In 1966, Henry K. Beecher published an article entitled “Ethics and Clinical Research” in the New England Journal of Medicine, which cited examples of ethically problematic human research. His influential paper drew attention to common moral problems such as inadequate attention to informed consent, risks, and efforts to provide ethical justification. Beecher’s paper provoked significant advancements in human research policies and practices. In this paper, we use an approach modeled after Beecher’s 1966 paper to show that moral problems with animal research are similar to the problems Beecher described for human research. We describe cases that illustrate ethical deficiencies in the conduct of animal research, including inattention to the issue of consent or assent, incomplete surveys of the harms caused by specific protocols, inequitable burdens on research subjects in the absence of benefits to them, and insufficient efforts to provide ethical justification. We provide a set of recommendations to begin to address these deficits.

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.

In this article, we present three necessary conditions for morally responsible animal research that we believe people on both sides of this debate can accept. Specifically, we argue that, even if human beings have higher moral status than nonhuman animals, animal research is morally permissible only if it satisfies (1) an expectation of sufficient net benefit, (2) a worthwhile-life condition, and (3) a no-unnecessary-harm/qualified-basic-needs condition. We then claim that, whether or not these necessary conditions are jointly sufficient for justified animal research, they are relatively demanding, with the consequence that many animal experiments may fail to satisfy them.

The control of risk and harm in human research often calls for the establishment of upper limits of risk of pain, suffering, and distress that investigators must not exceed. Such upper limits are uncommon in animal research, in which limits of acceptability are usually left to the discretion of individual investigators, institutions, national inspectors, or ethics review committees. We here assess the merits of the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes and its accompanying instruments, such as guides and examples. These documents present a body of legislation governing animal research in the European Union. We argue that the directive supplies a promising approach, but one in need of revision. We interpret the directive’s general conception of upper limits and show its promise for the establishment of high-quality policies. We provide a moral rationale for such policies, address the problem of justified exceptions to established upper limits, and show when causing harm is and is not wrongful. We conclude that if the standards we propose for improving the directive are not realized in the review of research protocols, loose and prejudicial risk-benefit assessments may continue to be deemed sufficient to justify morally questionable research. However, a revised EU directive and accompanying instruments could have a substantial influence on the ethics of animal research worldwide, especially in the development of morally sound legal frameworks.

This article discusses the use of animals for the safety testing of chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, household products, pesticides, and industrial chemicals. It reviews changes in safety testing technology and what those changes mean from the perspective of industrial innovation, public policy and public health, economics, and ethics. It concludes that the continuing use of animals for chemical safety testing should end within the decade as cheaper, quicker, and more predictive technologies are developed and applied.

Current regulations and widely accepted principles for animal research focus on minimizing the burdens and harms of research on animals. However, these regulations and principles do not consider a possible role for assent or dissent in animal research. Should investigators solicit the assent or respect the dissent of animals who are used in research, and, if so, under what circumstances? In this article we pursue this question and outline the relevant issues that bear on the answer. We distinguish two general reasons for respecting the preferences of research participants regarding whether they participate in research—welfare-based reasons and agency-based reasons. We argue that there are welfare-based reasons for researchers to consider, and in some cases respect, the dissent of all animals used in research. After providing a brief account of the nature of agency-based reasons, we argue that there is good reason to think that these reasons apply to at least chimpanzees. We argue that there is an additional reason for researchers to respect the dissent—and, when possible, solicit the assent—of any animal to whom agency-based reasons apply.