



































ETHICAL DEBATE ON ANIMAL RESEARCH


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 11 

 

ETHICAL DEBATE ON ANIMAL RESEARCH 

Abu Sadat Mohammad Nurunnabi
1
, Rokhsana Dil Afroz

2
, Salman Nur Alam

3 

1. Dr. Abu Sadat Mohammad Nurunnabi, Erasmus Mundus Master of Bioethics Student, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, 

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Email: shekhor19@yahoo.com (corresponding author) 

2. Dr. Rokhsana Dil Afroz, Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical 

College, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

3. Salman Nur Alam, Graduate Student, Department of Pharmacy, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

 

ABSTRACT: Animal research or animal testing is done worldwide, where vertebrate animals, from 

zebrafish to non-human primates, millions in number are used annually. The practice is regulated to 

various degrees in different countries. Scientists and science authorities still have their arguments to 

justify animal testing. However, dialogues and protests are also evident against it. Awareness and 

campaign in recent years has made scientists and governments make statement that animal testing 

should cause as little suffering to animals as possible and that animal tests should only be performed 

where necessary. We should also look into the matter deeply and compassionately. 

KEY WORDS: animal research, animal testing, vivisection, ethical debate, care, use of animals 

INTRODUCTION: Animal research or animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments. However, 

animal experimentation, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, 

‘vivisection’ means the “cutting up” of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved 

the dissection of live animals
1
. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living 

animals; for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines ‘vivisection’ as “operation on a living animal for 

experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals”
2
. The word has a 

negative connotation, implying torture, suffering and death
3
. The word ‘vivisection’ is preferred by those opposed to 

this research, whereas scientists typically use the term ‘animal experimentation’
4,5

. 

Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical 

achievement in the 20
th
 century relied on the use of animals in some way

6
, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal 

Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model 

interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research 

necessary in many areas
7
. However, animal rights organizations and some animal welfare groups, such as People 

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) raised questions 

on the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that medical progress is being 

held back by misleading animal models, that some of the tests are outdated, that it cannot reliably predict effects in 

humans, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for 

experimentation
3,8

. Hence, there exists a strong debate on animal research till date. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebrafish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_for_the_Abolition_of_Vivisection


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 12 

HISTORY OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of 

the Greeks in the 2
nd

 and 4
th

 centuries BC. Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Erasistratus (304-258 BC) were among the 

first to perform experiments on living animals
9
. Galen, a physician in 2

nd
 century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and 

is known as the ‘father of vivisection’
10

. Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12
th
 century Moorish Spain, who also 

practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before 

applying them to human patients
11,12

. 

Animals have been used repeatedly through the history of biomedical research. The founders, in 1831, of the Dublin 

Zoo — the fourth oldest zoo in Europe, after Vienna, Paris, and London — were members of the medical profession, 

interested in studying the animals both while they were alive and when they were dead
13

. In the 1880s, Louis 

Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep
14

. In the 1890s, Ivan 

Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning
15

. Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and 

revolutionized the treatment of diabetes
16

. On November 3, 1957, a Russian dog, Laika, became the first of 

many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using 

armadillos
17

, then given to humans
18

. The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took a giant step 

forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from 

the SV40 virus into the genome of mice
19

. This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep 

was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell
20

.  

Toxicology testing became important in the 20
th

 century. In the 19
th

 century, laws regulating drugs were more relaxed. 

For example, in the U.S., the government could only ban a drug after a company had been prosecuted for selling 

products that harmed customers. However, in response to the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 in which the 

eponymous drug killed more than 100 users, the U.S. congress passed laws that required safety testing of drugs on 

animals before they could be marketed. Other countries enacted similar legislation
21

. In the 1960s, in reaction to 

the Thalidomide tragedy, further laws were passed requiring safety testing on pregnant animals before a drug can be 

sold
22

.  

HISTORICAL DEBATE: As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did 

criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that “the miserable 

torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state”
23, 24

. O'Meara and others argued that animal physiology 

could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections on an ethical 

basis, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals
24

. Early objections to animal testing 

also came from another angle — many people believed that animals were inferior to humans and so different that 

results from animals could not be applied to humans
24

.  

On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to 

advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the ‘prince of vivisectors’
8
 and the father of 

physiology - whose wife, Marie Françoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883
25

, wrote 

that “the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long 

and ghastly kitchen”
26

. Arguing that “experiments on animals ... are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene 

of man ... the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree”
27

,
 

Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasistratus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Zuhr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Jaenisch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_sheep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone_(genetics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_%28philosophy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#cite_note-Croce11-27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#cite_note-31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 13 

In 1896, the physiologist and physician Walter B. Cannon remarked the antivivisectionists as the second of the two 

types, as described by Theodore Roosevelt when he said, “Common sense without conscience may lead to cr ime, 

but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.”
28

 These divisions 

between pro- and anti- animal testing groups first came to public attention during the brown dog affair in the early 

1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a 

vivisected dog
29

. 

In 1822, the British parliament passed the first animal protection law, followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876), 

the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing, and in the United States, when Henry Bergh founded the 

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1860s, with the American AntiVivisection 

Society (AAVS), founded in 1883, are noted as anti-animal testing approach
30

. However, in the USA the 

antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, as overwhelmed by the superior organization and 

influence of the medical community. However, their success came when Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was passed 

in 1966
30. 

SOME ETHICAL VIEWPOINTS: The ethical concerns raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to 

much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20
th

 century
25

. Disagreements remain about which 

procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which 

species. The dominant ethical position worldwide is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal 

testing is desirable, so long as animal suffering and use is minimized
24

. Two special considerations are presented 

here for readers’ understanding. 

1. Pain and suffering: The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering, and the capacity of animals to 

experience and comprehend them, is the subject of much debate
31,32

.  

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (57%) (not including rats, mice, 

birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. About 

420,000 (36%) were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 84,000 (7%) 

were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved
33

.  

In the UK, research projects are classified as mild, moderate, and substantial in terms of the suffering the researchers 

conducting the study say they may cause; a fourth category of "unclassified" means the animal was anesthetized and 

killed without recovering consciousness, according to the researchers. In December 2001, 1,296 (39%) of project 

licenses in force were classified as mild, 1,811 (55%) as moderate, 63 (2%) as substantial, and 139 (4%) as 

unclassified
34

. There have, however, been suggestions of systemic underestimation of procedure severity
35

.  

The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17
th
 century French 

philosopher, René Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they 

lack consciousness
1,36

. Bernard Rollin, the principal author of two US federal laws regulating pain relief for 

animals,
37

 writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that 

veterinarians trained in the USA before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain
38

. In his interactions with 

scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide 

"scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain
38

. Carbone writes that the view that animals feel 

pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the 

argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support
39

, some critics 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_Treatment_of_Cattle_Act_1822
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_Animals_Act_1876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bergh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#cite_note-RyderSinger-89
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 14 

continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined
36,40

. The ability of invertebrate species of 

animals, such as insects, to feel pain and suffering is also unclear
41,42

.  

The defining text on animal welfare regulation, "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" defines the 

parameters that govern animal testing in the USA, stating that “… the ability to experience and respond to pain is 

widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress 

and distress in animals”
43

. The Guide also states that the ability to recognize the symptoms of pain in different 

species is vital in efficiently applying pain relief and that it is essential for the people caring for and using animals to 

be entirely familiar with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states “… the 

selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets 

clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol”
43

 . 

Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are 

required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval. 

2. Animal euthanasia: There is general agreement that animal life should not be taken wantonly, and regulations 

require that scientists use as few animals as possible
44

. However, while policy makers consider suffering to be the 

central issue and see animal euthanasia as a way to reduce suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue that the 

lives of laboratory animals have intrinsic value
45

. Regulations focus on whether particular methods 

cause pain and suffering, not whether their death is undesirable in itself
46

. The animals are euthanized at the end of 

studies for sample collection or post-mortem examination; during studies if their pain or suffering falls into certain 

categories regarded as unacceptable, such as depression, infection that is unresponsive to treatment, or the failure of 

large animals to eat for five days;
47

 or when they are unsuitable for breeding or unwanted for some other reason
48

.  

The following methods of euthanizing laboratory animals are chosen to induce rapid unconsciousness and death 

without pain or distress
43

. The animal can be made to inhale a gas, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, by 

being placed in a chamber, or by use of a face mask, with or without prior sedation or 

anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as barbiturates can be given intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics may be 

used. Amphibians and fish may be immersed in water containing an anesthetic such as tricaine. Physical methods 

are also used, with or without sedation or anesthesia depending on the method. Recommended methods 

include decapitation (beheading) for small rodents or rabbits. Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or spine) may be 

used for birds, mice, and immature rats and rabbits. Maceration (grinding into small pieces) is used on 1 day old 

chicks. High-intensity microwave irradiation of the brain can preserve brain tissue and induce death in less than 1 

second, but this is currently only used on rodents. Captive bolts may be used, typically on dogs, ruminants, horses, 

pigs and rabbits. It causes death by a concussion to the brain. Gunshot may be used, but only in cases where a 

penetrating captive bolt may not be used. Some physical methods are only acceptable after the animal is 

unconscious. Electrocution may be used for cattle, sheep, swine, foxes, and mink after the animals are unconscious, 

often by a prior electrical stun. Pithing (inserting a tool into the base of the brain) is usable on animals already 

unconscious. Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing air embolism are acceptable only with prior anesthesia to induce 

unconsciousness
49

.  

Besides, a wide range of minority viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a 

philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as 

such are the “subjects of a life” with moral value and therefore moral rights
50

. Regan still sees ethical differences 

between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the 

latter
50,51

. Likewise, a ‘moral dilemma’ view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_euthanasia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSPCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_embolism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 15 

similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals 

in research
51

. In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful 

research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal
36

. Rollin argues that benefits to human beings 

cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not 

benefit that individual
52

. Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no 

grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral 

considerations
51

. However, recently the British government has taken the position to observe that the cost to animals 

in an experiment should be weighed against the gain in knowledge
53

. 

SOME ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL RESEARCH: Scientists and governments state that animal testing should 

cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The 

‘3 Rs’, originally proposed by WMS Russell and RL Burch in 1959
54

, are guiding principles for the use of animals in 

research in most countries. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods 

whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim. Reduction refers to methods that are facilitating the 

researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the 

same number of animals. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or 

distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used. The 3-R approach has become the golden standard 

since it has been practiced by the EFPIA
55

, the Council of Europe Convention ETS 123 and most recently 

successfully been used in a report by an EC Community Research report ‘Animal Welfare Committees in the 

European Research Area’
56

. As already mentioned, the Indian CPCSEA (Committee for the Purpose of Control and 

Supervision of Experiments on Animals) proposed and implemented a 4 R’s set of principles – Replacement, 

Reduction, Refinement, Rehabilitation
57

. Rehabilitation is added to ensure proper attention to provide for 

rehabilitation and retirement centers for primates who have survived medical experiments for the sake of humans. 

Later in 2008, Hans-Martin Sass
58

 used this 4 R’s model to propose an extended 7 R’s model for the use in animal 

research ethics and corporate governance on a global and corporate level. The 7-R approach includes the ‘Replace, 

Reduce, Refine’ principles and the Indian ‘Rehabilitation’ concept, but adds three more principles: ‘Respect, Review, 

Relate’ – either complementing or re-enforcing to the goals and methods already expressed in the use of the first 

three principles
58

. Respect refers to a special emphasis that should be laid on species-specific forms of harm, pain, 

distress, as they are related to the captivity environment and to the research itself. Moreover, Animal Welfare 

Committees (AWCs) are the instrument of choice to Review and to improve animal research on the local level and to 

reconcile different approaches and to set standards on the national or international level, i.e. thinking locally and act 

globally. Besides, to Relate issues, solutions, even uncertainties, as transparently and as simple and well reasoned 

as possible is always beneficial both for animal research and the corporate policy. Of course, in order to be effective, 

the 7-R model must be supported strongly by internal corporate policy, also not been confronted with financial or 

administrative shortcomings, if the ethically better option is considered to be the option of choice
58

.   

Horst Spielmann, German Director of the Central Office for Collecting and Assessing Alternatives to Animal 

Experimentation, while describing in the ‘Deutsche Welle’ about Germany's progress in this area said, “Using animals 

in teaching curricula is already superfluous. In many countries, one can become a doctor, vet or biologist without ever 

having performed an experiment on an animal.”
59

 However, there are efforts in many countries to find alternatives to 

using animals in education
60

. Moreover, alternative methods include positron emission tomography (PET), which 

allows scanning of the human brain in vivo,
61

 and comparative epidemiological studies of disease risk factors among 

human populations
62

. Several invertebrate systems are considered acceptable alternatives to animals in very early 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Rollin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#cite_note-199
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_study_design


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 16 

stage discovery screens
63

. Because of similarities between the innate immune system of insects and mammals, 

insects can replace mammals in certain types of studies. Drosophila melanogaster (a fruit fly) and Galleria mellonella 

(waxworm) have been particularly important for analysis of virulence traits of mammalian pathogens
64,65

. Waxworms 

and other insects have also proven valuable for the identification of pharmaceutical compounds with favorable 

bioavailability
66

.  

CONCLUSION: Progressive changes have been made in recent years in the principles and practice of animal 

testing. Although such principles of care and use of animals and alternative propositions to animal research have 

been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups
67

, they have also been criticized as both outdated 

by current research
68

, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare
69

. However, by the time of reading this 

article, thousands of animals were sacrificed worldwide in the name of medical research or human welfare. We 

should think it very deeply and compassionately. 

REFERENCES: 

1. Carbone L. What animals want. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. 

2. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. 

3. Croce P. Vivisection or Science? - an investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health. Zed Books; 1999. 

4. Paixão RL, Schramm FR. Ethics and animal experimentation: what is debated? Cadernos de saude publica / Ministerio da 

Saude, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Escola Nacional de Saude Publica 1999; 15(Suppl 1): 99-110. 

5. Yarri D. The ethics of animal experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. 

6. The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists. UK: The Royal Society, UK; 2004. 

7. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Science, Medicine, and Animals. USA: The National Academies Press; 2004. 

8. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group. 

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004; 328(7438): 514-7. 

9. Cohen BJ, Loew FM. Historical perspectives in laboratory animal medicine. In: Fox JG, Cohen BJ, Loew FM. eds. 

Laboratory animal medicine. Florida: Academic Press; 1984. 

10. Greek CR, Greek JS. Sacred cows and golden geese. New York: Continuum International Publishing; 2000. 

11. Abdel-Halim RE. Contributions of Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) to the progress of surgery: a study and translations from his book 

Al-Taisir. Saudi Med J 2005; 26(9): 1333-9. 

12. Abdel-Halim RE. Contributions of Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi to the progress of medicine and urology – a study 

and translations from his book Al-Mukhtar. Saudi Med J 2006; 27(11): 1631-41. 

13. Costello J. The great zoo's who. Irish Independent. June 9, 2011. 

14. Mock M, Fouet A. Anthrax. Annu Rev Microbiol 2001; 55: 647-71. 

15. Windholz G. Pavlov as a psychologist - a reappraisal. Pavlov J Biol Sci 1987; 22(3): 103-12. 

16.  Gorden P. Non-insulin dependent diabetes—the past, present and future. Ann Acad Med Singap 1997; 26(3): 326-30. 

17. Walgate R. Armadillos fight leprosy. Nature 1984; 291(5816): 527. 

18. Scollard DM, Adams LB, Gillis TP, Krahenbuhl JL, Truman RW, Williams DL. The continuing challenges of leprosy. Clin 

Microbiol Rev 2006; 19(2): 338-81. 

19. Jaenisch R; Mintz B. Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice derived from preimplantation 

blastocysts injected with viral DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1974; 71(4): 1250-4. 

20. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. 

Nature 1997; (6619): 810-3. 

21. Taste of raspberries, taste of death. The 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide Incident. FDA Consumer Magazine June 1981. 

Available from: http://www.fda.gov/oc/history [Accessed on June 29, 2011]. 

http://royalsociety.org/The-use-of-non-human-animals-in-research-a-guide-for-scientists/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Society
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10733
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Pound%20P%22%5BAuthor%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Ebrahim%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Sandercock%20P%22%5BAuthor%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Bracken%20MB%22%5BAuthor%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Roberts%20I%22%5BAuthor%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Reviewing%20Animal%20Trials%20Systematically%20%28RATS%29%20Group%22%5BCorporate%20Author%5D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14988196
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-great-zoos-who-2669960.html
http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16614253
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=388203
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=388203
http://www.fda.gov/oc/history/elixir.html
http://www.fda.gov/oc/history


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 17 

22. Burkholz H. Giving thalidomide a second chance. FDA Consumer (US Food and Drug Administration). Available from: 

http://www.fda.gov/oc/history [Accessed on July 01, 2011]. 

23. Ryder RD. Animal revolution: changing attitudes towards speciesism. Oxford: Berg Publishers; 2000. 

24. Maehle AH, Trohler U. Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and 

arguments. In: Rupke NA. ed. Vivisection in historical perspective. London: Croom Helm; 1987. 

25. Rudacille D. The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict. USA: Farrar Straus Giroux; 2000. 

26. Bernard C. In sickness and in health: vivisection's undoing. The Daily Telegraph. November 2003. 

27. Bernard C. An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. 1865. First English translation by Henry Copley Greene. 

USA: Macmillan; 1927: reprinted in 1949. 

28. Nicoll CS. A physiologist’s views on the animal rights/liberation movement. Physiologist 1991: 34(6): 303-15. 

29. Mason P. The Brown Dog Affair – the story of a monument that divides the nation. London: Two Sevens Publishing; 1997. 

30. Nurunnabi ASM, Afroz RD, Alam SN. Animal research in medical science: pros and cons. “Health Science” J PMC 2012; 

2(1): 28-33. 

31. Duncan IJ, Petherick JC. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J Anim Sci 1991; 69(12): 5017-22. 

32. Curtis SE, Stricklin WR. The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal production systems: an overview. J 

Anim Sci 1991; 69(12): 5001-7. 

33. Report on enforcement of the animal welfare act. 2005. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf [Accessed on July 03, 2011]. 

34. The humane care and treatment of laboratory animals. National Association of Biomedical Research. Available from: 

http://www.nabr.org [Accessed on July 11, 2011]. 

35. Trull FL, Rich BA. More regulation of rodents [editorial]. Science 1999; 284(5419): 1463. 

36. The ethics of research involving animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Available from: 

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal-research [Accessed on July 01, 2011]. 

37. Rollin BE. Animal research: a moral science. Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO reports 8, 6, 

2007. p. 521-5. 

38. Rollin BE. The unheeded cry: animal consciousness, animal pain, and science. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989. 

39.  Griffin DR, Speck GB. New evidence of animal consciousness. Anim Cogn 2004; 7(1): 5-18. 

40. Allen C. Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives. J Anim Sci 1998; 76(1): 42-7. 

41.  Lockwood JA. The moral standing of insects and the ethics of extinction. Florida Entomologist 1987; 70(1): 70-89. 

42. DeGrazia D, Rowan A. Pain, suffering, and anxiety in animals and humans. Theor Med 1991; 12(3): 193-211. 

43. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. ILAR, National Research Council, USA. 1996. 

44. Flecknell P. Replacement, reduction and refinement. ALTEX 2002; 19(2): 73-8. 

45. Animal Procedures Committee: review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research. The Animal 

Procedures Committee. June 2003. p.46-7. 

46.  Carbone L. Euthanasia. In: Bekoff M, Meaney C. eds. Encyclopedia of animal rights and welfare. Greenwood Publishing. 

47. Euthanasia Guidelines. Research animal resources, University of Minnesota. 

48.  Close B, et al. Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: part-1. Lab Anim 1996; 30(4): 295. 

49. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. June 2007. Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Available from: 

http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf [Accessed on July 01, 2011]. 

50. Maehle AH. Literary responses to animal experimentation in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Britain. Med Hist 1990, 

34(1): 27-51. 

51. Singer P. A companion to ethics. London: Blackwell; 1991. 

52. Rollin BE. The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects. In: Kuhse H, Singer P. eds. A companion 

to bioethics. London: Blackwell; 1998. 

53. Summary of House of Lords Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures. House of Lords, July 16, 2002. 

Chapter 3: The purpose and nature of animal experiments. [Retrieved July 6, 2011]. 

54. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co.; 1959.  

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/697_thal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
http://www.fda.gov/oc/history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Ryder
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2003/11/24/hsick23.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bernard
http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/legacy/1991/issue6/303.pdf
http://www.london-books.co.uk/books/browndog.html
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf
http://www.nabr.org/pdf/orange.pdf
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/RIA_Report_FINAL-opt.pdf
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal-research
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400996.html
http://www.apc.gov.uk/reference/costbenefit.pdf
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/euthanasia.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download;jsessionid=6uf67t1iu3liv.henrietta?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2frsm%2flab%2f1996%2f00000030%2f00000004%2fart00001&mimetype=application%2fpdf
http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15003.htm


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2013; 4(3):11-18 

 18 

55. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Policy statement on the use of animals in 

research and development. March, 1999. 

56. European Commission (EC). Animal welfare committees in the European research area. Luxemburg: 2005. EUR 21786. 

57. Pereira S, Tettamanti M. Ahimsa and alternatives – the concept of the 4
th
 R; the CPCSEA in India. ALTEX 2005; 22(1): 3-

6. 

58. Sass HM. Animal in research: 7-R principles and corporate responsibility. EJAIB 2008; 18(3): 74-85. 

59. Seeking an end to animal experimentation. Deutsche Welle. August 23, 2005; [Retrieved June 15, 2011]. 

60. Dalal R, et al. Replacement alternatives in education: animal-free teaching [Conference abstract]. Fifth World Congress 

on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. Berlin, August 2005. 

61. What is a PET scan? How does a PET scan work? Available from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154877.php 

[Accessed on April 17, 2011]. 

62. Jiang J, Liu B, Nasca PC, Han W, Zou X, Zeng X, et al. Comparative study of control selection in a national population -

based case-control study: estimating risk of smoking on cancer deaths in Chinese men. Int J Med Sci 2009; 6: 329-337. 

63. Waterfield NR, Sanchez-Contreras M, Eleftherianos I, Dowling A, Yang G, Wilkinson P, et al. Rapid Virulence Annotation 

(RVA): identification of virulence factors using a bacterial genome library and multiple invertebrate hosts. Proc Natl Acad 

Sci USA. 2008; 105(41): 15967-72. 

64. Kavanagh K, Reeves EP. Exploiting the potential of insects for in vivo pathogenicity testing of microbial pathogens. FEMS 

Microbiol Rev 2004; 28(1): 101-12. 

65. Antunes LCS, Imperi F, Carattoli A, Visca P. Deciphering the multifactorial nature of Acinetobacter baumannii 

pathogenicity. PLoS ONE 2011; 6(8): e22674. 

66. Aperis G, Fuchs BB, Anderson CA, Warner JE, Calderwood SB, Mylonakis E. Galleria mellonella as a model host to study 

infection by the Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain. Microbes Infect 2007; 9(6): 729-34. 

67. Kolar R. ECVAM: desperately needed or superfluous? - an animal welfare perspective. Altern Lab Anim 2002; 30(Suppl 

2): 169-74. 

68. Schuppli CA, Fraser D, McDonald M. Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. 

Altern Lab Anim 2004; 32(5): 525-32. 

69. Rusche B. The 3Rs and animal welfare – conflict or the way forward? ALTEX 2003; 20(Suppl 1): 63-76.  

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1687760,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/abstract_teaching.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154877.php
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/41/15967.long
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/41/15967.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14975532
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022674
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022674
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1974785/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1974785/?tool=pubmed

