New website

Dear signers, friends and supporters, the Basel Declaration has a new home. After a successful decade as Basel Declaration Society, our organization has transformed into Animal Research Tomorrow. As such, we promote openness and fact-based scientific arguments in the international public debate on the necessity and value of animal research for both human and animal health and welfare. For more information please visit our new webpage under

Like the Helsinki Declaration, which forever altered the ethical landscape of human clinical research, the aim of the Basel Declaration is to bring the scientific community together to further advance the implementation of ethical principles such as the 3Rs whenever animals are being used and to call for more trust, transparency and communication on the sensitive topic of animals in research. The Basel Declaration Society, founded on October 5th. 2011, strive to promote the Basel Declaration.
Visit gallery


The ethical, scientific and legal position of animals


  1. The concept of dignity in animal welfare legislation must be regarded as quite distinct from the concept of human dignity, because the problems of differentiation established in legislation order (e.g. “justified” invasion of the dignity of the creature, Article 4 Para. 2 Animal Welfare Act (TSchG)) cannot be resolved in any other way.
  2. The concept of dignity in Article 120 BV must be interpreted in relation to the field concerned.
  3. No level of research (basic research, applied research) may be categorically excluded from the admissible purposes of animal experiments. Apart from the difficultly of differentiating between these two levels in the field of medical research, applied research is generally impossible without basic research. The latter is not an end in itself, but provides the basis for taking ideas a step further. At the same time, classifying a study as basic research does not in itself justify the use of animals. The necessity must be demonstrated just as much as the decision-making procedure (weighing the negative aspects against the benefits) that is necessary to achieve the objective of the research.
  4. The normative requirement to distinguish between “animals lower on the evolutionary scale” and “animals higher on the evolutionary scale” is based on an assumption about classification which is scientifically uncertain. But as long as this normative requirement applies, it must be borne in mind that it has to be applied according to the purpose of the experiment and according to the stress on the animal (for example in an animal higher up the evolutionary scale, where its trainability may mean the stress is lower than in an animal lower down the evolutionary scale, which is not trainable to the same extent).
  5. In such questions, animal welfare law must also keep up with scientific research, to ensure it is applied as objectively as possible.

Basel, 30 November 2010