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 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 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.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Center for Animal Research and Education Inc.

This statistic displays the opinion of respondents on the acceptability of animal research in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2016. A majority of respondents can accept the use of animals in scientific research as long as there is no unnecessary suffering to the animals and there is no alternative.

Context

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, have myocytes and are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development. As of 2022, 2.16 million living animal species have been described—of which around 1.05 million are insects, over 85,000 are mollusks, and around 65,000 are vertebrates. It has been estimated there are around 7.77 million animal species. Animals range in length from 8.5 micrometers (0.00033 in) to 33.6 meters (110 ft). They have complex interactions with each other and their environments, forming intricate food webs. The scientific study of animals is known as zoology.

Content

This dataset encompasses a diverse array of attributes pertaining to various animal species worldwide. The dataset prominently includes fields such as Animal, Height (cm), Weight (kg), Color, Lifespan (years), Diet, Habitat, Predators, Average Speed (km/h), Countries Found, Conservation Status, Family, Gestation Period (days), Top Speed (km/h), Social Structure, and Offspring per Birth. These columns collectively offer a comprehensive understanding of animal characteristics, habitats, behaviors, and conservation statuses. Researchers and enthusiasts can utilize this dataset to analyze animal traits, study their habitats, explore dietary patterns, assess conservation needs, and conduct a wide range of ecological research and wildlife studies.

Dataset Glossary (Column-wise)

• Animal - Name of the animal.
• Height (cm) - Height range in centimeters for the animal.
• Weight (kg) - Weight range in kilograms for the animal.
• Color - Common colors associated with the animal's appearance.
• Lifespan (years) - Average lifespan of the animal in years.
• Diet - Type of diet the animal primarily follows (e.g., Carnivore, Herbivore).
• Habitat - Typical habitat or environment where the animal is found.
• Predators - Natural enemies or organisms that prey on the animal.
• Average Speed (km/h) - The average speed range the animal can achieve in kilometers per hour.
• Countries Found - Countries or regions where the animal is commonly found.
• Conservation Status - The conservation status of the animal as per relevant conservation organizations.
• Family - Taxonomic family the animal belongs to.
• Gestation Period (days) - Range of days representing the gestation or pregnancy period of the animal.
• Top Speed (km/h) - The maximum speed the animal can achieve in kilometers per hour.
• Social Structure - Information about the social behavior or structure of the animal (e.g., Solitary, Group-based).
• Offspring per Birth - The typical number of offspring born per birth or reproduction event for the animal.

Structure of the Dataset

https://i.imgur.com/2V3vbKL.png" alt="">

Acknowledgement

This dataset was generated using information from: https://www.wikipedia.org/. If you wish to delve deeper, you can explore the website.

Cover Photo by: Image by brgfx on Freepik

Thumbnail by: Dog icons created by Flat Icons - Flaticon

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).

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.

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

Discover the booming animal research software market! This comprehensive analysis reveals key trends, growth drivers, and challenges impacting this $1.5B+ industry from 2025-2033, including regional breakdowns and leading companies. Learn about cloud-based solutions, regulatory impacts, and future opportunities.

Lapse in institutional animal care and use committee continuing reviews.

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...

Lapse in institutional animal care and use committee continuing reviews according to program sizes.

In the European Union (EU), animal welfare is seen as a matter of great importance. However, with respect to animal experimentation, European citizens feel quite uninformed. The European Directive 2010/63/EU for the protection of laboratory animals aims for greater transparency and requires that a comprehensible, nontechnical summary (NTS) of each authorised research project involving animals is published by the respective Member State. However, the NTSs remain sleeping beauties if their contents are not easily and systematically accessible. The German web-based NTS database AnimalTestInfo is a unique channel for scientists to communicate their work, and provides the opportunity for large-scale analyses of planned animal studies to inform researchers and the public. For an in-depth meta-analysis, we classified the duly completed NTSs submitted to AnimalTestInfo in 2014 and 2015 according to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) system. Indexing the NTSs with ICD codes provided a fine-grained overview of the prospective uses of experimental animals. Using this approach, transparency, especially for highly controversial animal research involving, for example, nonhuman primates, is fostered, as it enables pinpointing the envisaged beneficiary down to the level of the addressed disease. Moreover, research areas with many planned projects involving animals can be specified in detail. The development of 3R (replacement, reduction, and refinement) measures in these research areas may be most efficient, as a large number of experimental animals would benefit from it. Indexing NTSs with ICD codes can support governments and funding agencies in advancing target-oriented funding of 3R research. Data drawn from NTSs can provide a basis for the development, validation, and implementation of directed 3R strategies as well as guidance for rethinking the role of animal research models.

The Animal Research Activity Wheel market plays a pivotal role in the realm of behavioral studies and biomedical research, offering researchers a vital tool for assessing the physical activity levels and behavioral patterns of various animal models, particularly rodents. Designed to facilitate studies on locomotor a

Reports on statistics of animal usage in batch release tests for immunological products