Animal Testing in the United StatesThe USDA makes data on animal testing freely available. Here’s a snapshot of animal testing statistics for domestic animals experimented on in 2015 in the United States:
- Cats: 19,932
- Dogs: 61,101
- Guinea Pigs: 172,864
- Hamsters: 98,420
A total of 767,622 animals were experimented on in 2015. This total does not include mice, rats, fish, reptiles and birds — animals that are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. It’s estimated that around 100 million animals in total are used yearly in research, although the true figure is unknown as most experiments do not have to be reported to the FDA.
Is Animal Experimentation Necessary?
It’s a misconception that animal testing for medicinal reasons is necessary and most of the time vivisection is completely ineffective. In a Journal of the American Medical Association article, researchers found that experiments on animals rarely translated to what happened when the drug was tested on people:
“…patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the finding of prominent animal research to the care of human disease … poor replication of even high-quality animal studies should be expected by those who conduct clinical research.” (3)
In general, animal experiments are a very unreliable indicator of how a drug will behave in a human being; This is one reason that new drugs are given sparingly in tiny amounts to a few people in Phase 1 clinical trials. Phase 1 trials test a drug for no other reason than safety, as researchers don’t trust results from animal experiments.
Every potential new drug is required by the FDA to be toxicity tested on animals. That means countless animals are intentionally poisoned before a drug is every given to a person. Yet, these mass overdoses in animals have little to no effect on the drug making it to market; The overall success rate for drugs moving from Phase I clinical trials to FDA approval is only about 10%(4). That means the vast majority of drugs that showed promise in animal studies dare either not safe or do not work. Those that do work had side effects so severe the clinical trials had to be stopped.
What about the argument that we need to test on animals to try and find a cure for serious diseases? A cure in an animal doesn’t translate all that well to a cure in humans. Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, states:
“We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.”(5)
My Personal Stance
I have always been completely against animal experiments of any kind, for any reason. I do not donate to organizations or charities that experiment on animals (like the Susan G. Komen foundation), but I will donate to organizations that do not use animals (like the American Breast Cancer Foundation). As this site has grown over the years, more and more people are asking for help with their experiments — and some of those experiments involve animals. I realize I had moved from merely teaching statistics to actually helping people use statistics. The thought that I was helping any kind of experiment involving animals began to make me feel more and more comfortable.
A recent dinner conversation also brought this issue to the forefront. A dinner guest was an animal experimenter and told the story of an experiment on mice that went horribly wrong. The animals were in severe pain and she called the head researcher for permission to put the animals out of their misery. He told her if she euthanized the suffering mice, she would be fired, because that would invalidate the experiment. This is not an unusual story in the animal experimentation world. In Canada in 2013(6), 78,294 animals experienced “severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.” I’m not going to share the gory details of what went wrong. You can read countless horror stories elsewhere on the web (like here and here). But that whole conversation inspired me to make changes to how I approach my work.
A comment was left on my blog this morning, asking for help with statistics on a rat experiment.
I politely declined, and decided to write this article instead.
I will no longer help any individual involved in animal experiments with their thesis/dissertations. Nor will I deal with companies who experiment on animals (or is conducting research based on experimentation).
Animal testing statistics conclude that animal experiments are unnecessary and ineffective. It’s time we all made changes to end this barbaric practice. Even small changes, like avoiding shampoo tested on animals, can help (just look for the leaping bunny logo on the back of the bottle). The Law of Large Numbers tells us that eventually, many small changes add up to a big one. Let’s all make small changes and end animal testing for good.
References for Animal Testing Statistics
- Funk, C. and Rainie,L. “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society,” Pew Research Center, 29 Jan. 2015.
- Aldhous, P. and Coghlan, A. “Let the People Speak,” New Scientist 22 May 1999.
- Hackam, D. and Redelmeier, D, “Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
- Bill Berkrot (Rueters). “Success Rates for Experimental Drugs Fall.”
- Marlene Simmons et al., “Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions,” Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
- Canadian Council on Animal Care, “CCAC 2013 Animal Data Report,” 2015.
If you prefer an online interactive environment to learn R and statistics, this free R Tutorial by Datacamp is a great way to get started. If you're are somewhat comfortable with R and are interested in going deeper into Statistics, try this Statistics with R track.Comments? Need to post a correction? Please post on our Facebook page.