The Science of Suffering: Why Animal Experimentation Still Thrives

Around 125 million animals are used in laboratories every year. Despite mounting evidence that they experience complex emotions, feel fear, form bonds, and suffer, they remain the go-to “subjects” for experiments that range from the absurd to the appalling.

Why? Because we’ve been conditioned to believe that if it’s done in the name of science, it must be justified. A recent study, published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, shows just how deeply that belief runs — and how it overrides our most basic moral instincts.

Scientific Authority: A Dangerous Licence to Harm

Researchers asked participants to administer increasingly toxic doses to what they thought was a live goldfish (it wasn’t — it was a robot). Just under a quarter refused outright. But over half took the task to its fatal conclusion — essentially, killing the fish. And disturbingly, those who injected more poison were also more likely to rate the experiment positively.

A second experiment made things worse. Participants were asked to write either positively or critically about science beforehand. Those primed to feel good about science were significantly more likely to harm the fish — even as they witnessed signs of distress. In other words, those who felt the strongest identification with science were the most likely to ignore the suffering of another being.

The same trend held true in the wider population. Across a sample of 31,000 Europeans, people with “pro-scientific” attitudes consistently supported animal experimentation, regardless of their political views, gender, age, or religion. And among medical students, those in fields like medicine and pharmacy were far more likely to endorse animal use than those in midwifery or physical therapy — showing that the deeper someone’s involvement in biomedical science, the more likely they are to support practices that harm animals.

What explains this? The researchers identified a psychological mechanism called instrumental harm: the idea that it’s acceptable to hurt others if the outcome seems beneficial. In this case, that “other” just happens to be a non-human animal.

Strangling Rats to Simulate Domestic Abuse

This mindset isn’t just theoretical — it manifests in shocking real-world experiments. In Australia, researchers strangled adolescent female rats using silicon bands weighed down with three times their body weight. Some were also shot in the head with high-speed projectiles to simulate traumatic brain injuries. Others got both treatments. Anaesthetic was used before the procedures, but painkillers were withheld until after.

Why? To “improve detection of brain injuries in survivors of intimate partner violence.” Apparently, the fact that biomarkers of brain trauma are already well-documented in humans wasn’t enough to stop someone from getting $1.9 million in public funding to suffocate rats instead.

Minutes after being injured, the rats were forced to walk and perform memory tasks. And then they were killed.

The Illusion of Ethics

This experiment was approved by an ethics committee. Like every other animal experiment. But let’s be clear: the existence of an ethics committee does not make an experiment ethical.

Approval is granted based on a cost-benefit analysis — one that never considers the animal’s point of view. The rats didn’t consent. They had no say in whether their lives were worth trading for a theoretical benefit. The public didn’t either. Ethics committees are typically made up of people with ties to the institution or even the research itself. Transparency is non-existent. The suffering is very real.

This is the norm — not the exception.

The Root of the Problem: Speciesism

These experiments continue because of an unchallenged belief: that animals are ours to use. That their lives matter less. That harming them is acceptable if it might benefit us.

This is speciesism — the idea that one species (ours) is more important than all others. And it runs deep.

Research shows men are more likely to support animal testing than women — a pattern going back to the 19th century, when women were at the forefront of the anti-vivisection movement. Lower empathy, a higher desire for control, and a tendency to dominate other beings all correlate with greater support for experimentation.

Those who view animals as commodities — to eat, to wear, to hunt, to fight — are also more likely to view them as disposable test subjects. It’s not about science. It’s about mindset.

And yet, the evidence is clear: the more empathetic someone is, the less likely they are to support these experiments.

Science Without Sacrifice

Here’s the irony: the same scientific advancements used to justify animal experimentation also prove that we no longer need it.

We have alternatives. Clinical trials. Human cell cultures. Organoids. Computational models. Neuroimaging. These are more accurate, more ethical, and more relevant to humans. And they don’t involve torturing other animals behind closed doors.

But instead of fully investing in these alternatives, governments and institutions continue pouring money into outdated methods. Why? Because old habits die hard. Because industries protect themselves. And because people are more comfortable with the illusion of progress than the discomfort of change.

The Path to Emancipation

Appealing to morality alone won’t dismantle this system — not when scientific authority is used to override it. We must challenge the legitimacy of animal experimentation on all fronts: ethically, scientifically, and socially.

Expose the inefficiency. Undermine the cost-benefit logic. Dismantle the belief that other animals exist for us.

And above all, stop pretending that putting animals in cages and calling it science makes it any less of a violation.

Until we confront the supremacy at the heart of animal experimentation — until we stop treating animals as resources and start recognising them as individuals — the suffering will continue.

It’s not about progress. It’s about power.