Press release

Published: 05 February 2026

In Germany, nearly all applications for animal experiments continue to be approved. This is demonstrated by an analysis conducted by the nationwide association Doctors Against Animal Experiments (DAAE), which has just been published in the scientific journal Altex. Between 2022 and 2024, the nationwide rejection rate was only 0.83 percent. In many federal states, no applications were rejected at all over several consecutive years.

The analysis (1) is based on information provided by all state approval authorities regarding applications for animal experiments requiring authorization, which DAAE requested between April and June 2025. In total, 6,723 applications were submitted during the three years examined, of which only 56 were rejected. This means that more than 99 percent of all applications passed the approval process.

According to DAAE, it is particularly noteworthy that even after the revised Animal Welfare Act came into force in 2021—intended to strengthen the review authority of the responsible authorities—no relevant tightening of approval practices is evident. Between 2015 and 2017, the rejection rate was already at a comparable level, averaging 0.75 percent (2).

“The data show that rejecting an animal experiment is an absolute exception in practice,” says Silke Strittmatter, biologist and author of the analysis. “Even after the legislative reform, the approval of an animal experiment remains effectively a routine procedure, even when its ethical justification and necessity could be questioned.”

While some federal states consistently report rejection rates of 0 percent, others—such as Bremen, Berlin, or Saarland—show calculated rates above 3 percent. However, these higher figures are partly due to very small case numbers or unclear distinctions in the data between rejections and withdrawals. Overall, the nationwide picture remains clear: rejections are the exception.

Around 4 to 5 percent of applications were withdrawn by the applicants themselves. According to DAAE, this proportion also does not indicate any meaningful pre-screening of ethically particularly problematic projects.

Another key finding of the study is the insufficient transparency regarding regulatory requirements, modifications, and amendments to approved animal experiments. Many federal states do not record such data at all or do not provide detailed information. Where information is available, it often concerns formal aspects such as changes in personnel—substantive changes to the experiments themselves are rarely documented in a comprehensible manner.

“Without systematic and transparent documentation of conditions and amendments, it remains unclear whether and how animal suffering is actually being limited in the approval process,” Strittmatter further comments.

According to DAAE, the analysis shows that the statutory objective of limiting animal suffering is not reflected in approval practices. The broadly defined purposes in the Animal Welfare Act make it possible to legitimize nearly any animal experiment. The 2021 reform has not changed this so far. “This undermines the central objective of animal protection law and the EU Directive on animal experiments, whose ultimate goal is the replacement of animal experiments,” Strittmatter concludes. 

References

1. Strittmatter S.: Low rejection rate for animal experiments in Germany despite legal reform. ALTEX 2026, online ahead of print; doi:10.14573/altex.2512081
2. Strittmatter S.: Applications for animal experiments are rarely rejected in Germany. ALTEX 2019; 36(3): 470-471