Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

  • Stefane Kabene ORCID Mail Faculty of Communication, Arts and Sciences (FCAS), Canadian University Dubai, Dubai, UAE.
  • Said Baadel ORCID Faculty of Communication, Arts and Sciences (FCAS), Canadian University Dubai, Dubai, UAE.
Animal testing; Bioethics; Cosmetics testing, Medical research


Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.


Hajar R. Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views. 2011; 12(1): 42.

Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence-based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ. 2014; 348: g3387.

Costa‐Pinto A, Santos TC, Neves NM, Reis RL. Testing Natural Biomaterials in Animal Models. In: Neves NM, Reis RL. Biomaterials from Nature for Advanced Devices and Therapies, 1st ed. USA: Wiley; 2016, p. 562-79.

Saeidnia S, Manayi A, Abdollahi M. From in vitro experiments to in vivo and clinical studies; Pros and Cons. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2015; 12(4), 218-24.

Badyal DK, Desai C. Animal use in pharmacology education and research: the changing scenario. Indian J Pharmacol. 2014; 46(3): 257-65.

Frey RG. Interests and animal rights. Philosophical Quarterly. 1977; 27(108): 254-259.

Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010. Arch Toxicol. 2011; 85(5): 367-485.

European Commission. Ban on animal testing. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Linzey A. The Global Guide to Animal Protection, 1st ed. USA: University of Illinois Press; 2010.

American Anti-Vivisection Society. Testing. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Clemence M, Leaman J. Public attitudes to animal research in 2016. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Anonymous. Statistics of scientific procedures on living animals, Great Britain 2016. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Farnfield B, Petrie A, Dennison N. Use of animals in research. Veterinary Record. 2017; 181(7): 178-9.

Rowan AN, Loew FM. Animal Research: A Review of Developments. In: The State of the Animals. USA: Humane Society Press; 2001, p. 111-20.

Close B, Banister K, Baumans V, et al. Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 2. DGXT of the European Commission. Lab Anim. 1997; 31(1): 1-32.

Venken KJ, Bellen HJ. Emerging technologies for gene manipulation in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Rev Genet. 2005; 6(3): 167-8.

Festing S, Wilkinson R. The ethics of animal research: talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Rep. 2007; 8(6): 526-30.

Humane Society. Cosmetic Testing SAQ. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Naderi MM, Sarvari A, Milanifar A, Boroujeni SB, Akhondi MM. Regulations and ethical considerations in animal experiments: international laws and Islamic perspectives. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 2012; 4(3); 114-20.

Holden J. Of mice and medicine: the ethics of animal research. [cited 2019 October]; Available from:

Pereira GDG, Diéguez FJ, Demİrbaș YS, Menache A. Alternatives to animal use in veterinary education: a growing debate. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2017; 64: 235-9.

Cheluvappa R, Scowen P, Eri R. Ethics of animal research in human disease remediation, its institutional teaching; and alternatives to animal experimentation. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2017; 5(4).

Cressey, D. UK funders demand strong statistics for animal studies. Nature. 2015; 520(7547): 271-2.

Farnfield B, Petrie A, Dennison N. Use of animals in research. Veterinary Record. 2017; 181(7): 178-9.

Daneshian M, Busquet F, Hartung T, Leist M. Animal use for science in Europe. ALTEX. 2015; 32(4), 261-74.

Germain, P-L., Chiapperino, L., & Testa, G. (2017). The European politics of animal experimentation: From Victorian Britain to ‘Stop Vivisection’. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2017; 64: 75-87.

Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharm J. 2015; 23(3): 223-9.

Stokes WS. Animals and the 3Rs in toxicology research and testing: the way forward. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015; 34(12): 1297-303.

Prot JM, Leclerc E. The current status of alternatives to animal testing and predictive toxicology methods using liver microfluidic biochips. Ann Biomed Eng. 2012; 40(6): 1228-43.

Sima F, Xu J, Wu D, Sugioka K. Ultrafast laser fabrication of functional biochips: new avenues for exploring 3D micro-and nano-environments. Micromachines (Basel). 2017; 8(2): 40.

How to Cite
Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 12.
Review Article(s)