|
Vivisection literally refers to the dissection of a living
animal, often for the purposes of physiological investigation. However, in
modern parlance the term usually refers to any type of experimentation in which
animals are injured, with or without actual dissection.
The term is used almost exclusively by animal rights supporters, as a
veiled barb. Most animal research and testing does not require the invasive procedures implied by vivisection. Neutral terms
are:
- animal research for research work performed on animals, both invasive and non-invasive.
- animal medical testing for the mandatory animal testing phase of medical drug testing, required by the
FDA before a medical drug can be sold in the US.
- animal product testing for the more controversial testing of substances on animals which are not medical
drugs. This has been made illegal in many countries.
History
The history of vivisection began when Europe was, almost exclusively, under the
domination of the Roman Catholic Church. Papal decree had forbidden
autopsy on the human body. In the Second Century AD, Galen, a Greek-born Roman physician dissected animals to draw conclusions, not about
the animals but about human anatomy. Many of his conclusions were,
naturally, faulty. Over the hundreds of years since then, false conclusions have mostly been corrected by gradual trial and error
when applying those false conclusions to living human patients.
Controversy
Many people are morally opposed to the use of animal vivisections when applied to human medicine on the basis that an animal's body is an inaccurate model for the
human and may therefore lead to incorrect anticipations of the effect drugs and surgical procedures may have when applied to a
human patient. In addition animal rights and animal welfare campaigners have ethical objections concerning the harm done to
the animals. Others claim that the benefits to medicine and science from vivisection are substantial, and outweigh the harm caused to animals. It should be noted that
not all vivisection is intended to result in medical treatments for humans. Other purposes of vivisection include: developing
veterinary treatments, testing the safety of newly developed products such as cosmetics and cleaning products, and satisfying
scientific curiosity.
Often medical discoveries have been made without animal experimentation and then the tests on animals have followed afterward.
In these cases, such as the initial discoveries of vaccination and anaesthesia, the belated animal experiments cannot legitimately be credited has
having played a valid role. But do such experiments ever help lead to a medical advance? A significant number of people believe
so, though balanced by a large number of the opposite opinion. In support of animal experimentation, all mammals have the same
basic organs. Still, there are undeniable differences between human and non-human animals. About a third of medicines used by
veterinarians are also used in humans. The severity of these differences are evaluated on an experiment-by-experiment basis.
Some practitioners claim that operating on a live animal produces more useful information than if the test subject were
euthanized first. This is especially the case in fields such as
neurobiology, where post-mortem activity is either nonexistent or very different. Directly observing how organs and other bodily systems
respond to experiments is not possible during necropsies but the advantages of such direct observation is questioned by some. Tissue cultures, organ cultures and computer simulations are in certain cases taking the place of the
older, controversial methods. In America, Johns Hopkins
University is leading the way in the development of these new methods and in Britain the charity group F.O.R.C.E. (based at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital) and The Doctor Hadwen
Trust (based in London, England).
A few scientists have attempted to drive a wedge between research and ethics, claiming that science shouldn't be concerned
with unscientific matters like moral right or wrong. Nazi doctor Josef Mengele and the Japanese Unit 731 both ordered human vivisections on
concentration camp prisoners. There have been other cases of
Human experimentation, which have been condemned by the
vast majority of the scientific community.
Intellectuals have written many books tackling the rights and wrongs of experimentation on animals. Anti-vivisectionist
Christian author C.S. Lewis
strongly expressed his views in his book, The Problem of
Pain. He wrote on moral and theological grounds.
British physiologist Marshall Hall (1790-1857) was an animal
experimenter who, in 1831, proposed five principles to govern animal experimentation:
- An experiment should never be performed if the necessary information could be obtained by observations
- No experiment should be performed without a clearly defined and obtainable, objective
- Scientists should be well-informed about the work of their predecessors and peers in order to avoid unnecessary repetition of
an experiment
- Justifiable experiments should be carried out with the least possible infliction of suffering (often through the use of
lower, less sentient animals)
- Every experiment should be performed under circumstances that would provide the clearest possible results, thereby
diminishing the need for repetition of experiments
The first law regulating animal experimentation was the 1876 Cruelty to Animals
Act in the United Kingdom. The Brown Dog affair, which in part tested that law, is testament to the strength of feelings about
vivisection in Edwardian Britain.
Human Vivisection
In a truly amoral society, its theoretically plausible that more efficient scientific progress could be made by doing away
with animal vivisections in favor of directly experimenting on human beings. Human experimentation was practiced in the infamous
wartime programs of Nazi Dr. Josef
Mengele and the Japanese Unit 731. Both
ordered human vivisections on concentration camp prisoners in their respective countries during WWII. This period of unrestrained experimentation was too brief to determine, from a purely pragmatic perspective,
whether authorized human vivisection would indeed significantly accelerate understanding of the body and medicine. (In some
cases, the purpose of human vivisection appeared to be to torment the prisoners rather than to make useful discoveries.) The
Tuskegee experiment in America might also qualify in this dubious category.
See also
animal testing
Vivisection centers
- University of Rhode Island
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- University of Michigan
- University of Minnesota
Primate suppliers
These institutions and companies provide vivisection centers with primates, list includes number of primates imported between
1995 and 1999:
- Buckshire
Corporation 787
- New
Iberia Research Center 882
- LABS of Virginia
1,376
- Osage
Research Primates 2,016
- Primate Products
2,876
- Sierra Biomedical
(division of Charles River) 4,117
- HRP, Inc. (Hazelton Research
Projects) 5,712
- Covance
Research Products 8,286
- Charles River BRF
15,363
External links
Pro-vivisection
Anti-vivisection
|