Introduction
Scientific innovation has long been regarded as a vital engine of human progress and improvements in the quality of life. From vaccine development to therapies and treatments for complex diseases, many medical breakthroughs depend on experimental research, in which animal experimentation plays a dominant role. Over 115 million animals are used in scientific research worldwide each year, including mice, rats, rabbits, and non-human primates (Akhtar, 2015). However, animal experimentation has also raised increasing ethical controversy and discussions. When scientific research can yield benefits for human health, is it morally acceptable to impose harm on animals solely for the sake of medical progress? This question makes animal experimentation a complex issue that involves scientific, ethical, and philosophical dimensions. Growing evidence suggests that animals possess not only the ability to feel pain but also complex psychological traits, such as emotions, memories, and social relationships (National Research Council, 2009; Andrews & Monsó, 2021). If animals are capable of experiencing suffering and have some degree of awareness, then treating them merely as technical tools becomes difficult to justify morally. Therefore, this essay argues that scientific innovation should be slowed when it harms animals. Nevertheless, it does not suggest that scientific progress should be halted; rather, it emphasizes finding an alternative path to promote it and underscores that scientific progress should be balanced with moral responsibility.
Animals as Moral Subjects, Not Scientific Tools
Both modern science and philosophy suggest that animals are more than just objects of study; they are subjects of a life with distinct, morally relevant interests, as argued by Regan (1986) and supported by research in animal cognition (Andrews & Monsó, 2021). From this perspective, animals possess an intrinsic value that exists independently of their utility to humans. Therefore, scientific innovation that harms animals must be slowed to prioritize animal welfare and rights over mere advancement.
One of the most influential philosophical arguments against animal experimentation is Tom Regan’s animal rights theory. Regan(1986) argues that many animals should be considered “experiencing subject of a life”(p. 186), possessing perception, memory, and emotions just as humans do. Animal lives carry inherent value from their own perspectives, and therefore deserve moral respect. Regan emphasizes that the core ethical problem in human treatment of animals is not only the amount of suffering inflicted, but the assumption that animals exist primarily for human use. As he argues, “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources”(p. 179). Regan, therefore, challenges the common justification that animal experiments are acceptable when they advance medical progress. If animals possess intrinsic value as subjects of their own lives, then, no matter the potential benefits this research may bring, harming animals for research purposes becomes ethically unjustifiable.
Research on animal cognition provides scientific support for Regan’s philosophical argument. In 1871, Charles Darwin first proposed that psychological differences between humans and animals are not absolute but rather vary in degree. Modern cognitive studies (Andrews & Monsó, 2021) support this view by showing that many animals possess abilities such as learning, memory, reasoning, and even forms of self-recognition. For example, Thorndike’s puzzle box experiment showed that animals can learn through trial and error, gradually improving their performance based on past experience (Thorndike, 1911, as cited in Andrews & Monsó, 2021). Such findings suggest that animals can form memories and adapt their behaviour, indicating that they have meaningful psychological experiences rather than only automatic biological reactions.
Because of their cognitive abilities, animals are not numb during experimentation but truly experience and process severe physical suffering. According to the National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals (2009), laboratory procedures that involve tissue damage and noxious stimuli, such as cutting, crushing, and burning, can cause significant pain in animals. Whether it is a surgical operation, a toxicity test, or a deliberate infection, these methods cause deep tissue damage and long-term distress to animals that are fully aware of what is happening to them.
Beyond physical suffering, animal experimentation causes significant psychological harm. For example, Chen et al. (2022) from Tsinghua University developed a schizophrenia mouse model by combining a genetic subtype Bdnf-e6 under environmental stress, causing the mice to show behaviours that are similar to human psychiatric disorders. While the aim of the experiment is to understand mental illness, it also demonstrates that animals possess complex emotional and behavioural responses to imitate psychological disorders. The reality that animals can develop such symptoms indicates that they experience some mental distress, raising deeper ethical concerns about deliberately inducing these conditions in scientific research.
All in all, these resources suggest that animals possess perceptual abilities and have morally significant interests. When scientific innovation heavily depends on causing suffering, continuing research at the fastest possible pace becomes ethically difficult to justify and cannot be justified to the public. Therefore, slowing scientific innovation to reconsider experimental practices and develop alternative methods becomes a necessary step toward more ethically responsible scientific research.
Limited Predictive Value of Animal Models
Animal-based research should be slowed because many experiments fail to accurately predict human medical outcomes. According to Akhtar (2015), approximately 92% of drugs that pass animal testing ultimately fail in human clinical trials, with some analyses suggesting the failure rate may approach 96%. Although animal models have a history of widespread use in biomedical research, increasing evidence suggests that differences between species, a stressful laboratory environment, and reliance on institutional practices impose significant limitations on reliability (Akhtar, 2015; Hylander et al., 2022).
A key limitation of animal experimentation is the physiological differences between humans and animals. Although mammals share certain genetic similarities with humans, differences in metabolism, immune systems, and disease mechanisms often lead to failure when translating research findings into humans. Numerous examples further illustrate the gap between the successful animal experiments and failed human clinical trials. In neurological research, more than 114 potential stroke treatments that appeared to be successful in animal experiments have later failed during human clinical trials. Meanwhile, 172 Alzheimer’s drug candidates also failed during human testing. A widely discussed example is the TGN1412 clinical trial(Akhtar, 2015). This immunomodulatory drug appeared to be safe in animal experiments, involving a variety of species, including mice, rabbits, and non-human primates. However, when it was used on human volunteers, participants rapidly developed severe immune reactions and multiple organ failure. According to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (2025) provides additional historical examples also demonstrating the same issues: the drug thalidomide caused severe birth defects in humans, and Vioxx showed protective cardiovascular effects in mice, yet increased cardiovascular risks in human patients. These cases illustrated the limitations of animal models in assessing drug safety and efficacy.
Apart from differences between species, the laboratory environment itself may also reduce the reliability of animal experiments. Factors such as temperature, housing space, noise, and experimental procedures will exert long-term pressure on animals, and “housing conditions may unintentionally contribute to chronic stress experienced by research mice and thereby compromise interpretations and reproducibility” (Hylander et al., 2022, p. 9). This pressure can alter animals’ physiological responses, metabolism, and immune function, meaning that experimental results may reflect biological changes that are induced by pressure rather than genuine disease mechanisms.
The heavy toll of animal suffering is often ignored in favour of scientific promises that may not become reality for patients. When animal experiments yield unreliable results while causing suffering to numerous animals, justifying the fastest pace of scientific innovation becomes difficult. Slowing scientific research could allow scientists to reassess experimental models and invest more resources into human-centered research methods, such as organ-on-chip technologies, computational simulations, and human-based biomedical research (European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, 2025).
Ethical Constraints as Catalysts for Methodological Innovation
The limitations and ethical concerns surrounding animal experimentation have not necessarily slowed scientific progress. Instead, these constraints can be seen as an opportunity, encouraging researchers to develop more advanced and human-relevant research approaches. Ethical restrictions can therefore act as an engine of innovation rather than a barrier to exploring alternative approaches such as artificial intelligence (AI), organoid systems, and global data-sharing platforms.
Long-standing concerns about the reliability of animal experiments are supported by a systematic review of 20 studies, which found that only a small proportion of animal experiments showed consistency with human clinical outcomes (Knight, 2007). These limitations highlight the need for methodological change in scientific research. Rather than continuing to rely on models with limited predictive validity, researchers are increasingly shifting towards alternative approaches that are more human-relevant and scientifically reliable.
In recent years, rapid advancements in computational technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, have created new opportunities to address these challenges. As a result, more researchers are turning to AI-based methods to improve research accuracy and efficiency. One example is AlphaFold, a deep-learning system that can predict protein structures. In the CASP14 competition, it achieved results “accuracy competitive with experimental structures in a majority of cases” (Jumper et al., 2021, p. 583). This suggests that, in some contexts, computational models can match or even replace traditional experiments, thereby reducing reliance on animal experiments and accelerating scientific progress.
AI is also trying to change how drugs are developed. Traditionally, it takes 13-15 years to develop a drug and costs around $2.5 billion (Alucozai et al., 2025), but AI-driven methods can predict drug toxicity, efficacy, and ADMET properties in early phases (European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, 2025). Meanwhile, organoid technologies, such as brain organoids derived from human stem cells, allow researchers to simulate disease progression in vitro and have been applied in neurological research, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, providing more direct human data than animal models (Rudroff, 2024).
Moreover, the setting of global data-sharing further reduces dependency on animal experiments. Platforms such as the Animal Study Registry (ASR) help prevent unnecessary repetition of experiments (Bert et al., 2019). More importantly, as highlighted in Sharing Is Caring—Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare, medical data sharing enables researchers to reuse existing data across institutions worldwide rather than conducting new experiments (Hulsen, 2020). Since research often relies on animal experiments to gather data in the early phase, the ability to reuse and reanalyse data reduces the need for repeated animal experiments. Thus, a single dataset can support multiple studies, and then reduce the total number of experiments and animal involvement.
In a nutshell, the ethical issues surrounding animal experiments can actually become the engine of scientific innovation. By encouraging the development of AI, artificial intelligence, and data-sharing systems, ethical constraints push scientific research towards more humane, accurate, and efficient paths. Consequently, slowing scientific innovation to reduce reliance on animal experiments doesn’t hinder progress; instead, it promotes more advanced and ethically responsible research.
Conclusion
Scientific innovation is essential, but speed doesn’t equal genuine progress. The value of research lies not only in how quickly we can get results, but also in the correct direction and appropriate approach. If the base of research is the suffering of animals, no matter how fast experiments are, it cannot be considered a true advancement. The moral significance of animal perception and the frequent inaccuracy of animal testing provide a strong case for reform. By adopting alternatives such as AI and organoids, the research community can reduce animal suffering while simultaneously improving the accuracy and relevance of medical outcomes, thereby driving real scientific progress.
With a balance of direction and pace, science will no longer rely on the sacrifice of animal lives but will move toward wisdom, innovation, and ethics. This reminds us that the fastest path may not lead to the farthest. However, the road that respects life and pursues knowledge is the one truly worth taking.
References
Akhtar, A. (2015). The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079
Alucozai, M., Fondrie, W., & Sperry, M. (2025, January 9). From data to drugs: The role of artificial intelligence in drug discovery. Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University. https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/from-data-to-drugs-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-drug-discovery/
Andrews, K., & Monsó, S. (2021). Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal/
Bert, B., Heinl, C., Chmielewska, J., Schwarz, F., Grune, B., Hensel, A., Greiner, M., & Schönfelder, G. (2019). Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry. PLOS Biology, 17(10), e3000463. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000463
Chen, Y., Li, S., Zhang, T., Feng, Y., & Lu, B. (2022). Corticosterone antagonist or TrkB agonist attenuates schizophrenia-like behavior in a mouse model combining Bdnf-e6 deficiency and developmental stress. iScience, 25(7), 104609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104609
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.
European Coalition to End Animal Experiments. (2025, June 24). The future is animal-free: Accelerating humane and human-relevant science. European Coalition to End Animal Experiments. https://www.eceae.org/arguments/the-future-is-animal-free-accelerating-humane-and-human-relevant-science
Hulsen, T. (2020). Sharing Is Caring—Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3046. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093046
Hylander, B. L., Repasky, E. A., & Sexton, S. (2022). Using Mice to Model Human Disease: Understanding the Roles of Baseline Housing-Induced and Experimentally Imposed Stresses in Animal Welfare and Experimental Reproducibility. Animals, 12(3), 371(article number). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030371
Jumper, J., Evans, R., & Pritzel, A. (2021). Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 596(7873), 583–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
Knight, A. (2007). Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Human Clinical and Toxicological Utility. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 35(6), 641–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290703500610
National Research Council . (2009). Pain in research animals: General principles and considerations. In National Research Council (Ed.), Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32655/
Regan, T. (1986). The Case for Animal Rights (pp. 179–189). https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=acwp_awap
Rudroff, T. (2024). Artificial Intelligence as a Replacement for Animal Experiments in Neurology: Potential, Progress, and Challenges. Neurology International, 16(4), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16040060
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies . In Project Gutenberg. The Macmillan Company. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69904