1.

95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which
excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish. [1,
2, 3]

2. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more
than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." [35]

3. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically
similar to humans. The United States and Gabon are the only two countries that allow
experimentation on chimpanzees. [4]
4. In 2010, Minnesota used more cats for testing than any other state (2,703), New Jersey
used the most dogs (6,077), and Massachusetts used the most primates (7,458). [26]
5. In 1997, researchers Joseph and Charles Vacanti grew a human "ear" seeded from
implanted cow cartilage cells on the back of a living mouse to explore the possibility of
fabricating body parts for plastic and reconstructive surgery. [108]

Since the 1970s a debate has arisen about whether animals have moral rights that should be
recognized and protected by human society. This is largely a philosophical question, but the
answer has many practical consequences. For example, if animals have a right to life, then it is
wrong to kill them. If animals have a right to liberty, then it is wrong to hold them in captivity. If
animals have a right to pursue happiness and enjoy security, then it is wrong to interfere in their
natural lives.
Societies and governments make decisions about who should be granted rights and how those
rights should be secured. In general, an individual's legal right to life and liberty ends if that
person infringes on someone else's right to life and liberty. In some states a person who kills
another person can be executed by the government. At the very least, the government can restrict
the killer's liberty. People debate the moral issues involved in such affairs, but the legal issues are
generally spelled out clearly in U.S. law.
Sometimes it is not considered morally or legally wrong for one person to kill anotherfor
example, in the case of self-defense or in defense of others. The same holds true for a person
killing an animal. There is general moral and legal agreement that killing an attacking tiger or
rabid dog is reasonable and right behavior. In human society the moral and legal arguments that

protect a person acting in self-defense begin to melt away as the threat level decreases. Killing an
unarmed burglar or trespasser may or may not be perceived as justified under the law. Killing a
loud, annoying neighbor crosses over the line.
This line is set much lower when it comes to killing animals. People can sometimes kill animals
that burgle or trespass, make too much noise, or become a nuisance without moral or legal
condemnation. The same holds true for animals that taste good, have attractive skin or pelts, or
are useful laboratory subjects. Why is it acceptable to kill an animal for these reasons, but not a
human?
People answer this question in different ways, depending on their belief system and moral and
social influences, including religion, philosophy, and education. The following are some of the
most common reasons people give for denying animals rights:

Animals do not have souls.

God gave humans dominion over the animals.

Humans are intellectually superior to animals.

Animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do.

Animals are a natural resource to be used as humans see fit.

Animals kill each other.