Valeria Flores

Professor Walker

English 1302-229

9 February 2024

The Alternatives to Traumatic Procedures in Animal Testing: An Annotated Bibliography

Klabukov, Ilya, et al. “Refinement of animal experiments: Replacing traumatic

methods of laboratory animal marking with non-invasive alternatives.”
Animals, vol. 13, no. 22, 9 Nov. 2023, p. 3452,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223452.

In this article, Ilya Klabukov et al explains how animal discomfort conducted in

laboratory research was something that is still occurring. Although the traumatic experiences and

discomforts that rodents go through are being regulated, there are still some procedures that

cause trauma and anxiety to rodents. Scientists use anesthesia on animals that are used in the labs

to avoid pain but there are still rodents that undergo discomfort in the process of marking. The

authors support this information by stating that there are more than 6 million rodents that are

used in studies annually. Before these rodents are used in studies they undergo a procedure called

‘marking’ which consists of ear punching and tagging, tattooing, microchipping, etc. These

procedures are done so scientists can tell what group they belong to for their tests but what they

do not realize is that these procedures can lead to inflammation, spreading of bacteria, and

infections. The authors list how each of these procedures are dangerous and not healthy for the

rodents; therefore, scientists can use other procedures that are safer for their projects and rodents.

The authors explain how the non-invasive procedures include fur/skin dyeing or marking with a

permanent marker. Although these procedures are not permanent, they work miraculously for
short-term experiments. To present this information, they stated how using these non-invasive

marking methods ensures animal welfare.

This article will help my paper by presenting the procedures that are extremely harmful to

rodents and the effects of these procedures while also including the alternatives that scientists

can use to provide a less traumatic experience for these rodents without pain and anxiety. The

information in this article was well presented in an order that made complete sense in how these

events happen and how differently the labs and projects turn out because of the state of their

rodent.

Neves, Mariana, et al. “Automatic classification of experimental models in

biomedical literature to support searching for alternative methods to

animal experiments.” Journal of Biomedical Semantics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1

Sept. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-023-00292-w.

This article expresses how researchers are trying to find alternatives to experiments,

reduce the number of animals that are used in labs, and refine the experiments to increase

the welfare of animals. The authors supported this information by stating that researchers

are trying to find models other than living animals that will be beneficial and effective for

the project they are conducting. Unfortunately, researchers have not found a working

alternative to replace living animals. In order to find alternatives, research has to be done to

see what experimental model is being used. Some information that backed this up was that

the EU Directive protects vertebrate animals like mammals, birds, and fish but it does not

protect invertebrates, except octopuses. Furthermore, invertebrate animals represent the

alternative methods that the EU Directive uses.

 This journal supports my paper because it shows how researchers are still trying to find

alternatives to harmful procedures for animals and also being able to use fewer animals that

undergo these harmful procedures. The authors list and provide specific details of research and

experiments that were done to back up this evidence of alternatives. This journal gives hope to

others knowing that there are studies that are being conducted to help our animals escape these

traumatic events. All the information that is presented contributes to my research because it

provides me with knowledge of all the experiments that can be done that are less harmful to

animals.

Fernandez, Maria Luz, and Lluis Serra-Majem. “Animal research: Transparency

and obligations.” Nutrients, vol. 16, no. 1, 20 Dec. 2023, p. 20,

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16010020.

It is stated in this article how sometimes the only way to find out the safety and efficacy

of a new therapeutic interventions may be through the use of animal experimentation. They state

how these interventions have the potential to combat disease, reduce suffering, improve quality

of life, and even prevent mortality in human beings. They claim that they understand that the use

of animal experimentation may be the only way to test certainty and safety. They proceed to say

that animal testing should not be the first thing in mind when trying to test a new project. They

say that all institutions should try to find alternatives and modifications before trying to use

animals in their procedures. Furthermore, the authors state how animal testing is on the rise and

how every year a million animals are used for experiment testing.

This Article is extremely beneficial to my paper because it gives statistics and also

provides great examples of what other procedures researchers and scientists can use in order to
stop using animals. This article shows how there are multiple ways to stop animal testing for

good and there are also ways to develop new and reliable methods. Animal testing does not have

to be the only way to test products so I enjoyed how this article was honest and transparent with

their claim!

Husain, Asif, et al. “A review on alternative methods to experimental animals in

biological testing: Recent advancement and current strategies.” Journal of

Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 4, 2023, pp. 165–171,

https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_380_23.

In this article, the authors start off strong by expressing how animal testing has been on

the rise and how animals are forced to go through so much pain and are eventually sacrificed.

This article explains how there are negatives other than animal suffering to these procedures like

high cost, requirement of skilled manpower, approval, and extremely time consuming. Therefore,

the authors state how there have been numerous attempts to finding new alternatives that will

give excellent results and stop the suffering of animals. They proceed to claim how research

techniques like molecular biology techniques can test products instead of animals which will

cause a dramatic change in numbers of animals that are used. They also include the use of

computers and robotics to find new ways to test products and drugs that are safe to use without

putting animals at risk.

This journal is extremely beneficial to my paper because it lists numerous ways that labs

can be conducted to avoid using animal experiments. These modifications may take more time

but they do not need animals while in the process. This journal shows how there are numerous

ways that we can make this process cruelty free if we just dedicate enough time to it. This
information shows how it is possible to remove animal testing, there just needs to be patience

and skill involved.

Link, Elena, et al. “Public controversy and citizens’ attitude formation about

animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts

at the science-society interface.” PLOS ONE, vol. 19, no. 1, 3 Jan. 2024,

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295503.

In this article, the authors state how activist groups attack animal research and question

scientists and their institutions but scientists usually remain silent. This journal shows how

people are against animal testing, yet the scientists who conduct animal testing are defending

themselves and find no wrong in these procedures. All this information shows us that no matter

how hard individuals try to remove animal testing for good, there will always be people who

support it and live by it in order for their labs to be successful.

This journal is important to add to my paper because it shows how although some people

are trying to find solutions to animal testing and how it has slowly been evolving, there are

still institutions that support it and do not have the intention to ever stop. People like this

are the reason that animal testing cannot be removed.

Ara, Toshiaki, and Hiroyuki Kitamura. “Development of a predictive statistical

pharmacological model for local anesthetic agent effects with Bayesian

Hierarchical Model Parameter Estimation.” Medicines, vol. 10, no. 11, 15

Nov. 2023, p. 61, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines10110061.

 This article shows that a good alternative to animal testing is the 3 R's strategy. This

strategy stands for replacement, reduction, and refinement. In this strategy, they replace the use

of animals, gather other information that is comparable with fewer animals, and minimize or

completely remove animals' pain and suffering. The authors go into detail on how beneficial and

famous this strategy is. The 3 R’s have helped numerous scientists remove as much use of

animals in their labs as possible. The 3 R’s is a method that has been around for an extensive

period of time but is still being practiced because of how useful and successful it is.

This journal supports my paper because it shows another way on how to slowly but

surely remove the use of animals in tests over time. This journal goes in detail on how the 3

R’s strategy is helpful and effective which supports the author's evidence. I was not aware

of this method upon reading this journal so being introduced to it by this journal was a

great way to become educated on the topic. All the information was presented with clarity

and went into detail which helps the reader grasp the information better.

Janssens, Monique, et al. “How open science can support the 3Rs and improve

animal research.” Research Ideas and Outcomes, vol. 9, 31 Aug. 2023,

https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.9.e105198.

In this journal, it was stated how the animal use of experiments can be eliminated by

sharing the information of animals in a project. This information allows scientists to see the data

and be able to understand not to repeat these tests and projects. When looking into labs and

projects we can see what went good and bad, so if we were to take a look at labs that use animals

we can see where we can put a stop to certain things like marking, use of toxins, etc.
 This journal backs up my paper by showing how animal testing can be regulated among

scientists. Although there are some scientists that refuse to stop using animals there are

others that are open to the idea. This paper gave me hope that there are some scientists out

there that respect animals and would like there to be zero use of animals one day.

Narciso, L., Dassanayake, P., Liu, L., Pinto, S., Anazodo, U., Soddu, A., &

Lawrence, K. S. (2022). Simultaneous Estimation of a Model-Derived

Input Function for Quantifying Cerebral Glucose Metabolism with

[18F]FDG Pet. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2086230/v1

This article presents all the types of tests that can be run with the use of animals. It also

presents all the funds and types of tests that are needed for labs that need the use of animals.

These labs are extremely expensive and the horrible maltreatment of animals does not make it

worth it. This article also provides the readers with what types of tests can be used without

animals and are still successful.

After reading all this information, I was able to understand that there are multiple routes

that a scientist can take for their labs and tests. Most of them prefer to go with animal testing

because they believe that is the only way to achieve accurate and successful results but this

journal proves that they can still get successful results without the use of animals.

Perez, C. (2023). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: The case of

Switzerland. ALTEX. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2303061

The 3R’s is a research strategy that was introduced and defined by Russell and Burch in

1959. The authors go into detail that the 3 R's are the use of replacement, reduction, and
refinement in animal testing. They first introduced this principle in The principles of Humane

Experimental Technique (HET), by expressing that the 3 R's include three ways that animal

experimentation can be removed from labs. Because of Russell and Burch, this practice is now

considered as a standard when animal experimentation is being conducted around the world.

With numerous years passing since this practice was introduced, individuals started to see some

difference in the definitions from then and now. These differences are open to having

complications because they were analyzed by Tannenbaum and bennett in their 2015 article

where he talks about the #R’s then and now. This article highlights how Switzerland is known for

having some of the harshest laws when it comes to using animals for research, and these laws

also define and uphold the 3 R’s. It is well known with researchers that the 3 R’s put into

practice to resume or completely remove the use of animals. That is supported by the HET that

sheds light to the horrible mental states that animals experience like frustration, trauma, fear, etc.

The research that was put together in this journal contributes to my paper by adding

important information on how the 3 R’s method is still being used but has been changed over

time since it has lasted so long. The studies that were conducted and added into this journal

support my paper because it shows how dangerous and unsafe animal testing is to animals. Even

Switzerland, which has some of the strictest and harshest laws, conduct the 3 R’s method which

shows how effective this practice is for researchers and scientists.

Kousholt, B. S., Præstegaard, K. F., Stone, J. C., Thomsen, A. F., Johansen, T. T.,

Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., & Wegener, G. (2023). Reporting of 3RS

approaches in preclinical animal experimental studies—a nationwide

study. Animals, 13(19), 3005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193005

 As in every other article, the authors go into detail on what the 3 R’s method is and how it

works. This article provides us with extremely specific and numerous statistics on how effective

the 3 R’s method really is. These statistics were gathered throughout the years 2009 and 2018. It

was said that there was also a petition to ban animal experiments that a EU citizen started and

was able to obtain 1.4 million signatures from other EU citizens.

All this information is beneficial to my paper since I can see the exact numbers on how

successful the 3 R’s method is. It was the first paper that talked about people starting a petition

so that helps me add that those 1,4 million EU citizens and other people from all over the world

are against animal testing and experimentations.