animal research essay

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

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. 

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• High-Impact Collection
• Infographics
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Publish with Us?
• About Journal of Animal Science
• About the American Society of Animal Science
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Latest Articles

Editor-in-chief

Elisabeth Huff Lonergan, PhD 

Impact Factor 3.3

Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science 10 out of 62

Why submit?

The Journal of Animal Science welcomes high-quality articles covering a broad range of research topics in animal science. With a global reach and high visibility JAS  serves as a leading source of disseminating knowledge in this area.

Find out more

Latest posts on X

High-Impact Research Collection

Explore the most cited, most read, and most discussed articles published in  Journal of Animal Science  in recent years and discover what has caught the interest of your peers.

Browse the collection

ASAS Infographics

Look through the full history of infographics published in Journal of Animal Science and Animal Frontiers , taking a wide variety of research and summarizing it in easy to comprehend visuals.

Browse the collection now

ASAS Image Gallery

Discover a source of images, animations, and video for classroom and outreach learning. To supplement the visual information, each file has a description and metadata including the origins and ownership for the image.

Find the content you need today

Special Collections

The Journal of Animal Science  periodically curates special issues of the journal focusing on different subjects of interest to those across the discipline, and showcase the latest research being carried out in the field of animal science.

Read them today

Read and Publish deals

Authors interested in publishing in  Journal of Animal Science may be able to publish their paper Open Access using funds available through their institution’s agreement with OUP.

Find out if your institution is participating

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

publicationethics.org

Email alerts

Register  to receive email alerts as soon as new content publishes in the Journal of Animal Science.

Recommend to your library

Fill out our simple online form to recommend  Journal of Animal Science to your library.

Recommend now

2024 ASAS-CSAS-WSASAS Annual Meeting

Join us at the 2024 Annual Meeting taking place July 21-25, 2024 at the Calgary TELUS Convention Centre. Calgary is located in Western Canada in the province of Alberta nestled in the foothills of the majestic Canadian Rocky Mountains.

Visit the meeting website to learn more

American Society of Animal Science

ASAS fosters the discovery, sharing and application of scientific knowledge for the responsible use of animals to enhance human life and well-being. 

Taking Stock

Keep up with the latest in animal science news with ASAS’ weekly newsletter, ‘Taking Stock.’

Read the Latest News

ASAS Foundation

The ASAS Foundation was created to foster and improve the activities in the society, including but not limited to supporting public policy, honoring service and commitment from members, funding new initiatives, and encouraging science to younger generations. 

Related Titles

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3163
• Copyright © 2024 American Society of Animal Science
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 29 September 2004

Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma?

• V Baumans 1 , 2  

Gene Therapy volume  11 ,  pages S64–S66 ( 2004 ) Cite this article

70k Accesses

103 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

Mankind has been using animals already for a long time for food, for transport and as companion. The use of animals in experimental research parallels the development of medicine, which had its roots in ancient Greece (Aristotle, Hippocrate). With the Cartesian philosophy in the 17th century, experiments on animals could be performed without great moral problems. The discovery of anaesthetics and Darwin's publication on the Origin of Species, defending the biological similarities between man and animal, contributed to the increase of animal experimentation. The increasing demand for high standard animal models together with a critical view on the use of animals led to the development of Laboratory Animal Science in the 1950s with Russell and Burch's three R's of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement as guiding principles, a field that can be defined as a multidisciplinary branch of science, contributing to the quality of animal experiments and to the welfare of laboratory animals. The increased interest in and concern about animal welfare issues led to legislative regulations in many countries and the establishment of animal ethics committees.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 20,95 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

Translational science: a survey of US biomedical researchers’ perspectives and practices

3R measures in facilities for the production of genetically modified rodents

Van Zutphen LFM . History of animal use. In: Van Zutphen LFM, Baumans V, Beynen AC (eds). Principles of Laboratory Animal Science . Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2001, pp 2–5.

Google Scholar  

Dennis Jr MB . Welfare issues of genetically modified animals. ILAR J 2002; 43 : 100–109.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Russell WMS, Burch RL . The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique . Methuen: London, 1959, Reprinted by UFAW, 1992: 8 Hamilton Close, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Herts EN6 3QD England.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Laboratory Animal Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baumans, V. Use of animals in experimental research: an ethical dilemma?. Gene Ther 11 (Suppl 1), S64–S66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302371

Download citation

Published : 29 September 2004

Issue Date : 01 October 2004

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302371

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• animal experiments

This article is cited by

The effect of modification of dna interference on myostatin gene expression in mice.

• Mitra Riasi
• Sina Mozaffari-Jovin
• Ali Javadmanesh

Journal of Genetics (2023)

The small molecule ZY-214-4 may reduce the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus by inhibiting pigment production

BMC Microbiology (2021)

Non-random associations in group housed rats (Rattus norvegicus)

• Leanne Proops
• Camille A. Troisi
• Teresa Romero

Scientific Reports (2021)

Multi-scale generative adversarial network for improved evaluation of cell–cell interactions observed in organ-on-chip experiments

• M. C. Comes
• E. Martinelli

Neural Computing and Applications (2021)

Modeling clear cell renal cell carcinoma and therapeutic implications

• Melissa M. Wolf
• W. Kimryn Rathmell
• Kathryn E. Beckermann

Oncogene (2020)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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

• History of animal research

The use of animals in scientific experiments in the UK can be traced back at least as far as the 17th Century with Harvey’s experiments on numerous animal species aiming to demonstrate blood circulation. Across Europe, the use of animals in scientific research began to expand over the 19th Century, in part supported by the development of anaesthetics which had previously made animal research impossible. In 1876, parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act, the first legislation aimed at regulating animal experiments. Over the late 19th and the 20th centuries, the expansion of medical science meant that the numbers of animals used in research expanded steadily, accelerated by the Medicines Act, 1968, which provided a clearer guide to the use of animals in safety testing in the wake of the Thalidomide tragedy. The number of animals used rose  to over 5.5 million in 1970 after which point the numbers began to decline rapidly. This large expansion reflected a growing medical field; animals had played a part in most medical advances of the 20th century including insulin, the polio vaccine, penicillin and the elimination of smallpox. In 1986 the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act was passed, which ensured higher animal welfare standards in laboratories across the UK. In 2010, EU Directive 2010/63 was passed. This regulation harmonises European animal laboratory standards, improving animal welfare across the EU, and is currently being transposed into the laws of the member countries. It passed into UK law on 1st January 2013.

Animal Research in Medicine: 100 Years of Politics, Protests and Progress (John Illman) provides a history of animal research legislation and the context in which they were developed.  - Illman, J., 2008. Aninmal Research in Medicine: 100 years of Politics, Protests and Progress. The Story of the Research Defence Society. London: Research Defence Society. A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology (Jim Endersby) tells the story of modern biology through the stories of the animals and plants that made it possible.  - Endersby, J., 2007. A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Heinemann.

Online resources

Medical Advances and Animal Research (RDS & CMP) is an excellent booklet outlining the role of animals in many of the medical developments we see around us. It provides full references to the scientific literature it mentions throughout.  - Research Defence Society & Coalition for Medical Progress, 2007. Medical Advances and Animal Research: The Contribution of Animal Science to the Medical Revolution: Some Case Histories. London: RDS. Available from our document library here . The Animal Research Timeline (AR.info) provides an outline of many of the major medical discoveries since 1881, as well as explaining the role of animals in each of these developments.  - AnimalResearch.Info. Timeline. Available at:  http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/timeline/ Animal Research Info: Nobel Prizes (AR.info) provides a breakdown of all the Nobel Prizes in Physiology and Medicine since 1901 and includes how animals were involved in the discoveries.  - AnimalResearch.Info. Nobel Prizes. Available at:  http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/nobel-prizes/ Pro-Test: Tackling Animal Rights (SR) is an essay following the battle over the building of the Oxford University Biomedical Facility from 2005-2008. It covers the rise of the animal rights group SPEAK, and the student counter-movement, Pro-Test. It also covers some of the issues which helped change public opinion from 2006.  - Speaking of Research, 2008. Pro-Test Tackling Animal Rights in the UK. Available at:  http://speakingofresearch.com/about/the-uk-experience/ Click on one of the links below to see other topics on animal research

• Ethics of animal experiments
• Costs and benefits of research
• Regulatory systems and the 3Rs
• Animal rights activism and extremism
• General Websites

Featured news

Bird flu in cows: is it a human problem ?

Openness, a powerful tool to support science

Long Covid, can animals provide the answers?

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Get the latest articles and news from Understanding Animal Research in your email inbox every month. For more information, please see our  privacy policy .

Unethical Animal Testing

This essay about the ethical implications of animal testing in scientific research, exploring the complex moral dilemmas and environmental concerns surrounding the practice. It discusses the tension between scientific progress and ethical integrity, highlighting the need for alternative methodologies that minimize harm to animals and the environment while upholding the principles of ethical conduct. By reimagining the way we approach scientific inquiry, this essay advocates for a more sustainable, humane, and ethically sound approach to research that respects the dignity and welfare of all living beings.

How it works

In the sprawling landscape of scientific inquiry, a contentious issue continues to loom large, casting a shadow over the pursuit of knowledge and innovation: the ethical quandary of animal experimentation. As scholars and advocates grapple with the moral implications of such practices, the discourse surrounding this contentious topic evolves, prompting a reevaluation of traditional methodologies and a quest for alternative approaches that align with contemporary ethical standards.

At the heart of the debate lies the ethical treatment of sentient beings, whose lives are often sacrificed in the name of scientific progress.

The ethical imperative to minimize harm and respect the autonomy of all living creatures clashes with the utilitarian justification of animal testing for the greater good of humanity. This tension underscores the complexity of ethical decision-making in scientific research, where the pursuit of knowledge often necessitates difficult trade-offs between competing moral principles.

Furthermore, the reliability and validity of findings obtained from animal studies are increasingly called into question, as researchers grapple with the challenge of extrapolating results across species boundaries. While animal models have historically served as the cornerstone of biomedical research, advances in technology and methodology have led to a reevaluation of their utility and relevance. The emergence of alternative methodologies, such as in vitro testing and computational modeling, offers promise in circumventing the limitations of animal models while providing more accurate and ethically sound avenues for scientific inquiry.

In addition to ethical considerations, the environmental impact of animal testing cannot be overlooked, as laboratory facilities that house experimental animals contribute to pollution and resource depletion. As society becomes increasingly cognizant of the interconnectedness of environmental and human health, there is a growing imperative to develop sustainable research practices that minimize harm to both animals and the environment. This necessitates a paradigm shift in the way we conceptualize and conduct scientific research, prioritizing ethical integrity and environmental stewardship alongside scientific rigor and innovation.

In conclusion, the ethical quandary surrounding animal testing in scientific research reflects the complex interplay between competing moral imperatives, scientific principles, and societal values. As we navigate this ethical nexus, it is imperative that we remain cognizant of the ethical implications of our actions and strive to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct in scientific inquiry. By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration, we can chart a course towards a more ethical, sustainable, and humane approach to scientific research that respects the dignity and welfare of all living beings.

Cite this page

Unethical Animal Testing. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/

"Unethical Animal Testing." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Unethical Animal Testing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/ [Accessed: 1 May. 2024]

"Unethical Animal Testing." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/

"Unethical Animal Testing," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/. [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Unethical Animal Testing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/unethical-animal-testing/ [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

• 🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
• 🐶 Essay: How to Write
• 🏆 Best Essay Examples
• 📌 Good Topics to Research
• 🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What would life be like without animal testing?
• Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
• AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
• What if animals experimented on humans?
• In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
• Opposing animal testing: success stories.
• Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
• What have we gained from experiments on animals?
• Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

• The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
• Animal testing should (not) be banned
• How animal testing affects endangered species
• The history and consequences of animal testing
• The controversy associated with animal testing
• Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
• Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

• Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
• Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
• Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
• Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
• Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
• Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
• Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

• Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
• Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
• Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

• More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
• Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
• More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

• Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
• Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
• Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
• The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
• Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
• Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
• Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
• Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
• Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
• Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
• Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
• Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
• Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
• Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
• Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
• Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
• Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
• Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
• Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
• The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
• The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
• An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
• The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
• An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
• The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
• The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

• An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
• The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
• Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
• Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
• Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
• Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
• An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
• Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
• A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
• The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
• What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
• Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
• Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
• How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
• Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
• Does Animal Testing Really Work?
• Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
• Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
• How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
• Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
• Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
• Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
• Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
• What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
• Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
• How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
• What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
• How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
• Who Cares for Animals in Research?
• How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
• Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
• How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

• Animal Abuse Research Topics
• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Meaning of Life Essay Ideas
• Animal Rights Research Ideas
• Cloning Questions
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Wildlife Ideas
• Extinction Research Topics
• Hunting Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing

Argumentative Essays on Animal Testing

Hook examples for animal testing essays, the ethical dilemma hook.

Begin your essay by presenting the ethical dilemma surrounding animal testing. Explore the moral questions it raises and the conflicting viewpoints of proponents and opponents.

The Historical Perspective Hook

Take your readers on a journey through the history of animal testing. Discuss its origins, evolution, and its role in scientific and medical advancements over time.

The Scientific Advancements Hook

Highlight the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that have resulted from animal testing. Discuss how it has contributed to medical treatments, vaccines, and the understanding of diseases.

The Alternatives and Innovations Hook

Explore alternative methods and innovations in research that aim to replace or reduce the use of animals in testing. Discuss advancements like in vitro testing and computer modeling.

The Animal Welfare Hook

Focus on the welfare and ethical treatment of animals used in testing. Discuss regulations, guidelines, and efforts to minimize harm and suffering in research.

The Legal and Regulatory Landscape Hook

Examine the legal and regulatory framework surrounding animal testing in different countries. Discuss laws, restrictions, and their enforcement.

The Public Opinion and Activism Hook

Discuss public perceptions of animal testing and the role of animal rights activists in advocating for change. Highlight notable campaigns and their impact.

The Unintended Consequences Hook

Explore unintended consequences or risks associated with animal testing, such as potential harm to humans due to species differences or the limitations of animal models.

The Future of Research Hook

Discuss the future of scientific research and the possibilities for reducing or eliminating animal testing. Explore emerging technologies and trends in biomedical research.

The Personal Story Hook

Share a personal or anecdotal story related to animal testing, such as the experiences of a researcher, activist, or someone affected by medical advancements achieved through animal testing.

Ethical Statement for Animal Testing

Animal testing: a necessary evil, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Use of Animals in Scientific Research

Arguments aganist using animals in experiments and testing, reasons to stop animal testing, the reasons why animal testing should be stopped, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Discussion Whether Animals Testing is Necessary

An argument favoring the use of animals in testing and the benefits it has brought, animal testing in modern world, pros and cons of animal testing: the conflicting debate, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Ethics of Animal Testing: an Argument Against Its Practice

Discussion: should animals be used for scientific research, the arguments concerning animal testing, why animal testing should be viewed as beneficial, saving the animals: alternative ways to test products, discussion on whether scientists should be allowed to test products on animals, the arguments why we should not test on animals, reasons why animal testing should be forbidden, why we should not continue test on animals, arguments for the reduction of animal testing, the problem of human cruelty to animals, how animal testing benefits us from diseases, stop the cruel and unnecessary animal testing, animal testing and alternatives for developing cruelty-free makeup, animals should not be a part of scientific research, worldwide problem of animal testing, analysis of the perspectives in support for animal testing and against it, animal testing in the united states, animal testing in the world, arguments for eliminating the use of animal testing.

Animal testing, referred to as animal experimentation, animal research, or in vivo testing, involves the utilization of animals other than humans in scientific experiments aimed at manipulating the factors influencing the behavior or biological processes being investigated.

Throughout history, the practice of animal testing has deep roots dating back centuries. The earliest recorded instances can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where animals were used for various scientific and medical purposes. The Greek physician Galen, during the second century AD, conducted experiments on animals to understand human anatomy and physiology. However, the formal establishment of animal testing as a systematic approach began to take shape during the 19th century with the emergence of modern medical research. In the late 1800s, advances in scientific knowledge and technology led to an increased demand for animal testing in various fields, including medicine, toxicology, and physiology. The development of anesthesia further facilitated the experimentation on animals by reducing pain and discomfort. Throughout the 20th century, animal testing became more widespread and institutionalized, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Public opinion on animal testing is a complex and diverse topic, with viewpoints spanning a wide spectrum. While there are those who support the use of animals in scientific research for the advancement of human knowledge and medical breakthroughs, others express strong opposition due to ethical concerns and the perceived mistreatment of animals. Some people argue that animal testing is necessary for the development of life-saving treatments and the improvement of human health. They believe that animals provide valuable insights into human biology and the effectiveness of potential therapies. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing argue that it is cruel and unnecessary, advocating for alternative methods such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and human cell-based assays. Public opinion on animal testing often hinges on the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare. The growing awareness of animal rights and ethical considerations has fueled debates and discussions surrounding the topic. As society becomes more conscious of animal welfare, there is an increasing demand for alternative testing methods and greater transparency in the treatment of animals involved in research. Ultimately, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping policies and regulations surrounding animal testing.

1. Scientific advancement. 2. Human health and safety. 3. Understanding diseases. 4. Regulatory requirements. 5. Animal welfare improvements.

1. Ethical concerns. 2. Inadequate human relevance. 3. Availability of alternatives. 4. Animal welfare. 5. Speciesism and moral status.

One example of media representation is the documentary "Earthlings" directed by Shaun Monson. This influential film explores different aspects of animal exploitation, including animal testing, and highlights the ethical concerns surrounding the practice. It has garnered widespread attention and prompted discussions about the treatment of animals in scientific research. Social media platforms have also become powerful tools for activists and organizations to share information and advocate for alternatives to animal testing. Hashtags like #StopAnimalTesting and #CrueltyFree have gained traction, raising awareness and encouraging conversations on the topic.

The topic of animal testing is important due to its ethical, scientific, and societal implications. From an ethical standpoint, it raises profound questions about the treatment of sentient beings and the moral responsibility we have towards animals. It prompts us to consider the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare, urging us to explore alternative methods that minimize harm. Scientifically, animal testing has been instrumental in advancing medical knowledge and developing treatments for various diseases. However, it is essential to continually evaluate its effectiveness, limitations, and potential alternatives to ensure both human and animal well-being. Furthermore, the issue of animal testing has societal implications as it reflects our values and priorities as a society. It prompts discussions about our relationship with animals, the extent of their rights, and the importance of promoting more humane practices.

The topic of animal testing is worth writing an essay about due to its complex nature and the multitude of perspectives it encompasses. It is a subject that elicits strong emotions and raises critical ethical, scientific, and social questions. Writing an essay on animal testing allows for an in-depth exploration of these issues and encourages critical thinking and analysis. By delving into the topic, one can examine the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in experiments, weighing the potential benefits against the moral implications. Additionally, it provides an opportunity to evaluate the scientific validity and reliability of animal testing as a method for understanding human biology and developing medical treatments. Furthermore, an essay on animal testing opens avenues for discussing alternative approaches and advancements in technology that can reduce or replace animal experimentation. It allows for an exploration of the societal impact of animal testing, including public opinion, legislation, and the influence of media.

1. Each year, millions of animals are used in scientific experiments worldwide. According to estimates, over 100 million animals, including rabbits, mice, rats, dogs, and primates, are subjected to testing for various purposes, such as biomedical research, drug development, and toxicity testing. 2. Animal testing is not always reliable in predicting human outcomes. Studies have shown that there can be significant differences between animals and humans in terms of anatomy, physiology, and drug metabolism. This raises concerns about the validity and relevance of using animal models for understanding human diseases and developing treatments. 3. Alternatives to animal testing are emerging and gaining traction. Scientists and researchers are actively exploring innovative methods, such as in vitro cell cultures, computer modeling, and organ-on-a-chip technology, to simulate human biology and predict human responses more accurately. These alternative approaches aim to reduce or eliminate the need for animal testing while still ensuring the safety and efficacy of new products and treatments.

1. Abbott, A. (2005). Animal testing: more than a cosmetic change. Nature, 438(7065), 144-147. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA185466349&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E513ffe31) 2. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096 Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. 3. Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ Heart views: the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12(1), 42. 4. Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought… on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 26(1), 3-16. (https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/633) 5. Valappil, S. P., Misra, S. K., Boccaccini, A. R., & Roy, I. (2006). Biomedical applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in vivo responses. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 3(6), 853-868. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/17434440.3.6.853) 6. File, S. E., Lippa, A. S., Beer, B., & Lippa, M. T. (2004). Animal tests of anxiety. Current protocols in neuroscience, 26(1), 8-3. (https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471142301.ns0803s26) 7. Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261192920965977) 8. Donnellan, L. (2006). Animal testing in cosmetics: recent developments in the European Union and the United States. Animal L., 13, 251. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/anim13&div=18&id=&page=)

Relevant topics

• Gun Violence
• Gun Control
• Pro Life (Abortion)
• Pro Choice (Abortion)
• Human Trafficking
• Discrimination
• Gender Equality
• Civil Disobedience

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

How Do We Know What Animals Are Really Feeling?

Animal-welfare science tries to get inside the minds of a huge range of species — in order to help improve their lives.

Credit... Photo Illustration by Zachary Scott

Supported by

By Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy

Bill Wasik is the magazine’s editorial director and Monica Murphy is a veterinarian and writer.

• April 23, 2024

What makes a desert tortoise happy? Before you answer, we should be more specific: We’re talking about a Sonoran desert tortoise, one of a few species of drab, stocky tortoises native to North America’s most arid landscapes. Adapted to the rocky crevices that striate the hills from western Arizona to northern Mexico, this long-lived reptile impassively plods its range, browsing wildflowers, scrub grasses and cactus paddles during the hours when it’s not sheltering from the brutal heat or bitter cold. Sonoran desert tortoises evolved to thrive in an environment so different from what humans find comfortable that we can rarely hope to encounter one during our necessarily short forays — under brimmed hats and layers of sunblock, carrying liters of water and guided by GPS — into their native habitat.

Listen to this article, read by Gabra Zackman

This past November, in a large, carpeted banquet room on the University of Wisconsin’s River Falls campus, hundreds of undergraduate, graduate and veterinary students silently considered the lived experience of a Sonoran desert tortoise. Perhaps nine in 10 of the participants were women, reflecting the current demographics of students drawn to veterinary medicine and other animal-related fields. From 23 universities in the United States and Canada, and one in the Netherlands, they had traveled here to compete in an unusual test of empathy with a wide range of creatures: the Animal Welfare Assessment Contest.

That morning in the banquet room, the academics and experts who organize the contest (under the sponsorship of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the nation’s primary professional society for vets) laid out three different fictional scenarios, each one involving a binary choice: Which animals are better off? One scenario involved groups of laying hens in two different facilities, a family farm versus a more corporate affair. Another involved bison being raised for meat, some in a smaller, more managed operation and others ranging more widely with less hands-on human contact.

Then there were the tortoises. On screens along the room’s outer edge, a series of projected slides laid out two different settings: one, a desert museum exhibiting seven Sonoran specimens together in a large, naturalistically barren outdoor enclosure; the other, a suburban zoo housing a group of four tortoises, segregated by sex, in small indoor and outdoor pens furnished with a variety of tortoise toys and enticements. Into the slides had been packed an exhausting array of detail about the care provided for the tortoises in each facility. Only contestants who had prepared thoroughly for the competition — by researching the nutritional, environmental, social and medical needs of the species in question — would be able to determine which was doing a better job.

“Animal welfare” is sometimes misused as a synonym for “animal rights,” but in practice the two worldviews can sometimes be at cross purposes. From an animal rights perspective, nearly every human use of animals is morally suspect, but animal-welfare thinkers take it as a given that animals of all kinds do exist in human care, for better or worse, and focus on how to treat them as well as possible. In the past half century, an interdisciplinary group of academics, working across veterinary medicine and other animal-focused fields, have been trying to codify what we know about animal care in a body of research referred to as “animal-welfare science.”

The research has unlocked riddles about animal behavior, spurred changes in how livestock are treated and even brought about some advances in how we care for our pets: Studies of domestic cats, for example, have found that “puzzle feeders,” which slow consumption and increase mental and physical effort while eating, can improve their health and even make them friendlier. The discipline has begun to inform policy too, including requirements for scientists receiving federal grants for their animal-based research, regulations governing transport and slaughter of livestock, accreditation standards for zoos and aquariums and guidelines for veterinarians performing euthanasia.

Contest organizers hope to help their students, who might someday go into a range of animal-related jobs — not just as vets but in agribusiness, conservation, government and more — employ data and research to improve every aspect of animal well-being. Americans own an estimated 150 million dogs and cats, and our policies and consumption patterns determine how hundreds of millions of creatures from countless other species will live and die. The Animal Welfare Assessment Contest tries to introduce students to that enormous collective responsibility, and to the complexity of figuring out what each of these animals needs, especially when — as in the case of reptiles living in a shell — their outlook differs radically from our own.

The effort to improve the lives of America’s animals began more than 150 years ago. As it happens, a hundred or so turtles figured in one of the most important events in the early history of animal activism in America. It was May 1866 — the heyday of turtle soup, a dish so beloved at the time that restaurants in New York would take out newspaper ads, or even maintain special outdoor signage, declaring the hour at which the day’s batch would be ready. And so this group of unlucky sea turtles, after being captured by hunters in Florida, was brought to New York upside down on a schooner. To further immobilize them, holes were pierced through their fins with cords run through them.

The turtles would have assumed a tranquil, passive demeanor under such conditions, perhaps making it possible for the ship’s crew to believe that the creatures weren’t suffering. But there is every reason to believe they were. Evolution has equipped the marine turtle for a life afloat, with a large lung capacity filling the space beneath the shell, to enable long dives. When the turtles were on their backs, the weight of their organs would have put pressure on these lungs, forcing their breathing to become deliberate and deep.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals started up the month before. Its president and founder, a Manhattan shipbuilding heir named Henry Bergh, spent its early weeks focusing on domestic species — above all, horses, the rough treatment of which in 19th-century streets was the main inspiration for his activism. But when he became aware of these suffering sea turtles for sale at Fulton Market, he decided to extend his campaign to a wildlife species that then barely rated more consideration than a cockroach, if not a cabbage.

Bergh made a case that the infliction of prolonged pain and distress upon sea turtles bound for the soup pot was illegal as well as immoral. As with other “mute servants of mankind” providing labor, locomotion, meat or milk to human beings, the turtle was entitled to be treated with compassion. But when Bergh hauled the ship’s captain in front of a judge, the defense argued (successfully!) that turtles were not even “animals,” but rather a form of fish, and thereby did not qualify under the new animal-cruelty law that Bergh succeeded in passing earlier that year.

Still, the case became a media sensation — and signaled to New Yorkers that Bergh’s campaign on behalf of animals was going to force them to account for the suffering of all animals, not just the ones they already chose to care about.

It’s perhaps no accident that Bergh turned to activism after a failed career as a dramatist. There’s something irreducibly imaginative in considering questions of animal welfare, regardless of how much science we marshal to back up our conclusions. George Angell of Boston, his fellow titan of that founding generation of animal advocates, pirated a 13-year-old British novel called “Black Beauty” and turned it into one of the century’s best-selling books, touting it as “the ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ of the Horse” — though its real innovation was its use of an animal as a first-person narrator, thrusting readers into a working horse’s perspective and forcing them to contemplate how the equines all around them might see the world differently.

But how far does imagination really get us? The philosopher Thomas Nagel famously explored this problem in an essay called “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” which took up that question only to dramatize the impossibility of answering it to anyone’s satisfaction. “It will not help,” he wrote, “to try to imagine that one has webbing on one’s arms, which enables one to fly around at dusk and dawn catching insects in one’s mouth; that one has very poor vision, and perceives the surrounding world by a system of reflected high-frequency sound signals; and that one spends the day hanging upside down by one’s feet in an attic. Insofar as I can imagine this (which is not very far), it tells me only what it would be like for me to behave as a bat behaves.”

In the case of chelonians like turtles — and their encarapaced brethren, the tortoises — we may know even less about how they experience the world than we do about bats. Take their vision, for example: Among those species that have been studied, scientists have found evidence of broad-spectrum color vision, sometimes including ultraviolet wavelengths invisible to the human eye. And while chelonians can see well beyond their pointed beaks, where edible vegetation or predators may await notice, their brains process these visual signals slowly — a quality of certain animal brains that might, some experts have theorized, result in a sped-up perception of time. (In chelonian eyes, do grasses wave frenetically in the breeze and clouds race across the sky?)

Next to vision, smell is probably the sense turtles and tortoises rely upon most. Their sensitive nasal epithelium, distributed between two chambers, can detect odors diffused in a warm desert breeze or dissolved in a cold ocean current. Chelonian ears are where you’d expect them to be, but buried beneath their scaled reptilian skin. They hear well at low frequencies, even if they don’t register the high notes of twittering birds, humming mosquitoes or the whistling wind. Some chelonians seem to have the power of magnetoreception, which means that somewhere in their anatomy — perhaps their eyes, or their nervous systems, or elsewhere — there are chemicals or structures that allow them to sense the earth’s geomagnetic field and navigate by it.

The chelonian sense of touch presents fewer mysteries. Specialized receptors in the skin and on the shell detect mechanical, temperature and pain stimuli and send messages to the nervous system — just as they do in humans and a wide variety of other species. Recognition of pain, in particular, is considered a primordial sense, essential to the survival of animals on every limb of the evolutionary tree. But even here, there are differences separating species: What does the nervous system do with signals from its nociceptors? Does the desert tortoise withdraw its foot from the scorpion’s tail only reflexively, or does it consciously register the pain of the sting? What suffering does a turtle endure when its shell is struck by the sharp edges of a boat propeller?

As Nagel argued, there is no way to meaningfully narrow the gulch in understanding that exists around “what it is like to be” such a creature. The strategy of animal-welfare science is to patiently use what we can observe about these other kinds of minds — what they choose to eat and to do, how they interact with their environments, how they respond to certain forms of treatment — looking for objective cues to show experts what imagination cannot.

Upstairs from the banquet hall, student competitors nervously milled around carpeted corridors. One by one they were called into conference rooms to face a judge, who sat at a table beside a digital chronograph. In one room, a neatly dressed young woman in owlish glasses took a breath as the display began counting up hundredths of seconds in bright red digits. Catherine LeBlond, a second-year student at Atlantic Veterinary College at Canada’s University of Prince Edward Island, began her presentation about the bison scenario.

She was allowed to refer only to a single 3-by-5 index card, which she had packed with information based on a “summary sheet” of takeaways that she and her teammates worked up together, with key phrases emphasized and sources cited, all of it broken down by category: social behavior (“Bison are a very social species with strong matriarchal divisions”), handling guidelines (“Prods should not be used to move bison unless safety is an issue”), facility design (“Ensure that there is a sufficient number of gates within facilities to slow the animals”), euthanasia (“The recommended euthanasia method of a bison is gunshot”) and more.

LeBlond began by declaring her choice: The wilder facility provided a more humane environment for its animals. She felt it was helping bison “live a more natural life”: The more spacious grounds would support wallowing behavior, she reasoned, and allow the animals to choose their social grouping, an important policy given bisons’ strong sense of social structure. She also praised the operation for enabling bison to avoid “aversive life events,” by using drones, rather than ranchers on horseback, to monitor the animals in the field, and also by slaughtering the animals on-site to avoid the distress they experience in transport. As she ran through her presentation, she took care to hit two important rhetorical notes that judges look for: “granting” some areas in which the other institution excelled and offering positive advice about how it might improve.

One way to think about her reasoning is through the lens of “the five freedoms,” a rubric that animal-welfare thinkers have long embraced to consider all the different obligations that humans have to the animals in their care. They are: 1. the freedom from hunger and thirst; 2. the freedom from discomfort; 3. the freedom from pain, injury or disease; 4. the freedom to express normal behavior; and 5. the freedom from fear and distress. In fact, it was arguably the articulation of these five freedoms — in the Brambell Report, a document put out by a British government committee in 1965 to assess the welfare conditions of the nation’s livestock — that inaugurated the whole field of animal-welfare science.

What made this list of “freedoms” so influential, in retrospect, was that it created a context for other, more targeted thinking about how a species might experience each freedom or its violation. What sort of environment will offer “freedom from discomfort” to a beef steer, on the one hand, and a freedom “to express normal behavior” on the other? Trying to answer such questions in a rigorous way involves considerations of veterinary medicine but also of evolutionary history, behavioral observation, physiology (scientists have begun using proxies like cortisol levels as an indication of animal stress), neuroscience and more.

In her bison presentation, by citing “a more natural life” and avoiding “aversive life events,” LeBlond was emphasizing Freedoms 4 and 5, the freedom to express normal behavior and the freedom from distress. In the scenario about tortoises, though, Freedoms 4 and 5 seemed to be at odds. When LeBlond addressed the judge for that category, she awarded the edge to the zoo — weighing its better health outcomes and stimulating enrichments over the more naturalistic setting at the museum. She zeroed in on the zoo’s visitor program, which gave the tortoises a novel method of choosing whether or not they wanted to interact with humans: Staff put out a transport crate, and over the course of 20 minutes, tortoises could decide to climb into the crate to be taken to the human guests, and later receive a special biscuit for their service.

And she linked this to a behavioral difference, illustrated by a set of charts comparing how readily each set of tortoises moved toward a “novel object” (like an enrichment toy) or a “novel person” in their midst. The numbers showed that the zoo’s tortoises were far more drawn to interactions with people. “This indicates that they have less fear of humans,” LeBlond pointed out, “which could be because they are given a choice about whether or not they get to participate in educational programs, and those that do are positively reinforced with high-value rewards.”

Most of the students followed a similar logic and chose the zoo. The judges, however, disagreed. As one of them explained later at the awards ceremony — at which LeBlond took second place among vet students — the facility may have seemed to be offering their tortoises a consensual choice, but it was more accurate to see it as heavy-handed operant conditioning, which lured them into submitting to human contact with the promise of a biscuit. In scenarios involving domestic animals, a documented comfort around humans is a sign of positive treatment, but when it comes to wild animals, the goal is the opposite: to acclimate them as little to human contact as possible. Another way of putting it is this: Biscuits might make a desert tortoise “happy,” insofar as we can even imagine what that means, but happiness isn’t ultimately what humane treatment is about.

Each year at the contest, competitors are asked to perform one “live” assessment: a situation with real animals in it. This time, the species of choice was the laboratory rat. We joined Kurt Vogel, head of the Animal Welfare Lab at University of Wisconsin-River Falls, on a tour of the scenario that he and a colleague, Brian Greco, had constructed in a warren of rooms a few buildings over from the competition site.

They had brought a great deal of brio to the task. In the first room, where several rats snoozed in containers, Vogel and Greco had left a panoply of welfare infractions for eagle-eyed students to find. One cage was missing a water bottle, while others housed only a single rat, a violation of best practices (rats prefer to be housed in groups). Feed bags sat on the floor with detritus all around, and a note in a lab journal indicated that pest rodents had been observed snacking on it.

In subsequent rooms, the horrors became more baroque. A euthanasia chamber had the wrong size lid on it, and a nearby journal described a rat escaping in the middle of its extermination. Paperwork in an office laid out the nature of the study being performed, which involved prolonged deprivation of food and water, forced swimming and exposure to wet bedding. Diagrams showed that the rats’ brains were being studied through physical implants, and students could see that the operating room was a nightmare, littered with unsterile implements and the researchers’ food trash (the remnants of Vogel’s bagel sandwich, deliberately left behind). None of the abuse was real — Vogel and Greco were even taking care to cycle the rats in and out of the fake scenario, in order to avoid undue stress from the parade of students who came through taking notes.

Happiness isn’t ultimately what humane treatment is about.

Rodents did not always play the role in labs that they do today. In the late 19th century, experiments were carried out on a whole host of species, including a high proportion of dogs — a fact that animal-welfare activists publicized to turn the “vivisection” debate into a political issue, to the point that even some prominent doctors became galvanized to restrict or ban the practice. In the 20th century, as research shifted to carefully bred rats and mice, optimized for predictability and uniformity, animal experimentation receded as an issue in the public discourse. Today animal-welfare advocates struggle to motivate their base on the matter of rodents: the Humane Society’s website illustrates its section on “Taking Suffering Out of Science” (which sits at the very end in its list of the group’s current “fights”) with a picture of a beagle in a cage, despite the fact that roughly 95 percent of all lab mammals are now rats or mice.

Lab rodents are maybe the most vivid example of a species whose suffering is hard to know how to weigh against the benefits it provides us. Studies using rat and mouse models have sought to answer basic scientific questions across diverse fields of inquiry: psychology, physiology, pathology, genetics. Look into any new advance in human health care, and you’re likely to find that it’s built on years of experimentation that consumed the lives of literally thousands of rodents. We may now be on the cusp of innovations that could allow that toll to be radically reduced — by essentially replacing animal models with some combination of virtual simulations and lab-grown tissue and organs — but it’s hard to imagine a world anytime soon where human patients would be subject to therapies that have never been tested on hundreds of animals. No one even reliably counts how many rodents are killed in U.S. labs every year, but the estimates range from 10 million up to more than 100 million.

This question of scale especially haunts the problem of livestock, which is an area where many of the contest’s student competitors will eventually find jobs. America is currently home to roughly 87 million cattle and 75 million pigs: populations that exceed those of dogs and cats in scale, but the welfare of which commands so much less of our moral attention.

When the practice of centralized, industrialized livestock management began in earnest after the Civil War, the treatment of the animals, especially during slaughter, could be barbaric. Pigs were simply hoisted up and their throats cut, and after some point were assumed to be dead enough to dump into boiling water so that the sharp bristles on their skin could be scraped away. There was little doubt that some of them were still conscious at the point that they were plunged into the water, as was reported in a broad exposé in 1880 by The Chicago Tribune: “Not infrequently,” the reporter noted, “a hog reaches the scalding-tub before life is extinct; in fact, they sometimes are very full of life when they reach the point whence they are dumped into the seething tub.”

After 1906, when Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” exposed the industry’s unsanitary practices, a series of reforms did lead to significant improvements in the lives and deaths of American livestock. Thanks to the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, federal law now requires that animals be “rendered insensible to pain” before the act of killing; with pigs, this is generally done either with electrocution or by suffocation in a carbon-dioxide chamber, while with cattle, the method of choice is the captive-bolt gun. And since the 1970s, animal-welfare science has led to some considerable reforms. Perhaps the most transformational work has been done by Temple Grandin, the animal behaviorist whose research into how food animals experience and respond to their environment — particularly during transport and slaughter — has changed the way that meat and dairy producers operate.

Still, despite years of promises to end the practice, many sows are still kept almost permanently in 7-feet-by-2-feet “gestation crates,” too small to turn around in. And the rise of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has doomed millions of pigs, cattle and chickens to lives spent cheek to jowl in the stench of their own waste — waste that also threatens the health of nearby communities and ecosystems.

At the contest, many attendees were excited about the gains that artificial intelligence could bring to the animal-welfare field. Pilot studies have indeed shown great promise: For example, with A.I. assistance, 24-hour video surveillance can help pinpoint sick or injured animals much more quickly so they can be pulled out for veterinary care. Last year, a group of European researchers announced that based on 7,000 recordings of more than 400 pigs, they had made significant progress in understanding the meaning of their grunts. “By training an algorithm to recognize these sounds, we can classify 92 percent of the calls to the correct emotion,” one of the scientists remarked.

That well may be, but given what we know about pigs — specifically, their remarkable intelligence, which rivals (if not exceeds) that of a dog, to the point that a group of scientists recently trained some to play video games — there is no amount of A.I.-driven progress that can reconcile their short, crowded life as an American industrial food animal with any definition of what a “good” life looks like for such brainy creatures, all 75 million of them.

The laying hen, among the four species considered at the contest, is the one that lives among us in the largest numbers: There are an estimated 308 million of them in the United States alone, or nine for every 10 Americans. In a backyard flock, these hens could be expected to live six to eight years, but a vast majority of them toil in industrial operations that will slaughter them after only two to three years, once their productivity (six eggs a week) declines — and chickens, notably, are not covered by the Humane Slaughter Act. Poor air quality, soiled litter, nutritional stress and conflict with other chickens can contribute to dietary deficiencies, infectious diseases, egg-laying complications, self-mutilation, even cannibalism. And even in the best laying-hen operations, including the “cage-free” ones imagined in the contest scenario, these are short lives spent under 16 hours a day of artificial lighting in extremely close quarters with other birds.

More than in the other scenarios, the organizers had made the laying-hen choice a straightforward one. The corporate farm offered fewer amenities for the birds, which were also observed rarely to use the dirt-floored, plastic-covered “veranda” that was supposed to serve as a respite from their long hours laying in the aviary. The more commodious verandas of the family farm, covered with synthetic grass, proved more popular with their chickens, and in warm weather, its birds made use of a screened “garden” as well.

In her presentation, Catherine LeBlond correctly picked the family farm, for many of the same reasons that the judges did. Again, she “granted” some positive qualities of the corporate farm and offered it some advice — reflecting, after all, the values of the veterinary profession that she was training to enter, a field that takes on the advising of everyone who has animals in their care, not only the most conscientious.

Even so, at the very end, LeBlond briefly stepped back to ask a true ethical question, one that troubled the entire premise of a multibillion-dollar global industry: “whether or not it is ethical to keep these hens for the sole purpose of egg-laying, only to have them slaughtered at the end.” Among the scores of students we watched over the course of a weekend, LeBlond and her teammates from the Atlantic Veterinary College were the only ones who, in the final seconds of their talks, raised deep questions about the scenario’s entire premise — about whether, in the end, these fictional animals should have been put in these fictional situations in the first place.

It was a question that the judges of the Animal Welfare Assessment Contest had no doubt considered, but it also was one that seemed to lie outside the contest’s purview: In its either-or structure, the contest is helping train future professionals how to improve, rather than remove, the ties that bind animals into human society. Unless the day arrives when there is no need for laboratory rats, or poultry barns, or facilities to house desert tortoises and other captive wildlife, the animals of North America will be in the hands of veterinarians and animal scientists like LeBlond and her classmates, to help shape their situations the very best way they can.

Parts of this article are adapted from “Our Kindred Creatures: How Americans Came to Feel the Way They Do About Animals,” by Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy, published this month by Knopf.

Read by Gabra Zackman

Narration produced by Krish Seenivasan and Emma Kehlbeck

Engineered by Lance Neal

Explore The New York Times Magazine

Donald Trump’s Rally Rhetoric : No major American presidential candidate has talked like he now does at his rallies  — not Richard Nixon, not George Wallace, not even Trump himself.

The King of Tidy Eating : Rapturously messy food reviews are all over the internet. Keith Lee’s discreet eating style rises above them all .

What Are Animals Really Feeling? : Animal-welfare science tries to get inside the minds  of a huge range of species — in order to help improve their lives.

Can a Sexless Marriage Be Happy?: Experts and couples are challenging the conventional wisdom  that sex is essential to relationships.

Lessons From a 20-Person Polycule : Here’s how they set boundaries , navigate jealousy, wingman their spouses and foster community.

Advertisement

How to write an animal report

Your teacher wants a written report on the beluga whale . Not to worry. Use these organizational tools from the Nat Geo Kids Almanac so you can stay afloat while writing a report.

STEPS TO SUCCESS:

Your report will follow the format of a descriptive or expository essay and should consist of a main idea, followed by supporting details and a conclusion. Use this basic structure for each paragraph as well as the whole report, and you’ll be on the right track.

Introduction

State your main idea .

The beluga whale is a common and important species of whale.

Provide supporting points for your main idea.

1. The beluga whale is one of the smallest whale species.

2. It is also known as the “white whale” because of its distinctive coloring.

3. These whales are common in the Arctic Ocean’s coastal waters.

Then expand on those points with further description, explanation, or discussion.

1a. Belugas range in size from 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6.1 m) in length.

2a. Belugas are born gray or brown. They fade to white at around five years old.

3a. Some Arctic belugas migrate south in large herds when sea ice freezes over.

Wrap it up with a summary of your whole paper.

Because of its unique coloring and unusual features, belugas are among the most familiar and easily distinguishable of all the whales.

Key Information

Here are some things you should consider including in your report:

What does your animal look like? To what other species is it related? How does it move? Where does it live? What does it eat? What are its predators? How long does it live? Is it endangered? Why do you find it interesting?

SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION: Your animal may have been featured in a movie or in myths and legends. Compare and contrast how the animal has been portrayed with how it behaves in reality. For example, penguins can’t dance the way they do in Happy Feet.

PROOFREAD AND REVISE: As with any essay, when you’re finished, check for misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and punctuation errors. It often helps to have someone else proofread your work, too, as he or she may catch things you have missed. Also, look for ways to make your sentences and paragraphs even better. Add more descriptive language, choosing just the right verbs, adverbs, and adjectives to make your writing come alive.

BE CREATIVE: Use visual aids to make your report come to life. Include an animal photo file with interesting images found in magazines or printed from websites. Or draw your own! You can also build a miniature animal habitat diorama. Use creativity to help communicate your passion for the subject.

THE FINAL RESULT: Put it all together in one final, polished draft. Make it neat and clean, and remember to cite your references.

Download the pdf .

More resources

Homework help, science lab, (ad) national geographic kids almanac.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your California Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell My Info
• National Geographic
• National Geographic Education
• Shop Nat Geo
• Customer Service
• Manage Your Subscription

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

Writing Unit of Study: Animal Research Project

This free animal research project will provide you with a writing unit of study that will help you build excitement about writing informational text in your classroom.

You can download this free animal research project to help your writers develop their research and writing skills.

This project will be a great fit for your first, second or third grade writing workshop.

This is another free resource for teachers and homeschool families from The Curriculum Corner.

Why should I introduce my students to research through animal study?

Animal research can be a great topic for writing informational text because students tend to be curious about animals.

Nothing seems to spark interest in most kids like learning about animals in our world. Turn their enthusiasm into an engaging animal research writing project.

They can take the time to learn about different habitats and diets.

You can also encourage students to expand their vocabulary by having them create a glossary to accompany their writing.

About this animal research project

Within this post you will find over 30 pages of anchor charts, mini-lesson ideas, writing planners and graphic organizers.

The unit will help guide your students through the complete process. In the end, you will be helping to teach your students how to write their own pieces of informational text.

The intended end product for students is an animal booklet that they can staple together to share with others.

Students who are ready for more advanced work, can create a larger project with less direction.

A description of the mini-lessons

Lesson 1: introduction.

• Begin the unit by having the students brainstorm a list of animals that they might see everyday.
• Then, have them brainstorm a list of animals they see when they visit the zoo or walk in the forest. You can do this on the blank anchor chart provided or on cart paper.
• Another option is to place students in groups. They could work to create a list together.  
• You might assign each group a continent and have them find animals that live there.
• Pull the class together and have each group share what animals they found that live on their continent.

Lesson 2: Noticings

• Next you might want to get your students familiar with common characteristics about informational texts that teach about animals.
• Have them work in pairs or small groups to go through some books and record their “noticings” about the writing.
• Then come together in a community circle to discuss those noticings and create a class anchor chart.

Lesson 3: Opinion vs. Facts

• Before getting truly into this unit, you might need to conduct a lesson on opinions vs. facts.
• After a brief discussion you can use the giraffe paragraph provided in our resources to give your students some practice differentiating between the two. This paragraph contains both opinions and facts.
• With your class read through the paragraph and record facts and opinions on the T-chart.
• Discuss both sides and how they are different from each other.
• A black & white copy of this giraffe paragraph has also been provided.  You can have them work in pairs or groups to distinguish between the facts and opinions.
• If you need more resources for your students surrounding fact & opinion check out our   Fact & Opinion Sort .

Lesson 4: Choosing a Topic for the Animal Research Project

• We want to help students to narrow their topic choices by giving them some guidance.
• Gather students and begin a discussion about choosing an animal research topic.
• For this lesson we have provided two pages where students can individually brainstorm the animals they are interested in.
• You might have students work in groups or independently to make their choice. Conference with students as needed to help.
• Don’t shy away from letting more than one student research about the same animal.  This can be a great way to promote group work. It might also help out with some of your literacy center choices throughout this unit.

Lesson 5: Good Places to Find Information about an Animal

• At this age we want students to begin to understand that all they read online about animals isn’t always true. Sometimes writing might sound true without being filled with facts.
• Show students two possible places to find information online about their animal. One should be a trusted site with reliable and accurate information. Another should be a site that perhaps a child has created.  (There are many that you can find if you search.)
• Pose these questions: Is everything on the internet true? Why?  How can you tell? Why is it important for your research writing to contain accurate information?

Lesson 6: Taking Notes

• Sometimes giving students resources and a blank sheet of notebook paper can be too overwhelming for them. Some students will copy word for word. Others might feel overwhelmed.  We need to guide them to read and pull out facts & relevant information to use later in their writing.
• For this lesson we have provided four templates for note-taking that you might choose to use for your students.
• You might need to provide different organizers to students depending on their needs.
• You will want to model the organizers your students are use. Show them how to take notes as they read.
• After initial teaching, you may find that you need to pull small groups for extra practice. Others might benefit from a conference as you take a look at the notes they are taking.

Lesson 7: Word Choice in Research Writing

• To help students think about making their writing more interesting, have them brainstorm words about their animal.
• Together brainstorm words that would be appropriate for animals. They might add words about what they look like, their movement, their habitats, their life cycles, their diets, etc. You can create a class anchor chart on the page provided.  You might even think about using the real life picture of the wolf in the download. This can get the students to begin thinking of more interesting words for animals (fierce, mighty, strong, etc).
• Then, pass out the individual brainstorm pages. Students can use the anchor chart as a guide to begin their own word choice pages about their animal. This might be a good partner activity as well.

Lesson 8: Writing Sketch for the Animal Research Project

• Next, you can model the writing sketch planner for your class.
• One idea to help your students narrow down all of the information they have learned about their animals is to give them a specific number of animals facts that they can focus on.
• Each of these facts can serve as the actual text that they will put on each page of their animal research book. Or the facts could serve as a focus for each paragraph in their writing.
• You might find that this would be a good mini-lesson to do with smaller groups of children.

Lesson 9: Creating a Table of Contents

• Another idea that can be a writing planner AND a page in their animal research book is the table of contents. Pull out one of the Table of Contents pages from the resources provided and model how to fill in the blanks on each page.
• This page will then serve as their Table of Contents (with a focus discussion on what that is and the purpose it serves) and also their writing planner so they know what they will put in the pages of their booklet.

Lesson 10: Creating a Glossary

• There are two pages provided in the resources that might help your students to learn to pull out topic specific words to put into a glossary for the end of their animal research book.
• Be sure to model how you would like for your students to use these organizers (keeping in mind that you may need to copy more than one page if there are more words than the page provides for).
• If your students need a refresher on ABC order check out these links for some added practice/review: ABC Order Task Cards & Fry Word ABC Order Task Cards

Lesson 11: Writing Your Animal Research

• You will decide on the best method for your students to showcase their published animal research.
• You may want your students to use their own creativity in the texts that they write and share. If you’d like a first experience to provide a bit more guidance, we have provided two different sets of pages for booklets.
• One is more guided and the other has less structure and smaller lines for more writing.  15 pages are provided so that you or students can pick what fits their needs.
• This “lesson” may actually become a series of lessons if you choose to model how each page can be used.  (We have also included a page with simple writing lines in case students need less guidance than the booklet pages provided.)

Lesson 12: Labeling Pictures

• One final lesson idea that pairs well with writing informational text is to teach your students how to label pictures.
• Since most nonfiction writing has real photographs, students can find some pictures online to print out and label for their booklet.  Hand-drawn pictures are also great if you would rather encourage some or all of your students in that direction.
• Whatever you choose, show your class how to effectively label a picture so that it teaches the reader more.  You can use the picture of the polar bear provided to model how to add words or even short facts as labels.  (For example if the simple label “fur” wouldn’t add additional information to the book, you might teach them to label it with a short fact such as “dense fur protects the animal’s skin from the weather”.
• To make this idea more user friendly, you might want them to use the page of blank white boxes provided to write their labels for their pictures.  Then all they need to do is cut them out and glue them to a printed picture.

Lesson 13: Writing Celebration

As always, find a way to celebrate your students’ writing.  

Invite guests (younger students or special adults) to read the books with your young authors. You might simply want to pair or group them, or some students might choose to present their book to everyone.  

Provide some light snacks if possible to give it a party atmosphere and pass out the author certificates to each child for his/her hard work.

You can download this free writing unit of study here:

Writing Download

As with all of our resources, The Curriculum Corner creates these for free classroom use. Our products may not be sold. You may print and copy for your personal classroom use. These are also great for home school families!

You may not modify and resell in any form. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Christine E.

Saturday 8th of May 2021

Thank you so much for this resource and the many pages that I can use in my homeschooling. It is exactly what I've been looking for to help me get my kids to write about our animal units! You are doing a great job, keep up the amazing work you do. I appreciate the hard work you put into putting these together.

Planning a Dynamic Writing Workshop - The Curriculum Corner 123

Saturday 14th of July 2018

[…] Animal Research […]

Editable Writing Management Binder - The Curriculum Corner 123

Friday 3rd of March 2017

[…] Writing Unit of Study: Animal Research […]

162 Best Animal Research Topics To Nail Your Paper In 2023

The world is filled with living things. There are some animals that we know about, some that we will discover, and there are many that we might never know about. All our knowledge about animals is mostly dependant on researchers. Well, we are rooting for you to be the next great researcher. Be it zoology, veterinary, or live wild stock, your study needs a research topic. If you’re looking for the best animal research topics to nail this year, we’re here with your help.

Table of Contents

Best Animal Research Topics

We have 162 Animal Research Topics that will help you get the best grades this year.

Physiology of Animals Research Topics

• Description of the knowledge required to work in animal physiology
• Study of animal species with different specialties in the sciences of nature and life
• Life sciences and socioeconomic impacts
• Neurulation appendages birds
• Exercises on gastrulation and neurulation
• Gastrulation amphibians birds
• Fertilization segmentation in the sea species
• Gametogenesis: A Detailed Introduction
• Study of Delimitation: bird appendages
• Particularities of the developmental biology of certain species
• Technical-commercial animal physiology
• Terrestrial and marine ecosystems
• Animal biology and forensic science: Is there a connection?
• Animal Biology Biotechnology and molecules of interest regarding food and industry
• The interest in biology in the diagnosis of animal and plant diseases
• Toxicology and environmental health concerns in animal physiology
• Animal and plant production
• Fundamentals of animal physiology research and analysis
• Behavior and evolution Genetics of behavior in animals
• Adaptation and evolution of behavior
• Comparative studies of general ecology, zoology, and animal physiology
• Study of animals about the conditions prevailing in their immediate environment
• Endocrine and neuroendocrine systems in animals
• Studying the nervous systems in birds
• Genitals and reproductive physiology of birds
• Understanding of the anatomical and functional particularities of invertebrates
• Biology and physiology of invertebrates
• Reconstruction of phylogenetic trees
• Morpho-anatomical arguments and the importance of fossils
• Argued classification of animals
• Study of the evolution of living organisms by making updates on recent advances in Animalia
• Phylogeny and animal evolution
• Principles of echolocation in the bats
• Possible evolution of the increase in complexity of the primitive nervous system
• The nervous system of the insect
• Circulation in animal physiology
• Animals without a differentiated circulatory system
• Water and mineral balance in animals
• Thermoregulation in animals
• Musculoskeletal system in animals
• Study of animal blood
• Biological rhythms of animals
• Skin and teguments of mammals
• Animal nutrition and metabolism
• Hormones and endocrine system of animals
• Emerging organic pollutants
• Mechanisms of toxicity in animals
• Animal physiology in animals from temperate regions
• Genetic correlations between animal species
• Animal communities, forest ecology, and forest birds
• Wildlife-habitat modeling

Looking for research topics in general? Read 402  General Research Paper Topics

Animal Research Topics For Student

• Impact of the agricultural raw materials crisis on the marketing of livestock feed
• Analysis of the competitiveness of poultry produced in the USA
• Animal cruelty in USA and European countries
• Seroprevalence of neosporosis in cattle herds
• The peri-urban dairy sector
• Effect of the liberalization of the veterinary profession on the vaccination coverage of livestock
• Why do people kill animals? The psyche behind animal cruelty
• Evaluation of the growth performance of three sheep breeds
• Study on the protection of terrestrial ecosystems
• Ecology of African dung beetles
• Effects of road infrastructure on wildlife in developing countries
• Analysis of the consequences of climate change related to pastoral livestock
• Strategies for management in the animal feed sector
• The feeding behavior of mosquitoes
• Bee learning and memory
• Immediate response to the animal cruelty
• Study of mass migration of land birds over the ocean
• A study of crocodile evolution
• The cockroach escape system
• The resistance of cockroaches against radiation: Myth or fact?
• Temperature regulation in the honey bee swarm
• Irresponsible dog breeding can often lead to an excess of stray dogs and animal cruelty
• Reliable communication signals in birds

Also see:  How to Write an 8 Page Research Paper ?

Animal Research Topics For University

• Color patterns of moths and moths
• Mimicry in the sexual signals of fireflies
• Ecophysiology of the garter snake
• Memory, dreams regarding cat neurology
• Spatiotemporal variation in the composition of animal communities
• Detection of prey in the sand scorpion
• Internal rhythms in bird migration
• Genealogy: Giant Panda
• Animal dissection: Severe type of animal cruelty and a huge blow to animal rights
• Cuckoo coevolution and patterns
• Use of plant extracts from Amazonian plants for the design of integrated pest management
• Research on flying field bug
• The usefulness of mosquitoes in biological control serves to isolate viruses
• Habitat use by the Mediterranean Ant
• Genetic structure of the  African golden wolf  based on its habitat
• Birds body odor on their interaction with mosquitoes and parasites
• The role of ecology in the evolution of coloration in owls
• The invasion of the red swamp crayfish
• Molecular taxonomy and biogeography of caprellids
• Bats of Mexico and United States
• What can animal rights NGOs do in case of animal cruelty during animal testing initiatives?

Or you can try 297 High School Research Paper Topics to Top The Class

Controversial Animal Research Topics

• Is it okay to adopt an animal for experimentation?
• The authorization procedures on animals for scientific experiments
• The objective of total elimination of animal testing
• Are there concrete examples of successful scientific advances resulting from animal experimentation?
• Animal rights for exotic animals: Protection of forests and wildlife
• How can animal rights help the endangered animals
• Animal experimentations are a type of animal cruelty: A detailed analysis
• Animal testing: encouraging the use of alternative methods
• Use of animals for the evaluation of chemical substances
• Holding seminars on the protection of animals
• Measures to take against animal cruelty
• Scientific research on marine life
• Scientific experiments on animals for medical research
• Experimentation on great apes
• Toxicological tests and other safety studies on chemical substances
• Why isn’t research done directly on humans rather than animals?
• Are animals necessary to approve new drugs and new medical technologies?
• Are the results of animal experiments transferable to humans?
• Humans are not animals, which is why animal research is not effective
• What medical advances have been made possible by animal testing?
• Animals never leave laboratories alive
• Scientific interest does not motivate the use of animal research
• Animal research is torture 
• How can a layperson work against the animal testing?

Every crime is a controversy too, right? Here are some juicy  Criminal Justice Research Paper Topics  as well.

Animal Research Topics: Animal Rights

• Growing awareness of the animal suffering generated by these experiments
• What are the alternatives to animal testing?
• Who takes care of animal welfare?
• Major global organizations working for animal rights
• Animal rights in developing countries
• International animal rights standards to work against animal cruelty
• Animal cruelty in developing countries
• What can a layperson do when seeing animal cruelty
• Role of society in the prevention of animal cruelty
• Animal welfare and animal rights: measures taken against animal cruelty in developing countries
• Animal cruelty in the name of science
• How can we raise a better, empathetic and warm-hearted children to put a stop to animal cruelty
• Ethical animal testing methods with safety
• Are efforts being made to reduce the number of animals used?
• The welfare of donkeys and their socioeconomic roles in the subcontinent
• Animal cruelty and superstitious conceptions of dogs, cats, and donkeys in subcontinent
• Efforts made by international organizations against the tragedy of animal cruelty
• International organizations working for animal welfare
• Animal abuse: What are the immediate measures to take when we see animal cruelty
• Efforts to stop animal abuse in South Asian Countries
• Animal abuse in the name of biomedical research

Talking about social causes, let’s have a look at social work topics too: 206  Social Work Research Topics

Interesting Animal Research Topics

• The urbanization process and its effect on the dispersal of birds:
• Patterns of diversification in Neotropical amphibians
• Interactions between non-native parrot species
• Impact of landscape anthropization dynamics and wild birds’ health
• Habitat-driven diversification in small mammals
• Seasonal fluctuations and life cycles of amphipods
• Animal cruelty in African countries
• Evolution of the environmental niche of amphibians
• Biological studies on Louisiana crawfish
• Biological studies on Pink bollworm
• Biological studies on snails
• Biological studies on Bush Crickets
• Biological studies on Mountain Gorillas
• Biological studies on piranha
• Consequences of mosquito feeding
• Birds as bioindicators of environmental health
• Biological studies on victoria crowned pigeon
• Biological studies on black rhinoceros
• Biological studies on European spider
• Biological studies on dumbo octopus
• Biological studies on markhor
• Study of genetic and demographic variation in amphibian populations
• Ecology and population dynamics of the blackberry turtle
• Small-scale population differentiation in ecological and evolutionary mechanisms
• Challenges in vulture conservation

Also interesting: 232  Chemistry Research Topics  To Make Your Neurochemicals Dance

Submarine Animals Research Topics

• The physiology behind the luminous fish
• A study of Fish population dynamics
• Study of insects on the surface of the water
• Structure and function of schools of fish
• Physiological ecology of whales and dolphins
• Form and function in fish locomotion
• Why do whales and dolphins jump?
• Impact of Noise on Early Development and Hearing in Zebrafish
• Animal cruelty against marine life on the hand of fishermen

Read More:  Accounting Research Topics

Animal Biology Research Topics

• Systematic and zoogeographical study of the ocellated lizards
• Morphological study of neuro histogenesis in the diencephalon of the chick embryo
• Anatomical study of three species of Nudibranch
• The adaptive strategy of two species of lagomorphs
• The Black vulture: population, general biology, and interactions with other birds
• Ocellated lizards: their phylogeny and taxonomy
• Studies on the behavior of ocellated lizards in captivity
• Comparative studies of the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards
• The taxonomic and phylogenetic implications of ocellated lizards
• Research on the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards in their natural environment
• Comparative studies of the egg-laying and egg-hatching methods of ocellated lizards in different countries
• Studies on the ecology and behavior of ocellated lizards in their natural environment in the light of evolutionary and ecological insights

Animal research topics are not hard to find for you anymore. As you have already read a load of them. You can use any of them and ace your research paper, and you don’t even need to ask permission. If you are looking for a research paper writing service , be it animal research, medical research, or any sort of research, you can contact us 24/7.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

Assoc Prof in UW ECE

Why can animals outrun robots.

It is obvious that animals outperform robots at running – really, any legged locomotion task involving significant momentum. But what causes this performance gap? Could it be better actuators? sensors? “compute”-ors? The answer to this question is important for determining the most fruitful lines of research for roboticists interested in closing the performance gap. This observation motivated my co-authors and I to write a review paper that definitively answers the question .

Spoiler: it’s not the parts that gives animals the advantage – it must be something about how the parts assemble into the whole.

For historical accuracy, I should point out that the observation initially motivated two of the co-authors to take up the challenge: Tom Libby and Max Donelan . Max was on sabbatical in Berkeley in 2014, so he had time to think big thoughts. Tom was a PhD student and Director of the CiBER center at the time, so he had the motivation to go after weighty problems. These two intellectual heavyweights set themselves on the monumental task of systematically comparing biological and engineering technologies at the level of every individual component but also subsystem and whole-system levels across scales spanning ants and cockroaches to cheetahs and elephants. The original vision was to create a “datasheet” containing a comprehensive comparison of every known metric – plus definitions of new, better metrics and corresponding experiments to characterize them in biomechanical and electromechanical locomotors.

Aaaand .. it went about as well as could be expected.

Which is to say: it went sloooowly. And dauntingly. Overwhelmingly humblingly challengingly. Ego-crushing panic-inducing existentially dreadfully.

That may be overstating the sitch a lil bit. I’m definitely projecting more than a lil, as those were the feels I personally felt once I weaseled my way into the project years later. But you get the idea: it was a big project that required a tremendous amount from its workers.

But back to my weaseling. I was lucky enough to recruit Tom as a postdoc through a (now sadly defunct) Institute for Neuroengineering (called “UWIN” :) in 2017. The “AvM” project (“animals v. machines”) was still in the mix, but so were a half dozen other wonderfullly fascinating projects – both old and new – that were on his plate. In the intervening years, the AvM project scope had been dialed back to “merely” a mega-review, rather than a mega-review-plus-half-dozen-PhD-theses as originally conceived. But it was still too much ground for a pair of researchers to cover.

To put a finer point on it, by this time the scope had been dialed down to focus on 5 subsystems deemed critical for running: power , frame , sensing , actuation , and control . So all that was needed was expertise in5 different Departments: energy systems, material science, sensory neuroscience, kinesiology / biomechanics, and control theory. I genuinely believe Tom has such astonishing breadth that he could have covered all this ground himself. But doing so to the degree of rigor sought by the team would require review of hundreds of papers to convince onesself that you weren’t missing some critical detail that would invalidate the paper’s whole premise.

Observing Tom grapple with all this from the perspective of a postdoc ( co- )advisor, I made the very sage and selfless observation that what they were missing was … me! In particular, I felt I could offer two key benefits: I could handle the control subsystem, and I could lower their standards help enforce a reasonable project scope and timeline.

Given that this was in 2019 and you, dear reader, are being regaled with this delightful tale in or after the year 2024, I clearly delivered on no more than half of my promises.

I think my real contribution to the project occured two years of frustrated false starts later when I declared that what we were really missing was … more experts! I had actually made this suggestion many times before. In fact, I’d suggested it to Tom before I joined the project, which is in all likelihood the only reason I have the privilege of writing this today. But – to my recollection – Max resisted bringing even more people in for the longest time . (Probably because he regretted the mistake he and Tom already made with bringing in someone new …)

But after Max became the BPK Chair, he had to acknowledge that something needed to change if we were ever to release this monster into the world. So after a little deliberation we agreed that what was missing was … our friends! We had decided that assigning one expert to each subsystem would be most effective. Between the three of us, Max had power covered, Tom could handily handle actuation , and I could muddle through control . So we were missing frame and sensing . Fortunately for us, our numero uno choices for each subsystem readily agreed to join the project, so we now had Kaushik Jayaram on frame and Simon Sponberg on sensing . An interesting historical note is that we all had a strong connection to the biomechanics group at Berkeley, and in particular with Bob Full , a towering figure in the integrative study of movement: Bob was Max’s sabbatical host, the founder of the center Tom directed, the PhD advisor to Kaushik and Simon, and a cherished mentor and collaborator to me. This project is built on Bob’s shoulders.

With this fresh injection of energy and renewed purpose, we made rapid progress … until we didn’t. Although we’d significantly decreased the workload on each of us individually, the mammoth scope of the endeavor continued to conflict with our many other obligations. It was just too hard to squeeze in thinking such big thoughts and making such sweeping claims among teaching, advising, grantwriting, service, and life.

It’s at this point where the story gets a lot less interesting and therefore quickly wraps up. The project had lain dormant for many months when I received an email notice about a Special Issue on Legged Locomotion in Science Robotics with a deadline 6 weeks out. We’d been targeting SciRob since getting positive feedback on a pre-submission inquiry 5 years prior (lol). And putting these ideas into a Special Issue that the community would be more likely to see was an opportunity we couldn’t afford to miss. I happened to have the good fortune of being on sabbatical at that moment, so I had the time in addition to the motivation to close . So we made it happen.

It’s amazing what a time constraint can do :)

It’s also amazing what a space constraint can do: the original conception was a 10,000 word, 200 cite monolith, but Science Robotics advises a svelte 5,000 words and 75 cites. Not wanting to antagonize the editor or reviewers, we brought our S-tier pithiness to the problem. I regard brevity as my gift, so it was a delightful challenge to boil the ideas down to their bones and serve up only the delicious marrow from with- .. this analogy is getting a little thin and macabre, so let’s move on …

I want to talk a bit informally about the ideas in the paper and give context for some of the decisions and considerations that went into the final product. I’ll work through the sections in order.

When considering System Performance, the original conception was to commit to a specific set of metrics and quantify performance of a suite of robot and animal runners – to create a “datasheet” of sorts that the community could continue to build out over the years. However, there two major problems with this idea: one scientific, and one sociological.

The scientific challenge is that the metrics we have for concepts like range , agility , and robustness are inadequate to capture what seems intuitively clear. One grand idea we tossed around was the conjecture that any metric for these concepts could be computed from the reachable set , that is, the set of states that can be achieved by a control system through an admissible input signal in a given distribution of environments and a given parameterization of designs. We ultimately abandoned mentioning this idea because, although potentially interesting, there’s no currently practical way to compute this set (and Bellman tells us there can’t be in general).

The sociological challenge is that we did not want to dunk on our colleagues, or get into endless debates about why we chose the specific metric we did and why their robot did so poorly with respect to it. We figured that no reasonable person would challenge the assertion that animals outperform robots in their range, agility, and robustness (however you define these terms) – what would surely be controversial is how existing robots stack up relative to one another. So we opted for the qualitative / coarsely-quantized comparison in the first Figure.

Regarding the central conclusion, that the difference in performance of parts does not explain the difference in performance of wholes, there are some caveats.

If you were building a cyborg to run as far as possible completely power autonomous, using metabolism would give an order-of-magnitude advantage in range over gas power (nearly two orders-of-magnitude w.r.t. batteries). So along that solitary dimension, defined in that specific way, the difference in the part does explain the difference in the whole. But as soon as you allow that there may be gas stations or electrical outlets along the way, this advantage disappears.

The biological distribution of sensors throughout a body is quite compelling from an agility and robustness perspective: richly sensing terrain or other interactions with the environment could be a real boon for those dimensions of performance. But the “simulated cyborg” thought experiment from the Discussion convinces us that, even in the presence of perfect state information about the locomotor and environment, we still lack the tools to integrate that information to make a high-performing runner.

Finally, there are a couple of points to make about biological and engineered controllers. To make the most apples-to-apples comparison, we looked at natural and artificial spiking neural networks. Of course robot controllers can be implemented using conventional von Neumann architectures. But there are no proof-of-concept high-performing controllers in that paradigm to compare to those in animals, and the comparison is difficult to make at a component level: although we can pack upwards of hundreds of billions of transistors into a chip (comparable to the number of neurons in the human brain), it seems clear that a single transistor has less computational power than an individual neuron, and we are not aware of any rigorous attempt to quantify their relative computational power. Even the comparison between natural and artificial spiking neural networks is probably unfair in the sense that ANN dynamics are vastly simpler (e.g. piecewise-linear) than their biological counterparts (NNN?). But it’s the best comparison we can make at present, and including these factors would only tip the outcome even further in biology’s favor.

HOWever, even allowing that brains can, in principle, implement vastly more complex transformations than chips (at any scale – cockroaches have more neurons and synapses than the biggest neural ICs), it is important to remember that the brain is doing a whole lot more than locomotion. I keep returning to the example we cite in the paper (citation 90) of a parasitic wasp that lyses more than 7000 of its approximately 7400 neurons during pupation. The upshot is that there are autonomous flyers that can identify and infect hosts using fewer than 400 neurons !!! If you gave me 400 neurons, I think I’d struggle to invert a pendulum ..

My takeaway from this example is that we could be doing a lot more (robust and agile behavior) with a lot less (computational power) if only (a) we had the right bodies and (b) we knew what to do with them.

The Discussion covers a lot of ground that doesn’t need to be retrod here. But there is one point I want to dwell on a bit more, because I personally find it very interesting and compelling: the need for better metrics. This problem came up a few paragraphs ago when I discussed the challenge in defining what we mean by “agility” and “robustness”. One way to view the results of our paper is that we are focusing on the wrong metrics when we evaluate performance at the subsystem level, as these are evidently not predictive of system performance. What’s needed are metrics for the integration of multiple components or subsystems – and these metrics must capture something about the whole-system behavior we seek. The reason good metrics could be so powerful is that the endeavor of engineering is driven by “specs”, i.e. performance criteria. Once you tell me how my artifact is going to be evaluated, I can bring the powerful machinery of prototyping, optimization, learning, et al. to bear on squeezing that metric for everything it’s got. In the absence of metrics, engineering becomes art.

As a final note for the history books, I want to acknowledge where this paper fits in my intellectual and academic trajectory. I got my start in research in the summer before my first year of undergrad working with Eric Klavins , who began his career in robotics before switching to synbio. In fact, Eric got his PhD with a luminary in legged robotics, Dan Koditschek , and it was through this connection (certainly not merit) that I had the tremendous good fortune to do an REU at UPenn the summer after my sophomore year. The REU was my first exposure to the interdisciplinary world of legged locomotion, and I was completely enraptured. (Actually, for historical accuracy, I have to acknowledge that my very first exposure to this world was as a high school student when I was part of the inaugural cohort of students at the Summer Institute for Mathematics at the University of Washington , where the inimitable Tom Daniel gave an afternoon lecture on biolocomotion that included a very memorable demo on passive dynamic walking . So I suppose I was primed to become enraptured.)

Biolocomotion was the driver behind my applications to grad school and fellowships, and legged locomotion in particular ended up as the focus of my PhD thesis . My postdoc took me in a completely new direction – human-in-the-loop control – so when I started my faculty position there were two main areas of focus. Over time, legged locomotion has shrunk from the dominant theme at the beginning to now, where I have only one PhD student in this area, and they will graduate in six months. So this review represents the closure of a major chapter in my career – a very satisfying closure to be sure, but bittersweet nonetheless.

With that, I’ll stop – this commentary has already run almost half as many words as you’ll find in the paper :)