In 2010, U.S. researchers conducted experiments on 1,134,693 animals – including 71,317 nonhuman primates – according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data collected in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (source). Almost 100,000 of those animals were subjected to experiments in which researchers intentionally inflicted pain and did not administer pain relief. These data exclude experiments conducted on birds, mice, and rats because they do not fall under the definition of “animal” used in the AWA (source), and thus the real number of animals under experimentation in the U.S. could be in the tens of millions per year.
What, if anything, does society gain from these experiments on animals? The statistics say not much.
Many argue that animal experimentation is most useful in pharmaceutical research and vital to new drug development. However, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study found that “92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials and go into human clinical testing fail during the human clinical trial phase (source/source).” That is a lot of animal suffering for less than a 10% success rate on humans.
Question: What about the drugs that do not pass the animal testing and thus “save” humans from harm? Answer: With such a dismal record of prediction in one direction (success on animals to success on humans), what makes us confident of our predictive powers in the other direction (failure on animals to failure on humans)? Of course, we do not have statistics on this counterfactual and thus will never know. Indeed, it is possible that the miracle cure for cancer in humans failed trials with mice and thus was not tested on humans.
It seems clear that pharmaceutical companies and the FDA are reluctant to drop animal testing for one important reason: liability. They want to be able to say ‘look, we tried it on animals’ if something goes wrong in the human testing phase. However, even after all that testing on animal, and then on humans, the FDA still has to recall from market hundreds and sometimes thousands of drugs per year (source). Stop experimenting on animals now, it only causes suffering for them and humans do not see much benefit – if any at all.
Environmental Policy Update: Many contributors on this blog have written about climate change policy. With the Supreme Court’s health care ruling yesterday, I thought this piece of news might fall under the radar. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected multiple challenges to new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions at large sources, such as power plants and large factories. Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said the decision was exceeded in importance only by the Supreme Court ruling five years ago that greenhouse gases could be controlled as air pollutants (source).