The harrowing lives of animal researchers; Vox, March 3, 2025

Celia Ford, Vox; The harrowing lives of animal researchers

"Alyssa’s experience is anything but rare. Animal research, while largely hidden from public view, is widespread across the life sciences. Animals are used in everything from safety testing for medicines, cosmetics, and pesticides to exploring open-ended questions about how the mind and body work. The drugs we take, the products we use, and the medical breakthroughs we celebrate have been made possible in large part by lab animals and the people who, in the name of science, kill them. 

While it’s difficult to find the exact number of scientists, veterinarians, and animal caretakers working in research facilities, we know that somewhere around 100 million animals — mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, fish, and birds, among others — are used for research and testing worldwide each year. Between 2011 and 2021, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided $2.2 billion in grants for an estimated 4,000 research projects involving animals.

Animal research is traumatic — obviously for the animals unlucky enoughto be involved, but also for many of the humans tasked with harming them. Yet from day one, institutions teach animal researchers that expressing discomfort is akin to weakness, or tantamount to dismissing the value of science altogether. To compete for increasingly rare tenure-track jobs, graduate students and postdocs have no choice but to learn to suppress their emotions and get the work done. Principal investigators, senior scientists who direct animal research labs, often don’t care whether inserting electrodes into a conscious, chronically ill monkey’s brain makes you squeamish. If you can’t handle the heat, they say, get out of the kitchen. 

“The costs have always been out there,” bioethicist and former animal researcher John Gluck said. “They’ve just been completely ignored.”"

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; NIH, 2011

NIH; The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee:

"Responsibilities

The IACUC is responsible for oversight of the animal care and use program and its components as described in the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Policy) and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide). Link to Non-U.S. Government Site - Click for Disclaimer Its oversight functions include an ongoing assessment of animal care and use. IACUC responsibilities include:

Review, at least semiannually, the institution's program for the humane care and use of animals;

Inspect, at least semiannually, the institution's animal facilities (including satellite facilities);

Prepare reports to the Institutional Official (IO) of the IACUC evaluations;

Review animal welfare concerns;

Make recommendations to the IO on any aspect of the animal program, facilities, or personnel training;

Review and approve, those components of PHS conducted or supported activities related to the care and use of animals;

Review and approve, proposed significant changes to the use of animals in ongoing activities; and

Be authorized to suspend an activity involving animals.

Membership

[Five People]The IACUC membership must consist of at least 5 members and includes:

one veterinarian with training or experience in laboratory animal science and medicine, who has direct or delegated authority and responsibility for activities involving animals at the institution;

one practicing scientist experienced in research with animals;

one member whose primary concerns are in a nonscientific area (e.g., ethicist, lawyer, member of the clergy); and

one member who is not affiliated with the institution other than as a member of the IACUC."

Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher; New York Times, 9/2/16

John P. Gluck, New York Times; Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher:

"In 1974, a federal commission was formed to develop ethical principles for human research. For nearly four years, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research met monthly to develop ethical principles that we rely on for human research. The principles set down in the resulting Belmont Report reflect the moral dimensions of human research that now govern this work. The report revolutionized the understanding of voluntary and informed consent, fair subject recruitment, and the importance of conducting risk-benefit analyses. No such document exists for animal research.

Acknowledging that our serious work as scientists can be a source of pain and distress to sentient, helpless and non-consenting beings can be difficult. The federal government should establish a national commission to develop the principles to guide decisions about the ethics of animal research. We already accept that ethical limits on experiments involving humans are important enough that we are willing to forgo possible breakthroughs. There is no ethical argument that justifies not doing the same for animals."