Opposition to Vivisection - A Long History
As renowned pathologist Dr Bruno Fedi points out, "The abolition of
vivisection would in no way halt medical progress, just the opposite is the
case. .... No surgeon can gain the least knowledge from experiments on
animals, and all the great surgeons of the past and of the present day are
in agreement on that".
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:
'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally
acceptable to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals
are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
---Charles R. Magel, professor of philosophy
Opposition to animal experimentation has a long history. The American
Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) was founded by Caroline Earle White in
1883...long before People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which
was founded in 1980, and even longer than before the current debate over
stem-cell research!
An editorial in the now-defunct Animals' Agenda from the early '00s, noted
that animal research goes on unquestioned, while debate rages over stem-cell
research, for no other reason than the stem-cells have human chromosomes.
This is speciesism--discrimination on the basis of species...a term which
has not caught on or become part of the American vernacular, even among
progressives, the way words like "Ms." or "homophobia" have become part of
the American lexicon.
"The women we recognize today as the founders of AAVS," writes Lily Santoro,
"were pioneers in the world of animal welfare but not in the sphere of
reform movements. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw a
rise in reform movements known as the Progressive Era.
"Inspired by the new science of sociology and cultural movements like the
social gospel, middle and upper class Americans increasingly engaged in
reform movements aimed at uplifting the downtrodden and improving society.
"Women were central to the Progressive era reforms. In the late nineteenth
century, women made great strides in reform movements like Temperance,
Sunday Schools, food and drug regulation, women's suffrage, and child-labor
laws.
"In a world where women were supposed to be relegated to their own 'separate
sphere,' many women joined reform movements wherein they acted as the 'moral
compass' of American society. Caring for the weak and voiceless in society
was the focus of progressive era reforms. Animal welfare met this category
perfectly."
The Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) reports that the
following advances in medicine were all made without animal research:
- Discovery of the relationship between cholesterol and heart disease -- America's No. 1 killer.
- Discovery of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer and between nutrition and cancer -- the second biggest killer of Americans.
- Discovery of the relationship between hypertension and stroke -- the No. 3 killer of Americans.
- Discovery of the causes of trauma, the fourth largest killer of Americans, and the measures to prevent it.
- Elucidation of the causes of many forms of respiratory disease, America's No. 5 cause of death.
- Isolation of the AIDS virus.
- Discovery of the mechanism of AIDS transmission.
- Discovery of penicillin and its curative effect on various infectious diseases.
- Development of X-rays.
- Development of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs.
The PCRM further reports that the use of animals in education, consumer
product testing and medical research is ineffective and obsolete. In vitro
research, epidemiologic studies, clinical research and computer modeling
yield more accurate results.
John J. Pippin writes:
There are many things wrong with the use of intimidation and violence in
the critical debate over animal research. In addition to being anathema in
our society, such tactics obscure important issues regarding animal
experiments and human health.
I am a cardiologist and a former animal researcher. I stopped experimenting
on animals after I came to doubt the medical value of such research. Today,
a growing number of physicians, scientists and scientific agencies believe
that moving to non-animal research and testing methods is critical to
advancing human health.
Numerous reports confirm very poor correlations between animal research
results and human results, and the research breakthroughs so optimistically
reported in the media almost always fail in humans.
Examples abound. Every one of 197 human trials using 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines
tested in animals has failed. More than 150 human stroke trials using
treatments successful in animals have failed, as have at least two dozen
animal diabetes cures.
Vioxx was tested successfully in eight studies using six animal species,
yet this anti-inflammatory medication may have caused the deaths of more
Americans than the Vietnam War.
The monoclonal antibody TGN 1412 was safe in monkeys at 500 times the dose
tested in humans, yet all six British volunteers who received the drug in
2006 nearly died.
Conversely, simple aspirin produces birth defects in at least seven animal
species, yet is safe in human pregnancy. When even identical human twins
have different disease susceptibilities, how can we think answers will be
found in mice or monkeys?
The National Cancer Institute now uses panels of human cells and tissues to
test treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and to detect drug toxicities. And
the National Research Council now recommends replacing animal toxicity
testing with in vitro methods.
I can attest that animal research
is inherently cruel. Animal protection laws do not mitigate this reality.
Whether the debate involves humane issues or human benefits, the evidence
confirms the need to replace animal experiments with more accurate
human-specific methods. That's the best way to make progress and improve
health.---John J. Pippin is a senior medical and research adviser with the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).
Go on to: Peace and Vegetarianism
Return to: Articles