Animals in Labs

Guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys, cats, dogs, and smaller lives like mice, rats, frogs, fish, snakes and even insects are subjected to unimaginable agony and pain... the suffering animals undergo in laboratories is probably the worst that man inflicts upon animals. Torturing innocent creatures for so-called human benefit have made people across the globe strongly object.



Most organisations working for animals continue to be taken for a ride by the hypocritical researchers and vivisectionists’ community who have pledged to implement the “three Rs” of Refinement, Reduction and Replacement.

Vivisectionists have, however, quietly added Recycling, the fourth R. The same animal is used for more than one experiment. This cuts costs of breeding, feeding and care and is called “optimal experimental planning” – and increases the torture the animal is subjected to.


The number of animals used in laboratories in the Western world are said to be decreasing due to the use of alternative methods. In actuality, the number is not decreasing because many experiments have been shifted to places where animal protection legislation is either non-existent or weaker, e.g. Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

Mice are the most used animals for medical tests because vivisectionists claim that they react like humans, but it is ironical that the cleanliness maintained in laboratories results in inaccurate mice reactions.

Each year half a million horseshoe crabs are captured, bled alive – and released but they are never the same healthy creatures again – for a chemical that can detect bacterial presence. If there is bacterial contamination then coagulation does not occur and the solution is considered free of bacteria. The test is called LAL and since every drug certified by the FDA must be tested using LAL, all American pharmaceutical companies use horseshoe crabs. Cruel – 18% of the bled crabs tracked died and others suffered and females were less likely to mate.

In a court case seeking personhood for chimpanzees filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project in USA, it was stated that two primates were “unlawfully detained” at the State University of New York as they were “autonomous beings, who were self-aware and self-directed”. In April 2015 the Judge recognised the chimps as legal persons and granted them writ of habeas corpus. Hopefully this will spur similar cases on behalf of elephants, dolphins, whales and other intelligent animals.

Alternative Experiments

The fact that alternative methods do not reduce the number of laboratory animals used is demonstrated by the university district of Zurich where – contrary to the industrial district of Basle – animal experiments can not be transferred to affiliates and partner companies abroad. Thus between 1989 and 2010, the number of laboratory animals used each year in Zurich did not decrease, but increased 95%.

The researchers who develop alternative methods consider animal experiments useful and necessary. Consequently, they work for the most part with cells, tissues and organs obtained from animals killed in laboratories or slaughterhouses, and repeat, for years, the very animal experiments their alternative methods are supposed to replace, to compare them to the alternative methods.

In short, animal experiments are neither reduced, nor replaced, but perpetuated by alternative methods used as a control. Although anti-animal, such methods are ironically financed by misguided animal protection organisations.

Biomedical research based on vivisection is deceptive and misleading, and promoting alternative methods is largely to blame for continued suffering of lab animals.

Instead of truly scientific methods like human cell and tissue cultures and clinical investigations of human patients, alternative methods are based on animal cell, tissue cultures and computer models making them as worthless as the experiments that use animals.

For the validation of alternative methods – a process which takes years, if ever, to complete – researchers compare not only the data from their alternative methods with data from animal experiments, but also repeat the very animal experiments their alternative methods are supposed to replace in order to obtain additional data for the purpose of further comparisons.

New Drugs

In August 2015 the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) decided that “repeat animal testing” was not required for permission for a new drug or clinical trial. Some months later the Ministry of Health (Government of India) amended Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which states that animals will be spared the cruel tests for new drug registrations where complete data from similar toxicity experiments already exists for drugs approved abroad.

India is a signatory to an international agreement on “mutual acceptance of data” we are obliged to accept the results of such animal testing conducted in other countries and there is no need for the tests to be repeated here. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) “test data generated in any member country in accordance with OECD test guidelines and principles of good laboratory practice shall be accepted in other member countries.”

Moreover, the Investigating New Drugs committee has in keeping with international trends and practices recommended the use of alternative methods to animal tests. Despite this, in 2017 the Patanjali Research Institute decided to test its medicines on rats and rabbits in the hope that Ayurveda will get recognition in the world of medicine, and unfortunately the Committee for the Purpose of Controlling and Supervising Experiments (CPCSEA) and Animal Ethical Committee gave them permission to do so.

It is very sad that the CPCSEA approve experiments on animals. 12,000 experiments on Beagles (dogs) were approved by them between 2007 and 2011. Of these at least 4,000 dogs were procured for experiments and at least 3,000 either died or were euthanized.

Experiments (read torture) on Beagles have been undertaken for the following reasons:
65% for toxicity study
11% for dose assessment
10% for tests
9% for pharmakoinetic study
5% for bioequivalence study

After the dogs are no longer needed (old or infirm), a very tiny percentage are handed over to animal welfare societies for adoption.

Ban on Export of Monkeys from India

BWC’s first major achievement in India was in 1977 when the Rt Hon Muriel, Lady Dowding, founder of Beauty Without Cruelty, met our then Prime Minister, Shri Morarji Desai in New Delhi and requested him to ban the export of monkeys as they were being subjected to intense cruelty in foreign laboratories.

(The International Primate League, USA, the Animal Welfare Board of India and the Blue Cross from Madras falsely claimed credit for having achieved this ban. It was only after the ban had been announced, the IPPL wrote to the PM asking him to confirm having banned the export and on that basis they released a number of articles! No doubt they, and the other two, had also created an awareness of the issue over years, and had even appealed to the government earlier, but it was solely because of BWC’s appeal in 1977 by Lady Dowding, immediately followed up personally by Diana Ratnagar, that the ban materialised.)

Killing by Zoologists

Almost every one condemns animals being used in labs for testing products and so-called research, but what about the zoologists who collect animals from the wild, even threatened species, to study them? How can their killing be justified?

Over two decades, 222 studies mentioned the collection of 7,482 bats of 376 species from India, China and South East Asia and South America. The research mostly aimed to compile checklists or establish geographic ranges.

Teaching Dissection

During the 1980s BWC was one of the first organisations that took up the issue of dissection in educational institutions succeeding in it being made optional for students to refuse to dissect animals in Gujarat’s schools.  

Later, also in response to a petition supported by BWC and other organisations a May 1997 Delhi High Court judgement ruled that school students have the right to choose whether or not to dissect living creatures.

In 2012 the CPCSEA under the Ministry of Environment & Forests, issued guidelines to the University Grants Commission, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Pharmacy Council of India and the Medical Council of India, to discontinue dissection and experiments on live animals in all universities, colleges, research institutions, hospitals and laboratories.

Better late than never, two years later in 2014:

The University Grants Commission banned animal dissection and experimentation for training purposes in university and college zoology and life sciences courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The Medical Council of India wanted undergraduate students to be taught using non-animal methods.

The Pharmacy Council decided to ban electrocuting animals, burning their feet, inducing convulsions, etc. in particular courses.

Learning without Animals

In 1998, Beauty Without Cruelty and the Chennai based Blue Cross of India donated “Compu-Programme” sets to 170 State Government-run schools and 17 Municipal Corporation schools in Tamil Nadu. 


Good virtual dissection learning software programmes are continuously being developed. They teach students without cutting up living animals or carcasses of those animals that have been killed for the purpose.

BWC has plans to fund some FROGUTS programmes being introduced as humane learning software in some educational institutions of India by PETA.

Meanwhile, articles have been appearing on simulator rubber and plastic dummies that feel and act like human bodies, like those used in Hollywood films. Such dummies are now being made by the very same people for the Massachusetts General Hospital, USA, and used to train their medical students. In November 2015, at its annual Global Paediatric Innovation Summit, Boston Children’s Hospital unveiled two new simulators. One had the real feel of a newborn’s skin, muscle and pulsing veins that will be used to simulate a heart-lung-bypass; the other, allows doctors to practice adding a drain to a brain overwhelmed with fluid. Underneath these mannequins’ silicone-covered torsos and necks were hand-sculpted and moulded muscles and blood vessels filled with mock blood. Both institutions sell their simulators and educational programmes to hospitals in different parts of the world.

Animals used for Testing Cosmetics, etc.

Why are finished products tested on animals by manufacturers? To safeguard themselves – if a consumer is adversely affected after having used a product and sues the company, the company produces the test results, thus legally safeguarding from claims made.

The fact remains that mice and not men and products that may have given no adverse effects to animals (during testing) do not necessarily react the same way on humans – in fact, effects of products vary from human to human.

In India it was first optional for manufacturers to batch-test cosmetics, hair dyes and other beauty and toilet preparations on animals. Then in 2014, the Government totally banned testing of cosmetics on animals. This was followed by a ban on importing cosmetics that had been tested on animals abroad.

In fact, having realised that results of tests performed on animals are never consistent or accurate and can be misleading, thousands of companies worldwide have since long been using non-animal tests to comply for safety of their products. Legislative bills to ban testing cosmetics and their ingredients on animals have been introduced in several countries, whereas a complete ban on animal testing for cosmetics got implemented in the EU in March 2013.

BWC hopes it won’t be long before India, like Israel, also bans testing all other consumer products on animals.

The Leaping Bunny Logo

Beauty Without Cruelty was one of the international animal protection groups that founded the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) reflecting the corporate standard for compassion for animals. The CCIC leaping bunny logo, considered a highly meaningful label, made its international debut on personal care and cleaning products in 1998. The label is licensed to companies who pledge that their finished products are not tested on animals and their ingredient suppliers do not conduct or commission animal testing on their cosmetic, personal hygiene or household products after the date of the agreement.

Note: The leaping bunny logo does not indicate the absence of animal ingredients in products.

Caution: Products not tested on animals are often marketed as ‘Cruelty-Free’. This wording is absolutely misleading unless the product carries the green veg symbol as well – animal ingredients are a result of killing so how can the products be free of cruelty?

Beware: Policy statements such as ‘Against Animal Testing’ do not confirm the product has not been tested on animals.

Page last updated on 17/08/18