A "text book" example of what vivisectors do with their research money ("to benefit the human health and welfare"), is an experiment conducted by the late Professor Harlow, of Primate Research Center, in Madison, Wisconsin. Harlow and his colleagues did repeated studies: studies which would be considered. One of his most famous experiments involved the use of new born monkeys in an attempt to find out what happened when they were separated at birth from their mothers. Harlow kept the young monkeys in sterile, cold steel cages anywhere from three to twelve months.
The experiments involved several monkeys and many different approaches. They had no contact with humans or other monkeys, only the companion of a surrogate mother made of metal and terry cloth. Naturally, the young monkeys, needing a mother, clung to the fabricated mom. At the push of a button, high pressure air would be forced through several nozzle which would blow a fierce stream of air at the monkey. This high pressure air would nearly blow the skin off the infant. Harlow states in his report journal that he knows exactly what would happen and will happen next. "It simply clung tighter and tighter to the mother, because a frightened infant clings to its mother at all costs" (Singer 33).
In attempts to further destroy any mental stability in the traumatized monkey, Harlow built another mother "'. . . that would rock so violently that the baby1s head and teeth would rattle'" (Singer 33). Again, the infant clung, in fear and helplessness, while the mother shook. In further studies, Harlow built another mother, that, at the push of a button, would eject sharp spikes all over its body which would puncture the baby and make it fall to the floor of the cage (Singer 33).
What Harlow found out through this experiment was that the monkey would pick itself back up each time it fell off the mother, whether intentional or accidental, and return to the only source of food and shelter it knew. "After a month, monkeys raised in isolation for three months became fully socialized. Those isolated for six months, however, were unable to form bonds of affection and their social interactions were minimal at best" (Fox 103).
Rhesus monkeys also are unfortunate enough to be used in behavioral research, including the testing of new and old drugs. Many experiments have been conducted on drugs such as cocaine. For example, Gerald Deneau, of Downstate Medical Center, used rhesus monkeys, strapped in restraining chairs, who were able, at any time, to give themselves any amount of cocaine. ". . . [they] pushed the button over and over, even after convulsions. [They] began to mutilate themselves and . . . died of cocaine abuse" (Singer 66). According to Singer, 500 experiments had been done on cocaine, all documented in well known journals.
Monkeys are not the only animals used for drug testing. To observe the withdrawal effects of drugs such as Valium, vivisectors have also used beagles. Researchers found results, earlier reported, of seizures, convulsions, weight loss, and, of course, death, yet they repeated their predecessors experiments. Even LSD has been tested on an elephant to find out how much the giant can endure before side effects occur and what amount the animal can tolerate. The hallucinogen left the elephant falling to its side, barely breathing. An astronomical number of animals have died violent, unnatural deaths to find out what happens when a person is exposed to illegal, and obviously lethal, drugs.
Along with medical testing, animals are inhumanely utilized in product tests involving substances like insecticides, bleach, ink, cleaners, makeup, brake fluid, and candles. Among the most common tests are the Draize eye irritancy and LD50 tests. The Draize is a scale for judging the sensitivity of substances. Rabbits are used for the most part and are held in restraining boxes that keep their head immobilized. These tests, like all other tests, use no anesthesia. The fluids and pastes to be tested are dropped right into the rabbits' eyes and observed for days or weeks for toxicity. "Some substances cause such serious damage that the rabbits' eyes lose all distinguishing characteristics--the iris, pupil, and cornea begin to resemble one massive infection" (Singer 55).
The LD50, Lethal Dose 50 percent, test is a well known test involving cats, dogs, and other small animals. "[T]he amount of a substance resulting in death for half a given group of experimental animals" (Fox 184) is the information scientists use this test for. In this test, substances are not put into the eyes, as is done with rabbits, rather they are force fed or injected into the animal. Many large companies invest large amounts of money to have animals subjected to new chemicals intended to for use in consumer products. One company, Colgate, recently funded a test involving beagles and a new form of DEET. Through their research and investigation, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), uncovered Colgate1s "test": force feeding the chemical insecticide until the lethal, forced dose was reached. "[PETA] found the beagles convulsing in their cages, their foot pads rotting, and their ears raw with sores" (Colgate 8).
While many scientists and doctors fully support the use of animals in research and argue that it is a vital part of discovering product toxicity and cures to human diseases, there are scientists who agree with animal rights activists --vivisection is a fraud. To begin, the animals used in research are known to be almost the same as humans; however, in science, exact matches must be used to obtain significant data. Animals are genetically, physiologically, immunologically, emotionally, and socially different than humans; human anatomy and physiology cannot be learned from cats, dogs, or even primates, and "[i]t is impossible to recreate a naturally occurring disease in a healthy animal . . . simply because once it is 'recreated,' it's is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease" (Why 1).
Vivisectors say that the animal models they use provide "[the] control . . . of asthma, epilepsy, arthritis, ulcers, [and medicinal] advances that required animal research" (Williams 64). This "control" is the reason that vivisectors feel they can use animals at their cost, without acknowledging that animals feel pain; instead, they lie to people who care about finding cures to AIDS or cancer by telling them that the slaughter of millions of animals is the only solution. Many chimpanzees and monkeys have been killed in attempt to expose them to AIDS. The cure to this deadly disease will not come about, even with twenty years of animal research because their biological makeup and reactions are different to humans, and the stress induced by captivity (in a T.V. sized box) creates a further breakdown in their immune system--something humans do not experience.
Through vivisection, scientists claim, vaccines for various diseases such as rabies, whooping cough, tuberculosis, and recently a vaccine for Hib--hemophilus influence type B have been found, but many medical advances have been stalled because of misleading vivisection studies. David Wieber and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic show (through their research) that twenty-five compounds used to repair damage from ischemic stroke in animals, like rats and cats, have failed when used on humans. Animals in the study were forced to have strokes, while humans who have strokes naturally had slow, irreparable damage to their arteries (Barnard 80).
Experiments carried out on animals cannot accurately predict the effect of treatments or drugs on humans, evidenced in 1985, when the antidepressant, nomifensine, was released to the public after minimal effects were found in the animals used. "[It] caused liver toxicity and anemia in humans--rare yet severe, and sometimes fatal, effects that forced the manufacturer to withdraw" (Barnard 81). Many other drugs released, like Milrinone, Filaluridine, and Zomepirac sodium, produced negative reactions in humans after being found "safe" in animal tests. Researchers cannot draw convincing and straight forward conclusions on new medicines for humans. Observations and test results on animals cannot be relied upon to be consistent with human genetics. "Animals react differently to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals not only from human beings but also from each other" (Why 1).
Of course, the debate does not end with scientific facts as to why vivisection is not the answer; the moral issues must also be taken into consideration. Animals feel pain; every syringe puncture, blow to the head, and scalpel incision is felt not only because vivisectors do not use anesthesia, but because they are living creatures that feel. Animals have a right to live in their natural environment without human disruption. Humans should not take animals from their natural habitats and force them to endure tests and procedures that their human counterparts would liken to concentration camp torture. Monkeys, cats, and rabbits do not have cannot verbally articulate their pain and fear, but they do share a commonality with humans; they come from families, mothers, and an environment intended to support them. Vivisection has become nothing more than an excuse to abuse and exploit animals.
Vivisection is not a needed procedure to test human theory, products, or new medicines. While new products and medicines to be introduced into the consumer market are required by law to be tested for toxicity, this prerequisite does not necessitate animal testing. There are a wide variety of alternatives used and being discovered today. For example, researchers have in vitro tests that can replace animals in the Draize and LD50 tests. Corrositex, which is approved by the FDA, can replace rabbits in tests that determine corrosiveness of chemicals. Eytex, used by Avon and Estee Lauder, replaces the use of the Draize test. "A vegetable protein from the jack been mimics the cornea's reaction when exposed to foreign matter. The greater the irritation, the more opaque the solution becomes" (Peta 1). Skintex is also a form of in vitro and is made from the rind of a pumpkin. This "skin" reacts the same as human skin when introduced to chemicals and toxins. "In vitro studies [not animal studies] . . . allowed researchers it identify the AIDS virus and determine how it causes disease. Investigators also used in vitro studies to assess the efficacy and safety for important new AIDS drugs such as AZT, 3TC" (Barnard 81).
Computer models are a new way of eliminating animal testing. TOPKAT is a software program, by Health Designs, Inc., that takes the chemical and physical properties of the questioned substance and makes predictions of toxicity and danger to humans. "It is intended to be used as a personal tool by toxicologists, pharmacologists, synthetic and medical chemists, regulators and industrial hygienists" (Alternatives 3). Researchers who use the alternate computer methods of testing show that there are acceptable ways: even the U.S. military uses the TOPKAT. If the U. S. military successfully uses the program, this type of research should be encouraged and enforced by laws.
Clinical trials also provides a viable alternative to vivisection. These trials use human cases, reports, analyses, and autopsy findings to aide in the new treatments and drugs. Testing on willing humans is acceptable and has been conducted for many years; the results found in human subjects do not need to be questioned, as is the case in animal studies. These studies help in the studying of smoking, high blood pressure, and stress. Clearly, it is better to test with humans than animals. More precise and detailed information can be obtained from someone who can speak his/her concerns about the trials and effects of the tests. These types of trials are also very much needed for, and wanted by, the ill people who cannot wait years for the results of a test conducted on a monkey. For people with quick-spreading and deadly diseases, "[i]t's only a matter of time before treatments begin to work. We find it difficult to envision [the future] with out animal experiments" (Botting 85) is not an acceptable case for vivisection.
It is estimated, by PETA, that 70 million animals are "put to the test" for human needs; other countries do the same tests and use even more animals annually: "[w]e've learned about all we can from these animals. The data will be stored in cardboard boxes, and no one is going to give a damn" (Lawler 175). The errors of vivisection have caused death not only to animals, but humans as well. To protect the lives of animals and humans, the alternatives, which have already proved more reliable, must be used. Grant money is better invested in improving and developing new, humane ideas and technology that matches the era. It is time to drastically cut back the use of vivisection and start using our human, and supposedly "superior" brains to solve problems, rather than selfishly insisting upon inflicting our arrogance upon other species.
Barnard, D. Neal, and Kaufmaan, R. Stephen. "Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading." Scientific America. Feb. 1997: 80--82.
Botting, H Jack, and Morrison,R. Adrian. "Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine." Scientific America. Feb. 1997: 83--85.
"Colgate Exposed." PETA Animal Times. Summer. 1997: 8--9.
Fox, Allen Michael. The Case for Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and
Ethical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Lawler, Andrew. "Pane; Backs Joint Bion Mission." Science. 12 July 1996: 175.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1990. Ed. New York: Random House Inc., 1975.
"Why Animal Experimentation Is A Medical and Scientific Fraud." http://home.earthlink.net/~supress/fraud.html: 2 Online. Internet. 2 Dec. 1997.
Williams, Jeanne. Animal Rights and Welfare. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1991.
©1997, 1998, & 1999Strings10D@aol.com