title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: Epic also filed similar charges against Apple in Australia. On April 9, 2021, Judge Nye Perram ordered a 3 month stay on Epic's lawsuit against Apple in Australia while stating that the stay would become permanent in the event Epic does not file in the U.S. but under the Australian Consumer Law within that time frame. Epic appealed Judge Perram's ruling, which was granted in a ruling in July 2021, allowing its case in Australia to go forward.


title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: Epic had acquired Bandcamp in March 2022. Bandcamp allowed music creators to sell music with a 10-15% revenue split, which was kept following Epic's acquisition. Google announced a planned change in its Google Play store policy that required all apps to use its Play Store payment systems or face removal by June 2022. Bandcamp, supported by Epic, sued Google in April 2022 and sought a preliminary injunction to block this action by Google, arguing that the 30% revenue cut demanded by the Play Store payment system would destroy their financial model. Google responded that they have offered a Media Experience Program that for media apps that provide appropriate integration with Google's services, that they can use a 10% revenue cut through the Play Store instead. By May 2022, an agreement had been arranged that while Epic's suit continues, Bandcamp could continue to use its in-app purchasing system, though they will retain the 10% fee on each sale in escrow until the conclusion of the case.


title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: Additional filings by Epic assert that Google had paid competitors significant sums of money to dissuade them from making a competition app store to Google Play, with the highest being paid to Activision Blizzard. Epic Games said these payments helped Google to maintain its monopoly on storefronts via Google Play on the Android operating system.


title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: In the United States, forty states filed suit against Google in July 2021 arguing its app store practices, including its 30% revenue cut, were anti-competitive, similar to the factors that Epic sought in its case. Later, in August 2021, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Marsha Blackburn, and Amy Klobuchar introduced the Open App Markets Act bill, which would prevent app stores from forcing developers from exclusively using the app store's payment system. The bill passed out of the Senate committee by February 2022.


title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: In August 2021, as part of a settlement to "Cameron v. Apple", a similar class-action lawsuit filed by app developers, Apple announced that it would allow developers to collect information within apps such as email addresses from users so that the developers can subsequently tell customers about ways to pay outside of the App Store.


title: Epic Games v. Apple

text: South Korea passed a law in August 2021 amending their Telecommunications Business Act that required app stores like Apple's and Google's to allow app developers to use alternative payment systems other than the storefront, in addition to giving the government more involvement in mediations over app store issues in conflicts between the operators and developers and users. This was the first such law passed at a national level. Epic asked Apple to allow "Fortnite" onto the Korean version of the store due to this policy in September 2021, but Apple rejected this as the law had yet to come into effect.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: The 1994–95 UEFA Champions League was the 40th edition of UEFA's premier European club football tournament, and the third since its rebranding as the UEFA Champions League. The tournament was won by Ajax of the Netherlands with a late goal in the final against defending champions Milan of Italy. Ajax won the competition without losing a game, either in the group or the knock-out stage in winning the title for the first time since 1973.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: Compared to the previous edition of the European Cup, radical changes were made to the format of the tournament, due to a recently expired contract that bound UEFA to the EBU for the transmission of the final. This gave occasion for a general review of the format, which attracted the interest of new and financially well-off private television companies. This edition included four groups of four teams each in the group stage, up from two groups of four teams each in 1993–94. It was also the first year in which eight teams advanced to the knock-out stage and the first of three years in which the champions of smaller nations entered the UEFA Cup instead of the Champions League. It was also the first time that this competition was known as the UEFA Champions League from the first to the last match of the competition: in two previous seasons, the UEFA Champions League involved the matches played between the second round and the European Cup Final.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's entrants were unable to participate for the third season in a row due to the UN economic sanctions. Milan were the defending champions, but were defeated by Ajax in the final.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: 24 teams entered the competition: the UEFA Champions League holders, AC Milan, as well as 23 best-ranked national champions according to UEFA club ranking. The title holders and other 7 best-ranked national champions received a bye to the group stage, while the national champions ranked 9–24 entered in the qualifying round. The remaining national champions were only allowed to participate in UEFA Cup.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: The schedule of the competition is as follows. The draw was held in Geneva, Switzerland on 20 July 1994, where qualifying round pairs as well as group formations were drawn. The knockout phase pairs were made automatically by a predetermined bracket.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: Ten of the sixteen participating teams made their UEFA Champions League group stage debut: AEK Athens, Ajax, Bayern Munich, Benfica, Casino Salzburg, Dynamo Kyiv, Hajduk Split, Manchester United, Paris Saint-Germain and Steaua București. Two of these teams, Benfica and Dynamo Kyiv, had previously contested the 1991–92 European Cup group stage.


title: 1994–95 UEFA Champions League

text: Casino, Hajduk and Steaua were the first teams to qualify for group stage from Austria, Croatia and Romania respectively.


title: Animal testing

text: Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and "in vivo" testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. This approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their natural environments or habitats. Experimental research with animals is usually conducted in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to the industry. The focus of animal testing varies on a continuum from pure research, focusing on developing fundamental knowledge of an organism, to applied research, which may focus on answering some questions of great practical importance, such as finding a cure for a disease. Examples of applied research include testing disease treatments, breeding, defense research, and toxicology, including cosmetics testing. In education, animal testing is sometimes a component of biology or psychology courses. The practice is regulated to varying degrees in different countries.


title: Animal testing

text: It was estimated in 2010 that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to over 100 million. In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate, the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million. In 2013 it was reported that mammals (mice and rats), fish, amphibians, and reptiles together accounted for over 85% of research animals.


title: Animal testing

text: The terms "animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research", "in vivo" testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means "live sectioning" of an animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the "Encyclopædia Britannica" defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals", although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work". The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death. The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".


title: Animal testing

text: The following text excludes as much as possible practices related to "in vivo" veterinary surgery, which is left to the discussion of vivisection.


title: Animal testing

text: The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BCE. Aristotle and Erasistratus were among the first to perform experiments on living animals. Galen, a 2nd-century Roman physician, performed "post-mortem" dissections of pigs and goats. Avenzoar, a 12th-century Arabic physician in Moorish Spain introduced an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.


title: Animal testing

text: Animals have repeatedly been used throughout the history of biomedical research. In 1831, the founders of the Dublin Zoo were members of the medical profession who were interested in studying animals while they were alive and when they were dead. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly showed the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep. In the 1880s, Robert Koch infected mice and guinea pigs with anthrax and tuberculosis. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning. In World War I, German agents infected sheep bound for Russia with anthrax, and inoculated mules and horses of the French cavalry with the equine glanders disease. Between 1917 and 1918, the Germans infected mules in Argentina bound for American forces, resulting in the death of 200 mules. Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and later revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. On 3 November 1957, a Soviet dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then given to humans. The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took an enormous step forward in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch could produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from simians into the genome of mice. This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.


title: Animal testing

text: Toxicology testing became important in the 20th century. In the 19th century, laws regulating drugs were more relaxed. For example, in the US, the government could only ban a drug after they had prosecuted a company for selling products that harmed customers. However, in response to the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937 in which the eponymous drug killed over 100 users, the US Congress passed laws that required safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed. Other countries enacted similar legislation. In the 1960s, in reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy, further laws were passed requiring safety testing on pregnant animals before a drug can be sold.


title: Animal testing

text: As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state". O'Meara and others argued pain could affect animal physiology during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections ethically, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals. Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle—many people believed animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.


title: Animal testing

text: On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard—who is sometimes known as the "prince of vivisectors" and the father of physiology, and whose wife, Marie Françoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883—famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen". Arguing that "experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree", Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.


title: Animal testing

text: In 1896, the physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon said "The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, 'Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime. These divisions between pro- and anti-animal testing groups first came to public attention during the Brown Dog affair in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.


title: Animal testing

text: In 1822, the first animal protection law was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876), the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. The legislation was promoted by Charles Darwin, who wrote to Ray Lankester in March 1871: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for proper investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." In response to the lobbying by anti-vivisectionists, several organizations were set up in Britain to defend animal research: The Physiological Society was formed in 1876 to give physiologists "mutual benefit and protection", the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research was formed in 1882 and focused on policy-making, and the Research Defence Society (now Understanding Animal Research) was formed in 1908 "to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them".


title: Animal testing

text: Opposition to the use of animals in medical research first arose in the United States during the 1860s, when Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), with America's first specifically anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS), founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spread of mercy was the great cause of civilization, and vivisection was cruel. However, in the USA the antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, overwhelmed by the superior organization and influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the passing of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, in 1966.


title: Animal testing

text: The regulations that apply to animals in laboratories vary across species. In the U.S., under the Animal Welfare Act and the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" (the "Guide"), published by the National Academy of Sciences, any procedure can be performed on an animal if it can be successfully argued that it is scientifically justified. Researchers are required to consult with the institution's veterinarian and its Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which every research facility is obliged to maintain. The IACUC must ensure that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments are not unnecessarily duplicative, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. Although the Animal Welfare Act does not include purpose-bred rodents and birds, these species are equally regulated under Public Health Service policies that govern the IACUCs. The Public Health Service policy oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC conducts infectious disease research on nonhuman primates, rabbits, mice, and other animals, while FDA requirements cover use of animals in pharmaceutical research. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations are enforced by the USDA, whereas Public Health Service regulations are enforced by OLAW and in many cases by AAALAC.


title: Animal testing

text: According to the 2014 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report—which looked at the oversight of animal use during a three-year period—"some Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees ...did not adequately approve, monitor, or report on experimental procedures on animals". The OIG found that "as a result, animals are not always receiving basic humane care and treatment and, in some cases, pain and distress are not minimized during and after experimental procedures". According to the report, within a three-year period, nearly half of all American laboratories with regulated species were cited for AWA violations relating to improper IACUC oversight. The USDA OIG made similar findings in a 2005 report. With only a broad number of 120 inspectors, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees more than 12,000 facilities involved in research, exhibition, breeding, or dealing of animals. Others have criticized the composition of IACUCs, asserting that the committees are predominantly made up of animal researchers and university representatives who may be biased against animal welfare concerns.


title: Animal testing

text: Larry Carbone, a laboratory animal veterinarian, writes that, in his experience, IACUCs take their work very seriously regardless of the species involved, though the use of non-human primates always raises what he calls a "red flag of special concern". A study published in "Science" magazine in July 2001 confirmed the low reliability of IACUC reviews of animal experiments. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the three-year study found that animal-use committees that do not know the specifics of the university and personnel do not make the same approval decisions as those made by animal-use committees that do know the university and personnel. Specifically, blinded committees more often ask for more information rather than approving studies.


title: Animal testing

text: Scientists in India are protesting a recent guideline issued by the University Grants Commission to ban the use of live animals in universities and laboratories.


title: Animal testing

text: Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to obtain; it has been estimated that 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the EU. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that global annual estimates range from 50 to 100 million animals. None of the figures include invertebrates such as shrimp and fruit flies.


title: Animal testing

text: The USDA/APHIS has published the 2016 animal research statistics. Overall, the number of animals (covered by the Animal Welfare Act) used in research in the US rose 6.9% from 767,622 (2015) to 820,812 (2016). This includes both public and private institutions. By comparing with EU data, where all vertebrate species are counted, Speaking of Research estimated that around 12 million vertebrates were used in research in the US in 2016. A 2015 article published in the "Journal of Medical Ethics", argued that the use of animals in the US has dramatically increased in recent years. Researchers found this increase is largely the result of an increased reliance on genetically modified mice in animal studies.


title: Animal testing

text: In 1995, researchers at Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 14–21 million animals were used in American laboratories in 1992, a reduction from a high of 50 million used in 1970. In 1986, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that estimates of the animals used in the U.S. range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million each year, and that their own best estimate was at least 17 million to 22 million. In 2016, the Department of Agriculture listed 60,979 dogs, 18,898 cats, 71,188 non-human primates, 183,237 guinea pigs, 102,633 hamsters, 139,391 rabbits, 83,059 farm animals, and 161,467 other mammals, a total of 820,812, a figure that includes all mammals except purpose-bred mice and rats. The use of dogs and cats in research in the U.S. decreased from 1973 to 2016 from 195,157 to 60,979, and from 66,165 to 18,898, respectively.


title: Animal testing

text: In the UK, Home Office figures show that 3.79 million procedures were carried out in 2017. 2,960 procedures used non-human primates, down over 50% since 1988. A "procedure" refers here to an experiment that might last minutes, several months, or years. Most animals are used in only one procedure: animals are frequently euthanized after the experiment; however death is the endpoint of some procedures.


title: Animal testing

text: A 'severe' procedure would be, for instance, any test where death is the end-point or fatalities are expected, whereas a 'mild' procedure would be something like a blood test or an MRI scan.


title: Animal testing

text: The Three Rs (3Rs) are guiding principles for more ethical use of animals in testing. These were first described by W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch in 1959. The 3Rs state:


title: Animal testing

text: The 3Rs have a broader scope than simply encouraging alternatives to animal testing, but aim to improve animal welfare and scientific quality where the use of animals can not be avoided. These 3Rs are now implemented in many testing establishments worldwide and have been adopted by various pieces of legislation and regulations.


title: Animal testing

text: Despite the widespread acceptance of the 3Rs, many countries—including Canada, Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Germany—have reported rising experimental use of animals in recent years with increased use of mice and, in some cases, fish while reporting declines in the use of cats, dogs, primates, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Along with other countries, China has also escalated its use of GM animals, resulting in an increase in overall animal use.


title: Animal testing

text: Although many more invertebrates than vertebrates are used in animal testing, these studies are largely unregulated by law. The most frequently used invertebrate species are "Drosophila melanogaster", a fruit fly, and "Caenorhabditis elegans", a nematode worm. In the case of "C. elegans", the worm's body is completely transparent and the precise lineage of all the organism's cells is known, while studies in the fly "D. melanogaster" can use an amazing array of genetic tools. These invertebrates offer some advantages over vertebrates in animal testing, including their short life cycle and the ease with which large numbers may be housed and studied. However, the lack of an adaptive immune system and their simple organs prevent worms from being used in several aspects of medical research such as vaccine development. Similarly, the fruit fly immune system differs greatly from that of humans, and diseases in insects can be different from diseases in vertebrates; however, fruit flies and waxworms can be useful in studies to identify novel virulence factors or pharmacologically active compounds.


title: Animal testing

text: Several invertebrate systems are considered acceptable alternatives to vertebrates in early-stage discovery screens. Because of similarities between the innate immune system of insects and mammals, insects can replace mammals in some types of studies. "Drosophila melanogaster" and the "Galleria mellonella" waxworm have been particularly important for analysis of virulence traits of mammalian pathogens. Waxworms and other insects have also proven valuable for the identification of pharmaceutical compounds with favorable bioavailability. The decision to adopt such models generally involves accepting a lower degree of biological similarity with mammals for significant gains in experimental throughput.


title: Animal testing

text: In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used is estimated to be from 11 million to between 20 and 100 million a year. Other rodents commonly used are guinea pigs, hamsters, and gerbils. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species because of their size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate. Mice are widely considered to be the best model of inherited human disease and share 95% of their genes with humans. With the advent of genetic engineering technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can provide models for a range of human diseases. Rats are also widely used for physiology, toxicology and cancer research, but genetic manipulation is much harder in rats than in mice, which limits the use of these rodents in basic science.


title: Animal testing

text: Over 500,000 fish and 9,000 amphibians were used in the UK in 2016. The main species used is the zebrafish, "Danio rerio", which are translucent during their embryonic stage, and the African clawed frog, "Xenopus laevis". Over 20,000 rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004. Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests (Draize test) because rabbits have less tear flow than other animals, and the lack of eye pigment in albinos make the effects easier to visualize. The numbers of rabbits used for this purpose has fallen substantially over the past two decades. In 1996, there were 3,693 procedures on rabbits for eye irritation in the UK, and in 2017 this number was just 63. Rabbits are also frequently used for the production of polyclonal antibodies.


title: Animal testing

text: Cats are most commonly used in neurological research. In 2016, 18,898 cats were used in the United States alone, around a third of which were used in experiments which have the potential to cause "pain and/or distress" though only 0.1% of cat experiments involved potential pain which was not relieved by anesthetics/analgesics. In the UK, just 198 procedures were carried out on cats in 2017. The number has been around 200 for most of the last decade.


title: Animal testing

text: Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education—particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle, and to allow for comparisons with historical data from beagles (a Reduction technique). They are used as models for human and veterinary diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States. The most common use of dogs is in the safety assessment of new medicines for human or veterinary use as a second species following testing in rodents, in accordance with the regulations set out in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. One of the most significant advancements in medical science involves the use of dogs in developing the answers to insulin production in the body for diabetics and the role of the pancreas in this process. They found that the pancreas was responsible for producing insulin in the body and that removal of the pancreas, resulted in the development of diabetes in the dog. After re-injecting the pancreatic extract, (insulin), the blood glucose levels were significantly lowered. The advancements made in this research involving the use of dogs has resulted in a definite improvement in the quality of life for both humans and animals.


title: Animal testing

text: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report shows that 60,979 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in 2016. In the UK, according to the UK Home Office, there were 3,847 procedures on dogs in 2017. Of the other large EU users of dogs, Germany conducted 3,976 procedures on dogs in 2016 and France conducted 4,204 procedures in 2016. In both cases this represents under 0.2% of the total number of procedures conducted on animals in the respective countries.


title: Animal testing

text: Zebrafish are commonly used for the basic study and development of various cancers. Used to explore the immune system and genetic strains. They are low in cost, small size, fast reproduction rate, and able to observe cancer cells in real time. Humans and Zebrafish share neoplasm similarities which is why they are used for research. The National Library of Medicine shows many examples of the types of cancer Zebrafish are used in. The use of Zebrafish have allowed them to find differences between MYC-driven pre-B vs T-ALL and be exploited to discover novel pre-B ALL therapies on Acute lymphocytic leukemia.


title: Animal testing

text: The National Library of Medicine also explains how a neoplasm is difficult to diagnose at an early stage. Understanding the molecular mechanism of digestive tract tumorigenesis and searching for new treatments is the current research. Zebrafish and humans share similar gastric cancer cells in the gastric cancer xenotransplantation model. This allowed researchers to find that Triphala could inhibit the growth and metastasis of gastric cancer cells. Since zebrafish liver cancer genes are related with humans they have become widely used in liver cancer search, as will as many other cancers.


title: Animal testing

text: Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation. They are caught in the wild or purpose-bred. In the United States and China, most primates are domestically purpose-bred, whereas in Europe the majority are imported purpose-bred. The European Commission reported that in 2011, 6,012 monkeys were experimented on in European laboratories. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were 71,188 monkeys in U.S. laboratories in 2016. 23,465 monkeys were imported into the U.S. in 2014 including 929 who were caught in the wild. Most of the NHPs used in experiments are macaques; but marmosets, spider monkeys, and squirrel monkeys are also used, and baboons and chimpanzees are used in the US. , there are approximately 730 chimpanzees in U.S. laboratories.


title: Animal testing

text: In a survey in 2003, it was found that 89% of singly-housed primates exhibited self-injurious or abnormal stereotypyical behaviors including pacing, rocking, hair pulling, and biting among others.


title: Animal testing

text: The first transgenic primate was produced in 2001, with the development of a method that could introduce new genes into a rhesus macaque. This transgenic technology is now being applied in the search for a treatment for the genetic disorder Huntington's disease. Notable studies on non-human primates have been part of the polio vaccine development, and development of Deep Brain Stimulation, and their current heaviest non-toxicological use occurs in the monkey AIDS model, SIV. In 2008 a proposal to ban all primates experiments in the EU has sparked a vigorous debate.


title: Animal testing

text: Animals used by laboratories are largely supplied by specialist dealers. Sources differ for vertebrate and invertebrate animals. Most laboratories breed and raise flies and worms themselves, using strains and mutants supplied from a few main stock centers. For vertebrates, sources include breeders and dealers like Covance and Charles River Laboratories who supply purpose-bred and wild-caught animals; businesses that trade in wild animals such as Nafovanny; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters also supply the laboratories directly. Large centers also exist to distribute strains of genetically modified animals; the International Knockout Mouse Consortium, for example, aims to provide knockout mice for every gene in the mouse genome.


title: Animal testing

text: In the U.S., Class A breeders are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to buy animals from "random sources" such as auctions, pound seizure, and newspaper ads. Some Class B dealers have been accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping strays, a practice known as "bunching". It was in part out of public concern over the sale of pets to research facilities that the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was ushered in—the Senate Committee on Commerce reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been retrieved from Veterans Administration facilities, the Mayo Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools. The USDA recovered at least a dozen stolen pets during a raid on a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.


title: Animal testing

text: Four states in the U.S.—Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa—require their shelters to provide animals to research facilities. Fourteen states explicitly prohibit the practice, while the remainder either allow it or have no relevant legislation.


title: Animal testing

text: In the European Union, animal sources are governed by "Council Directive 86/609/EEC", which requires lab animals to be specially bred, unless the animal has been lawfully imported and is not a wild animal or a stray. The latter requirement may also be exempted by special arrangement. In 2010 the Directive was revised with EU Directive 2010/63/EU. In the UK, most animals used in experiments are bred for the purpose under the 1988 Animal Protection Act, but wild-caught primates may be used if exceptional and specific justification can be established. The United States also allows the use of wild-caught primates; between 1995 and 1999, 1,580 wild baboons were imported into the U.S. Over half the primates imported between 1995 and 2000 were handled by Charles River Laboratories, or by Covance, which is the single largest importer of primates into the U.S.


title: Animal testing

text: The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering, and the capacity of animals to experience and comprehend them, is the subject of much debate.


title: Animal testing

text: According to the USDA, in 2016 501,560 animals (61%) (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress. 247,882 (31%) animals were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 71,370 (9%) were used in studies that would cause pain or distress that would not be relieved.


title: Animal testing

text: Since 2014, in the UK, every research procedure was retrospectively assessed for severity. The five categories are "sub-threshold", "mild", "moderate", "severe" and "non-recovery", the latter being procedures in which an animal is anesthetized and subsequently killed without recovering consciousness. In 2017, 43% (1.61 million) were assessed as sub-threshold, 4% (0.14 million) were assessed as non-recovery, 36% (1.35 million) were assessed as mild, 15% (0.55 million) were assessed as moderate and 4% (0.14 million) were assessed as severe.


title: Animal testing

text: The idea that animals might not feel pain as human beings feel it traces back to the 17th-century French philosopher, René Descartes, who argued that animals do not experience pain and suffering because they lack consciousness. Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University, the principal author of two U.S. federal laws regulating pain relief for animals, writes that researchers remained unsure into the 1980s as to whether animals experience pain, and that veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were simply taught to ignore animal pain. In his interactions with scientists and other veterinarians, he was regularly asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" grounds for claiming that they feel pain. Carbone writes that the view that animals feel pain differently is now a minority view. Academic reviews of the topic are more equivocal, noting that although the argument that animals have at least simple conscious thoughts and feelings has strong support, some critics continue to question how reliably animal mental states can be determined. However, some canine experts are stating that, while intelligence does differ animal to animal, dogs have the intelligence of a two to two-and-a-half-year old. This does support the idea that dogs, at the very least, have some form of consciousness. The ability of invertebrates to experience pain and suffering is less clear, however, legislation in several countries (e.g. U.K., New Zealand, Norway) protects some invertebrate species if they are being used in animal testing.


title: Animal testing

text: In the U.S., the defining text on animal welfare regulation in animal testing is the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals". This defines the parameters that govern animal testing in the U.S. It states "The ability to experience and respond to pain is widespread in the animal kingdom...Pain is a stressor and, if not relieved, can lead to unacceptable levels of stress and distress in animals." The Guide states that the ability to recognize the symptoms of pain in different species is vital in efficiently applying pain relief and that it is essential for the people caring for and using animals to be entirely familiar with these symptoms. On the subject of analgesics used to relieve pain, the Guide states "The selection of the most appropriate analgesic or anesthetic should reflect professional judgment as to which best meets clinical and humane requirements without compromising the scientific aspects of the research protocol". Accordingly, all issues of animal pain and distress, and their potential treatment with analgesia and anesthesia, are required regulatory issues in receiving animal protocol approval.


title: Animal testing

text: In 2019, Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editing research animals to remove the ability to feel pain. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting alternatives. Additionally, this would not stop research animals from experiencing psychological harm.


title: Animal testing

text: Regulations require that scientists use as few animals as possible, especially for terminal experiments. However, while policy makers consider suffering to be the central issue and see animal euthanasia as a way to reduce suffering, others, such as the RSPCA, argue that the lives of laboratory animals have intrinsic value. Regulations focus on whether particular methods cause pain and suffering, not whether their death is undesirable in itself. The animals are euthanized at the end of studies for sample collection or post-mortem examination; during studies if their pain or suffering falls into certain categories regarded as unacceptable, such as depression, infection that is unresponsive to treatment, or the failure of large animals to eat for five days; or when they are unsuitable for breeding or unwanted for some other reason.


title: Animal testing

text: Methods of euthanizing laboratory animals are chosen to induce rapid unconsciousness and death without pain or distress. The methods that are preferred are those published by councils of veterinarians. The animal can be made to inhale a gas, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, by being placed in a chamber, or by use of a face mask, with or without prior sedation or anesthesia. Sedatives or anesthetics such as barbiturates can be given intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics may be used. Amphibians and fish may be immersed in water containing an anesthetic such as tricaine. Physical methods are also used, with or without sedation or anesthesia depending on the method. Recommended methods include decapitation (beheading) for small rodents or rabbits. Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or spine) may be used for birds, mice, rats and rabbits. High-intensity microwave irradiation of the brain can preserve brain tissue and induce death in less than 1 second, but this is currently only used on rodents. Captive bolts may be used, typically on dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. It causes death by a concussion to the brain. Gunshot may be used, but only in cases where a penetrating captive bolt may not be used. Some physical methods are only acceptable after the animal is unconscious. Electrocution may be used for cattle, sheep, swine, foxes, and mink after the animals are unconscious, often by a prior electrical stun. Pithing (inserting a tool into the base of the brain) is usable on animals already unconscious. Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing air embolism are acceptable only with prior anesthesia to induce unconsciousness.


title: Animal testing

text: Basic or pure research investigates how organisms behave, develop, and function. Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it forms the necessary basis for the development of applied research, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research—research that has a specific practical aim—unclear. Pure research uses larger numbers and a greater variety of animals than applied research. Fruit flies, nematode worms, mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from sea slugs through to armadillos. Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:


title: Animal testing

text: Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems. These may involve the use of animal models of diseases or conditions, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the drug discovery process. Examples include:


title: Animal testing

text: Xenotransplantation research involves transplanting tissues or organs from one species to another, as a way to overcome the shortage of human organs for use in organ transplants. Current research involves using primates as the recipients of organs from pigs that have been genetically modified to reduce the primates' immune response against the pig tissue. Although transplant rejection remains a problem, recent clinical trials that involved implanting pig insulin-secreting cells into diabetics did reduce these people's need for insulin.


title: Animal testing

text: Documents released to the news media by the animal rights organization Uncaged Campaigns showed that, between 1994 and 2000, wild baboons imported to the UK from Africa by Imutran Ltd, a subsidiary of Novartis Pharma AG, in conjunction with Cambridge University and Huntingdon Life Sciences, to be used in experiments that involved grafting pig tissues, had serious and sometimes fatal injuries. A scandal occurred when it was revealed that the company had communicated with the British government in an attempt to avoid regulation.


title: Animal testing

text: Toxicology testing, also known as safety testing, is conducted by pharmaceutical companies testing drugs, or by contract animal testing facilities, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences, on behalf of a wide variety of customers. According to 2005 EU figures, around one million animals are used every year in Europe in toxicology tests; which are about 10% of all procedures. According to "Nature", 5,000 animals are used for each chemical being tested, with 12,000 needed to test pesticides. The tests are conducted without anesthesia, because interactions between drugs can affect how animals detoxify chemicals, and may interfere with the results.


title: Animal testing

text: Toxicology tests are used to examine finished products such as pesticides, medications, food additives, packing materials, and air freshener, or their chemical ingredients. Most tests involve testing ingredients rather than finished products, but according to BUAV, manufacturers believe these tests overestimate the toxic effects of substances; they therefore repeat the tests using their finished products to obtain a less toxic label.


title: Animal testing

text: The substances are applied to the skin or dripped into the eyes; injected intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by placing a mask over the animals and restraining them, or by placing them in an inhalation chamber; or administered orally, through a tube into the stomach, or simply in the animal's food. Doses may be given once, repeated regularly for many months, or for the lifespan of the animal.


title: Animal testing

text: There are several different types of acute toxicity tests. The ("Lethal Dose 50%") test is used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance by determining the dose required to kill 50% of the test animal population. This test was removed from OECD international guidelines in 2002, replaced by methods such as the fixed dose procedure, which use fewer animals and cause less suffering. Abbott writes that, as of 2005, "the LD50 acute toxicity test ... still accounts for one-third of all animal [toxicity] tests worldwide".


title: Animal testing

text: Irritancy can be measured using the Draize test, where a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino rabbit. For Draize eye testing, the test involves observing the effects of the substance at intervals and grading any damage or irritation, but the test should be halted and the animal killed if it shows "continuing signs of severe pain or distress". The Humane Society of the United States writes that the procedure can cause redness, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or even blindness. This test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, subjective, over-sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposures in the real world. Although no accepted "in vitro" alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the "low volume eye test" may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results and this was adopted as the new standard in September 2009. However, the Draize test will still be used for substances that are not severe irritants.


title: Animal testing

text: The most stringent tests are reserved for drugs and foodstuffs. For these, a number of tests are performed, lasting less than a month (acute), one to three months (subchronic), and more than three months (chronic) to test general toxicity (damage to organs), eye and skin irritancy, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and reproductive problems. The cost of the full complement of tests is several million dollars per substance and it may take three or four years to complete.


title: Animal testing

text: These toxicity tests provide, in the words of a 2006 United States National Academy of Sciences report, "critical information for assessing hazard and risk potential". Animal tests may overestimate risk, with false positive results being a particular problem, but false positives appear not to be prohibitively common. Variability in results arises from using the effects of high doses of chemicals in small numbers of laboratory animals to try to predict the effects of low doses in large numbers of humans. Although relationships do exist, opinion is divided on how to use data on one species to predict the exact level of risk in another.


title: Animal testing

text: Scientists face growing pressure to move away from using traditional animal toxicity tests to determine whether manufactured chemicals are safe.


title: Animal testing

text: Among variety of approaches to toxicity evaluation the ones which have attracted increasing interests are in vitro cell-based sensing methods applying fluorescence.


title: Animal testing

text: Cosmetics testing on animals is particularly controversial. Such tests, which are still conducted in the U.S., involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy, phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.


title: Animal testing

text: Cosmetics testing on animals is banned in India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Israel and Norway while legislation in the U.S. and Brazil is currently considering similar bans. In 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics by 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy. In October 2014, India passed stricter laws that also ban the importation of any cosmetic products that are tested on animals.


title: Animal testing

text: Before the early 20th century, laws regulating drugs were lax. Currently, all new pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:


title: Animal testing

text: It is estimated that 20 million animals are used annually for educational purposes in the United States including, classroom observational exercises, dissections and live-animal surgeries. Frogs, fetal pigs, perch, cats, earthworms, grasshoppers, crayfish and starfish are commonly used in classroom dissections. Alternatives to the use of animals in classroom dissections are widely used, with many U.S. States and school districts mandating students be offered the choice to not dissect. Citing the wide availability of alternatives and the decimation of local frog species, India banned dissections in 2014.


title: Animal testing

text: The Sonoran Arthropod Institute hosts an annual Invertebrates in Education and Conservation Conference to discuss the use of invertebrates in education. There also are efforts in many countries to find alternatives to using animals in education. The NORINA database, maintained by Norecopa, lists products that may be used as alternatives or supplements to animal use in education, and in the training of personnel who work with animals. These include alternatives to dissection in schools. InterNICHE has a similar database and a loans system.


title: Animal testing

text: In November 2013, the U.S.-based company Backyard Brains released for sale to the public what they call the "Roboroach", an "electronic backpack" that can be attached to cockroaches. The operator is required to amputate a cockroach's antennae, use sandpaper to wear down the shell, insert a wire into the thorax, and then glue the electrodes and circuit board onto the insect's back. A mobile phone app can then be used to control it via Bluetooth. It has been suggested that the use of such a device may be a teaching aid that can promote interest in science. The makers of the "Roboroach" have been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and state that the device is intended to encourage children to become interested in neuroscience.


title: Animal testing

text: Animals are used by the military to develop weapons, vaccines, battlefield surgical techniques, and defensive clothing. For example, in 2008 the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency used live pigs to study the effects of improvised explosive device explosions on internal organs, especially the brain.


title: Animal testing

text: In the US military, goats are commonly used to train combat medics. (Goats have become the main animal species used for this purpose after the Pentagon phased out using dogs for medical training in the 1980s.) While modern mannequins used in medical training are quite efficient in simulating the behavior of a human body, some trainees feel that "the goat exercise provide[s] a sense of urgency that only real life trauma can provide". Nevertheless, in 2014, the U.S. Coast Guard announced that it would reduce the number of animals it uses in its training exercises by half after PETA released video showing Guard members cutting off the limbs of unconscious goats with tree trimmers and inflicting other injuries with a shotgun, pistol, ax and a scalpel. That same year, citing the availability of human simulators and other alternatives, the Department of Defense announced it would begin reducing the number of animals it uses in various training programs. In 2013, several Navy medical centers stopped using ferrets in intubation exercises after complaints from PETA.


title: Animal testing

text: Besides the United States, six out of 28 NATO countries, including Poland and Denmark, use live animals for combat medic training.


title: Animal testing

text: Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; most animals are purpose-bred, while a minority are caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who obtain them from auctions and pounds. Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way. The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the United States National Academy of Sciences has argued that animal research cannot be replaced by even sophisticated computer models, which are unable to deal with the extremely complex interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms and the environment. Animal rights organizations—such as PETA and BUAV—question the need for and legitimacy of animal testing, arguing that it is cruel and poorly regulated, that medical progress is actually held back by misleading animal models that cannot reliably predict effects in humans, that some of the tests are outdated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have the intrinsic right not to be used or harmed in experimentation.


title: Animal testing

text: The moral and ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century. There remain disagreements about which procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which species.


title: Animal testing

text: A 2015 Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans were "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about animals used in research. A Pew poll taken the same year found 50% of American adults opposed the use of animals in research.


title: Animal testing

text: Still, a wide range of viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights. Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research. In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal. Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Donald Watson has stated that vivisection and animal experimentation "is probably the cruelest of all Man's attack on the rest of Creation." Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations. Malcolm Macleod and collaborators argue that most controlled animal studies do not employ randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding outcome assessment, and that failure to employ these features exaggerates the apparent benefit of drugs tested in animals, leading to a failure to translate much animal research for human benefit.


title: Animal testing

text: Governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to the public's concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the great apes. In 2015, captive chimpanzees in the U.S. were added to the Endangered Species Act adding new road blocks to those wishing to experiment on them. Similarly, citing ethical considerations and the availability of alternative research methods, the U.S. NIH announced in 2013 that it would dramatically reduce and eventually phase out experiments on chimpanzees.


title: Animal testing

text: The British government has required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge. Some medical schools and agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built cenotaphs for killed animals. In Japan there are also annual memorial services ("Ireisai" 慰霊祭) for animals sacrificed at medical school.


title: Animal testing

text: Various specific cases of animal testing have drawn attention, including both instances of beneficial scientific research, and instances of alleged ethical violations by those performing the tests. The fundamental properties of muscle physiology were determined with work done using frog muscles (including the force generating mechanism of all muscle, the length-tension relationship, and the force-velocity curve), and frogs are still the preferred model organism due to the long survival of muscles "in vitro" and the possibility of isolating intact single-fiber preparations (not possible in other organisms). Modern physical therapy and the understanding and treatment of muscular disorders is based on this work and subsequent work in mice (often engineered to express disease states such as muscular dystrophy). In February 1997 a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.


title: Animal testing

text: Concerns have been raised over the mistreatment of primates undergoing testing. In 1985 the case of Britches, a macaque monkey at the University of California, Riverside, gained public attention. He had his eyelids sewn shut and a sonar sensor on his head as part of an experiment to test sensory substitution devices for blind people. The laboratory was raided by Animal Liberation Front in 1985, removing Britches and 466 other animals. The National Institutes of Health conducted an eight-month investigation and concluded, however, that no corrective action was necessary. During the 2000s other cases have made headlines, including experiments at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University in 2002. In 2004 and 2005, undercover footage of staff of Covance's, a contract research organization that provides animal testing services, Virginia lab was shot by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Following release of the footage, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Covance $8,720 for 16 citations, three of which involved lab monkeys; the other citations involved administrative issues and equipment.


title: Animal testing

text: In 2006, a primate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shut down the experiments in his lab after threats from animal rights activists. The researcher had received a grant to use 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments; each monkey was anesthetized for a single physiological experiment lasting up to 120 hours, and then euthanized. The researcher's name, phone number, and address were posted on the website of the Primate Freedom Project. Demonstrations were held in front of his home. A Molotov cocktail was placed on the porch of what was believed to be the home of another UCLA primate researcher; instead, it was accidentally left on the porch of an elderly woman unrelated to the university. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the attack. As a result of the campaign, the researcher sent an email to the Primate Freedom Project stating "you win", and "please don't bother my family anymore". In another incident at UCLA in June 2007, the Animal Liberation Brigade placed a bomb under the car of a UCLA children's ophthalmologist who experiments on cats and rhesus monkeys; the bomb had a faulty fuse and did not detonate.


title: Animal testing

text: In 1997, PETA filmed staff from Huntingdon Life Sciences, showing dogs being mistreated. The employees responsible were dismissed, with two given community service orders and ordered to pay £250 costs, the first lab technicians to have been prosecuted for animal cruelty in the UK. The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign used tactics ranging from non-violent protest to the alleged firebombing of houses owned by executives associated with HLS's clients and investors. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors US domestic extremism, has described SHAC's "modus operandi" as "frankly terroristic tactics similar to those of anti-abortion extremists," and in 2005 an official with the FBI's counter-terrorism division referred to SHAC's activities in the United States as domestic terrorist threats. 13 members of SHAC were jailed for between 15 months and eleven years on charges of conspiracy to blackmail or harm HLS and its suppliers.


title: Animal testing

text: These attacks—as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme"—prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Such legislation and the arrest and imprisonment of activists may have decreased the incidence of attacks.


title: Animal testing

text: Systematic reviews have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans. For instance, a 2013 review noted that some 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans. Effects seen in animals may not be replicated in humans, and vice versa. Many corticosteroids cause birth defects in animals, but not in humans. Conversely, thalidomide causes serious birth defects in humans, but not in some animals such as mice (however, it does cause birth defects in rabbits). A 2004 paper concluded that much animal research is wasted because systemic reviews are not used, and due to poor methodology. A 2006 review found multiple studies where there were promising results for new drugs in animals, but human clinical studies did not show the same results. The researchers suggested that this might be due to researcher bias, or simply because animal models do not accurately reflect human biology. Lack of meta-reviews may be partially to blame. Poor methodology is an issue in many studies. A 2009 review noted that many animal experiments did not use blinded experiments, a key element of many scientific studies in which researchers are not told about the part of the study they are working on to reduce bias. A 2021 paper found, in a sample of Open Access Alzheimer Disease studies, that if the authors omit from the title that the experiment was performed in mice, the News Headline follow suit, and that also the Twitter repercussion is higher.


title: Animal testing

text: There are various examples of activists utilizing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain information about taxpayer funding of animal testing. For example, the White Coat Waste Project, a group of activists that hold that taxpayers should not have to pay $20 billion every year for experiments on animals, highlighted that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided $400,000 in taxpayer money to fund experiments in which 28 beagles were infected by disease-causing parasites. The White Coat Project found reports that said dogs taking part in the experiments were "vocalizing in pain" after being injected with foreign substances. Following public outcry, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) made a call to action that all members of the National Institute of Health resign effective immediately and that there is a "need to find a new NIH director to replace the outgoing Francis Collins who will shut down research that violates the dignity of nonhuman animals."


title: Animal testing

text: Most scientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "Three Rs" are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries. Whilst replacement of animals, i.e. alternatives to animal testing, is one of the principles, their scope is much broader. Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups, they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.


title: Animal testing

text: The scientists and engineers at Harvard's Wyss Institute have created "organs-on-a-chip", including the "lung-on-a-chip" and "gut-on-a-chip". Researchers at cellasys in Germany developed a "skin-on-a-chip". These tiny devices contain human cells in a 3-dimensional system that mimics human organs. The chips can be used instead of animals in "in vitro" disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing. Researchers have also begun using 3-D bioprinters to create human tissues for "in vitro" testing.


title: Animal testing

text: Another non-animal research method is "in silico" or computer simulation and mathematical modeling which seeks to investigate and ultimately predict toxicity and drug effects on humans without using animals. This is done by investigating test compounds on a molecular level using recent advances in technological capabilities with the ultimate goal of creating treatments unique to each patient.


title: Animal testing

text: Microdosing is another alternative to the use of animals in experimentation. Microdosing is a process whereby volunteers are administered a small dose of a test compound allowing researchers to investigate its pharmacological affects without harming the volunteers. Microdosing can replace the use of animals in pre-clinical drug screening and can reduce the number of animals used in safety and toxicity testing.


title: Animal testing

text: Additional alternative methods include positron emission tomography (PET), which allows scanning of the human brain "in vivo", and comparative epidemiological studies of disease risk factors among human populations.


title: Animal testing

text: Simulators and computer programs have also replaced the use of animals in dissection, teaching and training exercises.


title: Animal testing

text: Official bodies such as the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Test Methods of the European Commission, the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods in the US, ZEBET in Germany, and the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (among others) also promote and disseminate the 3Rs. These bodies are mainly driven by responding to regulatory requirements, such as supporting the cosmetics testing ban in the EU by validating alternative methods.


title: Animal testing

text: The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing serves as a liaison between the European Commission and industries. The European Consensus Platform for Alternatives coordinates efforts amongst EU member states.


title: Animal testing

text: Academic centers also investigate alternatives, including the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at the Johns Hopkins University and the NC3Rs in the UK.


title: Beko

text: Beko ( ; stylized as beko) is a Turkish major appliance and consumer electronics brand of Arçelik A.Ş. controlled by Koç Holding.


title: Beko

text: Beko Elektronik A.Ş. was founded by Vehbi Koç, the founder of Koç Holding (who also founded Arçelik A.Ş., the parent company of Beko, in 1955), and Leon Bejerano in Istanbul, Turkey in 1954. The company's name is a combination of the first two letters of the founders' surnames.


title: Beko

text: In 2004, Beko Elektronik purchased the German electronics company Grundig and by January 2005, Beko and its rival Turkish electronics and white goods brand Vestel accounted for more than half of all TV sets manufactured in Europe.


title: Beko

text: At the Extraordinary General Shareholders Meeting of Arçelik A.Ş. on 29 June 2009, it was decided to merge Arçelik A.Ş. with the company's subsidiary, Grundig Elektronik A.Ş. (to be administered directly by Arçelik A.Ş. of Koç Holding) by taking over all of Grundig's assets and liabilities as a whole.


title: Beko

text: Beko is a budget brand name in some countries and continues to be in use for a number of Arçelik A.Ş. products such as television sets, refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers, in several countries.


title: Beko

text: Beko started selling its products in Egypt in 2014, where it is gaining popularity and more market share.


title: Beko

text: In India, Voltas, originally an air-conditioner brand and subsidiary of Tata Group, partnered with Beko to produce home appliances like TVs, dishwashers, washing machines, etc.


title: Beko

text: Some Beko products have posed a safety risk to consumers who buy them. In 2016, Mishell Moloney was found dead due to a fault with a Beko drying machine that had caught fire. Beko tried to state that the fault that led to Moloney's death was a 'tragic and isolated incident.' However, the DCS 85W drying machine which was used by Moloney was already responsible for some twenty fires in the UK. Beko quality control chief, Andrew Mullin, also revealed that the smaller models in the range, had already been recalled due to hundreds of safety incidents.


title: Beko

text: Beko has been the official sponsor of the Turkish, Italian and Lithuanian premier basketball leagues, as well as the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup in Spain. Beko is a partner of the Spanish football club FC Barcelona since 2014 and Turkish football club Beşiktaş JK, Turkmen football club FC HTTU. Furthermore, it had been one of the largest advertisers in the English Premier League since 2008, and an official sponsor of the FA Cup. Beko sponsored Millwall F.C. in the 2005–06 season.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The 2005 NBA Finals was the championship round of the National Basketball Association (NBA)'s 2004–05 season, and the culmination of the season's playoffs. The Western Conference champion San Antonio Spurs played the Eastern Conference champion Detroit Pistons for the title, with the Spurs holding home court advantage and the Pistons as defending champions. The series was played under a best-of-seven format. (Unlike the previous three rounds, the team with home court advantage hosted games one, two, six, and seven if all were necessary). It also marked the Pistons' first NBA Finals loss since 1988.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Spurs won the series four games to three in the first NBA Finals to go to a Game 7 since 1994. The games were broadcast on ABC, with Al Michaels and Hubie Brown commentating. National radio coverage was provided by ESPN Radio through announcers Jim Durham and Dr. Jack Ramsay.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: This series was not only the first matchup of the previous two NBA champions since the 1987 Finals (Lakers d. Celtics, 4–2), it was a match up of the two premier defensive teams of that era: from the 2002–03 season to the 2004–05 season, the Spurs and Pistons routinely finished in the top three in Points Allowed: in 2003, Detroit was #1 and San Antonio #3; in 2004, the teams finished in a tie for the #1 spot; in 2005, the Spurs were #1 and the Pistons were #2. The Spurs were considered more capable of playing at a faster pace, as evidenced by their convincing win against the high-scoring Phoenix Suns during the Western Conference Finals. However, both teams performed exceptionally well when scoring over 100 points (Detroit was 22–3, San Antonio was 28–2).


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Going into the 2005 Finals, the Spurs had won two championships (1999 and 2003), while Detroit had three (1989, 1990, and 2004). The 2004 Championship was considered a major upset by some sportswriters because of the Lakers' big name talent. Others saw the result as fully legitimate, pointing out that Detroit's defense outplayed the Lakers' offense. Further, the balanced Detroit offense proved especially difficult to deal with when Karl Malone's injured knee left the Lakers without a reliable presence to slow down the Pistons' Rasheed Wallace. Many thought that a contributing factor to the Lakers' loss was the well-publicized tension between superstars Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Both the Spurs and the Pistons were ranked number two in their respective conferences, with the Phoenix Suns ranked number one in the West and the Miami Heat ranked number one in the East.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Sportswriters all across the country generally considered this one of the few "too-close-to-call" series to occur. Most picked the series to go to six or seven games.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Spurs breezed through the playoffs with relative ease, compared to the Pistons. They defeated the Nuggets 4–1 to open the playoffs, winning four straight after losing the home opener. They then defeated the SuperSonics within six games the following series. Phoenix was expected by many to put up a challenge, but the Spurs won the series easily, four games to one.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Pistons had a slightly tougher road back to the Finals. The opening round was a fairly easy five-game victory over Philadelphia. Next, the Pistons faced the Indiana Pacers, one of the NBA's most resilient teams. Indiana was expected by most experts to falter and miss the playoffs after the Pacers–Pistons brawl; however, led by retiring Pacers legend Reggie Miller, the Pacers still made the playoffs and unexpectedly won their first-round series against the Atlantic Division champion Boston Celtics. The Pacers mounted a formidable challenge but after a Game Six loss, Reggie Miller's storied 18-year career was over. With the series ending in Indianapolis, Miller was treated to a prolonged standing ovation from the Conseco Fieldhouse crowd. Detroit's next opponent was the East #1 seed Miami, led by superstars Dwyane Wade and Shaquille O'Neal. After winning Game One, the Pistons fell behind 2-1 after three games and 3-2 after five games. By winning Game Six on their home court, the Pistons forced a Game Seven. In Game Seven, Detroit overcame the odds to beat the Heat at American Airlines Arena, and thus advanced to the NBA Finals for the second straight year.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: This was the first NBA Finals to have the sticker version of the Larry O'Brien Trophy adorn the center court (team logo still visible in the middle), with the NBA Finals wordmark logo on opposite ends of the court. This remained in effect until the 2009 NBA Finals; the position of the O'Brien trophy was modified for the 2007 NBA Finals.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Manu Ginóbili was the star of Game 1, turning in a virtuoso performance in the fourth quarter to lead the Spurs to victory. Ginobili scored 15 of his 26 points in the fourth quarter to complement a huge game by Tim Duncan (24 points, 17 rebounds).


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Ginobili, who in the previous summer led Argentina in points and assists en route to Olympic gold, took over in the final period. He scored eight points in a decisive 12–2 surge that gave the Spurs a 67–55 lead, then throttled a push by the Pistons with a swooping dunk, 3-pointer and running hook for an 81–67 advantage with less than two minutes to go.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Having been idle for a week, the Spurs opened the game in lackluster fashion – in the first eight minutes the Spurs trailed 19–7 – but were able to fight back and stabilize the game. It may have happened that Detroit's more recent play led to fourth quarter fatigue which enabled the Spurs' strong fourth quarter; in any case, the Spurs prevailed in the first contest.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The resilient Detroit Pistons were expected to play a stronger Game 2 in response to their fourth-quarter letdown in Game 1. Exactly the opposite occurred. From the opening tip, Game 2 was all San Antonio as the Spurs got out to a quick lead and never looked back.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Spurs took advantage of Detroit's uncharacteristic mistakes throughout the night, which included missing nine shots from inside four feet from the basket. While the Pistons went cold (0-6) from behind the three-point line, the Spurs made 11 3-pointers, including four each by Manu Ginóbili and Bruce Bowen, who did not score a point in Game 1. Ginobili again led the Spurs with a 27 points, while Tim Duncan finished with 18 points and 11 rebounds. Antonio McDyess was the high scorer for Detroit, scoring 15 points off the bench.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The 2–0 lead was a big advantage for San Antonio. In the history of the NBA, the team with home-court advantage started a series with a 2–0 lead 153 times. On just seven occasions, the trailing team rebounded to win the series.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: In NBA history, only two teams had ever won a Finals series after facing a 2–0 deficit—the Boston Celtics in the 1969 NBA Finals and the Portland Trail Blazers in the 1977 NBA Finals—however, just one year later the Miami Heat would accomplish this feat against the Dallas Mavericks in the 2006 NBA Finals.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: With that task looming ahead, the Pistons responded in tremendous fashion. Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton combined for 44 points, while Ben Wallace (15 pts, 11 reb, 5 blk, 3 stl) together with Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess harassed Tim Duncan into a 5–15 shooting night. The Pistons dominated the second half, outscoring the Spurs 55–37.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Pistons became the first team to score more than 90 points in a Finals game against the Spurs during this game.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The pattern of the first two games held up in games 3 and 4: home team wins big in the first one and even bigger in the second. And Game 4 was the most lopsided of all during the 2005 NBA Finals; the Pistons' 102 points were the only time either team reached triple digits in the series.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Seven Pistons scored in double figures, especially efficient bench performances by Lindsey Hunter and Antonio McDyess. In 22 minutes, Hunter scored 17 points and dished out 5 assists; McDyess scored 13 and grabbed 7 rebounds in just 19 minutes.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Conversely, only three Spurs scored in double figures (Ginobili, Duncan, Parker), and among all Spurs attempting five or more field goals, only Tony Parker (6-13, 46.2% shooting) managed to surpass the 45% mark. Collectively, the Spurs shot 37% and committed 17 turnovers to the Pistons' NBA Finals-record four.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Hunter's and Billups' 17 points were the fewest to lead an NBA Finals game since George Yardley of the Fort Wayne Pistons led all scorers with 16 points in the fifth game of the 1955 NBA Finals.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: With the first four games of the 2005 Finals being blowouts by the home team, Game 5 was the close game everyone was waiting for, and it went down as one of the more memorable games in Finals history.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The game was closely contested by throughout the night as the lead changed 12 separate times, and the game was tied on 18 occasions. Regulation was not enough to settle this game, so the game went into overtime. The Pistons streaked out to a quick lead in the first few minutes of overtime, and seemed to have the game in hand. However, a missed layup by Chauncey Billups with Detroit ahead 95–93 with nine seconds left San Antonio with a chance. On the Spurs' next possession, Robert Horry inbounded the ball to Ginobili, who headed for the left corner and dished it right back to Horry. Rasheed Wallace had left Horry to double-team Ginobili, and Horry was left alone to sink the game-winning basket with 5.8 seconds remaining in the OT. Horry was already famous for nailing last-second shots in the playoffs, including Game Four of the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and Sacramento Kings.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Horry went 5 for 6 from beyond the arc, including the game-winner, and scored 21 points coming off the bench. He hadn't scored a point until the final play of the 3rd quarter. He carried the team in the fourth quarter and overtime as his teammates struggled with the weight of a must-win game on the road against an accomplished adversary. In addition to the game-winning three-pointer, late in overtime Horry made a spectacular left-handed dunk while being fouled as the shot clock wound down.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Tim Duncan, despite struggling from the free-throw line, finished with 26 points and 19 rebounds for the Spurs. Chauncey Billups was the high scorer for the Pistons, finishing with a game-high 34 points in the losing effort.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Game 6 was a close game all along, and the lead kept fluctuating between the two teams. Again, the leading stars on both teams played big games. Detroit pulled away early in the fourth for an 80–73 lead with five minutes to go, but the Spurs continued to threaten them. Soon, it was back to a one-point game.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Then, Rasheed Wallace planted a three-pointer to pull away, and even with a resilient game by the Spurs, the Pistons had clinched the victory.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Nevertheless, several Pistons free throws were necessary in the final moments of the game to put a win out of reach for the Spurs.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Rasheed Wallace had a big game to atone for the mistake he made for leaving Horry open in Game 5. Despite his mistake, Wallace was nonchalant about the play, even commenting incorrectly that he left Horry to guard Duncan.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Billups and Prince again led the Pistons with steady, unwavering defense, which is the key, as it is often said, to victory. Although Duncan and Ginobili finished with 21 points each, neither was able to seriously threaten the strong Pistons defense enough to win the game. Detroit thus won its fifth consecutive game facing elimination. The Pistons became the first road team to force a Game 7 in the NBA Finals.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: For the first time in eleven years, the NBA Finals came down to a decisive Game 7. Momentum was on Detroit's side, but the Spurs had home-court advantage. The Pistons were looking to become the first team to ever win the last two games on the road after being down 3–2. NBA history was heavily in favor of the Spurs, who were looking to celebrate a title at the SBC Center for the second time in three years. NBA teams are 74–17 all-time at home in Game 7, and 9-0 when leading 3–2 going home.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Entering this game, the Pistons tied the 1994 New York Knicks for most games played in a single postseason, with 25. The Boston Celtics broke this record during their championship season of 2008.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Like the previous two games of the series, Game 7 was closely contested throughout, but the Spurs fell into a nine-point deficit with 7:45 left in the third quarter. Though Tim Duncan was for much of the series unable to shoot for a high percentage against Detroit's front line, he led the Spurs out of that nine-point hole. In the final 7:45 of the third quarter, Duncan scored 10 of the teams' 18 final third quarter points and the game was tied to start the fourth. Behind clutch plays from Tim Duncan and Manu Ginóbili, the Spurs took control of the fourth quarter to earn an 81–74 victory, clinching the franchise's third Larry O'Brien Trophy. For the game, Tim Duncan finished with a game high 25 points and 11 rebounds, while teammate Manu Ginóbili pitched in with 23 points. Richard Hamilton, with 15 points, was the high scorer for the Pistons, who fell just short of winning back-to-back championships.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: Tim Duncan won his third NBA Finals MVP Award. Manu Ginóbili, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen each received their second championship ring, while Robert Horry became only the second player in NBA history (John Salley being the first) to play on championship teams for three different franchises. Sean Marks became the first New Zealander to win a championship ring.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The games were broadcast exclusively on ABC in the US. The featured song, aired throughout the playoffs, was Rob Thomas' "This Is How A Heart Breaks." Game 3 had a Nielsen rating percentage of only 7.2% of households and cumulating to a 7.1 average for the first three games, 32% lower than the average of the first three 2004 NBA Finals games. While all seven games were the top-rated shows of their nights, the average viewership of the 2005 Finals (11.5 million viewers, 7.6 rating/14 share) decreased from the average of the 2004 Finals (17.9 million, 11.5/20). The 2003 Finals averaged 9.8 million viewers and 6.5/12.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The 2005 Finals would be Michaels' last major NBA assignment with ABC, though he remained with the network until after Super Bowl XL in February 2006. Shortly after ABC's NFL TV contract ended, Michaels moved to NBC Sports to become the lead voice of Sunday Night Football. ABC's lead position was eventually filled by Mike Breen.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Spurs won a franchise-record 63 victories to clinch the top seed in the West in the 2005–06 NBA season. However, for the third time they were unable to win consecutive championships, bowing to their Texas rivals, the Dallas Mavericks, in Game Seven of the Conference Semifinals. The Mavs would go on to lose in the 2006 NBA Finals. The Spurs did win the 2007 NBA Finals (the Mavericks, with a 67–15 record, were eliminated by the Golden State Warriors in the first round) the following year, their fourth as a franchise, and won again in 2014.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: , this was the Pistons last appearance in the NBA Finals. Head coach Larry Brown sought and succeeded in buying out his contract as head coach after the season. He eventually ended up coaching for his hometown New York Knicks, but would only win 23 games in the 2006 season. Brown eventually left after the season, and two years later Brown resurfaced, this time coaching the Charlotte Bobcats, where he would lead them to the playoffs in his second year.


title: 2005 NBA Finals

text: The Pistons, guided by new coach Flip Saunders, won a franchise-record 64 wins and seemed primed to regain the NBA title. However, Detroit fell in six games to the Miami Heat, who would go on and win the 2006 NBA title. Franchise centerpiece Ben Wallace abruptly left for the Chicago Bulls, yet the Pistons still made the Conference Finals the next two seasons, losing to the Cleveland Cavaliers and Boston Celtics, respectively. Finally, the remaining core of the team was dismantled at the start of the 2008-09 NBA season.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The Dacia Sandero is a subcompact car/supermini (B-segment) car produced and marketed jointly by the French manufacturer Renault and its Romanian subsidiary Dacia since 2007, currently at its third generation. It has been also marketed as the Renault Sandero in certain markets, such as Russia, Latin America, Iran, Egypt, and Sub-Saharan Africa.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: With a slightly shorter wheelbase than the sedan from which it derives, the Sandero was developed at Renault's Technocentre near Paris, France, in conjunction with the regional engineering centers based in Brazil and Romania. It was revealed for the first time at the 2007 Frankfurt Motor Show, and made its formal market debut in Brazil, as a Renault model, in December 2007, being the first Renault model to debut outside Europe.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: It was launched subsequently in Europe as a Dacia model at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2008. Renault began manufacturing the Sandero in South Africa in February 2009, and in December 2009, in Russia. A Renault version is also manufactured in Colombia for its home market and for export to countries including Chile.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In May 2011, Renault launched in Brazil a facelifted version of Sandero, which enjoys a new face and a revised interior.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In Colombia, the facelifted versions of the Renault Sandero and the Renault Stepway were revealed at the beginning of 2012 with some differences from the other versions sold, such as the location of the doors locks and the passenger's airbag.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: On the passive safety front, Sandero has been designed to meet the requirements of European regulations. Depending on equipment level, Dacia Sandero comes with up to four airbags. In terms of active safety Dacia Sandero features the latest generation Bosch 8.1 ABS which incorporates EBD and EBA (emergency brake assist).


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The Sandero in its most basic Latin American configuration with no airbags received 1 star for adult occupants and 2 stars for toddlers from Latin NCAP in 2012.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: Euro NCAP in 2008 rated the Dacia Sandero fitted with the basic level of safety equipment and also crash tested the car equipped with the 'safety pack', which is standard on some variants, and optional on others. The crash test for basic level Dacia Sandero equipped with front seat belt load limiters, driver frontal airbag and front passenger frontal airbag, scored 3 stars for adults, 4 stars for children occupants and 1 star for pedestrians.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The EuroNCAP 2008 test for the 'safety pack' model equipped with side body and head airbags and front seatbelt pretensioners, received a score of 31 for adults, 38 for children occupants and 6 for pedestrians, these results being rated as 4 from 5 stars for adults and children occupants.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: Renault do Brasil, which is the Brazilian subsidiary of French car manufacturer Renault, released in October 2008 the Sandero-based crossover Stepway, ten months after launching the Sandero brand there. The Brazilian Stepway has a 1.6 litre 16 valve engine, the Hi-Flex one with bio-ethanol abilities, and it is marketed in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina and Mexico.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The European version, unveiled on May 7, 2009, at the Barcelona International Motor Show under the Dacia brand, is available in most of the European markets as of September 2009. Dacia Sandero Stepway comes with a 1.6 litre and petrol engine or 1.5 dCi diesel engine.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The second generation Sandero was designed by Joseph Ellis and was revealed by Dacia at the 2012 Paris Motor Show. The new Stepway variant was also presented. The hatchback model and the mini crossover version were spotted covered in camouflage during 2012, in the months of June, July, and September, and CGI impressions of the new model were released by car magazines Auto Bild and Za Rulem.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: Official photos with the new Sandero were released by Dacia on 17 September 2012, showing an exterior design theme similar to the new Logan and a dashboard inspired from Lodgy.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In Romania, the new Sandero and Sandero Stepway could be ordered from 1 October 2012. It also became available in the United Kingdom, where it joined the Duster in dealerships from 2013, being the most affordable car on the market.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In June 2014, it was launched as the new Renault Sandero in Brazil, where it is also manufactured for the South American markets. Sales in Russia began in September 2014, the Sandero being locally assembled at the AvtoVAZ plant.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The current Sandero model (produced from 2012) is produced in Mioveni, Romania (near Pitesti) for RHD markets such as United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus and South Africa (as Renault Sandero), it is also produced in Algeria by Renault Algeria since beginning of 2016 for the local market (only the Stepway version).


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In May 2013, the second generation Dacia Sandero achieved a four star Euro NCAP overall rating for basic level, improving on the previous basic model's three star score.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The car received a score of 29 points (80%) for adults, 39 points (79%) for children occupants, 21 points (57%) for pedestrians and 5 points (55%) for safety assist, these results being rated as 5/5 stars for adult and child occupant protections, and 4/5 stars for pedestrian protection and safety assist.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The Sandero for Africa received 3 stars for adult occupants and 4 stars for toddlers from Global NCAP in 2017 (similar to Latin NCAP 2013).


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The Sandero in its most basic Latin American configuration with 2 airbags and no ESC received 1 star for adult occupants and 3 stars for toddlers from Latin NCAP in 2018 (one level above 2010-2015).


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The Sandero in its most basic Latin American configuration with 4 airbags and no ESC received 1 star for adult occupants and 4 stars for toddlers from Latin NCAP in 2019.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The updated Sandero in its most basic Latin American configuration received 3 stars for adult occupants and 4 stars for toddlers from Latin NCAP in 2019.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: A crossover-look version of the Sandero dubbed the Sandero Stepway continued for the second generation. It features raised ride height, grey plastic side skirts, overfenders, and a crossover-look bumpers. It is available both under the Dacia brand and Renault brand for Latin American markets. Starting from 2020, the Stepway is marketed as a separate model from the Sandero in Latin America.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In August 2014, Renault Sport CEO Patrice Ratti revealed to "Autocar" magazine that a hot hatch RS version of Sandero was in the works, following test cars being spotted in early to mid 2015. Using the 110.3 kW (150 PS; 148 hp) 2.0 16v F4R engine, and capable of accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h in 8.0 seconds, the Sandero RS is the first Renault Sport to be manufactured outside France. It was released in September 2015 in Brazil, different from the normal versions with three types of ECU control: normal, sport and sport+, four disc brakes with ABS, Clio RS steering wheel, electronic stability program and a six speed manual transmission.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The revised Dacia Sandero was released in November 2016 at the 2016 Paris Motor Show. On the outside, the facelifted version comes with LED daytime running lights and restyled taillights. Dacia has also updated its engine range with a 1.0-litre 3-cylinder petrol that sits in the entry-level trims, replacing the old 1.2-litre unit.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: Another facelift was announced in July 2019, to be introduced for the following model year, but only for the Renault-badged model, produced in Brazil. This upgrade brings a slightly revised front end and a more significantly redesigned rear end. While the front end is identical with the facelifted Romanian or Moroccan-built Renault Sandero sold in regions outside Latin America, the rear end is majorly revised with the rear tail lights extends to the tailgate. This facelift is not sold in Mexico since it was replaced by the Kwid hatchback and therefore the Stepway and R.S. versions of the Sandero are only sold.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: In January 2013, British magazine "What Car?" awarded the second generation Sandero as the "Best supermini less than £12,000", noting that "it offers something genuinely new and different in that it brings real space for bargain prices". "What Car?" awarded the Sandero again in 2014 and 2015.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The third generation of Dacia Sandero and Sandero Stepway was launched together with the new Dacia Logan III, on 29 September 2020. The car is based on the low-spec version of the CMF-B platform and was presented on 7 September 2020.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The new Sandero is exclusively available with three-cylinder engines. The entry-level one is a naturally aspirated 1.0-liter with and a 5-speed manual. The top-end trims received a turbocharged 1.0-liter with and a choice between a 6-speed manual or CVT. The more powerful version of the engine, badged as ECO-G 100 Bi-Fuel received and a 6-speed manual transmission.


title: Dacia Sandero

text: The lower-spec cars get a modular multimedia system dubbed “Media Control” with removable smartphone support while the upper trims have an integrated 8-inch touchscreen with support for Android Auto and Apple CarPlay.