing amount of research into alternatives to using an entire animal for experiments. In 1950 George Gey at Johns Hopkins University developed the first in vitro cell line for practical use and in 1959, W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch published The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, the first formal statement of “the Three R’s” concept of replacement, reduction, refinement of animal use in research.