Academia Digested: “Speciesism in the Laboratory” by Richard Ryder

Practical shortcomings of animal experimentation

Since animals are considered an experimental proxy for humans, more animal testing is believed to signal greater safety for humans. This is not necessarily true— different species react differently to different chemicals, meaning that animal experimentation often fails in predicting human health outcomes. In 1980, George Teeling-Smith wrote that toxicity tests were required “largely as an act of faith rather than on hard scientific grounds.” He gives several examples:

• The drug thalidomide has caused birth defects in humans. When tested on animals, this drug caused deformities in only a few species, and it is unlikely that additional testing on pregnant animals would have predicted these human side effects. [In this case, the effects are too variable to accurately predict human outcomes.]
• Side effects from practolol have only been observed in humans, never replicated in animal tests. [In this case, the animal data is dangerously misleading.]
• Penicillin is fatal to guinea pigs in small doses. If these experiments were performed prior to human usage, it might have been deemed too dangerous for human consumption. [In this case, animal experimentation may have regrettably deterred human usage.]

Additionally, animal experimentation delays the development of new medicines and is super expensive.

Examples of experimentation

UK local experiments

• London researchers subjected mice to radiation to cause lung damage. It can be extremely painful, no painkillers were reported, and some mice took 6 months to die. 
• Newcastle researchers subjected pigs to atmospheric compression, receiving up to 81 rounds of compression and decompression. Several died from decompression sickness.
• London researchers injected rabbits’ knees to cause chronic inflammation. No painkillers were reported, and the rabbits were used for up to 7 months. 
• English researchers dosed monkeys with Paraquat, a weed-killer. Some over a week to die, suffering from vomiting, anorexia, dyspnoea (breathing difficulties), hypothermia, and kidney failure. There are cases of human ingestion, where poisoned individuals reported extreme pain and agony.
• Hertfordshire researchers injected substances into the teeth of beagle dogs and administered electric shocks. Only sometimes were analgesics used.
• Ministry of Defence researchers in Porton Down injected monkeys and other animals with glutaminase. The animals suffered from vomiting, pallor, spasms, lethargy, diarrhea, dehydration, and death. One monkey survived for 28 days before being killed.

General common experiments

• To test the toxicity of products, “LD50 tests” are performed. [LD50 is short for “lethal dose, 50%”: Researchers dose animals with various quantities of a substance, and the number of deaths are recorded. The dosage at which 50% of the animals died is termed “LD50.”] These tests have little scientific importance, however they are still standard procedure, and governments and companies neglect to fund alternative techniques. 
• The “Draize test” is the application of substances to eyeballs. It is similarly rudimentary and cruel. In 2002 in the UK, 1271 procedures involved adding substances to rabbits’ eyes.
• Animal cancers do not accurately represent human cancers, however products are still tested for potential carcinogenic effects, killing thousands of animals annually.

Other severe experiments [listed in a later edition]

• Various species have been shaken and spun to study brain damage and eye movements. For example in 1997, Hess and Angelaki used a multi-axis turntable to spin juvenile rhesus monkeys, some having their skulls anchored by screws. 
• To study chronic pain, researchers typically use sutures, lasers, freezing, nerve transfers, and irritants to stimulate pain in animals. In 2001, a new technique was patented to cause longer-term pain, lasting for several months.
• To study septic shock in 1996, researchers inserted E. coli-infected clots into 16 beagle dogs who were permanently tracheotomized. 10 of them died during the following 21 days. 
• In 1997 to study spinal injuries, researchers dropped weights onto rats. Hong et al. concluded that higher drops caused greater injuries.
• In 1999, Schwei et al. injected tumor cells into the femurs of mice, studying the pain associated with bone cancer. This demonstrated a correlation between bone destruction and pain, a pain which humans have reported as intense.
• Since the 1990s, researchers have used animals to study alcohol consumption and withdrawal. Severe effects have been observed in chimpanzees, monkeys, dogs, cats, and rodents, with symptoms such as vomiting, tremor, anxiety, seizures, and convulsions.

The size of the problem

[It is extremely difficult to estimate the number of animals killed in laboratories, largely because legally-mandated reporting only applies to certain species in certain countries.] Ryder states that in the 1980s each year, an estimated 100,000,000—200,000,000 animals were killed in labs globally. [More recent figures are similarly broad, with one source estimating that 100,000,000—150,000,000 animals are used in labs each year, and another source estimating at least 192,000,000 animals are used.]

[Britain has (possibly) the best reporting system in the world.] Based on Britain’s Home Office 1983 report, Ryder provides the following breakdown of animal experimentation by type. [Note that not all species are reported to the government, so these numbers are inaccurate.]

Of the species reported to the government, Ryder also provides a breakdown of the number used per animal type. [Also included in this table are the figures from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s “Research Facility Annual Usage Summary Report” FY 2024.]

*[For 3 of the most experimented-upon animal groups, the USDA does not mandate reporting. Breeding and distribution companies, which sell rodents to laboratories, estimate that 15,000,000-20,000,000 rats and mice are used in U.S. labs each year. A couple of biomedical professors disagree, estimating that about 111,000,000 rats and mice are used per year. If this latter estimate is correct, then less than 1% of all animals used are actually reported.]

• Citation: David Grimm, Controversial study says U.S. labs use 111 million mice, rats. Science 371, 332-333 (2021). DOI: 10.1126/science.371.6527.332

[Of the total number reported to the USDA in 2014, 7% of them were subjected to pain without anaesthetic (55,560 of 775,297)]

Ryder also lists the types of experiments performed.

Changing philosophies underlie the movement

In the 70s, several factors helped advance the anti-animal-experimentation and animal-rights movements, thus becoming more mainstream in the 80s. 

In a book titled Ethics and Animals, Harlan B. Miller identifies 7 of these factors:

• The human liberation movement had momentum, carrying on from anti-colonialism, anti-racism, and anti-sexism to similarly dismantle the discriminatory boundaries of speciesism. 
• New scientific research demonstrated the similarities between humans and nonhuman animals. Ape intelligence was scientifically articulated, and there was new evidence that all vertebrates share the same biochemical pain systems.
• The ethical debate of abortion highlighted moral concepts of personhood [such as in the question “when does an ambiguous lifeform become a moral person”].
• Metaphysical mind-body dualism became less popular, [which is the belief that mental consciousness is separable from the physical body, often drawing from religious concepts of “the soul”]. Rather, people increasingly accepted mind-body monism, that conscious experience is necessarily linked to physical bodily processes. This new consensus specifically considered ‘having a centralized nervous system’ as a necessary condition for conscious experience, which many animals have.
• Fields of behavioral science developed, such as sociobiology [the biological-evolutionary study of social behavior] and ethology [the general study of animal behavior]. These fields often extend their conclusions to analyze human behavior, implying that homo sapiens are not especially different from other animal species.
• The environmental movement grew during this time, highlighting humans’ ecological interdependence with other species.
• Astronomy and science fiction popularized the belief of intelligent alien life.

Ryder identifies 3 additional factors which supported the movement for animal laboratory reform:

• TV news coverage supported greater awareness by showing photos/videos of animal suffering in labs.
• Animal welfare groups emphasized alternative techniques to using animals, such as using lab-grown tissue cultures. These new techniques eventually proved themselves as viable and became more-widely accepted in the industry. 
• People began to distinguish certain forms of animal experimentation as ‘non-necessary’— Whereas animal experimentation is often justified by appeal to human health and safety, certain other justifications were considered too trivial, such as the testing of toiletries, makeup, and weapons and behavioral research.

The old and new arguments against animal experimentation

• Older arguments against animal experimentation have lost popularity and feel antiquated. For example, it was argued that performing such experiments undermined the researchers’ moral character, or that this scientific pursuit was contrary to religious teachings. These arguments were based on concepts of moral duty, where the researchers themselves were the subjects of debate as agents of wrongdoing. This agent-centered ethic reflects the contemporary focus on deontology [most simply defined as a field of ethical frameworks which specific certain actions as right or wrong], and it also reflects the contemporary systems of power: In Victorian England, social reformers were often from the upper class, and thus change was promoted by appealing to fellow peers’ duties.
• Conversely, modern arguments focus on the animals themselves, stating that harming or killing animals is bad for their sake. This focus reflects the modern emphasis on individuals’ claims, such as in theories of moral rights and utilitarianism [which is most simply defined as an ethical framework which prioritizes the greatest overall welfare benefit]. These ethical systems also reflect modern systems of power: social reform is driven by the mass movement of people who individually hold little power, and they can relate their own oppression to the struggles of powerless animals.

Institutional reform

Whereas abolition is the ultimate goal, there are various intermediary steps to regulate animal experimentation:

• Legal oversight
  • Licensing experimenters, requiring some minimum standard of credibility
  • Inspecting laboratories, which ensures that legal standards of welfare are met
  • Reducing secrecy, by providing public information about the experiments, animals, welfare assessments, and pain mitigation techniques
• Open decision-making process
  • Allowing public opinion to influence laboratory practices: In Sweden, local committees exist to authorize experiments. Various groups’ interests are represented, including the general public, animal welfarists, veterinarians, and scientists.
  • Requiring an on-site independent authority, acting as an expert on animal welfare and advocate for the animals
• Mandated pain reduction
  • Requiring that non-animal alternatives are used (when possible)
  • Requiring that “lower sentience” animals are used (when possible)
  • Requiring continuous welfare assessments and procedural adjustments
  • Requiring the usage of anaesthesia, analgesia, tranquilization, and euthanasia (unless it interferes with the experiment)
  • Regulating the types of pain permitted: In Britain, experiments can not inflict pain that is both severe and long-lasting, however they can inflict short-term severe pain or long-term ‘mild’ pain.

To reduce the ethical violations of animal experimentation, “the three R’s” are commonly referenced:

• REPLACING experimental animals with objects (or “lesser” species)
• REDUCING the total number of animals used
• REFINING the experiment, such as mitigating suffering and improving husbandry

Examples of alternative techniques

• In car crash studies, improved dummies were invented and they replaced the use of live animals.
• Computer models
• Films and physical models for teaching
• Tissue and organ cultures, with which researchers can directly test human cells. For example the “Cell Transformation Assay” technique was developed to study cancer in vitro. 
• Non-biological techniques such as gas chromatography and mass spectrometry
• The “Ames Test” was developed to test gene mutation with bacteria, rather than subjecting animals to carcinogenic substances.
• “Immunoassay” techniques are proposed as an alternative to the Draize eye test, using tissue in test tubes rather than live animals.

Current Regulation

Weaknesses of the USDA animal welfare act:

• It strongly discriminates between species, focusing its attention on protecting primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs, and omitting mice, rats, and birds who make up 95% of all animals used in the U.S.
• The reporting system is weak, allowing for simple errors, inaccuracies, and tardiness.
• Concepts of pain are not well-defined. There is no definition provided for “distress.”
• The regulatory structure is underfunded and inspectors are inadequately trained.

Britain’s ASPA— Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

• This regulatory framework is cited as the world’s strictest.
• The covered animals include all vertebrates and a single species of octopus.
• Various licenses are required: a project license for the research program, a personal license for individual workers, a certificate of designation for the research location
• For each research establishment, there must be: a designated person for daily animal care, a veterinary surgeon for health/welfare advice, an ethics committee
• Despite being stronger than the rest, this framework is still criticized:
  • It still does not sufficiently consider the psychological and social needs of the animals, such as having a stimulating environment, large living quarters, and opportunities for socializing.
  • The government does not sufficiently screen for unnecessary testing.
  • There is little public transparency of how the animals are being used.

Debates of strategy

Direct vs indirect tactics

• “Direct tactics” refers to rescuing animals and sabotaging laboratories, sometimes involving the destruction of private property. These acts are divisive, as some animal liberationists think that illegal (and potentially violent) activities are counterproductive and detract from the movement’s overall image. But to the contrary, law-breaking and violence seem to have significantly motivated institutional reform in the past— it cannot be known whether past goals would have been achieved otherwise.
• Historically, animal welfare in Britain was more right-wing and associated with middle-class sentimentality over pets. During the 1970s, however, animal activists launched new campaigns to change the political perception of animals. These efforts were successful in promoting change, and they resulted in central and leftist affiliations.
• As described above, both direct action and political campaigns contributed to the movement’s overall progress. Each tactic may not have been sufficient on its own, emphasizing that diversity is important for a movement. The animal liberation movement thus includes a range of different philosophical positions and tactical approaches. 

Compromise and pressure campaigns

• There is also the question of compromise. Unlike in traditional diplomacy between political powers, animal advocates are not on equal footing with the opposition— campaigners advocate on behalf of animals, having little political power and little to lose. Therefore, Ryder concludes that animal organizations can better function as pressure groups to promote and force a decision, rather than negotiate a compromise. A compromise only serves the bureaucracy’s interest in avoiding reform, and concessions can be used to virtue-signal or to portray activists as ineffective. 
• In modern pressure-group politics, the primary tactics are: arousing media attention, pushing public opinion, and soliciting government organizations and politicians.
• Furthermore regarding compromise, there is a debate over its effect on momentum: Does compromise inspire hope and pave the way for further change? Or does compromise stall a movement, and is it used to excuse further inaction? Ryder suggests that for laboratory reform, the movement should compromise with smaller goals because of the resulting good publicity.
• Large reform goals are more likely to provoke the opposition, but therefore they may also incite the opposition to strengthen their defences.

Overall approach

• This approach to changemaking, involving direct tactics and pressure campaigns, may appear unproductive or uncouth to outsiders. But these strategies do not exclude the use of rational argumentation, expressions of gratitude, civilized interpersonal behavior, a graduated approach to reform, etc. “Nice activism” has its role, however governments do not change without pressure, and therefore pressure is the central strategy.
• Exemplifying this campaign strategy, Ryder describes how seal slaughter was banned in Scotland in 1978. First, the campaign got attention from the media: Greenpeace activists disrupted seal hunters at sea, a direct tactic which was widely reported upon. Next, public favor was channeled into action: The International Fund for Animal Welfare bought full-page ads in the press, telling people to petition the prime minister— In a single week, PM Callaghan received ~17,000 letters calling for the end of seal hunting. Lastly, the government was given an out by an organization it trusts: Richard Ryder led an RSPCA deputation to the Secretary of State, disputing previous government research and maintaining a firm stance against all instances of seal slaughter. Therein, this campaign successfully disqualified the pro-slaughter argument and provided the impetus necessary for changemaking.