POSITION STATEMENT ON USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH NIH GUIDE, Volume 22, Number 8, February 26, 1993 P.T. 34 Keywords: Animal Research Policy Public Health Service Introduction: In 1990, the Assistant Secretary for Health established the Public Health Service (PHS) Coordinating Committee on Animal Research to deal more effectively with the threat to biomedical and behavioral research and testing posed by the animal activist movement. The following two statements, released by the Committee in December, 1992, represent the PHS position on these important issues: PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ROLE OF ANIMAL TESTING This statement has been prepared to inform the general public about the need for animal testing to ensure that medications, vaccines, environmental chemicals, and a wide variety of consumer products, including cosmetics, are safe for the public when used appropriately. The Public Health Service (PHS) is concerned that animal activist organizations are trying to convince the public incorrectly that product testing in animals is outdated and no longer necessary. Consumers may be further confused by announcements that some companies have stopped testing their products in laboratory animals. For example, two ways in which a company can make such a claim are by using only ingredients that historically are known to be safe or that have been previously tested in animals and found to be non-toxic. When new ingredients need to meet testing and safety requirements, it is often necessary to test them in one or more animal species. To protect the public from unexpected or unintended effects of toxic substances, some PHS agencies conduct and support toxicological testing to determine the harmful effects of commonly used products. To judge whether a product may be unhealthy, or even deadly, for humans and animals, scientists called toxicologists must know how the substance is absorbed, distributed, used, stored, and released by the body. For some products, it may be necessary to identify long-term, cumulative health effects, such as the potential to cause cancer, promote birth defects, affect reproduction, or harm the nervous system. Without laboratory animals, scientists would lose a fundamental method for obtaining the data needed to make wise decisions about potential health risks. The PHS agencies support many initiatives to develop and validate systems to reduce dependency on animal testing. Scientists have become skilled in culturing a wide variety of tissue and organ cells outside the living body (in vitro) and in writing computer programs that simulate human and animal systems. Human and animal cell cultures are being used increasingly to screen toxic substances before progressing to whole-animal testing. When in vitro studies show that a substance is toxic, testing it in animals may not be necessary. Computer models are also being used to help predict the properties of substances and their probable actions in living systems. Although computers can store and analyze enormous amounts of data, some information must come from experimental animals. These non-animal research tools have reduced our dependence on animals, but they cannot completely replace experimental animals for the foreseeable future. Toxicologists have the responsibility to treat laboratory animals with great care and compassion. Today, all projects involving animal testing supported by funds from the PHS must comply with the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended, and the Health Research Extension Act. These laws were enacted to protect research animals. An institution that uses laboratory animals for any purpose must operate a sound animal care program. The PHS fosters quality control in animal care and has a high regard for the welfare of laboratory animals. The American people want assurance that the products they use in recovery from illness and daily living are safe; the U.S. Congress has enacted laws that require the safety of products; and the scientific community endeavors to promote the public health through animal testing. Dr. James O. Mason, Assistant Secretary for Health, has put it this way: "Whole animals are essential in research and testing because they best reflect the dynamic interactions between the various cells, tissues, and organs comprising the human body." The number of products used by society has increased greatly since animal testing began, but adverse health effects are relatively uncommon. This is, in itself, compelling evidence for the predictive value of animal testing of products for human use. PROTECTING LABORATORY ANIMALS As a result of a recent lawsuit brought by two animal protectionist organizations, a Federal court ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to reconsider its exclusion of rats, mice, and birds from coverage under the Animal Welfare Act. In the judge's opinion, "the USDA's decision not to regulate these species sent a message that researchers may subject these animals to cruel and inhumane conditions." People who are familiar with the extensive system of U.S. laws, regulations, guidelines, and principles that protect the welfare of laboratory animals would not necessarily agree with the judge's comment. The Public Health Service (PHS) wants to reassure the American people that other laws exist to safeguard the welfare of rats, mice, and birds, species that comprise about 90% of research animals. According to the Health Research Extension Act, over 1,000 institutions receiving funds from the PHS to conduct animal experiments are required to comply with the provisions of the Act and to follow the recommendations in the Guide for the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide). The Guide was prepared to assist researchers in maintaining high quality care for all commonly-used laboratory animals. It includes the Government principles for animal care and use adopted by all agencies and institutions that conduct federally-supported animal research. This guide also applies under another Federal law, the Good Laboratory Practices Act. Research laboratories that conduct studies using rats and mice are regulated by the PHS's Food and Drug Administration and are subject to inspections. In addition, most institutions that do not receive PHS funding follow the Guide. For example, laboratory animal breeders, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and commercial research laboratories that may not be subject to USDA and PHS regulations voluntarily participate in a national program of certification by the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. This private organization monitors institutional animal care programs to be sure they maintain the standards set forth in the Guide. Animal use is an integral component of biomedical and behavioral research and testing. The vast majority of scientists recognize that good science and good animal care go hand-in-hand and would not tolerate or condone cruelty to, or inhumane treatment of, any laboratory animal. .
Return to NIH Guide Main Index
![]() |
Office of Extramural Research (OER) |
![]() |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, Maryland 20892 |
![]() |
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
![]() |
||||