User login
The use of animals in experimental research conducted at leading US laboratories has risen by more than 70% in recent years, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The data contradict industry claims of reduced animal use and are at odds with government policies designed to curb and replace the use of animals in experiments, according to researchers.
The US is the world’s largest user of animals in experiments. And government data show declines in the use of cats, dogs, primates, rabbits, hamsters, and other larger mammals.
But the exclusion of the species most commonly used in laboratory research—mice, rats, birds, and all cold-blooded animals—from federal regulations has resulted in an absence of published data on how many of these animals are used in experiments.
To fill this gap, researchers at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) analyzed previously unpublished data collected by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the use of all vertebrate species at the top 25 institutions in receipt of NIH grants.
This includes such institutions as Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, the University of California-San Francisco, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Johns Hopkins University. Together, these institutions account for 27% of all NIH grants disbursed.
PETA’s analysis showed that the use of animals in laboratory research at these facilities rose by 72.7% between 1997 and 2012. This increase was largely driven by an increase in the use of mice. The use of other species remained mostly unchanged.
This study is the first ever to document figures on the use of mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in US laboratories. These species are not protected under the federal law governing the treatment of animals used in experiments—the Animal Welfare Act—and therefore are excluded from the law’s reporting requirements.
PETA’s study showed that these unregulated species comprise 98.8% of animals in laboratories.
The researchers said possible explanations for these results include personal and legal biases toward certain animal species. But the figures highlight a need for greater efforts to curb the use of animals in scientific research and more transparency in reporting on whether such efforts are succeeding.
A linked viewpoint article acknowledges the ongoing tensions between scientists and animal rights advocates but suggests that people on both sides of the divide do want to better understand one another.
It recommends that institutional policies be updated to better inform the public about the use of animals in scientific research, as well as opening up dialogue between a broad base of players to replace the often poorly informed and emotionally charged debate. 
The use of animals in experimental research conducted at leading US laboratories has risen by more than 70% in recent years, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The data contradict industry claims of reduced animal use and are at odds with government policies designed to curb and replace the use of animals in experiments, according to researchers.
The US is the world’s largest user of animals in experiments. And government data show declines in the use of cats, dogs, primates, rabbits, hamsters, and other larger mammals.
But the exclusion of the species most commonly used in laboratory research—mice, rats, birds, and all cold-blooded animals—from federal regulations has resulted in an absence of published data on how many of these animals are used in experiments.
To fill this gap, researchers at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) analyzed previously unpublished data collected by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the use of all vertebrate species at the top 25 institutions in receipt of NIH grants.
This includes such institutions as Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, the University of California-San Francisco, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Johns Hopkins University. Together, these institutions account for 27% of all NIH grants disbursed.
PETA’s analysis showed that the use of animals in laboratory research at these facilities rose by 72.7% between 1997 and 2012. This increase was largely driven by an increase in the use of mice. The use of other species remained mostly unchanged.
This study is the first ever to document figures on the use of mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in US laboratories. These species are not protected under the federal law governing the treatment of animals used in experiments—the Animal Welfare Act—and therefore are excluded from the law’s reporting requirements.
PETA’s study showed that these unregulated species comprise 98.8% of animals in laboratories.
The researchers said possible explanations for these results include personal and legal biases toward certain animal species. But the figures highlight a need for greater efforts to curb the use of animals in scientific research and more transparency in reporting on whether such efforts are succeeding.
A linked viewpoint article acknowledges the ongoing tensions between scientists and animal rights advocates but suggests that people on both sides of the divide do want to better understand one another.
It recommends that institutional policies be updated to better inform the public about the use of animals in scientific research, as well as opening up dialogue between a broad base of players to replace the often poorly informed and emotionally charged debate.
The use of animals in experimental research conducted at leading US laboratories has risen by more than 70% in recent years, according to a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The data contradict industry claims of reduced animal use and are at odds with government policies designed to curb and replace the use of animals in experiments, according to researchers.
The US is the world’s largest user of animals in experiments. And government data show declines in the use of cats, dogs, primates, rabbits, hamsters, and other larger mammals.
But the exclusion of the species most commonly used in laboratory research—mice, rats, birds, and all cold-blooded animals—from federal regulations has resulted in an absence of published data on how many of these animals are used in experiments.
To fill this gap, researchers at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) analyzed previously unpublished data collected by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on the use of all vertebrate species at the top 25 institutions in receipt of NIH grants.
This includes such institutions as Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, the University of California-San Francisco, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Johns Hopkins University. Together, these institutions account for 27% of all NIH grants disbursed.
PETA’s analysis showed that the use of animals in laboratory research at these facilities rose by 72.7% between 1997 and 2012. This increase was largely driven by an increase in the use of mice. The use of other species remained mostly unchanged.
This study is the first ever to document figures on the use of mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in US laboratories. These species are not protected under the federal law governing the treatment of animals used in experiments—the Animal Welfare Act—and therefore are excluded from the law’s reporting requirements.
PETA’s study showed that these unregulated species comprise 98.8% of animals in laboratories.
The researchers said possible explanations for these results include personal and legal biases toward certain animal species. But the figures highlight a need for greater efforts to curb the use of animals in scientific research and more transparency in reporting on whether such efforts are succeeding.
A linked viewpoint article acknowledges the ongoing tensions between scientists and animal rights advocates but suggests that people on both sides of the divide do want to better understand one another.
It recommends that institutional policies be updated to better inform the public about the use of animals in scientific research, as well as opening up dialogue between a broad base of players to replace the often poorly informed and emotionally charged debate.