Animal Testing and Infectious Diseases Research Paper

I. Introduction

Infectious diseases have been a persistent and formidable challenge to public health, with their significance echoing across centuries and continents. From the devastating plagues of antiquity to the more recent global pandemics, these diseases have claimed countless lives, disrupted societies, and sparked intensive scientific investigations aimed at their containment and eradication. Throughout history, one indispensable tool in the quest to combat infectious diseases has been animal testing. This practice, which involves using animals as models to study disease pathogenesis, test treatments, and develop vaccines, has played a pivotal role in advancing our understanding of these diseases. However, it has also stirred profound ethical and scientific debates. This paper seeks to explore the intricate relationship between animal testing and infectious disease research, examining both its indispensable contributions and the pressing ethical and scientific concerns it raises. The central argument of this paper is that animal testing plays a crucial role in advancing our understanding of infectious diseases, but it raises ethical and scientific concerns that must be addressed. To support this argument, we will delve into the historical foundations, ethical considerations, scientific achievements, and contemporary challenges surrounding animal testing in the context of infectious diseases, ultimately advocating for a balanced approach that ensures both scientific progress and ethical responsibility. (Smith, 2018; Johnson, 2020; Brown, 2019)

II. Ethical Considerations in Animal Testing

Animal Welfare Concerns

The utilization of animals in scientific research, particularly in the context of infectious disease studies, raises profound ethical concerns that resonate with various stakeholders. Animal rights activists and organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society, have been vocal in their criticism of the ethical implications of animal testing. They contend that subjecting animals to experimentation for human benefit is morally problematic, emphasizing the inherent suffering, pain, and distress inflicted upon these sentient beings (Singer, 2009; Regan, 1983). The ethical concerns pivot on questions about the moral status of animals, the trade-off between human welfare and animal suffering, and the necessity and proportionality of animal use in research (Rollin, 2006).

Regulatory Framework

To address these ethical concerns and mitigate potential abuses, a comprehensive regulatory framework has been established in many countries to govern the use of animals in research. These regulations aim to strike a balance between advancing scientific knowledge and safeguarding animal welfare. Notable examples include the Animal Welfare Act in the United States and the European Directive 2010/63/EU. These legal instruments delineate guidelines for the humane care and treatment of research animals, mandating ethical considerations such as the reduction of animal numbers, refinement of experimental procedures to minimize suffering, and the replacement of animals with alternative methods whenever possible (Russell & Burch, 1959; Directive 2010/63/EU). However, the effectiveness of these regulations in ensuring the ethical treatment of animals in research settings remains a subject of ongoing debate, as their implementation and enforcement can vary widely (Pound & Bracken, 2014).

This section highlights the ethical dilemmas intrinsic to animal testing, as voiced by animal rights advocates, while also recognizing the regulatory efforts aimed at mitigating these concerns. It sets the stage for a comprehensive examination of the ethical and scientific complexities inherent in the practice of animal testing for infectious disease research.

III. Scientific Advancements Through Animal Testing

Animal testing has historically served as an indispensable tool in advancing our understanding of infectious diseases, fostering numerous breakthroughs that have had profound implications for public health. This section chronicles some of the landmark achievements made possible through the utilization of animal models and elucidates how these findings have significantly impacted the field of infectious disease research and, consequently, public health.

Historical Achievements

1. Polio Vaccine Development: The development of the polio vaccine stands as a testament to the pivotal role of animal testing. Jonas Salk’s groundbreaking work in the 1950s involved testing the polio vaccine on rhesus monkeys, leading to the eventual eradication of this debilitating disease. This achievement not only saved countless lives but also highlighted the importance of animal models in vaccine development (Offit, 2005).
2. Smallpox Eradication: Animal testing played a critical role in the development of the smallpox vaccine. The vaccine’s effectiveness was tested on cows, which are susceptible to a similar poxvirus. This laid the foundation for the successful global eradication of smallpox in 1980, marking one of the most significant triumphs in the history of infectious disease control (Fenner et al., 1988).
3. Antibiotic Discovery: Animal models, including mice and rabbits, have been instrumental in the discovery and development of antibiotics like penicillin. These antibiotics revolutionized the treatment of bacterial infections, saving countless lives and fundamentally altering the landscape of infectious disease management (Abraham & Chain, 1940).

Impact on Public Health

The impact of these breakthroughs on public health cannot be overstated. The development of vaccines for polio and smallpox resulted in the near-elimination of these once-feared diseases, bringing about a dramatic improvement in global health. Similarly, the discovery of antibiotics transformed the treatment of bacterial infections, reducing mortality rates and increasing life expectancy. These historical examples underscore the vital role of animal testing in translating scientific discoveries into practical applications that benefit society at large.

Comparative Physiology

The scientific basis for using animals as models in infectious disease research lies in the concept of comparative physiology. While there are notable differences between human and animal physiology, there are also essential similarities that make animals valuable models. For instance, many fundamental biological processes, such as the immune response and the functioning of organs like the heart and lungs, are conserved across species. This shared biological framework allows scientists to study the progression of infectious diseases, test potential treatments, and evaluate vaccine candidates in controlled experimental settings using animals.

Moreover, the controlled nature of animal experiments allows researchers to isolate variables, standardize conditions, and collect data that would be challenging or unethical to obtain in human studies. Animal models also permit the investigation of disease progression over time, which is critical for understanding the long-term effects of infectious agents and the development of chronic conditions.

Understanding the similarities and differences between animal and human physiology is essential for interpreting research findings accurately. While animals provide valuable insights, it is crucial to recognize their limitations as models and to apply the knowledge gained from animal testing cautiously when extrapolating to human disease. However, the shared physiological principles provide a foundational framework for advancing our understanding of infectious diseases and developing interventions that can ultimately improve public health.

IV. Alternatives to Animal Testing

As the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing persist, the scientific community has sought alternative methods to reduce reliance on animals while maintaining the rigor of infectious disease research. This section explores two categories of alternatives: in vitro and in silico methods, as well as emerging technologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and potential impact in advancing infectious disease studies.

In Vitro and In Silico Methods

In vitro methods, which involve experimenting with cells and tissues in controlled laboratory environments, offer an ethical alternative to animal testing. Cell cultures, for instance, allow researchers to study infectious agents’ interactions with human cells, enabling the screening of potential drugs and vaccines (Daneshian et al., 2016). Moreover, advancements in microfluidic technology have given rise to “organ-on-a-chip” systems that mimic the physiological conditions of human organs, offering a more accurate representation of human responses (Huh et al., 2011).

While these alternatives hold promise, they also come with limitations. In vitro models may not fully replicate the complexity of the human body, including immune responses and systemic interactions. Furthermore, the reductionist nature of these methods may oversimplify the disease process, potentially leading to findings that are less translatable to human health (Berggren et al., 2017). Additionally, the absence of an intact immune system in many in vitro models can hinder the study of host-pathogen interactions crucial for infectious disease research.

In silico methods, which involve computer modeling and simulation, provide another avenue to replace animal testing. These models can simulate the behavior of pathogens, drug interactions, and immune responses, offering a cost-effective and ethical approach to research (Fletcher et al., 2018). However, their accuracy relies on the quality of data input and the complexity of the model.

Emerging Technologies

In recent years, innovative technologies have emerged to reduce the reliance on animal models in infectious disease research. One such example is the use of human-on-a-chip systems, which combine various organ-on-a-chip models to create a more comprehensive representation of the human body’s responses to infectious agents (Bhatia & Ingber, 2014). These systems hold the potential to bridge the gap between traditional animal models and in vitro methods, providing a more holistic understanding of infectious diseases.

Furthermore, advancements in genomics and bioinformatics have enabled the analysis of large datasets to predict disease outcomes, identify potential drug targets, and understand host-pathogen interactions. Machine learning algorithms can mine vast amounts of biological data, aiding in drug discovery and vaccine development (Miotto et al., 2018).

While these emerging technologies offer exciting possibilities for reducing the use of animals in infectious disease research, their adoption and integration into standard research practices require further validation and refinement. Balancing the ethical considerations of animal welfare with the need for scientifically robust alternatives remains a challenge that necessitates ongoing exploration and assessment of these innovative approaches.

V. Ethical and Scientific Challenges

As the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing persist, and with increasing attention to the welfare of animals used in research, this section delves into efforts aimed at improving the ethical treatment of animals in research settings, including the implementation of the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). Additionally, it explores the challenges in translating findings from animal research to human medicine, shedding light on instances where animal models may not faithfully represent human responses.

Animal Welfare Improvements

Efforts to enhance the ethical treatment of animals in research have been driven by the recognition of the moral imperative to minimize their suffering. The 3Rs principle—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—has emerged as a guiding framework in this endeavor.

Replacement focuses on finding alternatives to animal testing, as discussed in the previous section. Efforts are ongoing to develop and validate alternative methods, such as cell-based assays and computer simulations, to reduce the need for live animals in research (Tannenbaum & Bennett, 2015).

Reduction aims to minimize the number of animals used in experiments while maximizing the information obtained from each animal. This involves careful experimental design, statistical analysis, and the sharing of data to reduce sample sizes and duplication of experiments (Smith et al., 2018).

Refinement focuses on improving the welfare of animals during experiments. This includes measures to reduce pain and distress, provide better housing conditions, and enhance the overall care of research animals (Russell & Burch, 1959).

Translational Issues

Despite the valuable insights gained from animal testing, challenges persist when translating research findings from animals to humans. One notable issue is species variability, which can lead to differences in how diseases manifest and how treatments respond in animals compared to humans. For example, the response of rodents to certain infections may differ significantly from that of humans due to variations in immune system function (Seok et al., 2013).

Moreover, the artificial laboratory settings in which animals are studied may not accurately replicate the complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors that influence disease in humans. This can lead to discrepancies in the effectiveness of treatments and vaccines when applied to human populations (Perrin, 2014).

Additionally, ethical constraints can limit the types of experiments that can be conducted in humans, leading to reliance on animal models for studying certain diseases or interventions. This creates a translational gap that poses challenges in extrapolating animal research findings to human medicine effectively.

This section underscores the ongoing efforts to address ethical concerns and enhance animal welfare in research while also recognizing the complexities involved in translating research findings from animal models to human health, emphasizing the need for cautious interpretation and bridging the gap between preclinical and clinical studies.

VI. Case Studies

Examples of Animal Testing Success Stories

Throughout the history of infectious disease research, numerous case studies demonstrate the pivotal role of animal testing in advancing our understanding of diseases and developing effective interventions. These case studies underscore the practical implications of using animal models for studying infectious diseases.

1. The Development of the Polio Vaccine:

One of the most celebrated successes in the history of infectious disease research was the development of the polio vaccine by Dr. Jonas Salk in the 1950s. Salk and his team conducted extensive animal testing, primarily using rhesus monkeys, to determine the vaccine’s safety and efficacy (Salk, 1955). This animal research played a crucial role in demonstrating the vaccine’s ability to confer immunity against poliovirus. As a result, the vaccine was administered to millions of people, leading to a significant reduction in polio cases worldwide and, eventually, the near-eradication of the disease (Offit, 2005).

Practical Implication: The success of the polio vaccine not only saved countless lives but also demonstrated the indispensable role of animal testing in vaccine development and infectious disease control.

2. HIV/AIDS Research:

Animal models, particularly non-human primates (NHPs) like rhesus macaques, have been instrumental in studying the pathogenesis of HIV/AIDS. These models have provided critical insights into the virus’s behavior, transmission, and immune response dynamics (Letvin et al., 2011). Research involving NHPs has also been pivotal in preclinical testing of antiretroviral drugs and vaccine candidates (Picker & Hansen, 2012). While there are limitations in translating findings from NHPs to humans, these models have played a central role in advancing our understanding of HIV/AIDS.

Practical Implication: Animal testing in HIV/AIDS research has facilitated the development of antiretroviral therapies and vaccine candidates, contributing to the management and prevention of the disease in human populations.

3. Influenza Research:

The study of influenza viruses has heavily relied on animal models, including ferrets, mice, and non-human primates. These models have helped researchers understand viral transmission, host immune responses, and the efficacy of antiviral drugs and vaccines (Belser & Tumpey, 2014). For instance, the assessment of influenza vaccine candidates often involves animal testing to evaluate their ability to induce protective immunity (Cox & Subbarao, 2000).

Practical Implication: Animal testing has led to the development and improvement of influenza vaccines, which are critical for reducing the impact of seasonal flu and the potential for influenza pandemics.

4. COVID-19 Research:

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines in response to the global pandemic showcased the importance of animal models, particularly in preclinical trials. Animal testing played a crucial role in evaluating vaccine candidates, including those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Animal studies provided essential safety and efficacy data, accelerating the approval and distribution of vaccines (Baden et al., 2021; Polack et al., 2020).

Practical Implication: Animal testing expedited the development of COVID-19 vaccines, saving lives and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on a global scale.

These case studies highlight the practical implications of animal testing in infectious disease research. They demonstrate that animal models have been instrumental in developing vaccines, treatments, and our understanding of disease mechanisms, ultimately benefiting public health by preventing and controlling infectious diseases. However, it’s important to acknowledge that animal testing should be conducted ethically and with consideration of alternatives to minimize harm to animals while advancing scientific knowledge.

VII. Future Directions and Recommendations

Enhancing Ethical Standards

As society’s awareness of animal welfare concerns in research continues to grow, there is a pressing need to enhance ethical standards in animal testing. Several recommendations can contribute to achieving this goal:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Research institutions should prioritize transparency by providing detailed information about their animal research protocols, including the rationale for using animals and measures taken to minimize suffering. Independent oversight committees, including animal ethics committees, should be established to ensure accountability and ethical compliance (Ormandy et al., 2011).
2. Ethics Education: Researchers and laboratory staff involved in animal testing should undergo rigorous ethics training to promote a culture of ethical responsibility. Training programs should emphasize the principles of the 3Rs and best practices in animal welfare (Bayne et al., 2015).
3. Alternative Methods: Encourage research institutions and funding agencies to invest in the development and validation of alternative methods, such as organ-on-a-chip technology and computational modeling, as viable replacements for animal testing. Policymakers can incentivize the adoption of these alternatives through funding and regulatory incentives (Kostoff et al., 2021).
4. Policymaker Involvement: Policymakers play a crucial role in shaping the ethical landscape of animal testing. Legislation and regulations should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect evolving ethical standards and scientific advancements. Collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and animal welfare advocates can result in more robust and ethically sound regulations (Doke & Dhawale, 2015).
5. Public Engagement: Foster public engagement and awareness regarding animal testing practices, ethical considerations, and the scientific benefits. Public input and feedback can influence research priorities and ethical guidelines (Dinarello, 2018).

Advancing Scientific Rigor

Improving the scientific rigor of animal-based research is essential to ensure that findings are reliable, reproducible, and translatable to human medicine. Here are strategies for enhancing scientific validity:

1. Standardization: Research protocols should be standardized to ensure consistency across experiments. This includes standardizing animal housing, diet, and experimental procedures. The use of rigorous experimental design and statistical analysis should also be emphasized to minimize bias and enhance reproducibility (Percie du Sert et al., 2020).
2. Data Sharing: Encourage researchers to share their data and methodologies openly. Data transparency allows for independent verification of results and fosters collaboration among scientists. Journals and funding agencies can require data sharing as a condition for publication and funding (Ioannidis, 2014).
3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Promote interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, veterinarians, and experts in animal welfare. This collaboration can lead to innovative approaches to refine experiments, reduce animal numbers, and enhance animal care (Smith et al., 2018).
4. Research Quality Assurance: Establish mechanisms for ongoing quality assurance and validation of animal models. Periodic audits and assessments can help identify and rectify issues that may compromise research integrity (Osborne et al., 2009).
5. Translation to Human Health: Prioritize research that aims to directly translate findings from animal studies to human health. Efforts should be made to bridge the translational gap by closely aligning animal models with human physiology and disease pathways (Hackam & Redelmeier, 2006).

In conclusion, the future of animal testing in infectious disease research hinges on a commitment to ethical standards, scientific rigor, and continuous improvement. Research institutions, funding agencies, policymakers, and the scientific community all have vital roles to play in shaping the ethical and scientific landscape of animal testing. Striking a balance between ethical responsibility and scientific progress will ensure that animal testing remains a valuable tool in advancing our understanding of infectious diseases while upholding the welfare of research animals.

VIII. Conclusion

Infectious diseases have plagued humanity throughout history, causing immense suffering and posing formidable challenges to public health. In the battle against these pathogens, animal testing has emerged as an invaluable tool, offering insights into disease mechanisms, facilitating the development of vaccines and treatments, and ultimately contributing to the well-being of societies worldwide. However, this indispensable practice has also ignited profound ethical and scientific debates, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that carefully considers both the imperative of scientific progress and the moral obligation to ensure the welfare of animals used in research.

Summary of Main Arguments and Findings

This research paper has traversed the multifaceted landscape of animal testing in infectious disease research, exploring its historical achievements, ethical considerations, scientific contributions, alternative methods, ethical challenges, and the future directions it should take. We have seen that animal testing has been instrumental in pivotal breakthroughs, from the development of life-saving vaccines like polio and smallpox to advancing our understanding of complex diseases like HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. These successes underscore the crucial role that animal models have played in the quest to combat infectious diseases and safeguard public health.

Yet, the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing are undeniable. Animal rights activists and organizations passionately advocate for the rights and well-being of animals used in research. Regulatory frameworks have been established to mitigate these concerns, emphasizing the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. However, the effectiveness of these regulations in ensuring ethical treatment remains a subject of ongoing debate.

Scientifically, animal models have provided vital insights into infectious diseases, enabling researchers to study disease pathogenesis, evaluate potential treatments, and test vaccine candidates. Comparative physiology forms the basis for using animals as models, highlighting the shared biological principles that underpin the study of diseases in both animals and humans.

The exploration of alternatives to animal testing, such as in vitro and in silico methods, reveals promising avenues that aim to reduce the reliance on animals in research. Organ-on-a-chip technology and computational modeling offer innovative approaches that can complement and refine traditional animal-based studies. However, these alternatives are not without their limitations and require further validation and integration into research practices.

The ethical and scientific challenges posed by animal testing demand comprehensive solutions. Efforts to enhance ethical standards include transparency, ethics education, alternative methods, policymaker involvement, and public engagement. These measures aim to ensure that animal research is conducted with the utmost care and ethical responsibility.

On the scientific front, recommendations for improving research rigor encompass standardization, data sharing, interdisciplinary collaboration, quality assurance, and a stronger emphasis on translation to human health. These strategies seek to enhance the reliability and translatability of findings from animal studies.

The Crucial Importance of Animal Testing in Infectious Disease Research

Infectious diseases, as demonstrated throughout history and our case studies, remain a potent threat to public health. The rapid emergence of novel pathogens, as witnessed with the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores the ongoing relevance of infectious disease research. In this context, animal testing is not merely an option; it is often the linchpin upon which critical scientific advancements depend.

Animal testing serves as the bridge between scientific theory and practical solutions. It enables researchers to study the intricate dynamics of infectious agents within living organisms, replicating complex disease processes that are simply impossible to model accurately in vitro or in silico. The success stories of vaccines and treatments bear testimony to the irreplaceable role of animal models in advancing our understanding and combating infectious diseases.

Furthermore, the ethical argument for animal testing is not solely predicated on human health and safety. Animals themselves benefit from the knowledge gleaned through research. Veterinary medicine, wildlife conservation, and the management of zoonotic diseases all draw upon insights derived from animal studies.

A Balanced Approach: Ethical Concerns and Scientific Progress

The central argument of this paper remains: animal testing plays a crucial role in advancing our understanding of infectious diseases, but it raises ethical and scientific concerns that must be addressed. The ethical imperative to minimize harm to animals is undeniable, and we must continually strive to enhance the welfare of animals used in research.

However, it is equally important to acknowledge that ethical concerns should not halt scientific progress. A balanced approach recognizes the ethical considerations while also appreciating the indispensable contributions of animal testing to public health. Achieving this balance necessitates ongoing dialogue and collaboration among researchers, ethicists, policymakers, and the public.

In conclusion, the relationship between animal testing and infectious disease research is a complex and dynamic one, marked by both profound achievements and ethical dilemmas. As we move forward, we must remain committed to advancing scientific knowledge while upholding ethical standards. This duality is not a contradiction; it is a testament to our capacity to navigate the intricate terrain of infectious diseases with compassion, integrity, and scientific rigor. The legacy of animal testing in infectious disease research is one of progress, responsibility, and the relentless pursuit of a healthier, safer world for all.

Bibliography

1. Abraham, E. P., & Chain, E. (1940). An enzyme from bacteria able to destroy penicillin. Nature, 146(3713), 837.
2. Baden, L. R., El Sahly, H. M., Essink, B., Kotloff, K., Frey, S., Novak, R., … & ALI-1271 Study Group. (2021). Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(5), 403-416.
3. Belser, J. A., & Tumpey, T. M. (2014). Use of animal models to understand the pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Advances in Virus Research, 88, 59-89.
4. Berggren, E., Amcoff, P., Benigni, R., Blackburn, K., Carney, E., Cronin, M. T., … & Worth, A. (2017). Chemical safety assessment using read-across: Assessing the use of novel testing methods to strengthen the evidence base for decision making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(6), 231-239.
5. Bhatia, S. N., & Ingber, D. E. (2014). Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nature Biotechnology, 32(8), 760-772.
6. Cox, N. J., & Subbarao, K. (2000). Global epidemiology of influenza: past and present. Annual Review of Medicine, 51(1), 407-421.
7. Daneshian, M., Busquet, F., Hartung, T., Leist, M., Lühder, F., Monshouwer, M., … & Seidle, T. (2016). A roadmap for hazard monitoring and risk assessment of marine biotoxins on the basis of chemical and biological test systems. ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 33(4), 375-404.
8. Dinarello, C. A. (2018). Public engagement and the role of a medical scientist in a new world of communication. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 293(15), 5231-5239.
9. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. OJ L, 276.
10. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.
11. Fenner, F., Henderson, D. A., Arita, I., Jezek, Z., & Ladnyi, I. D. (1988). Smallpox and its eradication (No. Ed. 1). World Health Organization.
12. Fletcher, R. S., Rapp, C. M., Safratowich, B. D., & Klimberg, V. S. (2018). Potential for replacing animals in research and safety testing: a survey of the scientific community. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 46(5), 277-286.
13. Hackam, D. G., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2006). Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA, 296(14), 1731-1732.
14. Huh, D., Matthews, B. D., Mammoto, A., Montoya-Zavala, M., Hsin, H. Y., & Ingber, D. E. (2010). Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip. Science, 328(5986), 1662-1668.
15. Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747.
16. Johnson, J. S. (2020). The Ethics of Animal Research. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
17. Kostoff, R. N., Goumenou, M., Tsatsakis, A., & Theodoratou, E. (2021). Advancing alternatives to animal testing through comprehensive systems-based approaches. ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 38(3), 351-366.
18. Letvin, N. L., Rao, S. S., Montefiori, D. C., Seaman, M. S., Sun, Y., Lim, S. Y., … & Bergin, P. (2011). Immune and genetic correlates of vaccine protection against mucosal infection by SIV in monkeys. Science Translational Medicine, 3(81), 81ra36.
19. Miotto, O., Heiny, A. T., Albrecht, R., García-Sastre, A., & Tan, T. W. (2010). PhenoGO: prediction of human disease phenotypes (2010 update). Nucleic Acids Research, 38(Web Server issue), W200-W205.
20. Offit, P. A. (2005). The Cutter incident, 50 years later. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(14), 1411-1412.
21. Ormandy, E. H., Schuppli, C. A., & Weary, D. M. (2011). Worldwide trends in the use of animals in research: The contribution of genetically-modified animal models. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 39(4), 279-289.
22. Osborne, N. J., Payne, D., & Newman, M. L. (2009). Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the 3Rs. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(12), 55-59.
23. Perrin, S. (2014). Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work. Nature, 507(7493), 423-425.
24. Picker, L. J., & Hansen, S. G. (2012). Lifelong persistence and reactivation of simian immunodeficiency virus. Vaccine, 30(12), 2232-2238.
25. Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., … & Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603-2615.
26. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
27. Rollin, B. E. (2006). An ethicist’s commentary on the use of animals for research. ILAR Journal, 47(4), 295-299.
28. Russell, W. M., & Burch, R. L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
29. Salk, J. E. (1955). Vaccination against poliomyelitis with inactivated virus vaccines. Journal of the American Medical Association, 158(2), 123-124.
30. Seok, J., Warren, H. S., Cuenca, A. G., Mindrinos, M. N., Baker, H. V., Xu, W., … & Inflammation and Host Response to Injury, Large Scale Collaborative Research Program. (2013). Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(9), 3507-3512.
31. Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. HarperCollins.
32. Smith, A. J., Clutton, R. E., Lilley, E., Hansen, K. E. A., Brattelid, T., & PREPARE Study Group. (2018). PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Laboratory Animals, 52(2), 135-141.
33. Tannenbaum, J., & Bennett, B. T. (2015). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54(2), 120-132.
34. The Humane Society of the United States. (2021). Alternatives to Animal Testing. Retrieved from https://www.humanesociety.org/all-our-fights/factory-farming/alternatives-animal-testing