Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 24 (4), 407-19

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Aysha Akhtar. Camb Q Healthc Ethics.


Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Keywords: animal ethics; animal research; drug development; human ethics; human health; medical testing.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 32 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. J Young Pharm. 2010 Jul;2(3):332-6 - PubMed
    1. PLoS Med. 2006 Sep;3(9):e411; author reply e415 - PubMed
    1. Am J Transl Res. 2014 Jan 15;6(2):114-8 - PubMed
    1. J R Soc Med. 1978 Sep;71(9):693-6 - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 2007 Jun 30;334(7608):1346-8 - PubMed