CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Animal testing and alternativesAnimal Law and WelfareHistory of Science and Medicine

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 159 of the 165 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal Experiments in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective

Open access
Franco, Nuno·2013·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani3010238PMC PMC4495509
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The use of non-human animals in biomedical research has given important contributions to the medical progress achieved in our day, but it has also been a cause of heated public, scientific and philosophical discussion for hundreds of years. This review, with a mainly European outlook, addresses the history of animal use in biomedical research, some of its main protagonists and antagonists, and its effect on society from Antiquity to the present day, while providing a historical context with which to understand how we have arrived at the current paradigm regarding the ethical treatment of animals in research.

Overview

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 · 10.3390/ani3010238

Cites

159 of 159 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 “First Stage of Cruelty” by William Hogarth (1750), the first plate from “The Four Stages of Cruelty” series, which describes the escalating violent behavior that follows childhood cruelty to animals to an adulthood of criminal life. In this scene, two boys plunge an arrow into the rectum of a dog, while another boy, most likely the pet’s owner, pleads with them to stop. Meanwhile, some boys are burning the eye of a bird, while others tie bones to a dog’s tail. Also, some boys play “cock-throwing” (a popular sport in eighteenth-century England, consisting of throwing stones or bottles at a cockerel tied to a stake) while others hang fighting cats, and others even throw animals from windows. Source: ©Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
Figure 1 “First Stage of Cruelty” by William Hogarth (1750), the first plate from “The Four Stages of Cruelty” series, which describes the escalating violent behavior that follows childhood cruelty to animals to an adulthood of criminal life. In this scene, two boys plunge an arrow into the rectum of a dog, while another boy, most likely the pet’s owner, pleads with them to stop. Meanwhile, some boys are burning the eye of a bird, while others tie bones to a dog’s tail. Also, some boys play “cock-throwing” (a popular sport in eighteenth-century England, consisting of throwing stones or bottles at a cockerel tied to a stake) while others hang fighting cats, and others even throw animals from windows. Source: ©Victoria and Albert Museum, London.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 “An Experiment on a Bird in an air pump”, by Joseph Wright of Derby (detail) (1768). In this brilliant artwork, the artist captures the multiple reactions elicited by the use of live animals as experimental subjects in eighteenth-century Britain, for which we can find a parallel in present day’s diverse attitudes on this topic, including shock, sadness, appreciation, curiosity and indifference. Currently in The National Gallery, London. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2 “An Experiment on a Bird in an air pump”, by Joseph Wright of Derby (detail) (1768). In this brilliant artwork, the artist captures the multiple reactions elicited by the use of live animals as experimental subjects in eighteenth-century Britain, for which we can find a parallel in present day’s diverse attitudes on this topic, including shock, sadness, appreciation, curiosity and indifference. Currently in The National Gallery, London. Source: Wikimedia Commons.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 “A physiological demonstration with vivisection of a dog,” by Émile-Édouard Mouchy. This 1832 oil painting—the only secular painting known of the artist—illustrates how French scholars valued physiological experimentation in service of scientific progress [90]. Notice how the struggling of the animal does not seem to affect the physiologist or his observers. Currently part of the Wellcome Gallery collection, London. Source: Wellcome Library.
Figure 3 “A physiological demonstration with vivisection of a dog,” by Émile-Édouard Mouchy. This 1832 oil painting—the only secular painting known of the artist—illustrates how French scholars valued physiological experimentation in service of scientific progress [90]. Notice how the struggling of the animal does not seem to affect the physiologist or his observers. Currently part of the Wellcome Gallery collection, London. Source: Wellcome Library.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 This full-page illustration of Pasteur in his animal facility was published in Harper’s Weekly in the United States, on 21 June 1884. At this time, there was moderate curiosity on Pasteur’s work in the US, which would intensify after his first successful human trials of a therapeutic vaccine for rabies in 1885. In the article, the reader is reassured that the use of dogs is both humane and justified in the interest of mankind. The use of other species, however, is barely mentioned [5]. Source: Images from the History of Medicine, U.S. National Library of Science.
Figure 4 This full-page illustration of Pasteur in his animal facility was published in Harper’s Weekly in the United States, on 21 June 1884. At this time, there was moderate curiosity on Pasteur’s work in the US, which would intensify after his first successful human trials of a therapeutic vaccine for rabies in 1885. In the article, the reader is reassured that the use of dogs is both humane and justified in the interest of mankind. The use of other species, however, is barely mentioned [5]. Source: Images from the History of Medicine, U.S. National Library of Science.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Two outbred laboratory rats, of the Lister Hooded (Long–Evans) strain. Rodents are the most commonly used laboratory animals, making up nearly 80% of the total of animals used in the European Union, followed by cold-blooded animals (fish, amphibian and reptiles, making up a total of 9.6%) and birds (6.3%) [159] Photo: Francis Brosseron, reproduced with permission.
Figure 5 Two outbred laboratory rats, of the Lister Hooded (Long–Evans) strain. Rodents are the most commonly used laboratory animals, making up nearly 80% of the total of animals used in the European Union, followed by cold-blooded animals (fish, amphibian and reptiles, making up a total of 9.6%) and birds (6.3%) [159] Photo: Francis Brosseron, reproduced with permission.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 A large advertisement published in the 13 May 1991 edition of The Hour (p. 9), and part of a campaign in defense of animal research, sponsored by the United States Surgical Corporation. While the value of Pasteur’s work is undeniable, there is, however, no scientific grounding for the claim that only by experimenting on dogs would a vaccine for rabies have been developed, or that other animal models or even non-animal methods could not have been used to achieve this in over a century. These dramatic and biased portraits of animal research are now more uncommon, as an increasing number of scientists acknowledge the need to be more candid and open to objective discussion over the possibilities and limitations of animal research, and of the scientific process altogether.
Figure 6 A large advertisement published in the 13 May 1991 edition of The Hour (p. 9), and part of a campaign in defense of animal research, sponsored by the United States Surgical Corporation. While the value of Pasteur’s work is undeniable, there is, however, no scientific grounding for the claim that only by experimenting on dogs would a vaccine for rabies have been developed, or that other animal models or even non-animal methods could not have been used to achieve this in over a century. These dramatic and biased portraits of animal research are now more uncommon, as an increasing number of scientists acknowledge the need to be more candid and open to objective discussion over the possibilities and limitations of animal research, and of the scientific process altogether.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 This schematic illustration (adapted with permission from an original by Professor Bert van Zupthen) attempts to describe trends in the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Western world across time. It depicts the emergence of the first vivisection studies by classical Greek physicians, the absence of animal-based research—along with most medical and scientific research—across the Middle Ages, its resurgence in the Renaissance onwards, and the rapid increase in animal studies following the rise of science-based physiology and medicine in the nineteenth century. The curves represented are nevertheless conjectural, as there are no reliable statistics on animal use for most of the period covered. Even nowadays it is hard to estimate trends in animal research, as data from several developed countries is insufficient (for instance, in the United States, rodents, fish and birds are not accounted for in the statistics). The available data, however, suggest that the number of animals used in research and testing in the Western world peaked in the 1970s, and decreased until the late 1990s, or early 2000s, to about half the number of 30 years earlier, and stabilizing in recent years. While many, if not most, researchers do not foresee an end to animal experiments in biomedicine, the European Commission has nevertheless set full replacement of animal experiments as an ultimate goal [204], and the Humane Society of the United States has the optimistic goal of full replacement by the year 2050 [192].
Figure 7 This schematic illustration (adapted with permission from an original by Professor Bert van Zupthen) attempts to describe trends in the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Western world across time. It depicts the emergence of the first vivisection studies by classical Greek physicians, the absence of animal-based research—along with most medical and scientific research—across the Middle Ages, its resurgence in the Renaissance onwards, and the rapid increase in animal studies following the rise of science-based physiology and medicine in the nineteenth century. The curves represented are nevertheless conjectural, as there are no reliable statistics on animal use for most of the period covered. Even nowadays it is hard to estimate trends in animal research, as data from several developed countries is insufficient (for instance, in the United States, rodents, fish and birds are not accounted for in the statistics). The available data, however, suggest that the number of animals used in research and testing in the Western world peaked in the 1970s, and decreased until the late 1990s, or early 2000s, to about half the number of 30 years earlier, and stabilizing in recent years. While many, if not most, researchers do not foresee an end to animal experiments in biomedicine, the European Commission has nevertheless set full replacement of animal experiments as an ultimate goal [204], and the Humane Society of the United States has the optimistic goal of full replacement by the year 2050 [192].CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 165 references

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Anderson, S. (2005). Making Medicines: A Brief History of Pharmacy and Pharmaceuticals, Pharmaceutical Press.
  2. Prioreschi, P. (1998). A History of Medicine, Volume 3: Roman Medicine, Horatius Press.
  3. Prioreschi, P. (1996). A History of Medicine, Volume 2: Greek Medicine, Horatius Press. [2nd ed.].
  4. Prioreschi, P. (1996). A History of Medicine, Volume 5: Medieval Medicine, Edwin Mellen Press. [2nd ed.].
  5. Regan, T., and Singer, P. (1989). Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Prentice Hall. [2nd ed.].
  6. Boden, M.E. (2006). Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science, Oxford University Press.
  7. Moya, G.J.D. (1991). Rene Descartes: Critical Assessments, Routledge.
  8. Gaukroger, S., Schuster, J., and Sutton, J. (2000). Descartes’ Natural Philosophy, Routledge.
  9. Schneewind, J.B. (1997). Lectures on Ethics, Cambridge University Press.
  10. Conrad, L.I., Neve, M., Nutton, V., Porter, R., and Wear, A. (1995). The Western Medical Tradition: 800 BC–1800 AD, Cambridge University Press.
  11. Shackelford, J. (2003). William Harvey and the Mechanics of the Heart, Oxford University Press.
  12. Conrad, L.I., Neve, M., Nutton, V., Porter, R., and Wear, A. (1995). The Western Medical Tradition: 800 BC-1800 AD, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Duffin, J. (2010). History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction, University of Toronto Press. [2nd ed.].
  14. Maehle, A.-H. (1999). Drugs on Trial: Experimental Pharmacology and Therapeutic Innovation in the Eighteenth Century, Editions Rodopi. · DOI
  15. Voltaire, F.M.A. (2004). Philosophical Dictionary, Penguin Books.
  16. Brunton, D. (2004). Medicine Transformed: Health, Disease and Society in Europe, 1800–1930, Manchester University Press.
  17. Duffin, J. (2010). History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction, University of Toronto Press. [2nd ed.].
  18. Bynum, W.F. (1994). Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press.
  19. Rudacille, D. (2001). The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection, University of California Press.
  20. Bynum, W.F. (1994). Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  21. Coleman, W., and Holmes, F.L. (1988). The Investigative Enterprise: Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine, University of California Press. · DOI
  22. Olmsted, J.M.D. (1944). François Magendie, Arno Press.
  23. Davis, 1885, The moral aspects of vivisection, North Am. Rev., 140, 203
  24. Inoue, T., and Kodama, Y. (2007, January 21–25). Future Alternatives in “3Rs”: Learning from History. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan.
  25. Debré, P. (2000). Louis Pasteur, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  26. Rey, R. (1998). The History of Pain, Harvard University Press.
  27. Cunningham, A., and Williams, P. (1992). The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, Cambridge University Press.
  28. Tait, L. (1882). The Uselessness of Vivisection upon Animals as a Method of Scientific Research, The Herald Press.
  29. Semmelweis, I. (1983). Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever, University of Wisconsin Press.
  30. Hendriksen, C.F.M., and Morton, D.B. (1999). Humane Endpoints in Animals Experiments for Biomedical Research, Royal Society of Medicine Press.
  31. Ullmann, 2007, Pasteur–Koch: Distinctive ways of thinking about infectious diseases, Microbe, 2, 383
  32. Silverstein, A.M. (2001). Paul Ehrlich’s Receptor Immunology: The Magnificent Obsession, Elsevier Science.
  33. Pearce, 1912, Research in medicine. II. The development of laboratories for the medical sciences, Popul. Sci. Month., 80, 548
  34. Davis, N. (1903). History of Medicine, Cleveland Press.
  35. Romano, T.M. (2002). Making Medicine Scientific: John Burdon Sanderson and the Culture of Victorian Science, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  36. Cunningham, A., and Williams, P. (1992). The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, Cambridge University Press.
  37. Rudacille, D. (2001). The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection, University of California Press.
  38. Suckow, M.A., Weisbroth, S.H., and Franklin, C.L. (2006). The Laboratory Rat, Elsevier.
  39. Fox, J.G. (2007). The Mouse in Biomedical Research: History, Wild Mice, and Genetics, Academic Press.
  40. Hedrich, H.J., and Bullock, G.R. (2004). The Laboratory Mouse, Elsevier Academic Press.
  41. Singer, P. (2003). Animal liberation at 30. The New York Review of Books.
  42. Ryder, R.D. (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes toward Speciesism, Berg. · DOI
  43. Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  44. Regan, T., and Singer, P. (1989). Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Prentice Hall. [2nd ed.].
  45. Donway, 1999, Scientists in bunkers: How appeasement of “animal rights” activism has failed, Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, Volume 1, 50
  46. Aldhous, 1999, Animal experiments: Let the people speak, New Sci., 162, 26
  47. Balls, M. (2007, January 21–25). Professor W.M.S. Russell (1925–2006): Doyen of the three Rs. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan.
  48. Salem, D.J., and Rowan, A.N. (2001). The STate of the Animals: 2001, Humane Society Press.
  49. Smyth, D.H. (1978). Alternatives to Animal Experiments, Scolar Press [for] the Research Defence Society.
  50. Sztybel, 2007, Animal rights law: Fundamentalism versus pragmatism, J. Crit. Anim. Stud., 5, 1
  51. Kulpa-Eddy, J., Snyder, M., and Stokes, W. (2007, January 21–25). A review of trends in animal use in the united states (1972–2006). Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Alternatives & Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan.
  52. Louhimies, 2012, Eu Directive 2010/63/EU: “Implementing the three Rs through policy”, ALTEX Proc., 1, 27

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Franco, N.
Affiliations
Universidade do Porto (PT)
Corresponding author
Franco, Nuno
ORCID
Franco, Nuno
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2013-03-19
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
238-273
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani3010238
PMC
PMC4495509
OpenAlex
W2124183503
Cited by
265
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Medicine
Keywords
animal experimentation, history of animal research, biomedical research, animal ethics, animal welfare, European history

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