Animal research in Poland: scientific progress, ethics, and public communication
Main Article Content
Abstract
Interest in legal regulations and ethical standards regarding the use of animals in scientific research remains constant. Changing societal attitudes and the development of alternative research methods have contributed to the increased importance of transparency and effective communication in this field. International standards of openness are gaining acceptance among many institutions, although they have not yet been fully implemented in the public sphere in Poland. Social media have enabled faster information exchange, but also raised challenges related to the reliability of the message. Data from reports on the use of animals in research, collected between 2011 and 2022, are redefining the boundaries of acceptable practices and highlighting changes in the language that reflect a modern approach to human-animal relationships. A key challenge remains building public trust, which requires methodological transparency, effective communication, and education on alternative research methods. Creating communication groups for animal experiments that separate the responsibility of researchers from institutions could improve informational processes and support young researchers. Changes in the approach to animal welfare and the minimization of suffering require legislative, educational, and open dialogue between science and society. Only through the integration of different perspectives can a balanced approach to animal research be achieved.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
How to Cite
References
Aaltola, E., Hadley, J. (red.). (2014). Animal ethics and philosophy: Questioning the orthodoxy. Rowman & Littlefield International.
Acton, H. B. (1951). Comte’s positivism and the science of society. Philosophy, 26(99), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100021719
Almiron, N., Cole, M., Freeman, C. P. (2018). Critical animal and media studies: Expanding the understanding of oppression in communication research. European Journal of Communication, 33(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118763937
Askitopoulou, H., Vgontzas, A. (2018). The relevance of the Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral values of contemporary medicine. Part I: The Hippocratic Oath from antiquity to modern times. European Spine Journal, 27(7), 1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5348-4
Asper, M. (2019). Science writing and its settings: Some ancient Greek modes, Max Planck Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0003-68CA-5
Baraldi, C. (2009). Forms of mediation: the case of interpreter-mediated interactions in medical systems. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470802588393
Barr, J. (2015). The anatomist Andreas Vesalius at 500 years old. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 61(5), 1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2014.11.080
Black, J. L. (2014). Brief history and future of animal simulation models for science and application. Animal Production Science, 54(12), 1883–1895. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14650
Blockmans, W. (2020). Medieval universities and empirical research. W: L. Engwall (red.), Mission of universities. Higher education dynamics (t. 55, s. 31–42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41834-2_3
Bociarska, R., Krajewska-Kułak, E., Serafin, A., Diak, A., Guzowski, A. (2021). Opinie Polaków na temat traktowania zwierząt, w tym prowadzenia eksperymentów na nich. W: E. Krajewska-Kułak, A. Guzowski, J. Breczko, P. M. Wiśniewska, S. Surendra (red.) Eksperymenty i badania na zwierzętach. Egoizm, koszt postępu czy przejaw okrucieństwa (s. 243–254). Wydawnictwo Naukowe SILVA RERUM.
Bosak, M. (1999). Prawo ponadustawowe – nadzieja czy obawa społeczeństw XXI w.? ΣΟΦΙΑ. Pismo Filozofów Krajów Słowiańskich, 2, 237–241.
Brandt, L., Artmeier-Brandt, U. (2016). Sieg über den Operationsschmerz. Vor 170 Jahren begann die Ära der modernen Anästhesie – aber was geschah in der Zeit davor im Operationssaal? Anaesthesist, 65(10), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-016-0195-y
Burton, J. L. (2005). A bite into the history of the autopsy. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 1, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1385/FSMP:1:4:277
Carbone, L. (2021). Open transparent communication about animals in laboratories: Dialog for multiple voices and multiple audiences. Animals, 11(2), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020368
Carstens, E., Moberg, G. P. (2000). Recognizing pain and distress in laboratory animals. ILAR Journal, 41(2), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.41.2.62
Connolly, M. (2016). Evidence for the continued use of medieval medical prescriptions in the sixteenth century: A fifteenth-century remedy book and its later owner. Medical History, 60(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2016.1
Crivellato, E., Ribatti, D. (2006). Mondino de’ Liuzzi and his Anothomia: A milestone in the development of modern anatomy. Clinical Anatomy, 19(7), 581–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20308
Diederich, K., Schmitt, K., Schwedhelm, P., Bert, B., Heinl, C. (2022). A guide to open science practices for animal research. PLOS Biology, 20(9), e3001810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001810
Domínguez-Oliva, A., Hernández-Ávalos, I., Martínez-Burnes, J., Olmos-Hernández, A., Verduzco-Mendoza, A., Mota-Rojas, D. (2023). The importance of animal models in biomedical research: Current insights and applications. Animals, 13(7), 1223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071223
Dyrektywa 2003/15/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 27 lutego 2003 r. zmieniająca Dyrektywę Rady 76/768/EWG w sprawie zbliżenia ustawodawstw Państw Członkowskich odnoszących się do produktów kosmetycznych. Dz. Urz. UE z 2003, L 66, t. 46, s. 26.
Dyrektywa 2010/63/UE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 22 września 2010 r. w sprawie ochrony zwierząt wykorzystywanych do celów naukowych. Dz. Urz. UE z 2010, L 276, t. 53, s. 33.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. (red.). (2008). Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van der Eijk, P. (2021). Ancient medicine and European medical historiography. European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health, 78(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1163/26667711-78010026
Ericsson, A. C., Crim, M. J., Franklin, C. L. (2013). A brief history of animal modeling. Missouri Medicine, 110(3), 201–205. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3979591/
Fabricius, H. (1942). The embryological treatises of Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente. The formation of the egg and of the chick (De formatione ovi et pulli) and the formed fetus (De formato foetu) (H. B. Adelmann, red. i tłum.). Cornell University Press.
Finn, M. A, Stark, J. F. (2015). Medical science and the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876: A re-examination of anti-vivisectionism in provincial Britain. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 49, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.10.007
Fox, M. (2012). Veterinary ethics and law. W: C. Wathes, S. Corr, S. May, S. McCulloch, M. Whiting (red.), Veterinary & animal ethics: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics, September 2011 (s. 245–260). Wiley-Blackwell.
Franco, N. H. (2013). Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals, 3(1), 238–273. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3010238
Frühwein, H., Paul, N. W. (2025). “Lost in translation?” Animal research in the era of precision medicine. Journal of Translational Medicine, 23, 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-025-06084-3
Gambetti, F. (2023). Beyond disciplinary boundaries: Alcmaeon of Croton between physics, medicine and philosophy. B@belonline, 10, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.7413/2531-8624010
Grzeszczak, J. (2013). Bonifacy VIII wobec średniowiecznych zwyczajów grzebalnych. Bulla Detestande feritatis i jej interpretacje. Poznańskie Studia Teologiczne, 27, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.14746/pst.2013.27.13
Hammersley, M. (2019). From positivism to post-positivism: Progress or digression? Teoria Polityki, 3, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.009.10292
Holmqvist, C. (2013). War, “strategic communication” and the violence of non-recognition. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(4), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.837427
Ingber, D. E. (2020). Is it time for reviewer 3 to request human organ chip experiments instead of animal validation studies? Advanced Science, 7(22), 2002030. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202002030
Jarosz, D. (2021). Zwierzęta jako przedmiot opresji w Polsce w latach 1945-1970: w poszukiwaniu głównych pól badawczych. Polska 1944/45-1989. Studia i Materiały, 19, 33–56. https://doi.org/10.12775/Polska.2021.02
Kahrass, H., Pietschmann, I., Mertz, M. (2024). Why do I choose an animal model or an alternative method in basic and preclinical biomedical research? A spectrum of ethically relevant reasons and their evaluation. Animals, 14(4), 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040651
Kinter, L. B., DeHaven, R., Johnson, D. K., DeGeorge, J. J. (2021). A brief history of use of animals in biomedical research and perspective on non-animal alternatives. ILAR Journal, 62(1-2), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilab020
Knobel, M., Reisberg, L. (2022). Effective communication: The 4th mission of Universities – a 21st century challenge. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.22. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0h26647z
Kopciewicz, L. (2024). Zwrot zwierzęcy w naukach społecznych i humanistycznych. Wprowadzenie w pole problemowe sympozjum. Ars Educandi, 21, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.26881/ae.2024.21.07
Kuncova-Kallio, J. (2024). Replacing animals in regulatory testing and scientific research: Where are we?: UPM Biomedicals observes that progress on the 3Rs remains slow, stresses the importance of validating alternative methods. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, 44(8), 42–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/gen.44.08.19
Lanska, D. (2015). The evolution of Vesalius’s perspective on Galen’s anatomy. History of Medicine, 2(1). 13–27. https://historymedjournal.com/index.php/medicine/article/view/72l
Leenaars, C. H. C., Kouwenaar, C., Stafleu, F. R., Bleich, A., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., De Vries, R. B.M., Meijboom, F. L. B. (2019). Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. Journal of Translational Medicine, 17, 223. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1976-2
MacArthur Clark, J., Clifford, P., Jarrett, W., Pekow, C. (2019). Communicating about animal research with the public. ILAR Journal, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilz007
Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., Cronin, M. T. D. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: Principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192920965977
Marshall, L. J., Bailey, J., Cassotta, M., Herrmann, K., Pistollato, F. (2023). Poor translatability of biomedical research using animals – A narrative review. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 51(2), 102–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929231157756
Mazur, L. B. (2021). The epistemic imperialism of science. Reinvigorating early critiques of scientism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 609823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.609823
Meakin, R. (2001). Education and debate: Developing the place of medical humanities in medical education from school to the consulting room. Medical Humanities, 27(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1136/mh.27.1.50
Mills, K. E., Han, Z., Robbins, J., Weary, D. M. (2018). Institutional transparency improves public perception of lab animal technicians and support for animal research. PLOS One, 13(2), e0193262. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193262
Mitchell, A. S., Hartig, R., Basso, M. A., Jarrett, W., Kastner, S., Poirier, C. (2021). International primate neuroscience research regulation, public engagement and transparency opportunities. NeuroImage, 229, 117700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117700
Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. (b.d.). Roczne sprawozdania Krajowej Komisji do Spraw Doświadczeń na Zwierzętach. Pobrano 12 maja 2026 roku z https://www.gov.pl/web/nauka/sprawozdania-kke
Morosan, S., Dinner, J. (2020). Good practice in communicating animal research at universities. League of European Research Universities (LERU). https://www.leru.org/files/Good-Practice-in-Communicating-Animal-Research-in-Universities.pdf
Najwyższa Izba Kontroli (2017). Informacja o wynikach kontroli. Wykorzystanie zwierząt w badaniach naukowych (KNO.410.005.00.2016, Nr ewid. 207/2016/P/16/027/KNO). Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/16/027
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Effective communication with the general public about scientific research that requires the care and use of animals: Proceedings of a workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27737
Ness, O., Borg, M., Semb, R., Karlsson, B. (2014). “Walking alongside”: collaborative practices in mental health and substance use care. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 8, 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-8-55
Norwich, I. (1967). Andreas Vesalius. A bio-bibliographic study. South African Medical Journal, 41(17), 431-440.
Pasieka, P. (2022). Krytyka i obrona wiwisekcji w XVII wieku. Ruch Filozoficzny, 78(2), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.12775/RF.2022.014
Pound, P., Blaug, R. (2016). Transparency and public involvement in animal research. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 44(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291604400210
Pound, P., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2018). Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. Journal of Translational Medicine, 16, 304. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-018-1678-1
Kumar P., Singh, B. (2024). Communication of science & technology in ancient India and its relevance in contemporary scenario. Journal of Communication and Management, 3(02), 110–113. https://doi.org/10.58966/JCM2024324
Ram, R. N., Gadaleta, D., Allen, T. E. H. (2022). The role of “big data” and “in silico” New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in ending animal use – A commentary on progress. Computational Toxicology, 23, 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2022.100232
Reeves, C. (1992). Egyptian medicine. Shire Publications.
Rice, A. S. C., Morland, R., Huang, W., Currie, G. L., Sena, E. S., Macleod, M. R. (2013). Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 4(2), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.02.002
Rollin, B. E. (2006). The regulation of animal research and the emergence of animal ethics: A conceptual history. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27, 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006-9007-8
Rosolowski, J., Weber, T., Malakpour-Permlid, A., Ordesson, S. (2025). Revisiting 3Rs: rethinking replacement and new approach methodologies. Frontiers in Toxicology, 7, 1664209. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2025.1664209
Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1223/2009 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 30 listopada 2009 r. dotyczące produktów kosmetycznych. Dz. Urz. UE z 2009, L 342, t. 52, s. 59.
Russow, L.-M. (2002). Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the laboratory. ILAR Journal, 43(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.1.33
Schiefsky, M. (2012). The creation of second-order knowledge in ancient Greek science as a process in the globalization of knowledge. W: J. Renn (red.), The globalization of knowledge in history (s. 177–185). Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften.
Smykowski, K. (2017). Nowe przepisy dotyczące doświadczeń na zwierzętach. Najważniejsze zmiany i próba oceny. Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 15(2), 41–48. http://doi.org/10.21697/seb.2017.15.2.04
Surmiak, W. (2018). Sprawozdanie z konferencji Doświadczenia na zwierzętach jako przedmiot refleksji interdyscyplinarnej. Śląskie Studia Historyczno-Teologiczne, 51(1), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.31261/SSHT.2018.51.1.21
Ścibor, M. (b.d.) Korzyści i negatywne skutki przeprowadzania doświadczeń na zwierzętach. Pobrane 12 maja 2026 roku z https://wspia.eu/media/lkufisuo/28-%C5%9Bcibor.pdf
Tannenbaum, J. (1995). Benefits and burdens: Legal and ethical issues raised by veterinary specialization. Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine, 39, 253–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3519(06)80021-2
van den Tweel, J. G., Taylor, C. R. (2013). The rise and fall of the autopsy. Virchows Archiv, 462, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1387-3
Ustawa z dnia 15 stycznia 2015 r. o ochronie zwierząt wykorzystywanych do celów naukowych lub edukacyjnych. Dz. U. z 2015, poz. 266.
Vivash Jones, B. (2021). The history of veterinary medicine and the animal-human relationship. 5m Publishing.
Walters, E. T. (2025). From nociception in aneural animals to human suffering: toward a comparative biology of pain. Journal of Experimental Biology, 228(19), jeb251210. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.251210
Wysiadecki, G., Varga, I., Klejbor, I., Balawander, K., Ghosh, S. K., Clarke, E., Mazur, M., Dubrowski, A., Bonczar, M., Ostrowski, P., Orkisz, S., Żytkowski, A. (2024). The most ancient sources of anatomic knowledge. Translational Research in Anatomy, 35, 100295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tria.2024.100295