Validity arguments on the legitimacy and ethics of the forced swim test in rodents

Abstract Animal models are essential in preclinical research and widely used in drug development, yet their legitimacy has long been debated. These debates intertwine epistemic, pragmatic, social, and ethical considerations. A key criterion for the legitimacy of an animal model is its validity, which assesses how well it serves as a proxy for human disorders and contributes to treatment development. The forced swim test (FST) is a particularly contested case, as criticism regarding its validity has fuelled controversy over its legitimacy. This article examines how validity arguments and non-epistemic factors have been intertwined to shape the legitimacy of the FST as an animal model in depression research. Although public actors have emphasized non-epistemic concerns, including pragmatic, social, and ethical considerations, such as animal welfare, the article shows how they have also utilized the academic controversy about FST’s validity to argue against its legitimacy for measuring the efficacy of drugs for human depression.