Despite animal testing being a controversial topic for many years, it is still widely used globally to assess the safety of products and test the efficacy of new treatments and products. In 2020, the United States was the world’s largest user of animals in research and testing, with around 20 million animals used research and testing, followed by China where it is estimated that around 16 million animals were used in research and testing in that year. Animal testing is used especially in the medical, cosmetic, and chemical industries.

Animal Testing in the EU

The European Union also reported some 9.4 million animals used research and testing as of 2020. Basic research, and translational and applied research are the two leading purposes of animal testing in the European Union. Mice represent the most commonly used animal in research and testing in the EU, representing almost half of all animals used in research and testing, followed by fish and rats.

Animal Testing in Great Britain

Animal testing in Great Britain was most common in basic scientific research on the nervous system and the immune system, and most procedures on animals for scientific experiments in that year in Great Britain were conducted by universities and medical schools. As in the EU, mice were the most commonly used animals in research and testing, followed by domestic fowl and rats.

In 2019, 797,546 animals were used for research in research facilities in the United States. This is an increase from the previous year, when about 780,070 animals were used for research in the country.

This statistic displays the number of animals used in scientific research in Ireland in 2023. Mice were the most commonly used animal, accounting for nearly 87 thousand uses, followed by rats at more than eight thousand.

This statistic displays the total number of animals used in scientific research in the European Union from 2015 to 2022, including only animals used for the first time each year. In 2022, some 8.4 million animals were used in scientific research in all EU member states and Norway, an increase of over 400 thousand compared to the previous year.

This statistic displays the share of purposes for scientific research on animals in the 27 European Union countries (including Norway) in 2019. The main purpose for testing on animals was for basic research, with some 45 percent.

USDA 2016 Data on Animal Testing in the United States

Broken down by State / Territory

Required Reporting by Testing Facilities in the US

Each USDA-registered research facility and Federal research facility is required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to submit an Annual Report (APHIS Form 7023) that documents its use of animals for research, testing, teaching, experimentation, and/or surgery. USDA-APHIS Animal Care receives copy of each research facility’s annual report on or before December 1. Animal Care reviews the data to ensure the calculated totals are consistent with the number of reported animals in each pain/distress category. Reports with inconsistent data are returned to the research facility for correction. The completeness and accuracy of the non-Federal research facility annual reports might be validated during USDA animal welfare compliance inspections. However, research facilities sometimes include additional data on their annual reports that is not required under the Animal Welfare Act, such as data about rats of the genus rattus, mice of the genus mus, and birds bred for use in research, animals used in excluded field studies, animals used in clinical trials in the context of a veterinary client relationship, and reptiles, fish, or other animals that are not covered by the AWA.

Summary

The data in the summary reports represent the number of animals USDA-registered research facilities and Federal research facilities reported as being used or held for research, testing, teaching, experimentation, and/or surgery. The summary reports are based on the Annual Report column designations:

• Column B (animals held by a facility but not used in any research that year).

• Column C (animals used in research; no pain involved; no pain drugs administered).

• Column D (animals used in research; pain involved; pain drugs administered).

• Column E (animals used in research; pain involved; no pain drugs administered).

• ALL_PAINTYPES_2016 = (total number of animals used in research; Column C + Column D + Column E).

States include 50 states plus Puerto Rico (PR) and District of Columbia (DC).

Acknowledgements

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service More years found here: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_obtain_research_facility_annual_report/ct_research_facility_annual_summary_reports

Inspiration

The Beagle Freedom Project (Photo taken from there website)

The Humane Society

Peta

Bruna, Chewy, Cat Stevens, Remy, Owen, Neumann and Timmy (dogs and one cat).

Background: The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.

Objectives: i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.

Methods: Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal cort...

The global animal experiment mice market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing demand for preclinical research in pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. The market's expansion is fueled by advancements in genetic engineering, creating more sophisticated and accurate animal models for disease research. This allows for more effective drug discovery and development, ultimately accelerating the time-to-market for new therapies. Furthermore, the rising prevalence of chronic diseases globally necessitates extensive preclinical testing, significantly boosting the demand for animal experiment mice. Over the forecast period (2025-2033), the market is projected to maintain a healthy Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), although a precise figure requires more detailed data. Considering typical growth trajectories in this sector, a CAGR of 7-9% seems reasonable, leading to a substantial market expansion by 2033. Key players such as GemPharmatech, Cyagen, and Taconic are strategically investing in research and development to enhance their product offerings and expand their market share. The market segmentation within the animal experiment mice sector shows a diverse landscape, with different strains and models catering to specific research needs. Competition is fierce, with established companies facing challenges from emerging players who are innovating with new technologies and specialized mouse models. Regulatory hurdles and ethical considerations related to animal experimentation represent potential restraints to market growth, although these are mitigated by rigorous regulatory frameworks and a growing emphasis on the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) principles. Geographic variations in market size are likely, with North America and Europe holding significant shares, reflecting the higher concentration of research institutions and pharmaceutical companies in these regions. However, growth in Asia-Pacific is anticipated due to the rising investment in life sciences research and development in countries like China and India.

The provided information includes: year, month, animal species, purpose, vaccine name, code, brand category, brand name, batch number, total dose, expiry date, and judgment field data.

Dataset containing 8,386 non-technical summaries (NTS) of animal experiments recently carried out in Germany (as of September 19, 2018) and originally on-line available at the AnimalTestInfo database (http://animaltestinfo.de). Each NTS contains a title, uses (goals) of the experiments, possible harms caused to the animals, and comments about replacement, reduction and refinement (in the scope of the 3R principles). All documents are in the German language. The dataset includes the ICD-10 codes manually assigned by experts to the NTS. However, some NTSs have no ICD-10 codes assigned to them, as the codes were not applicable to the uses described in the NTS. All codes are chapters or groups from the ICD-10 German Modification 2016 version (https://www.dimdi.de/static/de/klassifikationen/icd/icd-10-gm/kode-suche/htmlgm2016/). Finally, the dataset is split into training and development datasets which are meant to be used in the CLEF eHealth 2019, Task 1 - Multilingual Information Extraction (https://sites.google.com/view/clefehealth2019/task-1-multilingual-information-extraction-icd10-coding).

Laboratory data in experimental animals.

This database compiles systematic reviews (SRs) of animal studies (i.e., reviews that focused exclusively on non-human animal research, or reviews that included animal studies along with human studies). This database was developed using a rigorous, systematic approach and it covers a broad range of research fields: preclinical research, toxicology, environmental health, and veterinary medicine. The goals of this database are to: (1) provide a comprehensive collection of animal study SRs to advance systematic review methods development; (2) enable researchers to avoid duplication of effort and, thus, reduce research waste by identifying published SRs of animal studies that may already address a research question; and (3) aid in the creation of evidence maps, usually designed as interactive figures of study characteristics.

The SRs included in the database were identified using a comprehensive search strategy (see data) in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), and Web of Science. The records included in the animal studies SR database meet the following eligibility criteria: 1. The reference aims to systematically review the literature. The title or abstract states this aim using terminology such as “literature review,” “literature overview,” “systematic review,” “systematic survey,” or “meta-analysis.” 2. The reference summarizes the results of studies in laboratory or experimental animals to investigate human or animal health. 3. The reference reports the eligibility criteria for the primary studies, specifies search terms, and the search is performed in at least one specified database/electronic source (e.g., PubMed). 4. A full text version of the reference is publicly available.

There were no restrictions in language or publication date.

Version 1.0 covers data through 13 February 2018 Version 1.1 covers data through 18 June 2019

Articles on ANIMAL experimentation

This statistic displays the number of animals used in scientific research in Ireland in 2023, by project purpose. In that year, approximately 75 thousand animals were involved in regulatory use and routine production.

In this study we invited public responses to five different research projects, using non-technical summaries intended for lay audiences. Our aim was to assess the potential for this type of public consultation in protocol review, and a secondary aim was to better understand what types of animal research people are willing to accept and why. US participants (n = 1521) were asked (via an online survey) “Do you support the use of these (insert species) for this research”, and responded using a seven-point scale (1 = “No”, 4 = “Neutral”, and 7 = “Yes”). Participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choice; open-ended text responses were subjected to thematic analysis. Most participants (89.7%) provided clear comments, showing the potential of an online forum to elicit feedback. Four themes were prevalent in participant reasoning regarding their support for the proposed research: 1) impact on animals, 2) impact on humans, 3) scientific merit, and 4) availability of alternatives. Participant support for the proposed research varied but on average was close to neutral (mean ± SD: 4.5 ± 2.19) suggesting some ambivalence to this animal use. The protocol describing Parkinson’s research (on monkeys) was least supported (3.9 ± 2.17) and the transplant research (on pigs) was most supported (4.9 ± 2.02). These results indicate that public participants are sensitive to specifics of a protocol. We conclude that an online forum can provide meaningful public input on proposed animal research, offering research institutions the opportunity for improved transparency and the chance to reduce the risk that they engage in studies that are out of step with community values.

Statistical analyses for behavior and transcription experiments including applicable post-hocs and version numbers of analysis packages used. Also includes relevant metrics for all experimental animals including information about excluded animals.