Larry Carbone’s “The Hidden Lives of Lab Animals” [University of California Press, 2026]

Book review by Augusto Vitale

It is difficult to disagree with Larry Carbone. His message is quite simple: less tests with animals and, when a particular study is really necessary, less pain.

Larry Carbone is a veterinarian who has worked in animal laboratories for about 40 years. He started as an assistant at the zoo in Boston, and then at Cornell University vet school, and finally as a laboratory animal veterinarian at the Medical School of University of California, San Francisco. During all these years his views on animals have changed radically. From feeding Esther, the zoo snake, with surplus live rats coming from “Charles River Laboratories”, and feeling no particular ethical issue about it, to deeply reflecting on what it means to kill an animal, after a scientific procedure.

This long journey has given Carbone the knowledge and the experience to tick, in a very professional and informed manner, all of the relevant boxes concerning animal experimentation. Across different chapters, each one named after a significant animal species, the author elaborates on very important issues. I have particularly appreciated his chapter on animal welfare (“Chicken”) and his critique on preference tests being applied too lightly and underestimating the complexity of animal choices. Another issue is our inability to really detect what animal pain is (“Rat”). This is a very crucial point, because the feasibility of a study using an animal model must be based on a solid “harm-benefit analysis”, and we should therefore be able to know what “harm” results from a particular procedure. The same goes for the “benefit”: what is the real need for a particular study using an animal model? What kind of real benefit, what kind of pathology, such study would really address? (Larry Carbone is very aware of this: look at the excellent chapter “Flea”). Nonetheless, the author also recognises the fact that basic research allows accumulating knowledge that will in the future be useful for more translational purposes.

Larry Carbone demonstrates real knowledge grounded in personal experience, particularly in his descriptions of the ins and outs of laboratory inspections, the position of the NIH, and the legal framework governing animal welfare, a section that, in all honesty, can at times become a bit tedious. In this regard, it is useful to point out that the author focuses on the system he knows best: animal research in the United States. European readers may notice two notable differences from the EU system: purpose bred laboratory rats and mice, as well as fish, fall outside the U.S. Animal Welfare Act, with their coverage depending on other federal and institutional requirements; and the United States does not require the same explicit harm benefit analysis mandated under Directive 2010/63/EU.

Two elements in the book especially attracted my attention. The first is the call for a more comprehensive and diverse ethical committees’ membership (“Rhesus Monkey”), including animal protectionists, and therefore not only self-referential scientists. This in theory is a good idea, but in practice could slow down the system in a significant manner. Having said so, on the other hand, I have always thought, “why rush this when the welfare of animals is immediately at stake, here”?

My second critique, which I would like to offer to the author of this authoritative volume, regards his framing of the 3Rs Principle. Carbone assumes that the 3Rs are dealing only with minimising suffering, rather than addressing the real problem of animal experimentation, that is, whether a certain experiment is indeed necessary or not. My opinion on this is that the 3Rs Principle has very little to do with that kind of justification. This is not the goal of the 3Rs, as they work within the paradigm of animal experimentation, and are therefore part of the equation, which considers the benefits of a particular study against the harms inflicted to animals. So, when we refine a procedure or reduce the number of subjects utilised, we have already determined the value and the necessity of that particular research project. To me, this a common misunderstanding about the 3Rs. These are not an ethical recipe on how to conduct research with animals, but rather a methodological manual (although undoubtedly with ethical implications). In other words, we should not ask the 3Rs to do what they are not supposed to.

Aside from this difference of opinion, in this regard, I subscribe to nearly all of Carbone’s other analyses and reasoning. By the end of the book, he proposes 17 measures for making animals experiments more “humane”. Some of these will appear to have been already addressed to an European reader, but one should bear in mind the harsher reality of animal labs in the US, which the author has had to deal with.

Finally, this book will appeal to a large public of professionals in the world of animal experiments, as well as the general public interested in this topic. Larry Carbone’s position is to be applauded: well-informed, clearly stated, and without any kind of prejudices, indeed a rare and very precious accomplishment.

 Interview with the author

"What prompted you to write this book?"

I wrote Hidden Lives for the millions of animals scientists use in their laboratories. I want people who never think about these animals to know better what’s at stake and to take some responsibility for them. One day, scientists will no longer require animal experiments for medical progress, but we’re not there yet. Society, not just scientists or animal activists, must decide whether to continue animal labs and how much to prioritize better welfare. As a lab vet, I offer an insider account of animal care practices. And who better than a vet trained in ethics and in animal welfare science to push my peers and colleagues to raise the standard of care for our animals?

"What is your opinion on the "Culture of Care" approach, you do not mention it in your book?

An institutional culture of care is vital. Ideally, every level of the workplace strives for the best care for humans and animals. Workers at all levels face moral stress and compassion fatigue, whether they are high level decision makers (scientists, vets, administrators) or front-line husbandry staff and research techs. Supporting their wellbeing often improves animal welfare too. It’s all interconnected, as happier animals produce better data and reduce staff moral stress.

It also implies an institution-wide commitment to the best possible animal welfare beyond regulatory requirements. Groups such as Animal Research Tomorrow promote voluntary adoption of high standards, driven by a genuine culture of care throughout the institution. Unfortunately, I describe how even senior vets fall back on meeting the letter of the law, and so I call for raising our regulatory standards alongside promoting voluntary ethical commitments.

"What future scenarios can you predict for animal experiments in the US?"

Oh my.

Two bright spots are increased government funding for research on nonanimal alternatives (NAMs) and greater regulatory flexibility in accepting nonanimal safety tests. Done right, this advances reduction and replacement without compromising the science. All eyes are on NAMs and AI in drug development, but few government scientists are publicly acknowledging the continued usefulness of animal labs.

These bright spots shine against a backdrop of decreased government support for science and for public health, from fueling vaccine misinformation to disinvesting in promising technologies – in humans, NAMs, and animals – such as mRNA. Decreased funding for animal labs means fewer resources for welfare staff, modernized facilities, sufficient vet, etc. The National Academies is finally updating the 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. It should reflect twenty fruitful years of animal welfare science, but I fear the committee they choose will not represent the range of stakeholders, or push for any meaningful improvements for animals. I’m losing hope that the US Animal Welfare Act will someday protect lab rats and mice; I just hope that the government continues to fund enforcement of the current law.

As the US disinvests in public support of science, private companies and other countries will assume whatever leadership the US once offered.