animal testing for medical research uk

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Introduction

Throughout history, animals have been the subject of experimentation to improve our understanding of anatomy and pathology ( 1 ). However, animal testing only became significant in the twentieth century ( 2 ).

Animal experiments are used extensively when developing new medicines and for testing the safety of certain products. Recently, the use of animals for biomedical research has been severely criticized by animal rights and protection groups. Similarly, many nations have established laws to make the practice of animal testing more humane. There are two positions in animal testing. One is that animal testing is acceptable if suffering is minimized and there are human benefits that could not have been achieved using any other means ( 3 ). The second position considers animal testing unacceptable because it causes suffering, and the benefits to human beings are either not proven or could be obtained using other methods.

As such, animal testing is a highly controversial subject that often elicits conflicting emotions from supporters and critics alike. It is also a divisive subject as some people support animal testing only in certain cases and oppose its use in other areas. For example, scientists note that significant medical breakthroughs have only been made possible through drug testing on animals. To them and other like-minded people, such achievements are reason enough to keep using animals in the lab ( 4 ). Animal tests determine if experimental drugs are effective or ineffective on human beings. Eventually, the medicine is tried out on a small group of humans through clinical trials before declaring the medicine safe to use.

Badyal and DesaI ( 5 ) note that these treatments are as beneficial to humans as they are to animals, since some human diseases are found in animals too. Therefore, some who support animal testing only advocate its use for medical (but not cosmetics) purposes, arguing that the advancement in human medicine may lead to advancement in animal medicine.

While a significant population completely disapproves of animal testing, a faction of people only disagrees with the use of animals for cosmetics testing, arguing that it is despicable and cruel to use animal life merely so that humans can advance their beauty technology. The concern extends to animals used for science, and people want animal suffering to be minimized ( 6 ). The discovery of new drugs has for a long time been based on a number of interactions among aspects such as data collected from patients, tissues, organs or cell culture and varied animal species ( 7 ). Those who oppose the use of animal testing for cosmetics believe it is outrageous and cruel to use animal life for the simple reason of making humans look better, and that the benefits to human beings do not validate the harms done to animals ( 7 ).

For such reasons, the use of animals for testing cosmetics products has been banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Union since 2013 ( 8 ). However, other countries like China and the United States of America still continue with the practice ( 9 ). Linzey adds that about 50 - 100 million animals are used for experiments every year, and that over 1.37 million animals were used for drug experimentation in America in the year 2010 ( 9 ). In the meantime, the number of experiments conducted on animals has declined in Britain but is increasing in other countries. While experiments involving vertebrates are regulated in most countries, experiments on invertebrates are not ( 5 ).

The aim of this study is to examine whether or not animal testing is still useful and necessary in the present time, and whether there are ethical differences between animal testing in medical and cosmetics fields. We use the UK as our case study and provide alternatives that can be recommended in place of animal testing.

This review was based on a cross-sectional survey by Clemence and Leaman ( 11 ) that analysed the importance of animal testing from two different aspects: medicine and cosmetics. The population consisted of individuals residing in the UK, and the sample size was 987 (= 0.03). The research included 496 men and 491 women. The report compared public views with the responses from a similar study in 2014 that had 969 participants (477 men and 492 women). The inclusion criteria were based on numerous strata such as gender, social grade definitions (i.e., professionals such as doctors and architects, people with responsible jobs such as professors, middle rank public servants such as nurses and clerics, skilled manual workers, etc.), respondents’ working status (fulltime, part-time, not working), ethnicity (white, non-white), and educational background. This report measured public perception on whether it is ethical to use animal testing for medical or cosmetics purposes. Participants were required to state whether they found it acceptable, mostly unacceptable, unacceptable, or were undecided. Consequently, the same participants were also tasked to indicate whether they saw conducting animal testing for scientific experimentation as completely necessary, somewhat necessary, not very necessary, completely unnecessary, or they did not know.

The study also utilized data from the UK Home Office ( 12 ) to determine which animals were most frequently used for medical and cosmetics research around the world. This report also provided crucial information as to the purposes of animal testing, for instance for medical research, biological testing, regulatory testing, etc.

According to the UK Home Office ( 12 ), in the year 2016, 48.6% of the animal tests in medical research were conducted for genetically oriented studies. Moreover, 28.5% of the medical research involving animal testing was for basic biological research, 13.5% was for regulatory

testing, 8.6% was for translating research from animals to humans, and 0.8% for other trainings. This is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Purposes of Animal Testing in Medicine

Data from the UK Home Office ( 10 ) indicates that the most commonly used animals for medical and cosmetics research are mice and rabbits (72.8%), fish (13.6%), rats (6.3%), birds (3.9%) and other animal species representing 3.4% of the total test animal population, as indicated in Figure 2 below.

Types of Animals Used in Testing

A published report ( 12 ) indicated that 17% of the sampled group viewed animal testing for medical research as ‘mostly unacceptable’ if there were no alternative, 17% as ‘not acceptable’, and 65% as ‘acceptable’. This was in stark contrast with testing for cosmetics purposes, to which an overwhelming 80% of the participants responded as ‘unacceptable’. The summary of the results is provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below.

Animal Testing for Medical Research

Animal Testing for Cosmetics Research

 In the same study ( 12 ), the participants were asked about the necessity of conducting scientific experiments on animals, which 38% of the respondents viewed as ‘completely necessary’, 23% as ‘somewhat necessary’, 20% as ‘not very necessary’, and 16% as ‘completely unnecessary’. The results are summarized in Figure 5 below.

Necessity of Conducting Scientific Experiments on Animals

The application of these methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetics was the most detested as stated by about 80% of the people who were interviewed during the investigation. The sensitivity to human life, on the other hand, reduces the strictness towards utilization of animals to find anti-viruses and antibiotics for various diseases.

The outcome portrays the essentiality of using animals to determine materials that would help the population to live healthily ( 13 ). However, in the past few decades, the number of animals used for testing drugs has been steadily decreasing ( 14 ).

The data indicates that most of the medical research processes involving animal testing emanate from genetically oriented studies, which constitute 48.6% of the medical research animal testing. Experimentation on human genetics presents various legal and ethical challenges to medical and biological researchers, alongside problems in creating experimental procedures using human test subjects. These problems occur partially due to the fact that the experimentation processes involved in these types of studies often lead to extensive gene and physiological damages to the test subjects. Such experiments typically involve deliberate presentation of diseases and other gene modifications to the test subjects, usually requiring the euthanizing of the involved subjects ( 15 ). The animal testing experimentations involving genetic processes include studies in gene modification and examine diseases believed to hold genetic components, such as cancer and diabetes ( 16 ). These experimentation processes typically involve some sort of gene modification that can simulate the presentation of genetically based disorders manifested in human beings to allow researchers to better understand those disorders.

The data also indicate that another major application of animal testing in the medical field is in basic research in biological systems and processes, which accounts for 28.5% of the testing categories. This application of animal testing in medical research involves studies in how biological systems function, and the nature and manner of disease transmission in living organisms. The findings accrued through these kinds of studies translate to advancements in the scientific knowledge of human pathology and present opportunities for the derivation and testing of cures, as noted by Festing and Wilkinson ( 17 ).

The findings further present that regulatory testing (13.5%) and animal to human translation research (8.6%) account for significant portions of the application of animal testing in the medical field. The use of animal testing for regulatory testing purposes involves applying new medical findings, procedures and products to animals to see if they meet the thresholds mandated by the medical regulatory bodies. Translation of research findings from animals to humans involves conducting research into the possibility of animal pathogens becoming infectious to humans, and identifying potential ways of applying non-human physiology to the improvement of human health. Other forms of medical and biological trainings and studies that also engage the use of animals in experimentation in the medical field include elements such as basic physiology and pathogen studies, typically conducted in educational institutions.

Animal testing in the field of cosmetics generally involves the use of animal subjects in testing new cosmetics products and ingredients. The practice essentially involves the application or forced ingestion or injection of these substances to various parts of test animals to examine their toxicity, irritation of the eyes and/or skin, ultraviolet light-triggered toxicity, and their potential for causing unwanted gene mutations ( 18 ).

The use of animal testing in the field of cosmetics research and production presents an unethical viewpoint since the findings do not advance human health, and the practice leads to the torture and killing of animals. The Humane Society ( 18 ) also notes that at the conclusion of the experimentation, the animals are usually killed through methods such as decapitation, neck twisting and asphyxiation, often without pain relief.

With regard to the ethical principles of animal testing in both fields, a convincing argument should first be presented to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This is to justify the need for a researcher to conduct animal studies, and to ensure that the research is conducted using the smallest possible number of animals and with minimal suffering. Additionally, Naderi et al. ( 19 ) noted an increased level of legislation on the matter of animal testing, with researchers being required to submit comprehensive proposals to the IACUC to demonstrate procedural compliance with the guiding principles of the organization before conducting animal tests. Furthermore, Holden ( 20 ) highlighted the fact that researchers need to justify to review and ethics committees the use of mice rather than other alternatives in experiments. These issues indicate that researchers should look for alternatives to animal testing before proceeding with animal trials.

The issue then remains on the nature and availability of alternatives to animal testing in the medical research field. Researchers have undertaken measures to introduce some levels of such alternatives in medical studies. The accrued data indicate that a significant number of people agree with animal testing for medical research, especially when compared to those who agree with animal testing for cosmetics purposes. The data obtained from the studies indicate a slow but perceptible shift in the public opinions regarding animal testing for medical research purposes. People are increasingly finding it unacceptable to use animal test subjects even in medical research. However, the majority of the sampled people believed that medical testing procedures should use animal test subjects, but only when there is no other alternative. This indicates that people view animal testing for medical research as ethical, but under certain conditions.

The use of animals in research is still relevant because the process is useful in veterinary medicine as it helps the students understand the physiology and anatomy and improves surgical skills ( 21 ). The study by Badyal and Desai ( 5 ) supports this perception by highlighting the fact that animal use in laboratory investigation will make new discoveries possible. However, researchers should apply ethical concepts to reduce the amount of pain and unnecessary procedures for the animals. Moreover, animal testing to develop new drugs will continue to protect the future existence of humanity. Cheluvappa, et al. ( 22 ) reiterate that animal experimentation will remain essential to testing future medicine because it helps scientists understand the changes of behaviour, embryology and genetics through dissections that are conducted on the genetically produced animals.

Animals play an important role in testing human drugs as they have a large number of medical reactions similar to those of human beings. Specifically, animals such as dogs, mice and rabbits have an identical DNA that cannot be replicated through artificial models. Public concern for the increasing use of animals in terms of ethics and safety provokes anxiety among the population. Conversely, these uncertainties and unavailability of trustable alternatives show the importance of using animals in medical research as the scientists aim to protect the human race ( 23 ).

However, the use of animals to test cosmetics is highly limited due to the availability of alternative sources. For instance, The Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association (LAVA) claims that the UK government prohibits any individual from using animals to determine the suitability of cosmetics to the human body ( 13 , 24 ). In its circular, The European Union states that they have succeeded in developing alternative measures that cosmetics firms can apply to test their products without using laboratory animals ( 25 ).

Recommendations: Alternatives to Animal Testing

To improve business ethics in cosmetics companies, it is necessary for alternatives to be integrated instead of animals. Companies can employ assessment of scientific barriers to find replacements for animal test subjects and to procure the knowledge of correctly using animals for medical and cosmetics tests. Sophisticated tests on human cells or tissues, computer-modelling techniques, and experiments on people who volunteer are some measures that can limit acts of animal cruelty by cosmetics companies. Companies need to integrate tests that minimize involvement of animals in order to limit the possibility of animal cruelty, and consequently improve their business ethics. Some of the recommended alternatives are listed here.

Computer Simulation

The concept was developed by Denis Noble, and the system is currently enrolled in clinical settings. These simulations are used to test heart replacements, and are also applied to explore human behavior. Various scholars provide that this model is more accurate than animal experiments because it uses human data to analyse diseases and make predictions ( 26 ).

Stem cells are proper alternatives to the in vitro systems of disease testing and toxin evaluations ( 27 ). The experiments involve evaluation of embryonic stem cells that can be grown in Petri dishes. The Petri dishes can be placed in the cells, and after that the resulting components are placed under evaluation to help in the discovery of new medications. Stem cells are essential because they can differentiate into human tissues and make it possible to screen the suspected diseases ( 26 ).

These materials are majorly utilized in the cosmetics industry to minimize the number of animals used to test the level of toxicity in a product. Significantly, investigations showed that human tissues developed in laboratories can be used to assess the allergic responses to the available chemicals ( 28 ). These results can then be analysed by comparing reactions, and a bio signature of genes is used to make appropriate interventions.

Notably, scientists can take high-resolution pictures of human tissues, which are then analyzed with the help of various computer systems. The advantage of this model is characterized by its ability to customize the parts of the organism under consideration. Moreover, 3D images also develop prototype designs and materials that can be used to investigate the existing and future ailments ( 29 ).

This study indicates that it is justifiable to use animals in experimentations only when there are no alternatives, and the tests have significant benefits to humans. Many researchers are working towards finding options that will help eliminate the use of animals for medical and cosmetics tests. The different natures of tests conducted on animals in the fields of medicine and cosmetics tend to have clear negative implications. For such reasons, it is imperative for organizations to develop practices that endorse business ethics. Although animal tests are ideal in establishing whether drugs can be effective in treating humans for various ailments, entities that conduct these tests need to be educated about the gravity of the situation. Animals have been extremely useful in conducting genetic studies and for biological systems investigations. However, a comparison between animal tests in medicine and cosmetics reveals that their benefits in the field of medicine outweigh those in cosmetics. Therefore, animals are essential contributors to scientific experiments that are affiliated with the medical industry. The effects that medical products may have on humans make it ethical to carry out the tests on animals first.

After analysing the arguments of both the supporters and opponents involved in the controversial subject of animal testing, it is difficult to determine which direction is right or wrong. However, the agreement is that animal suffering be minimized at all costs. This research concludes that cosmetics companies should adhere to the established laws and principles against the use and abuse of animals in tests and should seek alternative methods to test their products.

Acknowledgements

Citation to this article:

Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019; 12: 15.

Conflict of Interests

Authors declare having no conflict of interest.

Research involving animals

The Medical Research Council (MRC) considers the use of animals to be necessary in many areas of biomedical research in order to better understand the living body and what goes wrong in disease. Animal research is essential in the development of safe and effective ways of preventing or treating diseases.

All our animal research is conducted in accordance with UK law and ethically approved by an independent review board. MRC researchers are expected to follow the highest standards of animal welfare .

Replacement, refinement and reduction (3Rs)

The principles and examples of the 3Rs in practice

Facts and figures

The number of procedures carried out as part of research programmes in MRC-owned establishments in 2021

Guidance, resources and further information

Various sets of guidance concerning the use of animals in research

Medical breakthroughs underpinned by animal research

Recent examples of lifesaving treatments that were developed thanks to animal research

Regulation and policy

The key regulations and policies involved in animal research

Supporting animal welfare

What we expect from organisations using animals in their research

Why we use animals

Our criteria for funding the use of animals in research

Sex in experimental design

MRC requires both sexes to be used in the experimental design of grant applications involving animals, and human and animal tissues and cells

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

UK regulations on research using animals

Animal research in the UK is strictly regulated.

The laws on research using animals are set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, or ‘ASPA’.

The Home Office enforces the laws, including regulations on housing, environment, welfare, care, and health.

Permission to work with animals is granted by the Home Office by licence only under very specific conditions. The Home Office has an inspection system to ensure that rules are not violated.

The Home Office provides information about the regulations governing research using animals: see the links on the right. 

• Home Office information on research and testing using animals
• Home Office guidance on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act

• Our Stance on Animal Testing

Humanimal Trust seeks to educate people about One Medicine and create a world where all humans and animals benefit equally from medical progress and ultimately not at the expense of an animal’s life.

Humanimal Trust champions the potential benefit of the funding of collaborative studies treating naturally-occurring disease in humans and animals at the same time. For example, this might involve setting up an ethically well-designed clinical trial of a promising treatment in dogs who have prostate or bone cancer which could pave the way for a human clinical trial, rather than injecting a healthy animal with the cancer in order to test a novel therapy for diseased human patients.

Humanimal Trust also advocates for reciprocity between human and animal medicine, so that medical advances for human patients are available equitably and at the same time for animal patients affected by the same diseases. For example, if a treatment for prostate or bone cancer is developed in an animal, animals affected by these cancers should have immediate access to this treatment alongside humans. Currently, this is not the case for most drugs or implants because it costs money to licence the drugs for use in animal patients, even if that same species has been injected with cancer for the experiment that gave rise to the human treatment in the first place.

We believe that the concept of One Medicine will, jointly with non-animal alternatives, reduce the dependency on experimental animal testing until it can become obsolete.  Where the use of experimental animal models is mandated by current regulations, such research must adhere strictly to the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement.

Humanimal Trust will not fund research that takes an animal's life through experiments. However, collaborating with other organisations and beginning to work to evoke change from within the system, is the only sensible option in the current regulatory and governance environment.  

We advocate significant investment in the use of alternatives to animal testing and the sharing of knowledge between human and veterinary medicine. 

We believe One Medicine can save time, money and ultimately, lives.

The World We Want to See in the Future…

• Human and animal health have demonstrably improved as a result of One Medicine.
• One Medicine is widely understood and embraced.
• Collaboration between human and animal medicine is the norm.
• There is sufficient funding and robust public policy to support collaboration between human and animal medicine.
• There is no scientific need and no legal requirement for laboratory animal testing.

If you agree and want to help us to make animal testing obsolete by supporting its replacement, reduction and refinement through collaboration and reciprocity, you can add your voice to the growing global community calling for sustainable and equal medical progress - but not at the expense of an animal's life.

Sign the Humanimal Pledge for One Medicine today.

Sign the Pledge

Sign up to email updates

© 2018 The Humanimal Trust

Charity Website Design by Oyster Marketing

• Meet Our Science Committee
• Staff and Volunteer Vacancies
• Annual Reports & Accounts
• Impact Reports
• Infection Control and Antimicrobial Resistance
• Bone and Joint Disease
• Brain and Spine Disease
• Regenerative Medicine
• Humanimal Trust Current Research Funding Calls
• Supporting research with the potential to help children and animals
• Investigating the feasibility of animal assisted intervention in a children’s clinical setting
• Understanding how osteosarcoma spreads
• Developing liquid cancer biopsies for canine patients - Reciprocity in action
• Bacteriophages as an alternative to antibiotics
• Oncolytic viro-therapy as a cancer treatment
• Emotional Wellness Support for Young People - Rest Easy Method
• Activities for Early Years, Key Stages 1 and 2
• Creative Awards - Information and Resources
• Creative Awards 2023 - The Results!
• #ICARE Campaign
• Champion Program
• Leave a legacy
• Virtual Memory Garden
• Create a Tribute Page
• Make a donation in memory
• One Lottery for One Medicine
• Donate whilst you shop - Easy Fundraising
• Send an E-Card
• Recycle for Humanimal Trust
• Challenge 10 - Celebrate our 10th Birthday!
• Challenge Events
• Paws for a Picnic - Recipes and Activities Ideas
• Fundraising Guide
• Transferring funds raised to us
• Podcast - The Humanimal Connection Series 1
• Podcast -The Humanimal Connection Series 2
• Arrange a group talk
• Work for Good
• Donating Unclaimed Client Funds
• Humanimal Hub
• Collaboration Cafe E-Zine
• One Medicine Symposium 6 May 2021
• One Medicine Day Seminar 6 May 2022
• One Medicine Webinar Series 2023/24
• News Stories
• Upcoming Events
• One Medicine

How we’re working to reduce the use of animal testing in medical research

• Research in action /
• See all research projects /

Explore the people and organisations behind this research, and find related publications by the research team.

Research team

Research areas, research partners, funding partners.

Our teaching is informed by research. Browse undergraduate and postgraduate courses with links to this research project, topic or team.

Find key contacts for enquiries about funding, partnerships, collaborations and doctoral degrees.

By Dr Neil Cross

Reader in Cancer Biology

This case study was included as part of the Research Excellence Framework for 2021:

• Read about our 2021 results
• Download this impact case study (PDF, 226.7KB)
• Browse all our impact case studies

Tuesday 18 December • Viewing time: 1 minute

Every year, vital research is carried out aimed at curing or alleviating the effects of diseases, from cancer to psoriasis. This research saves lives. But it can often cost animals their lives too.

In Great Britain in 2019, 3.4 million procedures were carried out involving live animals. Mice, fish and rats are the most common animals used, making up 93% of tests, but other animals including dogs and monkeys are also used.

Here at Sheffield Hallam University, I have been working with Professor Malcolm Clench, Professor Chistine Le Maitre, Dr Laura Cole and Dr David Smith to find more humane ways of conducting medical research — ways that involve fewer live animals.

By creating lifelike models of human skin and 3D cell cultures, we can test treatments for disease without having to experiment on animals.

Creating lifelike cell cultures

In cancer research, the standard model is to grow tumour cells in a lab and implant them into live mice. Sometimes, the tumours are then passed between a series of mice in order to experiment with different treatments.

Working with the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) — a UK-based scientific organisation dedicated to finding ways to reduce the use of animals in research and testing — we have been creating techniques to test on these tumour cells without having to implant them into live animals.

We have developed a 3D cell culture model, where we grow spheres of cells that mimic the environment in a human body. We can then study what happens to cancer cells in this structure, using a technique called mass spectrometry.

We use a very sensitive imaging instrument that allows us to look at small molecules found in cells (just like you could if you had an incredibly high-powered microscope), while also measuring their exact mass. Using this method allows us to look inside the 3D cell culture to identify different chemicals and work out the behaviour of the cells.

Helping the fight against cancer

These experiments help us create personalised care for cancer patients. Previously, we would implant tumour cells from a patient into 20 mice, treat each mouse differently, and then give the patient the treatment that worked best on the mice.

Using our 3D cell culture, we were able to replicate this research in the lab without using mice. Our results showed that in our structure the cells behaved as predicted — meaning that cancer drugs could be tested to provide the best possible treatment for each individual patient.

A model of human skin

A lot of biomedical research is about seeing what happens when different drugs are introduced to the human body. Another of our projects was a study on psoriasis, a skin condition affecting around 2% of adults in the UK. In order to test different treatments we developed a model of human skin.

Working with Labskin (UK) Ltd , a company based in York, artificial skin was grown in the laboratory and drugs applied to it. By cutting thin sections of the skin, we can use the mass spectrometer to see how far the drug permeates through the skin.

Our technique means we can test any dermatological drug without smearing it onto the back of a mouse, or generating psoriasis in a mouse. Instead of doing lots of experiments on mice, we can use the artificial skin to get an idea of what works and what doesn’t. The artificial skin can also be used to study wound healing and infection.

While animals may still be used at a later stage in the research, this extra lab stage means we use far less than before.

A future with less animal testing

As a scientist, I have been involved in many animal tests during my career. By the very nature of scientific experimentation, some of these tests were poor with no meaningful results. By testing on lab-grown cell cultures and artificial skin first, we can make sure that we only carry forward the most promising drug research into live animals.

As well as the reduction in harm to animals, 3D culture testing is cheaper than animal testing, so we’re making medical research funding more efficient too.

And we’re even working with humane research trusts to develop completely non-animal methods of research — something that allows our vegan students to complete biomedical research without compromising their beliefs.

We have started to offer the work from our projects as a commercial service, allowing the big pharmaceutical companies to carry out research using our techniques. This will improve our collective knowledge about the diseases that affect so many of us humans — while reducing the numbers of animals killed in the process.

Publications 

• MALDI MSI analysis of lipid changes in living skin equivalents in response to emollient creams containing palmitoylethanolamide
• Quantitative Investigation of Terbinafine Hydrochloride Absorption into a Living Skin Equivalent Model by MALDI-MSI
• MALDI-MSI for the analysis of a 3D tissue-engineered psoriatic skin model
• Examination of the skin barrier repair/wound healing process using a living skin equivalent model and matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization-mass spectrometry imaging
• SAHA-induced TRAIL-sensitisation of Multiple Myeloma cells is enhanced in 3D cell culture
• Mass spectrometry imaging of endogenous metabolites in response to doxorubicin in a novel 3D osteosarcoma cell culture model

Professor of Mass Spectrometry, Head of the Biomolecular Sciences Research Centre

Professor of Cell Biology and Tissue Regeneration

Lecturer in Biomedical Science

Reader in Biochemistry, Course Leader MSc Molecular and Cellular Biology and National Teaching Fellow

Related projects

What can your fingerprints reveal about your lifestyle?

Tackling dental anxiety at its roots

Helping breast cancer patients make life-changing decisions

You’ve not added any courses yet.

When you find a course you like select 'Add to course compare' to compare it with up to two other courses.

• OUR STRATEGY
• VISION, MISSION, VALUES
• OUR HISTORY
• MEET OUR STAFF
• OUR TRUSTEES
• SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL
• Our Podcast
• Annual Review
• WORK FOR US
• THE STATISTICS
• Animal testing myths
• ANIMAL REPLACEMENT
• CURRENT PROJECTS
• COMPLETED PROJECTS
• PILOT STUDY GRANTS
• COMPLETED PILOT GRANTS
• Success stories
• SUMMER STUDENT PROGRAMME
• Visit our Shop
• Play our weekly Lottery
• FUNDRAISE for us
• SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
• EVERYDAY WAYS
• LEAVE A LEGACY
• DONATE YOUR BODY TO RESEARCH
• OUR FUNDRAISING PROMISE
• Donate Cryptocurrency
• LATEST NEWS
• REPLACEMENT NEWS
• APPLY FOR FUNDING
• Organ-on-a-chip Masterclass
• Animal Derived Biomaterials
• Science Conference
• Pioneer Award
• Community of Practice
• RESEARCH TOOL: FCS-FREE MEDIA DATABASE
• GRANTHOLDER PAPERS

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWS

Animal free research uk, we are pioneering compassionate united for a kinder science, by pioneering excellence, inspiring and supporting scientists, and influencing change, we can create a world where human diseases are cured faster without animal suffering., our pioneering research.

We’ve given £10M in grants to projects advancing development of human relevant research for diseases including cancer, diabetes and Covid-19.

Find out more.

Apply for Pilot & Transition Grants

Animal Free Research UK is awarding innovative pilot and transition grants to accelerate the development and wider adoption of animal-free technologies to improve medical research for the good of patients, science, and animals.

Our Podcast!

Our podcast is a frank, lively exchange of ideas and experiences by leading scientists, policy makers and animal protection ambassadors – all of whom seek a kinder science.

Pilot Study Grants

Our Pilot Study Grants allow researchers to tap into blue-sky thinking and identify concepts with replacement potential that merit further attention and development.

Fundraise for us

There are many ways for you to fundraise for us. Take part in one of our official charity places at a range of events or check out our A-Z to give you some fundraising ideas.

Shop for a kinder science

Show off your support by getting your hands on some brand new Animal Free Research UK merchandise.

The Animal Free Research UK Weekly Lottery

From just £1 a week you can be in with a chance of winning £25,000!

Latest News

Science funded by animal free research uk presented in parliament, baroness bennett asks oral question in the house of lords with help from animal free research uk, animal free research uk holds its first organ-on-chip training masterclass, uk government announces plan to end the forced swim test, uk government makes five announcements on animal testing in westminster hall debate, international day of women & girls in science, dr davina simoes on the animal free labcast, leading scientists send open letter calling on government support for human-specific technologies, dr laura bramwell & merlin davies on the animal free labcast, merel ritskes-hoitinga on the animal free labcast, uk government confirms no legal requirement for animal testing in medical research, animal free research uk at the conservative and labour party conferences, a lasting legacy, a gift in your will to animal free research uk is leaving a truly, lasting legacy: our tireless work saving animals from experiments will continue because of your kindness., if you are considering leaving us a gift, thank you. we couldn’t do our important work without your support..

JOBS        CONTACT US        TERMS & CONDITIONS        PRIVACY POLICY

© 2010-2021 Animal Free Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (No. 1146896) and Scotland (No. SC045327) and a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales (No. 08015625). Registered Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX

Animal Use in Medicine & Vaccine Trials | RSPCA - RSPCA

• Advice and Welfare
• Ways to Give
• Get Involved
• Report cruelty
• Useful Links
• Sponsorship
• Rehoming and Adoption
• Advice for Adopters
• Pet Insurance
• Dog Kennels
• Farm Animals
• Seasonal Advice
• Cost-of-Living Support
• All Advice and Welfare
• Beef Cattle
• Farmed Fish
• Laying Hens
• Meat Chickens
• Leaving a Legacy
• Advice for Donors
• Current Appeals
• Donate Online
• Giving Monthly
• Payroll Giving
• Philanthropy
• Step-by-Step Guide
• Free Will-Writing Service
• Information for Executors
• Lottery & Raffle
• Young People
• Ideas and Resources
• Fundraising Pack
• Better Chicken
• Breed Specific Legislation
• Puppy Trade
• Sanctuaries
• Stop Live Exports
• Big Help Out
• Types of Roles
• Volunteers' week
• Volunteering with Us
• End Cruelty
• Care For Animals
• How We Work
• Strategy to 2030
• 200th Anniversary
• Change the Law
• International Work
• Investigate Cruelty
• Prevent Suffering
• Prosecution
• Rescue Animals
• Financial Assistance
• Home for Life
• Rehabilitation
• Wildlife Centres
• Veterinary Care
• High Profile Supporters

Medicines and vaccines

The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices is a long and complex process. There are a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and global laws require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use.

Around 5 million animals are used across the EU for this purpose each year, including:

What animals experience during medical trials

The degree of suffering animals experience depends on the nature of the experiment. This may include both physical pain and mental distress. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition and then experiments are done to investigate:

• How the illness develops
• What effects it has
• How it could be prevented or its progress stopped
• Whether proposed treatments actually work

Animals will have pain and distress from the procedures used. They'll also suffer from the symptoms of the disease or condition that's being studied.

Healthy animals are then used to assess the safety of any treatments developed. They won't start trials on humans, farm animals and pets before this. Animals are usually killed at the end of the tests.

Our view on animal use in medical studies

The need to experiment on animals should be critically questioned . And the reason for the suffering caused. Questions must be asked including:

• The value of the problem studied? Animals should not suffer so that society can have a 'pill for every ill'. When the condition is trivial, self-inflicted or avoidable with a little effort.
• The likelihood that the research will succeed? There's significant debate about the usefulness of information gained from animal experiments. This is especially valid for studying human diseases

What we're doing

We promote a thorough ethical review of research projects. Looking at how they can use the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) to their max potential. Reducing animal use and suffering in medical and vet research.

• Replacement . Methods that avoid or replace animal use
• Reduction . Make sure that the minimum number of animals is used for the test. Using proper test design and review for correct numbers and avoid wasting animals
• Refinement . Reducing suffering and improving welfare throughout animals' lives. This includes procedures, housing, husbandry and care

We carry out this work with:

• Government officials
• Scientists in unis
• Medical industry
• Other animal welfare groups

Read our blog post on wild animals used in vaccine tests and what's being done to help.

Using animals in research and testing

Animal experiments are one of the traditional approaches to studying how human and animal bodies work (in health and illness) and for testing medicines and chemicals. But are they necessary and justified?

Replacing animals

We promote the development and use of non-animal alternatives.

Protect your pets by keeping their vaccinations up-to-date.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Business and industry
• Science and innovation
• Animal research and testing

Public attitudes to animal testing

Survey results show that the British public accept the use of animals in scientific (medical) research ‘where there is no alternative’.

The results of a survey published today (4 September 2014) by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills show that a majority of the British public accept the use of animals in scientific (medical) research ‘where there is no alternative’.

Of the 969 respondents questioned, 68% agreed that they can accept the use of animals in research for medical purposes where there are no alternatives – such as using computer modelling, in vitro testing or MRI scanning.

Results also revealed that 60% accepted the use of animals in research to help our understanding of the human body and 64% accepted use to increase understanding of animal health, where no alternative exists. Around half agreed that animals should only be used in medical research into ‘life-threatening or debilitating diseases’.

Minister for Life Sciences George Freeman said:

Animal research is currently essential to help deliver life-changing and life-saving new medicines for conditions such as dementia, cancer and heart disease. The results of this survey show that the majority of people accept this, but that there is room for improvement on openness and transparency within the field. I support the recent steps taken by the life sciences sector to increase peoples’ understanding of why and how animals are used in research, and for the on-going effort to develop alternatives to the use of animals, where possible.

The biennial survey, carried out by Ipsos MORI, investigated public awareness of, and attitudes towards, the use of animals in scientific research, as well as the possible alternatives. It is an important tool to improve government understanding of public attitudes to the use of animals in research, but also identify and tackle the myths that still circulate.

For instance 3 in 10 respondents (31%) believed cosmetics’ testing on animals is still allowed in the UK – which has not been the case for over 15 years. It is banned across the whole of the European Union. In addition, only 7% of respondents said that they know ‘a fair amount or a great deal about the UK government’s work to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research’.

The Concordat on Openness on Animal Research , published on 14 May 2014, brought together an unprecedented number of organisations across the UK life sciences sector, to work together on openness and improve public engagement around the issue of animal research.

Wendy Jarrett, Chief Executive, Understanding Animal Research added:

Practically every medicine and surgical treatment that we and our pets benefit from today have been developed and tested using animal research. It is heartening that such a large majority of the British public can accept the use of animals in research. But what this survey also shows is that much more needs to be done to help people understand the realities of animal research in the 21st century: that cosmetic testing has been banned since 1998, for example, and that since 1986 it has been illegal to use an animal if there is a viable alternative. Since this survey was carried out, more than 80 organisations involved in animal research in the UK have committed to being more open about their use of animals, and this can only help to increase public understanding of this small but crucial part of UK science.

• There is a strong scientific case for the carefully regulated use of animals in medical research and it is a legal requirement for every new prescription medicine to be tested on animals before it is tested and used in people
• Cosmetics testing has been banned in the UK since 1998, and is now not allowed anywhere in the EU . No cosmetics sold in the UK have been tested on animals
• Most animal research is carried out in universities although private companies also do some testing, there are many reasons for this, including to ensure that drugs are safe enough to be trialled in humans, but a lot of research is done to understand more about how the body works
• 98% of research is carried out on rats, mice and fish. Less than 0.5% of research is carried out on dogs, cats and monkeys
• if research can be done with an alternative rather than an animal then the alternative must be used

Notes for editors

• The full report can be viewed on the Ipsos MORI website where pdf versions can also be found: * ‘Attitudes to animal research in 2014’ * ‘Attitudes to animal research: A long-term survey of public views 1999-2014’
• 969 adults from across Great Britain aged 15+ were interviewed in-home between 7-13 March 2014. The data have been ‘weighted’ by gender, age, region, ethnicity, working status and social class - to reflect the known 15+ population profile of Great Britain. ‘Weighting’ is a statistical process – conducted after the completion of interviewing, at the analysis stage to ensure that the sample has exactly the same demographic cross-section or profile as does the wider population (and is therefore a reliable basis for representing the views of that wider population – in this case adults aged 15+ living in Great Britain). For example, of those people interviewed for this survey 18% were aged 15-24. In fact around 16% of the equivalent GB population profile is aged 15-24. This group has therefore been marginally ‘down-weighted’ from 18% to 16% of the survey sample to help ensure that it has exactly the correct degree of statistical influence within the overall results. This is a widespread practice in opinion research among the general public, and when used – as here – as the ‘fine-tuning’ of an already broadly representative sample it gives a greater degree of representativeness.
• The research carried out for this project has been in compliance with the Market Research Society ( MRS ) / ESOMAR Code, the Data Protection Act, and ISO 20252.
• The Concordat on Openness on Animal Research which is now signed by 81 organisations from across the scientific sector was published in May 2014. It sets out a commitment to helping the public understand more about animal research.
• It is important for government to understand public attitudes to the use of animals in research, how this shapes our policies, and how this might impact the lawful activities of regulated research organisations. Therefore BIS is funding this research to provide an evidence base for future policy and engagement strategies.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Universities Challenged

• Racehorse Death Watch
• Irish Horse Death Watch
• Victims of Charity
• Stop Warfare Experiments
• Ban Game Bird Cages

Animal Experiments

Each year inside British laboratories, around 3 million animals are experimented on. Every 8 seconds, one animal dies.

Each year inside British laboratories, around 3 million animals are experimented on. Every 8 seconds, one animal dies. Cats, dogs, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys and other animals are used to test new products, to study human disease and in the development of new drugs. They are even used in warfare experiments. Animal Aid opposes animal experiments on both moral and scientific grounds. Animals are not laboratory tools. They are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain, fear, loneliness, frustration and sadness.

To imprison animals, denying their freedom to express natural instincts, and to deliberately inflict physical pain in the name of science is unacceptable. All the more so because the experiments are bad science in the first place: they do not produce information that can be reliably applied to people. Ending animal experiments will benefit people as well as animals.

Our campaign targets universities to ensure that cruel experiments are consigned to the history books. We want to shed light on what types of experiments are being conducted and which species of animals are being routinely abused. In addition, the information provided here can be used by students who are already at university, whether or not they are studying science, who deserve to know how their tuition fees are being spent.

Find out more.

Which Charities Fund Animal Testing?

While many health charities fund or conduct experiments on animals, there are many more who direct their resources toward non-animal research or to help sufferers in other ways.

Victims of Charity Campaign

Animal Aid’s Victims of Charity campaign exposes and challenges animal experiments that are funded by medical research charities. We make it simple for you to register your opposition directly with the chief executive of the charity concerned. In addition, we identify those charities that are involved in humane medical research.

The Case Against Animal Experiments

The scientific case against animal experiments is now being voiced in leading scientific journals. In an era of evidence-based medicine and of powerful new analytical tools including high powered computers and robotics, the fatal weaknesses of the ‘animal model’ are becoming more widely known.

Humane Research

Hundreds of thousands of animals are bred and killed every year so that their body parts can be used in test tube studies. At the same time, huge amounts of a genuinely useful research material – human tissue – is being incinerated. Since 1991, Animal Aid has fought this nonsensical situation.

The Suffering of GM Mice

A major and neglected aspect of the debate over animal experiments are the millions of genetically modified (GM) mice who suffer every year in crude, medically-useless experiments. For every GM mouse used in a ‘procedure’, hundreds more die or are killed as ‘surplus’ or ‘failures’. Not only does breeding and experimenting on GM mice cause terrible suffering, it is also failing to produce cures for people.

Key reports

Animal Aid has produced revealing and thoroughly researched reports and briefings on a wide range of animal research related topics. They include genetically modified mice and the unethical practices of drug companies.

Campaign news

Hundreds of animal rights activists mark world day for animals in laboratories.

Saturday saw hundreds of animal rights activists joining together in Liverpool to march peacefully through the city to mark World Day for Animals in Laboratories.

Posted 29 Apr 2024

Panicked horses running through London streets speaks of wider animal abuse

Yesterday, five horses from the Household Cavalry became spooked during training, throwing off their riders and racing terrified through central London. One of the horses was seen to be covered in blood as they stampeded...

Posted 25 Apr 2024

Our cookies

We use cookies, which are small text files, to improve your experience on our website. You can allow or reject non essential cookies or manage them individually.

Reject all Allow all

More options   •   Cookie policy

We use cookies, which are small text files, to improve your experience on our website. You can allow all or manage them individually.

You can find out more on our cookie page at any time.

Save preferences

• Animal Welfare Information
• Publications
• Grants & Awards
• News & Events
• UFAW's Work
• Why UFAW's Work is Important
• Farm Animals

Welfare of Animals Used in Scientific Testing and Research

• Wild Animal Welfare
• Zoo animal welfare
• Research and Education
• UFAW Publications
• University LINKs Scheme
• UFAW Mentoring Partnership
• Conferences and Workshops
• UFAW SAWI Fund

Share this page

'Improvements in the care of animals are not now likely to come of their own accord, merely by wishing them: there must be research... and it is in sponsoring research of this kind, and making its results widely known, that UFAW performs one of its most valuable services.'

Sir Peter Medawar, 1960 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine

Tens of millions of animals are used around the world every year in scientific research and testing.  Despite recent advances that have led to fewer animals being used for some purposes, the total number of animals used in research has grown over recent years, most probably because more biomedical research is being carried out around the world. The most commonly used animals are mice, fish and rats, but many other species including monkeys, cats, dogs, horses and pigs are also used.

Why are animals used?

Animals are used for many reasons including; basic research to understand biological processes; development of new medicines and treatments; testing the safety of substances which might be dangerous to humans or the environment and for teaching.

Animals are mostly used to develop and test treatments for human conditions and to understand human biology, but also to develop veterinary treatments for other animals and to obtain fundamental knowledge.

How does research affect animal welfare?

The impact of research on animals varies from almost insignificant effects on some animals (for instance where nothing more occurs than observation of their behaviour), to major effects on some that undergo very painful or distressing procedures. The welfare of animals may also be affected if their housing and husbandry does not meet their needs.

In some cases harm may be caused as an unintended consequence of the research (for instance, the pain of an injection or surgery where the objective was to place a sensor to monitor some biological function). Less commonly, research on animals causes deliberate harm when the objective is to induce serious diseases or injuries so that treatments can be tested, for example.

What kind of harm do animals used in research experience?

Some experiments may involve surgery on animals or the induction of potentially painful conditions like arthritis or cancer to look for new treatments. Whilst there is some debate about how animals perceive and process pain it is likely that many animal species do suffer painful experiences. Research has shown that many species respond to stimuli that would be painful in humans and that painkilling drugs can reduce their responses to such stimuli. The more we learn about different species, the more we suspect that many are capable of feeling pain. It now seems possible that even fish and crustaceans experience pain, for instance. As our understanding of animal pain has developed, great progress has also been made in diagnosing and treating it, and it is now far more common to treat pain in animals used in research than it was many years ago.

Other states of poor welfare

Many animals also seem to be capable of experiencing poor welfare caused by something other than pain. In fact, animals are sometimes used to model human mood disorders by deliberately exposing them to experiences that make them anxious or depressed. The way animals are housed can cause welfare problems too. As an example; mice are often kept in groups in cages. Many factors in these cages can compromise their welfare such as the temperature, the amount of space available and the social group with which they are housed (they will sometimes fight, for instance). Primates used in research are sometimes housed singly, in relatively small cages, which can cause emotional problems for these highly social animals. An important area of research on the welfare of research animals is the search for better ways to house and handle them.

How has UFAW helped?

UFAW has worked since its foundation in 1926 to improve the welfare of animals used in research by supporting scientific studies to understand and improve their welfare alongside education and training to improve the lives of animals used for scientific purposes worldwide.

• Replace animals with other ways of gaining the knowledge required (by using computer models, tissue culture, artificial organs etc. to understand biological processes)
• Reduce the number of animals used to achieve the results (for example by doing more efficient experiments which use fewer animals)
• Refine the way animals are treated to minimise any impacts upon them (the aim being to cause less suffering to the animals or to improve their welfare whilst still achieving the scientific aims)

You can read here about the history of the 3Rs and of  how UFAW developed the non-confrontational approach that was led to the 3Rs, of some of the outcomes and the impact of the 3Rs today when they have been incorporated into legislation and codes of practice to improve the welfare of animals used in research throughout the world.

UFAW has supported developments in all of the 3Rs which have resulted in improvements to the welfare of millions of animals. Here are just a few examples:

Replacement

Tanner R, McShane H. (2-16) Replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in tuberculosis vaccine research . ALTEX. doi: 10.14573/altex.1607281. [Epub ahead of print]

Walker M, Fureix C, Palme R, Newman JA, Ahloy Dallaire J, Mason G. (2016)

Mixed-strain housing for female C57BL/6, DBA/2, and BALB/c mice: validating a split-plot design that promotes refinement and reduction . BMC Med Res Methodol;16:11. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0113-7.

Refinements

For the foreseeable future many animals will continue to be used in research. Whilst animals are used it is important to look for ways to improve their lives and reduce the impacts of research upon them.

Gaskill BN, Gordon CJ, Pajor EA, Lucas JR, Davis JK, et al. (2012) Heat or Insulation: Behavioral Titration of Mouse Preference for Warmth or Access to a Nest . PLoS ONE 7(3): e32799. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032799

Another recent UFAW project looked at ways to monitor the welfare of mice developing experimentally-induced cancers. Dr Claire Richardson at Newcastle University worked on developing automated measurements which could be used to continuously monitor the welfare of the mice – logging their temperature, how much they drank and how much they move around and thus providing early warning when they begin to become sick, allowing them to be treated or humanely killed to relieve their suffering. This means mice with experimental cancer or other conditions suffer less than if less sophisticated tests of their welfare based just upon observation of them in their cages is used.

Education and Training

UFAW regularly organises scientific meetings at which those who study animal welfare share their findings with colleagues and those who care for or use animals in research, making sure that the latest findings are translated into better treatment for animals.

When governments or regulators seek to change the rules and guidance about how animals are treated in research they frequently seek UFAW’s expert opinion and guidance.

Huge advances have been made in the treatment of animals used for scientific purposes. Far fewer animals suffer severely as a result of research.  Nonetheless, there is much more that remains to be done to advance all of the 3Rs. Research is needed to develop refinements to experimental techniques to reduce suffering and to find ways to replace and reduce the use of animals in research. Our knowledge about animals’ needs in captivity also needs to be expanded to inform legal standards worldwide.

It is likely that new challenges to animal welfare may also arise as new technologies are developed. As long as animals are used in scientific testing and research, UFAW will play a crucial role in ensuring that animal suffering in the name of science is minimised or eradicated through the development and application of animal welfare .

Your support in helping UFAW to improve the lives of animals used in research is much needed and you can find out how you can help here .

Website by Adept

• Meet the Team
• FRAME Funded Research
• Impact Report 2022-2023
• Our History
• Our Vision & Values
• How We Make a Difference
• Latest Statistics
• Legislation & Regulation
• Alternatives to animal testing
• Funding for Research
• FRAME Laboratory
• ATLA Journal
• Training School
• Donate to FRAME
• Fundraising for FRAME
• Support FRAME while you shop
• Collaborate
• Leaving a legacy
• Corporate Support
• Experimental Design
• Searching for Alternatives
• Get Published
• Find Research Funding
• Useful Websites
• Guide To Mice In Research
• Technical terms glossary
• Media Information

Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments

2.76 million.

scientific procedures were carried out using animals in 2022 in Great Britain.

total awarded to the FRAME lab, the UK’s oldest lab dedicated to non-animal research.

1.25 Million

scientific procedures were for the creation or breeding of genetically altered animals.

of funding was awarded by FRAME to research replacing animals in 2021.

For over 50 years, FRAME has worked tirelessly to replace animals in medical experiments.

Originally founded in 1969 by animal-lover Dorothy Hegarty, FRAME was established to work with researchers and institutions to end animal testing. Today, we champion Dorothy’s legacy across the world by funding innovative science, sharing cutting-edge non-animal methods, and educating on human-relevant approaches to research.

Our vision is a world where no animal suffers for science.

Join us as we work to replace animal testing with human-relevant science.

Together, we will create a better world for animals and humans.

Volunteer with FRAME's Scientific Advisory Panel

2.76 million.

Scientific procedures involving live animals were carried out in Great Britain in 2022, a 10% decrease from 3.06 million in 2021.

of all procedures used mice, rats, birds, or fish.

10% decrease

in scientific procedures involving live animals compared to 2021.

Create a better world, for animals and humans

Learn more about frame.

For over 50 years, we've tirelessly worked to replace animals in medical experiments.

Animals have been used for centuries for the purpose of science. Even though technology has moved on significantly, laboratory animals are still relied upon in many areas of scientific research.

Learn more about how we work towards a world without animals in laboratories.

How You Can Help

Your support funds vital research into non-animal methods, educates students, trains scientists, develops and promotes non-animal methods, and campaigns for legislation change in line with scientific progress.

Developing a 3D model of tumours

In vitro models to help detect early-stage ovarian cancer

Developing a lung in vitro model

To receive updates from frame, please enter your details..

Read our Dog Testing FAQ

Our new Dog FAQ page provides answers to the most frequently asked questions about dogs in research.

Dogs ( Canis familiaris ) belong to the family Canidae and are thought to be one of the first domesticated animals. They have been used in research for more than a century, however, they are currently very rarely used in animal research in Great Britain, only being used in 0.24% of experimental procedures in 2019 (latest published figures).

They are medium-sized mammals that can grow from 15 to 100 cm and weigh from 1.5 to 75 kg, depending on the type of dog. Dogs are carnivores but can thrive on a well-designed suitably processed omnivorous diet in the domestic situation.

Why are dogs used in research?

In the UK, dogs are primarily used to find out how new drugs act within a whole, living body and whether new medicines are safe enough to test in humans. They predict this safety very well, with  up to 96% accuracy .

This is done to satisfy safety regulations which came about after the drug Thalidomide maimed and killed children while they were still in the womb. It is known as toxicology testing, but normally seeks to confirm the absence of toxic effects.

The tests can tell us lots of sorts of information all at once, like the safety if a drug across lots of different internal organs, how the drug travels around the body and other information that helps us to design much safer human trials.

Dogs are also used to test the safety and efficacy of veterinary medicines, and also in nutrition studies to ensure that pet dogs eat healthily, particularly when they are prescribed specialist diets by their vets.

Although animal and nonanimal methods are used alongside each other, there are currently no alternatives to using dogs. They nevertheless have special protections under UK law. For instance, they cannot be used if another animal species could be used.

There is a project that hopes to create a  ‘virtual dog’  that could significantly reduce the number of dogs needed by using computers to mine historical dog data. It is being run by the UK’s national centre for  developing animal replacements, the NC3Rs , but is of international interest.

What types of research are dogs used in?

The physiological similarities between humans and dogs mean that they are useful in various types of research. Their genome has been sequenced and because of our genetic similarities, they are often used in genetic studies.

Dogs are primarily used in regulatory research, also known as toxicology or safety testing. This type of research is required by law to test the safety and effectiveness of potential new medicines and medical devices before they are given to human volunteers during clinical trials. Dogs are also used to test the safety and efficacy of veterinary medicines, and also in nutrition studies to ensure that pet dogs eat healthily, particularly when they are prescribed specialist diets by their vets.

A smaller number of dogs are also used in translational research (also called applied research) to help us learn about human and animal diseases so that we can develop treatments. Examples of translational diseases can be found below.

Dogs are also used to study Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), which is the most common type of muscular dystrophy. It is another condition that can affect both humans and dogs. Because dogs can naturally have this condition, they can be studied to show how the condition progresses. This very useful model for DMD has helped scientists work on better genetic tests and treatments for the condition.  

An early use of dogs in research was in the search for a treatment for diabetes, which resulted in the discovery of insulin. This discovery in the 1920s, which won researchers a Nobel prize, now allows people with diabetes to live long lives. In the past, people with diabetes would die soon after developing the condition.

How are the dogs looked after?

The use of animals in research is highly regulated, an important part of that regulation is ensuring the animals are housed and cared for correctly. Laboratory dogs are housed in enclosures that can isolate individual dogs for treatment but usually opened up for dogs to interact. Dogs’ need to socialise is well considered, so the dogs are housed in small groups most of the time. The facilities usually also have space to run around for exercise and you can usually find dogs interacting with each other, environmental enrichments, and the animal technicians.

https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resources/housing-and-husbandry/housing-and-husbandry-dogs

You can see this in this film about dogs in research.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/d/domestic-dog/

https://www.britannica.com/animal/dog/Breed-specific-behaviour#ref15478

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5070630/#:~:text=Dogs%20have%20approximately%20the%20same,similar%20to%20human%20than%20mouse

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/designing-research/research-animals/dog/

Dogs in drug safety prediction:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28893587/

Virtual dog:  https://nc3rs.org.uk/news/ps16m-awarded-develop-virtual-second-species

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 .

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

April 29, 2024

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

fact-checked

Study finds resistance to critically important antibiotics in uncooked meat sold for human and animal consumption

by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

New research presented at the ESCMID Global Congress (formerly ECCMID) in Barcelona, Spain (27–30 April) has found substantial levels of resistance to critically-important antibiotics in meat sold for human and animal consumption. The study is by Dr. Jordan Sealey, Professor Matthew Avison and colleagues from the University of Bristol, UK.

Meat sold for consumption by humans and companion animals in the UK is regulated by the UK Government Food Standards Agency (FSA) to ensure it falls within bacterial limits deemed safe. However, while meat is tested for the types and amounts of pathogens present, it is not tested for resistant opportunistic pathogens (e.g. Escherichia coli).

Multiple studies have shown a strong association between feeding dogs a diet of uncooked meat (raw dog food) and an increased risk of excreting E. coli resistant to critically important antibiotics in their feces. It is possible that pet animals eating raw meat increases the risk of spreading resistant pathogens to their human owners in the household.

Here, the authors investigated 58 samples of uncooked meat (15 each of beef, chicken, lamb and 13 of pork) sold for human consumption after cooking (MHC) and 15 samples of chicken-based raw dog meat (RDM) for resistant E. coli.

Samples were enriched and plated onto agar containing common antibiotics—amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, spectinomycin and streptomycin, of which some are considered critically important for human health, to test for resistant E. coli.

The team found the highest sample-level positivity rate for resistant E. coli in uncooked meat for human consumption was in chicken—100% of samples were positive for resistance to spectinomycin and streptomycin, and 47% of samples were positive for resistance to critically important fluoroquinolones. For lamb, pork and beef the values were 27%, 38% and 27% for spectinomycin, 40%, 38% and 47% for streptomycin and 7%, 8% and 13% for fluoroquinolones, respectively.

Similar levels of resistance were seen in chicken raw dog food samples as seen in chicken meat; 87% positive for spectinomycin and streptomycin resistance, and 47% for fluoroquinolones. Sample level positivity for resistance to critically important cefotaxime was 27% for raw dog food.

The authors say, "While most people know that if they don't use proper hygiene when handling uncooked meat they can pick up ' food poisoning ,' most people are not aware that you can also pick up antibiotic-resistant opportunistic pathogens. Owners who feed their dogs raw dog food perhaps don't realize this uncooked meat also contains these pathogens and maybe don't use proper hygiene after preparing the meat, and don't consider their dog as a potential source of these pathogens if it is raw fed."

The most common STs in raw dog food were ST10, ST162, ST744—in the authors' previous study on fluoroquinolone resistance in dogs, excretion of these STs was found to be strongly associated with dogs being fed a raw food diet.

The authors conclude, "This study confirms that uncooked meat carries multiple resistant E. coli, commonly including resistance to critically important antibiotics important for human health. If ingested, these bacteria can enter the gut, and may cause resistant opportunistic infections (e.g. urinary tract infections) in the future. It is therefore very important that people cook meat thoroughly before eating, and use appropriate hygiene practices during meat preparation.

"Our findings that raw dog food is similarly contaminated with resistant bacteria provides an explanation for why dogs fed raw meat are more likely to excrete these bacteria. Appropriate hygiene practices after handling raw dog food, and dogs that are fed such raw meat , are strongly advised."

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Microarray patches safe and effective for vaccinating children, trial shows

5 hours ago

Healthy lifestyle may offset effects of life-shortening genes by more than 60%

Fentanyl inhalation may cause potentially irreversible brain damage, warn doctors

Frequent teen vaping might boost risk of toxic lead and uranium exposure

Study in Haiti suggests early-onset heart failure is prevalent form of heart disease in low-income countries

7 hours ago

AI algorithms can determine how well newborns nurse, study shows

8 hours ago

Kaposi sarcoma discovery and mouse model could facilitate drug development

Immune cell interaction study unlocks novel treatment targets for chikungunya virus

9 hours ago

New method rapidly reveals how protein modifications power T cells

Protein responsible for genetic inflammatory disease identified

10 hours ago

Related Stories

Feeding dogs raw meat increases the risk of antibiotic-resistant E. coli, finds study

Nov 20, 2023

Feeding dogs raw meat associated with increased presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria

Jul 20, 2022

Multidrug-resistant bacteria found in 40% of supermarket meat samples

Apr 14, 2023

Antimicrobial-resistant E. coli found in dogs with diarrhea

Feb 29, 2024

UK and Portuguese study strongly suggests 'superbugs' are being passed from pets to owners

Apr 12, 2024

Fido's raw meat pet food may be loaded with harmful bacteria: study

Oct 16, 2019

Recommended for you

Study suggests that stevia is the most brain-compatible sugar substitute

13 hours ago

Pandemic fatigue and vaccine hesitancy continue to affect global public health, new 23-country study finds

12 hours ago

Nature's nudge: Study shows green views lead to healthier food choices

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

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

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

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

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

E-mail the story

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

Newsletter sign up

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

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

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

E-mail newsletter