Zapata 1

David Zapata
Professor Haas
Writing 39C
31 May 2015
Invasive Animal Experimentation: Seeking Alternatives
Famous British comedian Ricky Gervais states in his campaign with Cruelty-Free
International that thousands of animals continue to die for the sake of a new
shampoo which is ridiculous. The use of animals for cosmetic testing is just one
example out of the many experiments used on animals worldwide for the benefit of
humans. These experiments have a variety of purposes. While some of these
experiments are used for the testing of products meant for human consumption, the
scientific community commonly uses animals as models in their experiments. The use
of animals in these experiments is called vivisection. Vivisection is a very controversial
practice that is under lots of criticism by animal rights activists, as they believe that it is
a cruel practice that takes away animal rights and that its use is not justified for
research. Most of these experiments are done on rats and mice, as they are used for
many different kinds of scientific models. The study of these models are what
researchers believe makes animal experimentation worth doing. The similarities that are
found between animals and humans are what makes animal experimentation so popular
in the sciences.

A Review of the Scientific Studies on Animal Behavior

Zapata 2
As more similarities are found between humans and other animals, it becomes
more plausible to use animals as models for studies related to humans. This was how
research for psychological disorders in animals began, as a means in finding out how to
use them as models for disorders in humans. I will review various studies on behavioral
disorders in animals, all which began because scientists were trying to use them as
models for humans. The specific type of behavioral disorder that will be reviewed here
is anxiety, which I will review using research conducted by Richard Lister in his article
Ethologically-based Animal Models of Anxiety Disorders; as well as information
provided by Peter Lang, Michael Davis, and Arne Ohman in their article Fear and
Anxiety: Animal Models and Human Cognitive Psychophysiology. All of these studies
aim to create a model based on animal behavior to explain behavioral disorders in
humans. However, these studies are not without their controversies: the use of animals
in laboratories for research in these subjects are viewed as unethical by many animal
advocacy groups due to the cruelty some of these animals face in these experiments.
In Richard Listers scholarly article Ethologically-based Animal Models of Anxiety
Disorders, he explores various animal models of anxiety and uses them in the article as
a way to explain the effects of various drugs that could be used to treat certain anxiety
disorders in humans (321). One of the experiments Lister describes in his article is the
social interaction test. In this experiment, which was developed by Sandra File of the
Neuropharmacology Research Group at the University of London, Lister explains that
pairs of male rats are placed together in a test arena with a variety of lighting
arrangements (330). The rats are then determined to either have an anxiolytic or
anxiogenic profile. Lister defines an anxiolytic profile as an increase in social interaction

Zapata 3
independent of change in locomotor activity and an anxiogenic profile as a decrease in
social interaction independent of change in locomotor activity (333). Although the end
results varied depending on the drug that was given to the rats, anxiety almost always
increased when the ambient light level was increased. Lister explains that that the low
light familiar condition [] is the least anxiety-provoking test condition (330). This factor
was very useful as a control in the experiment, as increasing or decreasing the light
levels helped reveal which drug would create an anxiolytic or anxiogenic profile. The
results of these studies help create a model for human anxiety by defining these profiles
and their effects on behavior.
In Measuring Normal and Pathological Anxiety-like Behavior in Mice: a Review,
neuroscience researchers Catherine Belzung and Guy Griebel review various
procedures on both mice and rats, and how they can serve as models for anxiety
behavior in humans. Belzung and Griebel define fear and anxiety as the response of a
subject to real or potential threats that may impair its homeostasis and that some of
these responses are behavioral as they cause inhibition of ongoing behaviors (142).
The researchers then narrow the definition of anxiety down to two categories: normal (or
state) anxiety and pathological (or trait) anxiety, where pathological anxiety is defined
as an excess of normal anxiety (143). Many of the procedures reviewed by Belzung and
Griebel classify the behavior exhibited by mice in these categories. Belzung then
directly references the works of Lister in the article, stating that Lister describes most of
the older models are in the state anxiety category (143). This reveals that many of the
experiments that were reviewed by Lister in his article, such as the social interaction
test, are models of normal anxiety. The results of these experiments help establish the

Zapata 4
difference between normal and pathological anxiety, as Belzung explains that the results
of the state anxiety models show that the subjects experience anxiety at a certain
moment in time, and clarifies that unlike state anxiety, trait anxiety does not vary
from moment to moment and is considered to be an enduring feature of an individual
(143). The distinction of these categories make the study of anxiety in both rats and
mice a viable model for human study.
In the scholarly article Fear and Anxiety: Animal Models and Human Cognitive
Psychophysiology by Peter Lang, Michael Davis, and Arne Ohman; the cause of
anxiety and fear in various animals are explored through the observations of their
behavior in order to relate them to anxiety and fear in humans. One of the causes that
were explored in detail was the stimulation of the startle reflex. The article states that
fear and anxiety can be measured through an exaggerated startle reflex to any
suddenly imposed stimulus (Lang 139). One of the stimulations discussed is the
exposure of bright light to rats. The scientists explain that when rats are exposed to a
bright light for an extended period (5-20 min) [the rats] show an increase in the startle
reflex, and it is also later stated that light has anxiogenic properties (Lang 145). These
explanations directly support the information given by Lister in his article, and both
articles even use the same terminology to describe anxiety in rats. Another correlation
between the two articles is the citation of File and how her experiments support these
observations. While the information provided by Lister is focused more towards how
these behaviors can be used as models for the effectiveness of certain drugs, the
information in Langs article goes more into detail on the anatomy of the rat and how the
anxiety is caused by the anxiogenic triggers. For example, Langs article states that the

Zapata 5
behavioral and neuroendocrine effects that are exhibited by rats when they displaying
fear and anxiety can be attributed to the corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH), which
activates the startle reflex (145). Other studies in Langs article that support the studies
presented by Lister include the anatomical targets of light when exposed to a rat. One of
these anatomical targets is the central grey, which is located in the central nucleus of
the amygdala. The amygdala is defined by the scientists as a small, almond-shaped
structure located deep within the temporal lobe which is believed to be directly involved
in the influence of behaviors that define fear and anxiety. In a diagram shown in Langs
article, if the light targets the central grey, one of the many behaviors of the rats that are
affected is their social interaction (139). This directly supports the specific social
interaction experiment described by Lister in his article. While the studies shown by
Lister in his article are presented for a different objective than the one for Langs article,
they both support each other in the end regarding anxiety in rats.

Figure 1: A diagram that shows the behavioral connections between the central
nucleus of the amygdala and various areas of the brain (Lang 139)

Zapata 6
In conclusion, the studies on animals regarding behavioral (anxiety) disorders
could be used to support that humans and other animals may not be as different as we
once believed (Rudy 19). However, a major issue that is presented through the use of
animals in these studies is exactly that: whether the use of animals in laboratories
should be done. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society states that psychology
research typically requires animals to be conscious and aware, and as such may be
considered the cruelest of animal experiments due to the high degree of pain and
suffering involved. However, many argue that these studies are beneficial to animals in
the long run, as these studies lead to results that benefit the health of animals and allow
us to understand animals better. But even though these studies are promising, the real
question is whether it is worth putting these poor animals through harmful research for
the sake of more knowledge.

Asking the Question

The results of experimentation done on rats and mice regarding behavioral
disorders definitely shows that these kinds of experiments are not for nothing. The
studies have something to show for, but are the means of getting these answers morally
right? The biggest obstacle that scientists face when using animals in experiments is
how to use these animals in an ethical manner that minimizes harm to the animals
used. The benefit of using these animals has been shown through the results of these
experiments, but now the morality of these methods must be taken into account.
The Problem with Animal Experimentation
The Cruelty Free International website states that their research indicates that
more than 115 million animals are used in experiments worldwide, with millions of those

Zapata 7
animals dying in the process. These animals are used for in many different ways in an
attempt to improve human living. Professor Vera Baumans, Chair of Laboratory Animal
Science at the Karolinska Institute, shows that humans have used animals in various
different ways in the scientific community, as shown by this pie chart in Bauman's
article:

Figure 1: A pie chart detailing the distribution of animal use in a variety of research
(Baumans S65)

While the use of animals for experimentation in the scientific community has benefited
various different studies and has advanced technology in society, the methods that are
used by some of these practices are thought by many to be cruel and unethical. No
matter how beneficial these experiments are to mankind, it is still a moral responsibility
for humans to treat animals ethically. Baumans points out that the criticisms against
animal experimentation are whether man has the right to use animals and on the
reliability and necessity of animal experiments (S65).
A more specific part of the problem is discussed in the scholarly article The
Injustice of Excluding Laboratory Rats, Mice, and Birds from the Animal Welfare Act by
F. Barbara Orlans, the founder of the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare. Orlans

Zapata 8
explains that the Animal Welfare Act improves the welfare of certain animals in
laboratories by minimizing or eliminating the pain of these animals, registering with the
USDA to get routine government inspection, and providing humane conditions for these
animals (Orlans 229). However, the main problem that Orlans focuses on in her article
is that the most used species in laboratory testing are completely excluded from the
Animal Welfare Act. Orlans states that the principle of justice is violated by the
exclusion of these three species from the AWA (Orlans 230), which connects this
specific problem with the overall problem of ethics in animal experimentation, as
discussed by Baumans and Holmberg.
The problem with animal experimentation is that too many animals suffer from
the cruelty of these experiments for the results of these studies to be worth it. Cruelty
Free International states on their website that despite the use of over 115 million
animals in experiments globally each year, on average only 25 new medicines are
approved annually by the FDA. Alternatives must be found for these practices, on both
a large and small scale.

Large and Small Scale Solutions

In order to make a large impact on animal experimentation, a macro solution
must be implemented to make an official and legal change to these laboratory practices.
The scholarly article Reducing the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical Research:
Problems and Possible Solutions by research scientists Michael Festing, Vera
Baumans, Robert Combes, Marlies Halder, Coenraad Hendiksen, Bryan Howard, David
Lovell, Graham Moore, Philip Overend, and Marie Westing reveals details on why laws
should be made to make animal experimentation more humane. The scientists state

Zapata 9
that animal welfare legislation should be implemented around the basis of a central
framework called the three Rs: replacement, reduction, and refinement (Festing 295).
Replacement is the concept that less sentient or non-sentient alternatives can be used
in place of the animals, reduction is the concept that the actual number of animals used
in a given project needs to be minimized, and refinement is the minimization of pain the
individual animal experiences (Festing 284). The scientists present this framework as a
way for countries to use it as a basis for the creation of animal experimentation
legislation, as shown when they suggest that legislation should be implemented in
relation to the use of experimental animals and the Three Rs (Festing 296). Following
this framework is how legislation will make the most effective impact.
As for the actual large scale solution, the proposal and its effects is detailed in
the scholarly article Animal Testing and Alternative Approaches for the Human Health
Risk Assessment Under the Proposed New European Chemicals Regulation by
toxicologists Thomas Hofer, Ingrid Gerner, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Manfred Liebsch,
Agnes Schulte, Horst Spielmann, Richard Vogel, and Klaus Wettig. The solution
proposed is a EU chemicals policy called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and
Authorisation of Chemicals). This policy will reduce numbers of test animals by
improving risk assessment, validating test procedures, and integrating test strategies
(Hofer 260). A table in the article details the results of the policy, showing data on both
animal tests and non animal tests under the policy (Hofer 557). The data in the table
shows that the tests with no animals were more effective under the policy, meaning that
less animals will be used in animal experimentation.

Zapata 10
Another smaller, more individualized method of reaching a solution is the use of
social media activism to advocate change in these laboratories. Social media has the
power to spread information across the entire globe instantaneously, which makes
creating awareness for a problem and its solution much easier and more effective.
Social media theorist Clay Shirky reinforces this idea by stating that social media has
changed global interaction in three major ways: its native support for group interaction,
its ease of group coordination, and its seamless integration into our lives (Shirky).
These changes create an environment in which advocating a solution to a problem is
more accessible to the public and more effective. For example, Shirky states that all
media gets digitized, the Internet also becomes the mode of carriage for all other
media. What he means by this is that almost any kind of media that we use is
integrated into the Internet, which means that a social media campaign advocating for
action can reach anyone, and therefore gain more participants. If more participants are
involved in a campaign, then the collaborative effort will cause a more impactful result.
The effectiveness of social media as a platform for activism can be shown
through examples of these campaigns. One example of a social media campaign
against the use of animal testing is the campaign against animal cosmetic testing, led
by Cruelty Free International.This is the same campaign that comedian Ricky Gervais
and many other celebrities support. The company's website states that after a 20-year
campaign led by Cruelty Free International and our partners, in March 2013, the
European Union took the landmark step of banning all cosmetics tested on animals
(Cruelty Free International). The results of this campaign show the effectiveness of
social media as a platform for activism. Another example of a campaign is my groups

Zapata 11
campaign: Cruelty Free Anteaters. While we did not get clear effective results as in the
Cruelty Free Internationals campaign, we raised awareness of animal cruelty in
cosmetic testing as evident through the amount of people that pledged support to us
and the amount of Twitter/Facebook followers we amassed. The power of social media
as a tool for advocacy is valuable and necessary for reaching effective results in the
21st century.
Works Cited:
Baumans, Vera. "Use of Animals in Experimental Research: An Ethical
Dilemma?" Gene Therapy 11: S64-66. Web.
Belzung, Catherine, and Guy Griebel. "Measuring Normal and
Pathological Anxiety-like Behaviour in Mice: A Review." Behavioural Brain
Research 125.1-2 (2001): 141-49. Web.
"Cognitive-Behavioral Research | Animal Use in Research." New England
Anti-Vivisection Society. Web.
"Cruelty Free International." Cruelty Free International. Web.
Festing, Michael, Vera Baumans, Robert Combes, Marlies Halder,
Coenraad Hendiksen, Bryan Howard, David Lovell, Graham Moore, Philip
Overend, and Marie Wilson. "Reducing the Use of Laboratory Animals in
Biomedical Research: Problems and Possible Solutions." ATLA 26.3 (1998): 283301. Web.
Hofer, Thomas, Ingrid Gerner, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Manfred Liebsch,
Agnes Schulte, Horst Spielmann, Richard Vogel, and Klaus Wettig. "Animal
Testing and Alternative Approaches for the Human Health Risk Assessment
under the Proposed New European Chemicals Regulation." Archives of
Toxicology 78.10 (2004): 549-64. Web.

Zapata 12
Lang, Peter J., Michael Davis, and Arne Ohman. "Fear and Anxiety:
Animal Models and Human Cognitive Psychophysiology." Journal of Affective
Disorders 61.3 (2000): 137-59. Web.
Lister, Richard G. ", Ethologically-based Animal Models of Anxiety
Disorders."
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 46.3 (1990): 321-40. Web.
Orlans, Barbara. "The Injustice of Excluding Laboratory Rats, Mice, and
Birds from the Animal Welfare Act." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10.3: 22938. Web.
Shirky, Clay. How Social Media Can Make History. TED. June 2009.
Lecture.