Cited by 11Animal testing and alternativesAnimal Law and WelfareResearch, Science, and Academia

Wasted Money in United States Biomedical and Agricultural Animal Research

Open access
Keen, Jim·2019·Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change

Abstract

Biomedical and agricultural animal research uses millions of experimental animals and dozens of animal species each year by choice, precedent, or regulatory mandate in basic and applied life science research and toxicity testing of drugs, chemicals, and consumer products. Animal research is a large component of the international us$270 billion government-subsidized, biomedical industrial ecosystem (Chakma et al., 2014). In the United States (us) and presumably elsewhere, about half of these funds support animal research and testing (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012). Each year at least 115 million experimental animals (mostly mice and likely a significant underestimate) are used worldwide (Akhtar, 2015). The status quo animal research environment provides “ecosystem services” to a large number of inter- dependent “species”, including governments, academia, biotechnology, agri-food and pharmaceutical industries, and publishers. Losers in this system are the conscripted animals (for “labor”) and taxpayers (for “capital”).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/9789004391192_011

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Aspirin causes embryo toxicity in rats and rhesus monkeys.

    “aspirin (embryo toxicity in rats and rhesus monkeys) (41)”

    From Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials (2019) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 7, under “False positive drug toxicity,” says aspirin produced birth defects in rats and monkeys. It does not identify the monkeys as rhesus monkeys, so the species-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Chakma, J., G.H. Sun, J.D. Steinberg, S.M. Sammut and R. Jagsi (2014). Asia's Ascent Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(1), pp. 3-6.
  2. Collins, F.S. and L.A. Tabak (2014). NIH Plans to Enhance Reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), pp. 612-613.
  3. Dorsey, E.R., J.P. Thompson, M. Carrasco, J. De Roulet, P. Vitticore, S. Nicholson, S.C. Johnston, R.G. Holloway and H. Moses (2009). Financing of us Biomedical Re- search and New Drug Approvals Across Therapeutic Areas. PLoS One, 4(9), p. e7015. [online] Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0007015 [Accessed 13 August 2017]. · DOI
  4. Mandal, J. and C. Parija (2013). Ethics Involving Animal Research. Tropical Parasitology, 3(1), pp. 4-6.
  5. Moses, H., D.H. Matheson, S. Cairns-Smith, B.P. George, C. Palisch and E.R. Dorsey (2015). The Anatomy of Medical Research: us and International Comparisons. Jour- nal of the American Medical Association, 313(2), pp. 174-189.
  6. Perrin, S. (2014). Make Mouse Studies Work. Nature, 507, pp. 423-425.
  7. Petersen, M. (2012). As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving? The Chronicle Review, The Chronicle of Higher Education. [online] Available at: http://www.chronicle.com/article/As-Beef-Cattle-Become/131480/ [Accessed 13 August 2017].
  8. Pew Charitable Trusts (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal produc- tion in America. Washington, dc: PEW Charitable Trust, pp. 11-19. [online] Available at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/peg/ publications/ report/pcifapfinalpdf.pdf [Accessed 13 August 2017].
  9. Pew Research Center (2015). Chapter 7: Opinion About the Use of Animals in Research. American Politics and Science Issues, pp. 141-144. [online] Available at: http:// www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-the-use-of-animals-in- research/ [Accessed 13 August 2017]. Jim Keen -9789004391192 Downloaded from Brill.com07/14/2023 08:59:42AM via free access
  10. Rampton, S. and J. Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA. Monroe, me: Common Courage Press, pp. 69-70. [online] Available at: http://www.srwolf.com/reports/mcusa.pdf [Accessed 13 August 2017].
  11. Roep, B.O., M. Atkinson and M. von Herrath (2004). Satisfaction (Not) Guaran- teed: Re-evaluating the Use of Animal Models. Nature Reviews Immunology, 4(12), pp. 989-997.
  12. Twine, R. (2012). Revealing the "Animal-Industrial Complex"-A Concept and Method for Critical Animal Studies?. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 10(1), pp. 12-39. Jim Keen -9789004391192 Downloaded from Brill.com07/14/2023 08:59:42AM via free access

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keen, J.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Keen, Jim
Venue
Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change
Publisher
BRILL
Published
2019-04-17
Pages
244-272
OpenAlex
W2938315932
Cited by
11
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
8.16
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BRILL eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
animal research funding, animal experimentation, biomedical research, research waste, toxicity testing, research ecosystem, research funding allocation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review