Against utilitarianism in animal testing law

Despite the growing body of law regulating the use of non-human animals for scientific purposes (hereafter referred to as ‘animal testing law’) and the introduction of the 3Rs principle as a central guideline for policies addressing this practice, the ‘standard algorithm’ underlying the legal approach to laboratory animals has remained relatively consistent over the years. To determine whether experiments involving animals are permitted, decision-makers engage in a balancing exercise, weighing the human benefits of animal testing against the harm and suffering caused to animals. In this article, I will critique this ‘standard algorithm’ of animal testing law, arguing that it undermines the implementation of the 3R principles. By exploring non-utilitarian ways of thinking about animals in a laboratory setting, based on ‘the animal turn’, the article proposes recommendations for rethinking animal testing law, providing a starting point for a multi-dimensional legal approach to the use of animals for scientific purposes that brings the aim of ‘full replacement’ of animals within closer reach.