Are Humans Animals? A Biological and Philosophical Exploration

The direct answer is yes. Humans are animals in the biological sense of the term. Every formal system of biological classification places humans within the kingdom Animalia, and this placement is supported by anatomy, genetics, development, and evolutionary history. The question becomes more complex when it moves from biology into philosophy, law, and ethics, where the word "animal" carries different meanings and where the relationship between humans and other animals raises questions about personhood, rights, and moral status. This article explains the biological basis for classifying humans as animals, addresses common misconceptions, and examines the philosophical and practical implications of that classification for students, researchers, life-science professionals, and informed general readers.

At a Glance: Human Classification and Its Implications

The table below summarizes the key biological facts, common misconceptions, and practical implications of human classification as animals.

The Biological Classification of Humans

Taxonomic Position of Humans

Biological taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying organisms. The system in common use traces its origins to the work of Carl Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, and it organizes life into a nested hierarchy of categories. Humans occupy a specific position in this hierarchy that places them firmly within the animal kingdom.

The full taxonomic classification of modern humans is as follows. Domain Eukaryota includes all organisms with cells that contain a nucleus. Kingdom Animalia includes all multicellular organisms that are heterotrophic, meaning they obtain energy by consuming other organisms. Phylum Chordata includes animals with a notochord, dorsal nerve cord, and other shared features at some stage of development. Class Mammalia includes warm-blooded vertebrates with hair and mammary glands. Order Primates includes monkeys, apes, and humans. Family Hominidae includes the great apes. Genus Homo includes modern humans and their close extinct relatives. Species Homo sapiens is the scientific name for modern humans.

Each level of this classification reflects shared ancestry. Humans did not evolve from any living nonhuman animal species. Humans and other animals share common ancestors at different points in evolutionary history. The classification system captures these relationships of common descent.

What Defines an Animal

The kingdom Animalia is defined by a set of shared characteristics. Animals are multicellular organisms whose cells lack cell walls. They are heterotrophic, meaning they must consume organic material for energy instead of producing it through photosynthesis. Animals are generally capable of movement at some stage of their life cycle. Most animals have specialized tissues and organs, and most reproduce sexually.

Humans meet every one of these criteria. Human cells lack cell walls. Humans obtain energy by consuming organic material. Humans move. Humans have specialized tissues and organs. Humans reproduce sexually. There is no biological definition of "animal" that excludes humans.

The confusion that sometimes arises around this question often stems from the colloquial use of the word "animal" to mean "nonhuman animal." In everyday speech, people may say "humans and animals" as if the two categories were separate. In biological terminology, however, humans are a subset of animals. The correct contrast is between humans and nonhuman animals.

Genetic Evidence for Human Animal Status

The Universal Genetic Code

The discovery that DNA is the material basis of inheritance transformed the understanding of how heredity works across all living organisms. The history of genetics shows that the gene was initially understood as a unit of function and transmission, a unit of recombination, and a unit of mutation. When DNA was identified as the material basis of inheritance, these concepts of the gene began to diverge, and molecular biology has since revealed the complexity of hereditary material function.

This genetic framework applies equally to humans and all other animals. Humans inherit traits through the same DNA-based mechanisms as every other multicellular organism. The genetic code, the set of rules by which DNA sequences are translated into proteins, is nearly universal across all forms of life. A human gene is transcribed and translated through the same molecular machinery as a mouse gene or a fruit fly gene.

The completion of genome sequences for many experimental organisms, with the human genome following soon after, allowed biology to ask entirely new kinds of questions about the nature of living cells. Comparing genomes across species has confirmed the deep evolutionary relationships that taxonomy had already suggested. Humans share the vast majority of their genes with other mammals, and even with more distantly related animals.

Meiosis and Heredity

Meiosis is the specialized cell division that produces haploid cells, which eventually develop into gametes. This process lies at the heart of Mendelian heredity. Recombination and redistribution of homologous chromosomes during meiosis constitute an important source of genetic diversity, giving meiosis a particularly important place in the evolution and diversification of species.

Humans undergo meiosis in exactly the same way as other sexually reproducing animals. Human eggs and sperm are produced through the same process of recombination and chromosome segregation that occurs in mice, fruit flies, and every other sexually reproducing animal. The mechanisms governing meiotic recombination have been studied across various model species, and the findings apply to human reproduction as well.

This shared reproductive biology is another confirmation of human animal status. The mechanisms of heredity that operate in humans are the same mechanisms that operate throughout the animal kingdom.

Physiological and Cellular Evidence

The Human Cell as a Complex System

Complex systems theory is concerned with identifying and characterizing common design elements observed across diverse natural, technological, and social complex systems. Systems biology has advanced rapidly in the past two decades, taking a more holistic approach to studying molecules and cells. The human cell is an exemplary complex system, and considering concepts of complex systems theory in systems biology can illuminate the understanding of normal cell physiology and the alterations that lead to human disease.

Human cells operate under the same physical and chemical principles as the cells of all other animals. The organelles, metabolic pathways, signaling networks, and structural components of human cells have direct counterparts in other animal cells. When researchers study cellular processes in nonhuman animals, the findings generally apply to human cells because the underlying biology is shared.

This shared cellular biology is the foundation for the use of animal models in biomedical research. The historical reliance of biological research on the use of animal models has sometimes made it challenging to address questions specific to human biology and disease. However, animal models remain valuable because of the fundamental biological continuity between humans and other animals.

Comparative Physiology

Human physiology follows the same basic patterns as other mammalian physiology. The cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, nervous system, and endocrine system all operate according to principles that are shared across the animal kingdom. The differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree and detail, not differences of fundamental kind.

One well-documented example of both shared physiology and human distinctiveness is endurance running. Humans are capable of endurance running to a degree that no other animal matches. This capacity is related to walking upright, which allowed humans to become some of the best distance runners in the world at the expense of speed. Humans also developed an effective cooling system, including improved heat exchange due to the disappearance of fur and the ability to sweat intensively. The heat-conducting ability of the human body allowed early humans to effectively dissipate excess heat during long-distance running.

This example illustrates the correct way to understand human distinctiveness. Humans are animals, and human physiology follows animal physiology. Within that shared framework, humans have evolved specific adaptations that make them distinctive. Being an animal does not mean being identical to other animals. It means sharing a fundamental biological nature with them.

Humans and Other Animals in Research

Animal Models in Biomedical Research

The use of animal models has been central to biological and medical discovery. Most biological and medicinal discoveries have been made working on animals as models, including in physiology, genetics, embryology, and ethology. The models used have included Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila melanogaster, Apis mellifera, Rana esculenta, Rattus norvegicus, Mus musculus, and Pan troglodytes.

The value of animal models depends on the biological continuity between humans and other animals. When a drug works in a mouse, it often works in a human because the underlying biology is shared. When a gene causes disease in a fruit fly, it often has a related function in humans because the genetic code and basic cellular machinery are conserved across vast evolutionary distances.

Deep analysis of multiple genomic datasets has revealed which genetic pathways associated with atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease are shared between mice and humans. This type of comparative genomics allows researchers to identify which findings from animal models are likely to translate to human medicine and which are species-specific.

Human Organoids and the Future of Research

The advent of human organoids has created new opportunities for studying human biology. Human organoids are stem cell-derived three-dimensional culture systems that can recreate the architecture and physiology of human organs in remarkable detail. These organoids provide unique opportunities for the study of human disease and complement animal models.

Human organoids have been used to study infectious diseases, genetic disorders, and cancers through the genetic engineering of human stem cells. Organoids can also be generated directly from patient biopsy samples. This technology has the potential to substantially reduce the need for animal experiments while also addressing questions that are specific to human biology.

The development of human organoids does not change the fact that humans are animals. It reflects the recognition that while humans share fundamental biology with other animals, there are also human-specific aspects of biology and disease that are best studied in human-derived systems. Both animal models and human organoids have advantages and disadvantages, and both remain important tools for biomedical research.

The next 50 years of developmental biology are poised to provide solutions to important problems society faces. Ten scientists whose work intersects with developmental biology have described their vision for the future, encompassing cell biology in the context of human embryogenesis, cancer, and plants. This research continues to build on the fundamental understanding that humans are animals whose biology can be studied through the same methods applied to other organisms.

Philosophical Implications of Human Animal Status

What Follows from Biological Classification

The biological fact that humans are animals does not by itself determine any particular philosophical conclusion. Biology describes what humans are in terms of their physical nature and evolutionary history. Philosophy asks what follows from that description for questions about meaning, morality, and value.

Some philosophical traditions have argued that human animal status has profound implications for how humans should treat nonhuman animals. If humans are animals, and if the capacities that humans value in themselves are also present in other animals to some degree, then the moral consideration extended to humans may need to be extended to other animals as well.

Other philosophical traditions have argued that human animal status is compatible with human distinctiveness. Humans may be animals, but they are animals with specific capacities that other animals lack, such as complex language, abstract reasoning, and moral agency. These capacities may justify different treatment even if they do not justify a different biological classification.

The philosophical debate is ongoing, and the biological facts do not resolve it. What the biological facts do establish is that any philosophical position must start from the recognition that humans are animals. Arguments that assume humans are outside the animal kingdom are based on a factual error.

Language and Human Supremacy

The relationship between language, human self-conception, and the treatment of animals has been the subject of scholarly analysis. The concept of human supremacy, the belief that humans are fundamentally superior to and separate from other animals, has been examined in relation to language and animal treatment. This analysis appears in the scholarly literature on invasion biology and its discontents.

Language shapes how humans think about animals. The colloquial distinction between "humans and animals" reinforces the idea that humans are not animals. The use of animal terms as insults implies that being animal-like is degrading. These linguistic patterns reflect and reinforce assumptions about human superiority that are not supported by biological classification.

Recognizing that humans are animals does not require abandoning the idea that humans have distinctive capacities. It does require abandoning the idea that humans are exempt from the biological principles that govern all life. The linguistic habits that obscure this fact can be changed, and doing so may have consequences for how humans treat other animals.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

Legal Personhood for Animals

The legal system draws a sharp distinction between humans and nonhuman animals. In the American legal system, humans are legal persons with rights and protections. Nonhuman animals are generally treated as property. This legal distinction exists despite the biological fact that humans are animals.

In recent years, animal rights organizations have brought legal challenges seeking to secure legal personhood for animals in various courts in the United States. These lawsuits have used habeas corpus, a mechanism traditionally used by prisoners to challenge conditions of confinement, to challenge the confinement of animals in zoological facilities. These challenges have been unsuccessful in each state and federal court that has considered the issue.

Courts have been unwilling to include nonhuman animals within the meaning of "person" or to afford them the legal rights and protections that humans receive. An analysis of these legal personhood decisions reveals that courts have rejected animals' complex cognitive abilities as a justification for an extension of the law. Courts have been careful to state that societal-changing legal developments must originate in the legislatures, not the courts, and have emphasized that significant societal and ethical issues may occur if animals are extended the legal rights and protections afforded to humans.

This legal landscape illustrates the gap between biological classification and legal status. Humans are animals biologically, but they are persons legally. Nonhuman animals are animals biologically, and they are not persons legally. The legal distinction is a human creation that could be changed through democratic processes, but it is not determined by biology.

Ethical Frameworks for Human-Animal Relations

The ethical frameworks that govern human treatment of animals vary across cultures and philosophical traditions. Some frameworks emphasize human responsibility for animal welfare. Others emphasize animal rights. Still others emphasize the mutual benefits of human-animal relationships.

Research on human-dog interaction provides an example of the mutual benefits that can arise from human-animal relationships. When humans and dogs live together, they share activities, and when they share an enjoyment of daily activities such as walking and interacting with others, they are considered compatible in their activity preferences. Individuals who are more compatible with their dogs report having a better relationship with them, which could explain some of the benefits of human-dog interaction.

Research on cat domestication has explored why cats became companion animals for humans despite being more individual and less social than dogs. The cognitive and behavioral characteristics of cats that promote human-cat interaction, and the similarities between cats and humans, help explain the significance of studying cat sociality.

These examples show that recognizing humans as animals does not diminish the value of human-animal relationships. If anything, it provides a more honest foundation for understanding those relationships. Humans and other animals share biology, and that shared biology makes meaningful relationships possible.

Comparative Cognition and Behavior

Cognitive Continuity Across Species

Research on animal cognition has revealed continuity between human and nonhuman cognitive abilities. The same basic learning mechanisms operate across species. Associative learning models have traditionally relied on binary classification of cues and outcomes, such as administering a medical treatment or not and observing whether the patient recovered or not. These models have been successful in capturing fundamental learning phenomena across human and animal studies.

More recent research has extended these models to represent variability in human experiences that are common in real-world contexts. A distributed architecture for prediction error learning tracks the contingency between cues and dimensional outcomes, allowing associative links to form between cue and outcome nodes that provide distributed representation depending on the magnitude of the outcome. This model provides significantly better fit to empirical data than simpler models, suggesting that human learners rely on a means of encoding outcomes that preserves the continuous nature of experienced events.

This research demonstrates that human learning operates through mechanisms that are continuous with animal learning. The differences between human and animal cognition are real, but they are differences within a shared biological framework.

Social Behavior and Communication

The study of animal social behavior has revealed complex social organization in many species. Ants, for example, are eusocial hymenoptera with highly evolved social organization. They use a nest odor, a nest entrance odor, several area marking odors, a recruitment odor, a trail odor, and an alarm odor, as well as informative tactile and acoustical signals. Ants can navigate using memorized visual and olfactory cues, adequately recruit nestmates, and expect the location and time of events.

Research on ants as models has produced findings that should be considered for caring of humans. These findings concern physiology, genetics, embryology, and ethology. The use of ants as models demonstrates that even very distantly related animals share enough biology with humans to provide useful information.

The social behavior of humans is more complex than that of ants, but it operates through many of the same fundamental principles. Humans communicate, cooperate, compete, and organize themselves in ways that have parallels throughout the animal kingdom. Recognizing these parallels does not diminish human distinctiveness. It places human social behavior in its proper biological context.

Common Misconceptions About Human Animal Status

Misconception: Humans Are Not Animals Because Humans Have Souls or Minds

Some people believe that humans are not animals because humans have souls or minds that other animals lack. This belief is a matter of religious or philosophical conviction, not biological fact. Biology does not address the existence of souls, and the scientific study of mind does not support the claim that humans are the only animals with mental experiences.

The biological classification of humans as animals is compatible with a wide range of religious and philosophical views. Many religious traditions hold that humans are animals with a special relationship to the divine. The biological fact of human animal status does not require any particular theological conclusion.

Misconception: Humans Are Not Animals Because Humans Are Too Different

Some people believe that humans are so different from other animals that they cannot be classified as animals. This belief confuses distinctiveness with categorical difference. Humans are distinctive among animals in many ways, including language, culture, and technology. But distinctiveness within a category does not place an organism outside that category.

Bats are distinctive among mammals because they fly. Whales are distinctive among mammals because they live in the ocean. Humans are distinctive among animals because of their cognitive and cultural capacities. In each case, the distinctive traits are variations on themes that are shared across the broader category.

Misconception: Saying Humans Are Animals Is Degrading

Some people resist the classification of humans as animals because they believe it is degrading. This belief reflects a negative view of animals that is not supported by biology. Animals are not inferior or contemptible. They are complex, diverse, and often remarkable organisms.

Recognizing that humans are animals can be understood as elevating the status of animals instead of degrading the status of humans. If humans are animals, and if humans have the capacities that make human life valuable, then those capacities have biological roots that are shared with other animals.

Practical Applications of Understanding Human Animal Status

Implications for Biomedical Research

Understanding that humans are animals has practical implications for biomedical research. Animal models are valuable because humans and other animals share fundamental biology. The use of animal models has been central to most biological and medicinal discoveries, and comparative genomics continues to reveal which findings from animal models are likely to translate to human medicine.

At the same time, the recognition that humans have species-specific biology has driven the development of human organoids and other human-derived research tools. These tools complement animal models and address questions that are specific to human biology and disease.

Researchers should understand both the value and the limitations of animal models. Animal models are most useful when the biological pathway being studied is conserved between humans and the model species. They are less useful when the pathway is species-specific. Comparative genomics can help researchers determine which situation applies.

Implications for Veterinary Medicine

The recognition that humans are animals has implications for veterinary medicine as well. The "One Health" approach recognizes that human health, animal health, and environmental health are interconnected. This approach has been applied to the surveillance of antibiotic resistance, where pharmacovigilance databases and conventional surveillance systems are compared across human and animal populations.

The One Health approach is also central to understanding zoonotic diseases, which are diseases that can be transmitted between animals and humans. Cryptosporidium is a globally significant protozoan parasite with profound implications for animals, humans, and environmental health. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 2015 and 2025 incorporated 329 investigations from 29 Asian countries and analyzed 142,484 animal specimens. The overall pooled prevalence of Cryptosporidium among animals across Asia was 12 percent, with the highest prevalence reported in West Asia at 19.8 percent. Infections were most frequent in livestock at 13.1 percent, followed by wildlife at 9.1 percent.

The recognition that humans and animals share diseases and share the biological mechanisms that determine disease susceptibility is a direct consequence of recognizing that humans are animals. Veterinary medicine and human medicine are not separate enterprises. They are two aspects of the same biological reality.

Implications for Animal Agriculture

The recognition that humans are animals has practical implications for animal agriculture. Farmers and ranchers who understand the biological continuity between humans and their animals are better positioned to provide appropriate care. The same basic principles of nutrition, disease prevention, and welfare apply across mammalian species.

Bovine colostrum provides an example of the biological continuity between humans and other mammals. Mammalian colostrum is a valuable source of essential nutrients, growth factors, probiotics, prebiotics, antibodies, and other bioactive compounds. Bovine colostrum is an emerging ingredient for the feed, food, and pharmaceutical industries, and it is commercially available in a variety of forms in several countries. Functional foods and supplements for athletes, human medicines, pet nutrition plans, and complementary feed for livestock categories such as piglets and calves contain bovine colostrum.

The amount of colostrum yielded by a cow after calving represents approximately 0.5 percent of the yearly output in dairy breeds. For its nutritional properties and low availability, bovine colostrum is characterized by a greater market value and an increasing demand compared with other by-products of the dairy sector. This example shows how understanding the shared biology of mammals can create practical opportunities in agriculture and medicine.

Limitations of the Biological Classification

What Biology Cannot Tell Us

The biological classification of humans as animals is well established, but it has limitations. Biology can describe what humans are in terms of their physical nature and evolutionary history. Biology cannot tell humans how they should treat other animals, what rights animals should have, or what the meaning of human existence is.

These questions belong to ethics, law, and philosophy. The biological facts constrain the answers to these questions, but they do not determine them. A person who accepts that humans are animals can still hold a wide range of views about animal rights, environmental stewardship, and the value of nonhuman life.

The Limits of Taxonomic Categories

Taxonomic categories are human constructions that organize biological diversity. They are useful because they reflect evolutionary relationships, but they are not perfect. The boundaries between categories are sometimes fuzzy, and the placement of particular organisms can be debated.

The classification of humans as animals is not one of these debated cases. Every formal system of biological classification places humans within the animal kingdom. The evidence for this placement is overwhelming and comes from multiple independent lines of inquiry, including anatomy, genetics, development, and the fossil record.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Students, researchers, and life-science professionals who encounter claims that humans are not animals should understand how to evaluate those claims. The following criteria can help determine when a claim warrants professional attention.

A claim that humans are not animals warrants attention if it is made in a scientific context and is not supported by evidence. Such a claim contradicts the consensus of the biological community and is likely based on a misunderstanding of biological classification.

A claim that humans are not animals warrants attention if it is used to justify practices that affect human or animal welfare. The biological classification of humans as animals has implications for how humans treat other animals, and claims that deny this classification may be used to justify harmful practices.

A claim that humans are not animals warrants attention if it is presented as a scientific finding without peer-reviewed support. Scientific claims about human classification should be traceable to the peer-reviewed literature, such as the sources cited in this article.

In educational settings, instructors who encounter students who believe humans are not animals should address the biological evidence directly. The taxonomic classification of humans is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of established biological fact.

In clinical or research settings, professionals who encounter resistance to the biological classification of humans as animals should consider whether the resistance is based on religious, philosophical, or cultural beliefs. These beliefs should be respected, but they should not be confused with biological facts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are human beings animals?

Yes. Human beings are animals in the biological sense of the term. Every formal system of biological classification places humans within the kingdom Animalia. This classification is based on shared anatomy, genetics, development, and evolutionary history. Humans share common ancestors with all other animals, and human biology operates according to the same fundamental principles as the biology of other animals.

Are humans an animal species?

Yes. Humans are a species within the animal kingdom. The scientific name for modern humans is Homo sapiens. Humans belong to the family Hominidae, which includes the great apes, the order Primates, the class Mammalia, the phylum Chordata, and the kingdom Animalia. Each level of this classification reflects shared ancestry with other organisms at that level.

Why do people say humans and animals as if they are separate categories?

The phrase "humans and animals" reflects a colloquial use of the word "animal" to mean "nonhuman animal." In everyday speech, people often contrast humans with other animals. In biological terminology, however, humans are a subset of animals. The correct contrast is between humans and nonhuman animals. The colloquial usage can create confusion about the biological classification of humans.

Does saying humans are animals mean humans are the same as other animals?

No. Saying humans are animals means humans share a fundamental biological nature with other animals. It does not mean humans are identical to other animals. Humans have distinctive capacities, including complex language, abstract reasoning, and moral agency, that other animals lack. These capacities make humans distinctive within the animal kingdom, but they do not place humans outside it.

What evidence supports the classification of humans as animals?

Multiple lines of evidence support the classification of humans as animals. Anatomically, humans share the basic body plan and organ systems of other vertebrates. Genetically, humans use the same DNA-based inheritance mechanisms as all other organisms. Developmentally, human embryos go through stages that resemble the embryonic stages of other animals. Evolutionarily, the fossil record documents human ancestry within the primate lineage.

Does the biological classification of humans as animals have legal implications?

The biological classification of humans as animals does not determine legal status. In the American legal system, humans are legal persons and nonhuman animals are not. Courts have rejected attempts to extend legal personhood to nonhuman animals, stating that societal-changing legal developments must originate in the legislatures. The legal distinction between humans and nonhuman animals is a human creation that could be changed through democratic processes.

How does understanding that humans are animals affect biomedical research?

Understanding that humans are animals supports the use of animal models in biomedical research. Animal models are valuable because humans and other animals share fundamental biology. At the same time, the recognition that humans have species-specific biology has driven the development of human organoids and other human-derived research tools. Both animal models and human organoids remain important for biomedical research.

Does recognizing humans as animals change how humans should treat other animals?

Recognizing that humans are animals provides a more honest foundation for thinking about human treatment of other animals. It does not by itself determine any particular ethical conclusion. Different ethical frameworks can be built on the recognition of human animal status, ranging from frameworks that emphasize human responsibility for animal welfare to frameworks that advocate for animal rights. The biological facts constrain but do not determine ethical conclusions.

Related Articles

• Metagenomic Taxonomic Classification
• Metagenomic Taxonomic Classification
• Metagenomic Taxonomic Classification
• Human Cloning
• Human Cloning

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Human organoids: model systems for human biology and medicine.. Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2020.
• From Mendel to epigenetics: History of genetics.. Comptes rendus biologies, 2016.
• From mouse to human.. eLife, 2023.
• Developmental and stem cell biology's bright future.. Cell, 2024.
• Meiotic recombination mechanisms.. Comptes rendus biologies, 2016.
• Exploring genome space.. Nature, 2000.
• Complex systems biology.. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2017.
• Welcoming new Developmental Cell advisors.. Developmental cell, 2025.
• Predicting continuous outcomes: Some new tests of associative approaches to contingency learning.. 2026.
• Structural, biophysical and cellular assessment of filamin C M82K: A test case for VUS interpretation in cardiomyopathy.. 2026.
• Editorial: Utilizing real world data and real world evidence in veterinary medicine: current practices and future potentials.. 2025.
• A comparison of antibiotic resistance reports in pharmacovigilance databases and conventional surveillance across "One Health".. 2026.
• Risk Without Recognition: Anticipating the Rise of SMuRF-Less Myocardial Infarction.. 2026.
• Cryptosporidium infections in animals across Asia (2015-2025): a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, host range, geographic distribution, and molecular epidemiology.. 2026.
• Invited review: Bovine colostrum, a promising ingredient for humans and animals-Properties, processing technologies, and uses.. Journal of Dairy Science, 2023.
• Why are cats (Felis catus) companion animals for humans? A consideration of cat domestication from the perspective of comparative cognitive science. 2018.
• Some findings on ants as models, which should be considered for caring of humans. 2017.
• Why Humans are Better Endurance Runners than Any Other Animal?. Medical &amp, Clinical Research, 2024.
• Legal Personhood for Animals: Has Science Made Its Case?. Animals, 2023.
• Compatibility between Humans and Their Dogs: Benefits for Both. Animals, 2019.
• Invasion biology and its discontents. Human supremacy, language, and animal treatment. Visions for Sustainability, 2022.
• A review of the biology and epidemiology of cryptosporidiosis in humans and animals. Microbes and Infection, 2004.
• Cell biology of parasitic amoebae and amoebo-flagellates (protozoa) of animals and humans. Toraibarojisuto Journal of Japanese Society of Tribologists, 1998.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.