Common public perception is that animal experimentation benefits scientific progress, particularly in the form of spearheading advances in human medicine. But is this true? How do we know that experimenting on animals teaches us anything except how animals react?

What does the scientific data itself say? What are the scientists themselves saying? To find the answers, this article cites official – scientific – sources, including from those who experiment on animals, themselves.

What is the evidence about animal experimentation?

According to the 2015 review ‘The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation‘, published by the Cambridge University Press (CUP) and the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM; emphasis added):

The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice… animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods… Because much pharmaceutical [data is] publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated [through animal experiments], only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical [human] trials [a 99.9% failure rate].

According to the 2010 review ‘Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?‘, published by PLOS One (a peer-reviewed open-access journal) and the U.S. NLM (emphasis added):

The value of animal experiments for predicting the effectiveness of treatment strategies in clinical trials has remained controversial, mainly because of a recurrent failure of interventions apparently promising in animal models to translate to the clinic… [this] failure may be explained in part by methodological flaws in animal studies, leading to systematic bias and thereby to inadequate data and incorrect conclusions… In fact, clinical trials are essential because animal studies do not predict with sufficient certainty what will happen in humans.

Finally, according to a 2004 review ‘Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?‘, published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the NLM, of animal experiments that were scrutinized (emphasis added):

Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews. Clinicians and the public [believe] that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic animal research… Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness, basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much more funding than clinical research… The contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation.

Every systematic review and meta-study of animal testing found presented the same damning conclusions about animal experimentation as the three cited above (which themselves show nothing has changed in over a decade). Namely that animal experimentation:

Is flawed, biased, and ineffective

Is not properly conducted or evaluated (e.g. fraud)

Is largely hidden from scrutiny

Actively harms humans

Has huge failure rates (between 90-99.9% in clinical trials; see below)

Holds back real medical progress

Is there a problem with fraud and bias in scientific research?

PLOS One (peer-reviewed open-access journal) and the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) Of mostly U.S. and U.K. scientists*, up to: 92% Admitted they knew of fraud in research (e.g. fabrication of data). 81% were ‘willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper.’ 72% Personally witnessed ‘questionable’ research practices^. * 71% of studies reviewed were for U.S. scientists in all fields of study. 14% were for U.K. scientists. Of mostly U.S. and U.K. scientists, up to: 34% Admitted to ‘questionable’ practices* . 29% of cases of fraud were never reported, investigated, or even known about. 54% of reported cases of fraud were not investigated. ^/* E.g. ‘dropping data points based on a gut feeling’, ‘modifying figures’, and outright fabrication.

A separate review, published by the U.S. NLM, found that most complaints about fraud were ‘investigated’ by the alleged fraudsters themselves. It also found that some research co-ordinators questioned were even fired or forced to resign after complaining about fraud, too. Fortunate for the fraudsters that most data is hidden from scrutiny anyway.

What are the reasons for animal experimentation?

U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) Objectives* for experimenting on animals in Turkey, as stated by the scientists: 42%: To write a dissertation. 26%: To provide a sufficient number of publications required for promotion. 31%: To carry out further experiments related to former studies**. * Multiple objectives could be selected. ** 69% did not have the objective of advancing research. Factors* in experimenting on animals in Turkey, as stated by the scientists: 28%: Ease of conducting. 63%: Whether it would be the first study or not**. 43%: Publication potential. * Multiple factors could be selected. ** This means just to have a specialisation in something.

The main objectives of animal experimentations are not to further medical science but rather to further personal gain in the form of academic prestige, titles, and promotions.

As up to 81% of mostly U.S. and U.K. scientists questioned admitted they would fabricate data for money and the prestige of getting published – and as getting published leads to specialisation and promotion just like their Turkish counterparts – would their motivations to experiment on animals be much different? Why else would they knowingly continue with ineffective and worthless research?

How many animals are experimented on?

U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), European Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.K. Government Animals experimented on each year: 115.3 million globally in 2005 (‘likely to be an underestimate’)* . 11.5 million in the E.U. in 2011. 820,812 in the U.S. in 2016**. 3.79 million in the U.K. in 2017. * Few countries publish statistics. ** Mice make up 60% of experiments in the E.U. but are not counted by the U.S. Neither are cold-blooded animals (12%) nor Birds (6%). Animals experimented on each year: At least 78% of animals counted by the E.U. were not counted by the U.S. excluded by the . Animalsby the U.S. and U.K. Animal Welfare Acts are not counted* None of the estimated figures include invertebrates. * Together the Acts can exclude farm animals, birds, rats, mice, cold-blooded animals, animals altered and bred for experiments, invertebrates, unborn foetuses, dogs used for hunting/security/breeding, etc.

The real figures of animal experimentation are impossible to know. They are largely unreported and legislation allows what reports there are to hide the true extent. The most obvious examples are farm animals experimented on for the financial gain of animal agriculture which do not count in official estimates, such as baby calves.

Even the official figures don’t add up. The U.S. congress estimated in 1986 that 17-22 million animals per year were experimented on in laboratories in America. However, the USDA figure for 1986 was 1.8 million, about 90% less than the congress estimate (the report was later removed from the USDA website and current USDA publications no longer provide historical data).

What are the real-world consequences of animal experimentation?

U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Drugs involving animal experimentation: Thalidomide: Found safe but caused 10,000 birth defects in human babies*. . Tamoxifen : Ineffective in animals but effective for breast cancer . Penicillin : Toxic to Guinea Pigs but safe and effective for humans . Imatinib : Toxic to animals but effective for leukaemia in humans Rofecoxib: Found safe but caused up to 140,000 heart attacks in humans. * Later found to be toxic to other species (e.g. armadillos and starfish). Animal experimentation to clinical trials: 99.9% failure rate for . failure rate for all drugs (only 5 out of every 5,000-10,000 experiments) 99.6% failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs.

90% failure rate for . failure rate for all experiments in total* 100% failure rate to cure cancer despite decades of experiments. 100% failure rate to cure HIV/AIDS despite decades of experiments . * There is no evidence to suggest the other 10% isn’t just incidental.

Animal experimentation held back at least two effective treatments for cancer. The whole reason that animal experimentation must always lead to clinical trials is precisely because animal experimentation – as already proven – is unreliable and does not accurately predict what will happen with humans. This is why it can and does result in significant harm to humans.

That thalidomide is toxic to some animals but not to others is itself proof that animal testing is worthless. Animals are not just significantly psychologically and physically different from us but from each other as well. The paper about Thalidomide also outlines (and further proves) the rampant fraud and corruption already evidenced.

Comments based on the data

For all the ‘breakthroughs’ and ‘promising developments’ constantly promised via the media for decades on behalf of animal experimentation – most recently from breaking the backs of rats and sticking dogs upside-down in jars of liquid – where exactly are all the real-world advances in medicine? Where are all the medical advances from at least 1,150,000,000 animals tortured and killed in laboratories in the last 10 years alone?

A 90-99.9% failure rate is not scientific. An ingrained and long-term culture of poor conduct, improper evaluations, lack of systematic reviews, fraud, corruption, secrecy, and blatant lies is not scientific. Experimenting on animals just for academic prestige, titles, promotions, and money from ‘getting published’ is not scientific. Ignoring the overwhelming evidence and real-world harm caused by worthless experiments on animals and continuing them anyway is not scientific.

What this is, is psychopathic. It would be interesting to find out exactly how many of these quack-‘scientists’ are psychopaths. At least they are in good company with the psychopaths in animal agriculture, who do actually benefit from these experiments by learning how to keep animals alive in ever-more horrendous conditions.