The debate about the continued use of animals in research has intensified in recent years, with few signs that consensus can be achieved in the near future. Animal activist groups and their supporters call for an immediate halt to all animal research. The counterargument from research scientists and many others across various facets of society is that suitable alternatives have not been sufficiently established and validated to enable all animal research to cease without halting scientific progress. We suggest a compromise rooted in the existing regulations and based on the consensus that not all research efforts contribute enough benefit to ethically justify the use of animals in research. More specifically, we describe a Benefit Assessment Matrix that can provide a streamlined and practical guide for both scientists and Animal Ethics Committees or equivalent bodies such as Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees to assess the benefit of proposed research. The organizational premise is that rigorous high-quality research is more likely to produce tangible benefit than poor quality, low rigor research. Implementation of the Benefit Assessment Matrix will enable more rapid phasing out of poor-quality research and support the objective of promoting rigorous high-quality research, meeting expectations of both sides of the debate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bespalov et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: