Against utilitarianism in animal testing law

Despite the growing body of law regulating the use of non-human animals for scientific purposes (hereafter re-ferred to as ‘animal testing law’) and the introduction of the 3Rs principle as a central guideline for policies ad-dressing 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