Phase-out planning for animal experimentation: A definition, an argument, and seven action points

Since the late 2010s, the idea of phase-out planning for animal experimentation (PPAE) has come to the foreground of political debates, but central notions and arguments are understood differently by different participants and stand in need of clarification. This article draws on public communications on ten political projects related to PPAE to propose a philosophical explication of PPAE and to artic­ulate the proponents’ central moral argument. According to the argument, the phase-out of animal experimentation is morally desirable, and planned interventions are both necessary and sufficient to achieve it. The normative and descriptive premises of the argument are stated and discussed, flagging questions that need answering for a more thorough assessment of the argument. This results in a series of seven action points for researchers and stakeholders of PPAE. The overall goal is to enable an open and productive discussion about PPAE in public, political, and academic settings.
Plain language summary In recent years, a new demand has entered the political arena: that the phase-out of animal experi­mentation should be planned. But it is important to understand exactly what this means. This article draws on ten documents from governments, parliaments, and NGOs to tease out what they mean by “planning the phase-out of animal experimentation.” It also discusses the main argument that is advanced in favor of phase-out planning and highlights seven gaps in our knowledge that we should try to fill to move the discussion forward. In sum, the article is the first to explicitly define phase-out planning for animal experimentation and to directly discuss its pros and cons from a phil­osophical point of view. This is helpful in avoiding misunderstandings and talking past each other, enabling an open and productive debate.