A screaming monkey grips its cage’s bars.
Another primate appears distressed as it is being supervised by a lab worker.
Malnourished, mistreated, the undercover video by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claims animals are “tortured, and killed — all in the name of research.”
According to PETA, animals that are held captive in laboratories for the purpose of experimentation “languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free.”
Animal research remains a key part of scientific and medical work worldwide, including at Canadian universities.
At the same time, it is one of the most debated practices in science.
Animal rights advocates such as PETA and other animal rights organizations argue that animal testing causes widespread suffering and should be abolished entirely.
PETA estimates that “millions of animals…are tormented in U.S. laboratories annually for cruel experiments.”
But are PETA’s claims accurate? Do they accurately reflect animal research practices in laboratories?
The Calgary Journal set out to examine the accuracy of PETA’s claims.
What’s happening in Canadian laboratories
The country’s most comprehensive data on animal research comes from the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), an independent organization that sets standards for animal care in science.
Publicly funded labs that work with animals in Canada must be CCAC-certified to receive federal research funding, including those at most public universities.
In 2024, CCAC-certified institutions and laboratories reported using upwards of 3.7 million animals for research, teaching, and testing across Canada.
Fish were the most common species at 46 per cent, preceding both mice and cattle.
These numbers only include animals in CCAC-certified institutions, as data from private labs or non-certified institutions are not included.
According to the CCAC’s Categories of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments, testing is organized by “experiments which cause little or no discomfort or stress” to “procedures which cause severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.”
In the CCAC’s most recent annual report, 1.8 million animals experienced little to no discomfort or stress — classified as Category B.
However, 98,411 animals were reported as having been tested at a Category E level, which is described as “exposure to noxious stimuli or agents whose effects are unknown; exposure to drugs or chemicals at levels that [may] markedly impair physiological systems and which cause death, severe pain, or extreme distress.”
Oversight of lab animals
All research involving animals in publicly funded laboratories must be reviewed by a local animal care committee composed of scientists, veterinary technicians, students, and independent community members.
Researchers must also create an application, justify the need for animals, and demonstrate that alternatives are not suitable.
Douglas Morck, a veterinarian and professor at the University of Calgary who oversees animal care and research ethics and has served in leadership roles with the Canadian Council on Animal Care, said that animal research at Canadian universities is subject to extensive oversight.
“We scrutinize those applications very, very carefully,” Morck said in an interview with the Calgary Journal. “If they absolutely have to involve animals and they convince us of that, then we start getting into how the welfare of animals will be managed and assessed throughout the project.”
PETA’s claim centres on the idea that animals in labs experience suffering and frustration, but Morck insists that the description does not reflect most university research settings.
“The majority of animals don’t experience pain,” he said. “They don’t even experience distress.”
Morck said that when procedures may cause pain or discomfort, researchers must use pain-relieving drugs, similar to those used in humans.
“If there is any painful or distressful work, the vast majority of it would be covered by pain-relieving mechanisms,” he said.
Morck acknowledged that a small number of studies, such as those examining pain pathways, may involve discomfort without pain mitigation, but said those cases represent a “vast minority” and are subject to heightened scrutiny.
While PETA describes animals as psychologically traumatized and longing to be free, Morck disputes this claim, saying regulated facilities aim to support the animals’ physical and behavioural needs.
“We do absolutely the best that we can to ensure that the animals are happy, healthy, well fed, well watered, and able to express as many normal behaviours as they can,” he said
In the university context, Morck said that animals are provided with environmental enrichment such as nesting materials, shelters, and social housing when appropriate.
Daily monitoring by trained staff is expected to ensure that any unusual behaviour or concerns are addressed quickly.
If welfare standards are violated, serious consequences follow, stressed Morck.
“The ramifications can be enormous, ” said Morck. “Their work can be frozen. All of their research grants will have to be sent back to the granting agencies. Some people could even lose their jobs as university researchers.”
In response to PETA’s claim, he acknowledged that discussions about animal research often draw strong reactions from both advocates and researchers.
Still, university laboratories are often misunderstood and sometimes conflated with less-regulated facilities.
“It’s a complex situation, and a very emotionally charged one, especially when dealing with the research side of animals. There’s always a little bit of truth from almost every perspective of an issue,” said Morck.
There is no doubting that PETA remains controversial, but its supporters point out that the animal rights group has put a needed spotlight on factory farming and animal cruelty.
Evaluating the accuracy of PETA’s claims
Taken together, government reporting and expert oversight suggest that most animal research in Canadian universities and government-funded laboratories operates under a framework different from the widespread mistreatment, pain, and suffering described by PETA.
Federal data suggest that animals in university labs experience minimal pain or distress and that strict requirements for pain mitigation apply when discomfort is unavoidable.
While animal use in research remains ethically polarizing, evidence shows that standards are in place and that enforceable consequences follow when they are breached.
Admittedly, private labs do not face the same level of scrutiny. And there are documented cases of mistreatment in Canada in private labs.
PETA repeated its claims about animal mistreatment when the Calgary Journal asked for a comment.
“Every year, more than 110 million animals, including mice, cats, frogs, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, fish, birds, and other animals, are killed in U.S. laboratories,” reads an email statement from PETA. “It’s unethical to imprison and experiment on sentient beings, no matter what your goals may be.”
Evidence, however, suggests PETA’s claim that animals in laboratories “suffer and long to be free” is not consistent with what is happening in publicly funded labs in Canada, but insight into what’s happening to animals in private labs is less clear.
After the Calgary Journal published this fact-checking report, PETA sent us a response, stressing “for animals, suffering does not begin and end with a surgical incision. It is built into the conditions of captivity. Animals in laboratories are typically confined to small, barren enclosures that severely restrict their ability to move. Monkeys who would naturally travel miles each day are reduced to pacing a few steps back and forth. Rodents who would burrow, forage, and explore complex environments are confined to shoebox-sized cages.”
As part of the Calgary Journal’s commitment to fair and lively debate, we published PETA’s slighty edited letter. You can read it here.