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 shows the moral stance of Americans regarding medical testing on animals in 2018. During the survey, 54 percent of respondents stated that they think medical testing on animals is morally acceptable, while 2 percent said it depends.

This data, provided to MPI by organisations and individuals who use animals in research, testing and teaching, is collated and published in a summary report on the MPI website each year. Please note that the number of animals used in long-term projects are not reported annually, but either every three years or at the end of the year in which the project is completed (if fewer than three years). Two datasets are also provided. Animal Usage by Institution Category is a breakdown by the type of organisation. Animal Usage by Animal Category is a breakdown by the animal species.

This statistic is based on a survey conducted in January 2015. It depicts the share of U.S. adults and their opinion on the use of animals for biomedical and health research as necessary for human health progress. Some 27 percent of adults claimed that using animal testing in medical and health research was not necessary. New legislation has been announced that would help improve the state of health care and medical research, especially as citizens believe that research is important for development of the economy.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a live, attenuated recombinant RVF arMP-12ΔNSm21/384 nucleotide deletion vaccine candidate in domestic ruminants. . The immunogenicity of 2 doses of 104 and 105 Tissue Culture Infectious Doses50% (TCID50) of the vaccine was assessed in of 2 groups of 10 sheep, 2 groups of 10 goats, and doses of 105 and 106 TCID50 were used to vaccinate 2 groups of 10 calves. The results showed that the immunogenicity among sheep, goats and cattle indicated that doses of 104 - 106 TCID50 elicited detectable antibody by day 7 post-vaccination and antibody titers that ranged from 1:14 to 1:305 on day 14 PV with sustained titers through day 28 PV. Overall, these findings indicated that the RVF arMP-12ΔNSm21/384 vaccine is a promising candidate for the prevention of RVF among domestic ruminants.

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.

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.

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.

Animal Model Market size was valued at USD 24.17 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 49.36 Billion by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 10.3%from 2024 to 2031.

Animal models serve as critical tools for studying complex biological processes, disease mechanisms, and potential therapies that are difficult to replicate in vitro. They play a crucial role in advancing understanding across various fields such as oncology, neuroscience, immunology, and infectious diseases, providing valuable insights that contribute to medical breakthroughs and innovations.

Advances in genetic engineering, including the development of genetically modified animals and genome editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9, have revolutionized the precision and relevance of animal models. These technologies allow researchers to create models that more accurately mimic human diseases and conditions, enhancing their utility in biomedical research and drug testing.

Collaborations between academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies drive innovation in animal model research. Funding initiatives, grants, and partnerships support the development of new models, promote interdisciplinary research, and foster infrastructure for animal facilities, thereby expanding the scope and applications of animal models in advancing biomedical knowledge and therapeutic development.

The global animal model market is estimated to garner a revenue of around US$ 1,943.3 million in 2024. Animals possess a shorter life cycle, a high genotype resemblance, and are easy to test in laboratories.

Report Attribute	Details
Animal Model Market Revenue (2024)	US$ 1,943.3 million
Market Anticipated Forecast Value (2034)	US$ 3,476.8 million
Market Projected Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	6%

Global Animal Model Market Analysis During Historical Period from 2019 to 2023 Compared to Forecast Outlook for 2024 to 2034

Historical Market CAGR (2019 to 2023)	6.4%
Forecasted Market CAGR (2024 to 2034)	6%

Country-wise Insights

Regional Market Comparison	CAGR (2024 to 2034)
United States	6.7%
Germany	8.2%
United Kingdom	6.6%
Japan	4.7%
China	6.1%

Category-wise Insights

Attributes	Details
Top Species Type or Segment	Rats
Market Share in 2024	37.3%

Attributes	Details
Top Application Type	Drug Discovery and Development
Market Share in 2024	54.4%

Animal Model Market Report Scope

Attribute	Details
Estimated Market Size (2024)	US$ 1,943.3 million
Projected Market Size (2034)	US$ 3,476.8 million
Anticipated Growth Rate (2024 to 2034)	6%
Forecast Period	2024 to 2034
Historical Data Available for	2019 to 2023
Market Analysis	US$ million or billion for Value and Units for Volume
Key Regions Covered	North America, Latin America, Europe, Middle East & Africa (MEA), East Asia, South Asia and Oceania
Key Countries Covered	United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, India, Australia & New Zealand, GCC Countries, and South Africa
Key Segments Covered	By Species Type, By Application, By End User, and By Region
Key Companies Profiled	Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. Horizon Discovery Group plc. The Jackson Laboratory Taconic Biosciences, Inc. Genoway SA Eurofins Scientific SE Crown Bioscience, Inc. Envigo CRS SA Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Customization & Pricing	Available upon Request

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 corticos...

Systematic reviews are increasingly using data from preclinical animal experiments in evidence networks. Further, there are ever-increasing efforts to automate aspects of the systematic review process. When assessing systematic bias and unit-of-analysis errors in preclinical experiments, it is critical to understand the study design elements employed by investigators. Such information can also inform prioritization of automation efforts that allow the identification of the most common issues. The aim of this study was to identify the design elements used by investigators in preclinical research in order to inform unique aspects of assessment of bias and error in preclinical research. Using 100 preclinical experiments each related to brain trauma and toxicology, we assessed design elements described by the investigators. We evaluated Methods and Materials sections of reports for descriptions of the following design elements: 1) use of comparison group, 2) unit of allocation of the interventions to study units, 3) arrangement of factors, 4) method of factor allocation to study units, 5) concealment of the factors during allocation and outcome assessment, 6) independence of study units, and 7) nature of factors. Many investigators reported using design elements that suggested the potential for unit-of-analysis errors, i.e., descriptions of repeated measurements of the outcome (94/200) and descriptions of potential for pseudo-replication (99/200). Use of complex factor arrangements was common, with 112 experiments using some form of factorial design (complete, incomplete or split-plot-like). In the toxicology dataset, 20 of the 100 experiments appeared to use a split-plot-like design, although no investigators used this term. The common use of repeated measures and factorial designs means understanding bias and error in preclinical experimental design might require greater expertise than simple parallel designs. Similarly, use of complex factor arrangements creates novel challenges for accurate automation of data extraction and bias and error assessment in preclinical experiments.

The USA animal model market valuation reached around US$ 947.3 million back in 2022. The demand in the USA animal model is set to increase at a 4.3% CAGR from 2023 to 2033. The demand for animal models in the United States, in terms of value, is anticipated to reach US$ 1,487.9 million by 2033. According to a study by Future Market Insights, mice held a substantial share of over 61.03% in 2022 within the USA market.

Data Points	Market Insights
USA Animal Model Market Value (2022)	US$ 947.3 million
USA Animal Model Market Estimated Value (2023)	US$ 976.1 million
USA Animal Model Market Projected Value (2033)	US$ 1,487.9 million
USA Animal Model Market Value-based CAGR (2022 to 2032)	4.3%

Category-wise Insights

Category	By Species
Top Segment	Mice
Market Share in Percentage	61.03%

Category	By End-user Verticals
Top Segment	Academic & Research Institutes
Market Share in Percentage	37.21%

Report Scope as per USA Animal Model Industry Analysis

Attribute	Details
Forecast Period	2023 to 2033
Historical Data Available for	2017 to 2022
Market Analysis	US$ million or billion for Value
Key Countries Covered	The United States of America
Key Market Segments Covered	By Species, By Technology, By Applications, By Use and By End-user Verticals
Key Companies Profiled	Charles River Laboratories The Jackson Laboratory Taconic Biosciences, Inc. Genoway Envigo (Inotiv, Inc.) Marshall BioResources Janvier Labs Applied stem cells Biocytogen Transposagen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Hera Bio Labs) Cyagen Ingenious targeting labs Crown Bioscience Inc. (JSR Corporation). Harbour Biomed Sinclair BioResources Alpha Genesis Inc. Creative Animodel DaVinci Biomedical Research Products, Inc
Report Coverage	Market Forecast, Company Share Analysis, Competition Intelligence, DROT Analysis, Market Dynamics and Challenges, and Strategic Growth Initiatives
Customization & Pricing	Available upon Request

Recent USDA/ARS patented technologies on animal production and protection that are available for licensing are described, including summary, contact, benefits, and applications. Updated June 2018. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Animal Production and Protection - Available Technologies, June 2018. File Name: Animal Production and Protection.pptxResource Description: Slides presenting title, contact, docket number(s), description, image, benefits, and applications of each new technology.Resource Title: Patented Technologies Data Dictionary. File Name: patented-technologies-data-dictionary.csvResource Description: Defines fields, data type, allowed values etc. in patented technology tables.Resource Title: Animal Production & Protection - June 2018. File Name: Animal_Production_and_Protection_2018-06.csvResource Description: Listing of technologies to improve the health, well-being, and efficiency of livestock, poultry, and aquatic food animals to ensure a productive and safe food supply. This CSV file provides the title, technology type, docket number, contact, description, and category for each item. Machine-readable content extracted from corresponding slides accompanying this dataset.

A significant debate is ongoing on the effectiveness of animal experimentation, due to the increasing reports of failure in the translation of results from preclinical animal experiments to human patients. Scientific, ethical, social and economic considerations linked to the use of animals raise concerns in a variety of societal contributors (regulators, policy makers, non-governmental organisations, industry, etc.). The aim of this study was to record researchers’ voices about their vision on this science evolution, to reconstruct as truthful as possible an image of the reality of health and life science research, by using a key instrument in the hands of the researcher: the experimental models. Hence, we surveyed European-based health and life sciences researchers, to reconstruct and decipher the varying orientations and opinions of this community over these large transformations. In the interest of advancing the public debate and more accurately guide the policy of research, it is important that policy makers, society, scientists and all stakeholders (1) mature as comprehensive as possible an understanding of the researchers’ perspectives on the selection and establishment of the experimental models, and (2) that researchers publicly share the research community opinions regarding the external factors influencing their professional work. Our results highlighted a general homogeneity of answers from the 117 respondents. However, some discrepancies on specific key issues and topics were registered in the subgroups. These recorded divergent views might prove useful to policy makers and regulators to calibrate their agenda and shape the future of the European health and life science research. Overall, the results of this pilot study highlight the need of a continuous, open and broad discussion between researchers and science policy stakeholders.

ContextPublication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce. ObjectivesTo assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions. DesignInternet-based survey. SettingAll animal laboratories in The Netherlands. ParticipantsLaboratory animal researchers. Main Outcome Measure(s)Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important). ResultsOverall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32–70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research. ConclusionsNon-publication of “negative” results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research.

This dataset contains results of genetic screening for Poecivirus from samples of black-capped chickadees (BCCH; Poecile atricapillus) with and without clinical signs of avian keratin disorder (AKD). Data include information on detection/non-detection of the virus in tissue collected with buccal swabs, cloacal swabs, blood samples, and fecal samples from up to 124 individuals between 2015 and 2017 from various locations in southcentral Alaska. For an additional 17 symptomatic (and one asymptomatic) individual(s) collected between 2001 and 2015 in the same region, data include measurements of viral load in beak tissue measured by qRT-PCR as well as the amount of actively replicating virus detected by 7 negative-strand and 2 positive-strand oligonucleotide probes, all relative to amounts of host RNA. Ancillary data on beak measurements, clinical signs of AKD (beak overgrowth or hyperkeratosis at the cellular level), locations, and dates of collection are also included for each indiv ...

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.

The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Animal Isolates provides data that comprises the testing of isolates obtained from diagnostic animal specimens, healthy on-farm animals, and food-producing animals at slaughter. These tests on retail samples were performed by FDA.