Vivisection and experimentation debate

This page is not about vivisection and animal testing in general but is about the history of the debate on these matters.

Public controversy has surrounded the use of animals in Vivisection and other experiments especially since the 19th century. Physiologists had expressed reservations much earlier. Sides have formed over the years and are often very deeply entrenched in their respective viewpoints.

Vivisection

The use of human subjects in vivisection is regarded with horror throughout the world, yet has sometimes been practised. Usually vivisection takes animal subjects, which is regarded by many people with almost equal horror. Vivisection means cutting the live body.

In 1655 Physiologist Edmund O’Meara, is recorded as saying that "the miserable torture of vivisection surely places the body in an unnatural state." O'Meara thus expresses one of the chief scientific objections, that the pain of the vivisected subject will interfere with the accuracy of the results. Other objections exist, both scientific and moral.

On the other side of the debate, those in favour of vivisection hold that surgical procedures must be performed on the living animal because the dead body begins to decay too quickly and the decayed tissue is thought to be of less use.

The Debate on Animal Testing in General

In 1822, in the British parliament, Richard Martin MP piloted the first parliamentary bill in the world to give animals a degree of protection through the law. This first bill related to farm animals. The first bill to regulate animal experimentation in Britain was the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876) . One of the people who campaigned to see the bill introduced was Charles Darwin (1809-1882). He said, in a letter of March 22, 1871 to Professor Ray Lankester: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." The bill remained on the statute books until the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) .

From the early days of animal welfare legislation concerns were both for the relief of animal suffering and also for the moral health of humanity. The Victorians were particularly concerned that people should show good moral virtues such as kindness and concern for others. It was in Victorian Britain that the RSPCA (the world's first SPCA - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was formed. One of the founder members was William Wilberforce, who was also in the forefront of anti-slavery activism.

These Victorian concerns have formed a backdrop to ongoing debate throughout the 20th century and into current times.

The defenders of animal testing believe the differences between species to be very minor and not sufficient to have any great effect on the results obtained. They also say that cures for many illnesses have been found by the use of animal experiments. These claims are hotly disputed.

The argument is often raised that animals themselves benefit from being experimented upon since these experiments can lead to veterinary medicines and procedures. There is also a strong moral and emotional feeling that even one single medical advance for humans is worth any number of animals.

Focusing on the cruelty issues, SPCAs have been formed in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America and other countries. Animal welfare organisations have fiercely debated the issues both scientific and moral and have developed an offshoot: the animal rights movement.

Focusing on the scientific issues, research departments have been set up in Europe and the USA to find as many non-animal methods of research as possible and to provide the information about these methods to scientists working within relevant fields.

Medical researchers experimenting on animals often express a wish that the general public had a greater understanding of the issues involved and are at some pains to point out that every care is taken in safeguarding the welfare of the animals experimented upon.

Scientific Issues

The main science based issues raised against animal experimentation are:

• 1a) That the animal body differs in so many respects from that of the human that cutting the tissue (in vivisection) of the living animal will reveal nothing about human health or illness.

• 1b) That the animal body differs in many other respects such that administering drugs, poisons, and diseases will lead to similarly irrelevant results. For instance, increasing (or decreasing) the dosage in order to compensate for a different body size can generate artifacts which may be indecipherable.

• 2) That the pain experienced by an animal without adequate analgesia will produce compensatory reactions of the heart, blood, lymph, nervous system and tissues to such an extent as to completely distort any results gained.

• 3) That the analagesia, if administered, will represent a different set of circumstances within the creatures metabolism and that these different circumstances also distort the results.

• 4) That the conditions under which the animal is cut open are clinical and have thus removed the animal from any natural context which could be applied to the living conditions of either the human or the animal.

• 5) That the human emotional and psychological factors governing how we cope with both illness and injury are not necessarily present in all species cut.

• 6) That the cutting itself, even without the pain, will cause the tissues to react differently than an uncut tissue.

• 7) That a wide range of alternative methods for research exist and give more accurate results.

The counter arguments to these concerns are:

• 1a) That there are many similarities between humans and animals. That the differences are sufficiently well known for all of them to be taken into account and the distorted results adjusted accordingly.

• 1b) That observational artifacts can similarly be taken into account and useful results obtained.

• 2) That the animal's reactions to pain may be discounted from the results.

• 3) That these factors, too, may be discounted.

• 4) That clinical conditions are necessary for accurate observation of the experimental model.

• 5) That human emotional and psychological factors are not relevant to research.

• 6) That these factors are unavoidable in any research.

• 7) That alternative methods are still only being developed, whereas animal experimentaion has a long history.

Moral Issues

The main issues raised of an ethical nature against animal experimentation are:

• 1) That it is considered by many to be cruel to inflict harm on an otherwise healthy animal.

• 2) That it is considered by many within religious philosophies to be a deminishment of the human soul to perpetrate harm.

• 3) That it is thought by some humanistic viewpoints that committing acts of harm to an animal will cause a psychological callousness to result from the habitual tolerance of harm infliction. That this psychological callousness may lead to our mental ill health and social misbehaviour. That one who easily harms a living thing will easily harm a child or marriage partner.

• 4) That Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Christians and others advise us to work actively to help relieve suffering in other species.

The counter arguments to these moral concerns are:

• 1) That it would be cruel to cause harm to human beings by not using animals.

• 2) That religion is not relevant to scientific research.

• 3) That there is no objective evidence of researchers being any more callous than the average person.

• 4) That animal experimentation does actively work to relieve animal suffering by providing the knowledge necessary to develop veterinary cures.

Other Issues

There exists a further area of debate which combines some scientific and moral issues into one. This is the area of concern about humans who may be harmed as a result of trusting possibly inaccurate test results and consequently taking unsafe medication. One side believes that animal experimentation puts humans at risk and the other side believes the risk to be lessened by such experiments.

Experimenters are of the opinion that this particular objection to animal experimentation is invalid because the final test of any medication is a clinical trial on human subjects.

External links

• debate database

• MRMCMED

• New Scientist

• PCRM

• alternatives

• Bernard

• Animal experimentation necessary

• [1]

• [2]

• armyths

• Vivisection-absurd