Can Humanity Co-Exist With Vivisection?

In the mid-1900's, Pastor Martin Niemoller spoke these words:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me —
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

Originally spoken in reaction to the Holocaust, these words continue to make an impact on anyone who reads them. During World War II, spoken and written words convinced millions of people that Jews, Blacks, Handicapped, and Gypsies were inferior. As a result, a eugenics movement broke out to cleanse the human race of these people, and experiments were conducted on these people that often resulted in pain and suffering. During the last 50 years, however, social views have changed, and people who were once praised for their statements and experiments against those once considered genetically inferior are now shunned throughout society.

Today, vivisection, or "the act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research" (1) is performed on anywhere from 20-80 million animals annually (the actual number is difficult to estimate, as the Animal Welfare Act does not include all of the animals that are tested on) (2). Animal experimentation is very flawed, and to even attempt to apply findings from animal testing to humans is foolish. Despite the fact that history shows that the majority of the results extracted from animal testing cannot accurately be extrapolated to human beings, animal testing occurs on a broad scale. Many things that we already know (such as cigarette smoke causes cancer, drinking while pregnant causes FAS, etc.) are still being tested and evaluated in the labs today, with inconsistent results. Many humans get sick and die every year from taking medications that have only been tested on animals, because the reactions the animals exhibit do not accurately portray how a human will react to the medication. And who acts as the benefactors for these animal experiments? Surprisingly, money is coming from everywhere to support animal testing. Grants, big businesses (Proctor and Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever), and charities (March of Dimes, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association) spend millions of dollars to fund and conduct animal experimentation. People who use this funding for vivisection are located in research labs everywhere, including Universities (UC Riverside, Columbia, Tulane) and even the Military.

The following is a video on PETA's website that provides a basic overview of vivisection:http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=animal_testing

Any new drug is legally required to undergo animal tests before receiving approval by the FDA to be released on the market. Many researchers claim that animal testing is a necessary method to study and understand the effects that drugs have on people. On the flip side, however, are those who believe that vivisection is cruel, inhumane, inconsistent, and inapplicable to humans. Within the last 100 years, multiple drugs have been released onto the market after undergoing what appeared to be successful animal tests, only to induce dangerous and sometimes fatal side effects in humans. So we already know that attempting to apply drug tests on animals to humans is not only ineffective, but dangerous; yet we continue to conduct these experiments and put the lives of humans and the animals in jeopardy. It is such a disgrace, as there are many available alternatives to vivisection that supply results that are more accurate and beneficial to human beings than animal testing.

Richard D. Ryder, a noted British psychologist and author who has had first-hand involvement with vivisection, has stated, "I do not believe that any of the suffering I have caused to laboratory animals has helped humanity in the slightest." A lot of research has been conducted on animals in the hopes of finding a cure for something such as cancer or multiplesclerosis. Other research has been conducted merely to study behavior. Other research is performed to study the effects of a products or chemicals on an animal's skin, eyes, organs, or entire body. The results of all of these tests, however, are ill-conceived and unreliable. And many symptoms, such as nausea and fatigue, cannot be recorded even if they are present because of the animal's inability to express those symptoms.

It is important to understand and be aware of the "crucial genetic, molecular, and cellular differences between humans and other animals" (3) to understand why vivisection is, at its very core, a complete waste of time, resources, and life. A writing on the scientific differences between humans and animals could potentially fill volumes of books, so instead of tackling the topic directly, I hope to present these differences through the following examples of animal experiments that, upon applying the results to humans, had astounding consequences that could not be, and were not, predicted through animal testing.

The polio virus caused hundreds of thousands of human deaths up until the 1960's, when a vaccine was finally discovered and the number of people catching the virus decreased almost entirely. During the quest to find a cure for polio, many experiments were conducted on monkeys. These experiments, however, actually delayed the discovery of the polio vaccine. Even Dr. Albert Sabin, an inventor of the polio vaccine, stood up in front of Congress and declared that animal experiments hindered the invention of the polio vaccine. The studies conducted on monkeys showed that the polio virus is transmitted via the respiratory system. This is true of monkeys, but for humans, the virus is transmitted through the digestive system. The misconception for how the virus spreads "resulted in misdirected preventative measures and delayed the development of tissue culture methodologies critical to the discovery of a vaccine" (3).

Animals have been used for HIV/AIDS research since its "discovery" in the late 1970's/early 1980's. Despite the fact that many animals who have undergone testing have been able to contract the HIV virus, none have exhibited symptoms similar to those that occur in humans. Other examples of misleading vivisection results include the following:

Acetaminophen has shown to be poisonous to cats but beneficial to humans; penicillin is toxic in guinea pigs but is an anti-biotic for humans; morphine causes hyper-excitement in cats, but is calming for humans (4). Fialuridine was proven safe in animal tests, but caused liver failure in 50% of humans who took the drug; the diet drugs fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine cause heart valve problems in humans that were not discovered in animal tests. Vioxx, a drug that has become notorious for its fatal side effects in humans, was a commonly prescribed painkiller for arthritis that was released onto the market after animal tests revealed it to be a safe drug. A director at the FDA even said that Vioxx has become "the single greatest drug safety catastrophe in the history of this country or the history of the world" (3), and adverse drug reactions is a leading cause of death in the United States.

The scope of vivisection is so extensive that it is overwhelming. Drug tests are only the tip of the iceberg. Animals are also tested on for basic research. The March of Dimes, a charity that seeks to prevent birth defects, has come under a lot of heat from animal activists for its funding of animal research. Under funding from the March of Dimes, newborn kittens have had their eyes sewn shut for up to a year or have had chemicals injected into their brains to blind them despite the fact that optical development between cats and humans is fundamentally different (5). These experiments have been conducted to study the effects of sight deprivation, even though the effects of sight deprivation are already known. The MOD has also funded experiments to study the effects of nicotine/alcohol on babies and fetuses, even though we already know enough and have ample evidence to the effects of said drugs on developing fetuses. The American Heart Association has conducted experiments during which the heart vessels of dogs were dissected while they were still alive, and Boys Town National Research Hospital has starved cats, cemented metal devices to their skulls, and severed nerves in their brains, all done to research a cure for deafness (6).

PETA has a video from an undercover investigation at Boys Town, and this video is of some of the kittens that were experimented on:http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=boys-town-inv



For a list of charities that do and do not fund vivisection, click here: http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_charities.asp

Toxicity tests are widely criticized, but also widely used. Toxicity tests are used to establish the lethal dose of something. The infamous LD50 test subjects animals to a certain substance until 50% of the animals are dead. There are also sensitivity/irritancy tests to determine the effects of a certain substance on the skin or eyes. A review of animal tests of nearly 1400 different substances was completed, and the review found that, "of those substances known to cause birth defects in humans, animal tests indicated that almost half were safe" (3).

Why is testing on animals considered acceptable? What are the ethical arguments in favor of vivisection? Some advocates for vivisection claim that the practice is necessary because animals and humans are so alike, and that the results of animal experimentation can successfully be applied to human beings. As already explained above, in most situations, the results of animal experimentation cannot successfully be extrapolated to human beings. Even if that were not the case, however, this argument is still weak. It is not socially acceptable to experiment on human beings; if human beings and animals are so similar, why is it then acceptable to experiment on animals? If other animals are so similar to human beings, then they must also experience the same physiological reactions as human beings, such as pain, fear, companionship, love, hate, and a lot more. So the logical direction of this argument must lead in one of two directions: either it is okay to experiment on animals, and therefore it is okay to experiment on humans OR it is not okay to experiment on humans, and therefore it is not okay to experiment on animals. Those in favor of vivisection because of the similarities between animals and human beings are presenting a flawed argument, and must somehow reconcile the obvious problem that it presents.

The other side of the argument is that animals are not like human beings, and are innately inferior to humans. But if animals are not like human beings, why are they considered good test subjects? If there are inherent stark differences between human beings and other animals, how can we assume that anything tested on animals will have the same effects in humans? And assuming that it is ethically acceptable to test on animals because they are inferior is misguided and dangerous. Only recently in history have we discontinued experimenting on blacks and Jews, which began based on a belief that these groups were inherently inferior. This type of belief has led to eugenics movements, such as the holocaust, and it led to the words spoken by Pastor Martin Niemoller, reproduced at the top of this article. Numbing oneself to the inhumanity committed against animals today, and once committed against human beings, is dangerous and cannot have a positive outcome. Even Mahatma Gandhi recognized that inferiority is no excuse for inhumanity: "To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being...I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man." Advocates who find vivisection acceptable because of reasons of status are walking a dangerous line that attempts to destroy humanity and create ears that are deaf to the cries of agony emitted by animals undergoing testing. Today, we look back in horror at the experiments done on human beings. We can only hope that someday, society looks upon animal experimentation as it now does upon human experimentation. George Bernard Shaw makes a very strong statement about experimentation on living creatures: Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.

The effects of vivisection on the actual researchers have not gone unnoticed. The immorality of the actions gets pushed under the carpet, never openly recognized by those involved. Voicing ethical concerns is not an acceptable practice. Even in their writing, it is clear that the researchers are avoiding moral issues; instead of "killing" animals, they are "sacrificing" them, and instead of observing pain or suffering, they observe "distress." One study, published in the British Medical Journal, found that Canadian neurologists who had spent a year of their training experimenting on animals were so impacted by the ethical numbness that they were initially incapable of recognizing suffering in their human patients after returning to clinical work (7).

How many animals would you sacrifice to suffering and death for research? How many of these animals are worth the lotion you use? What about your hairspray? How much money would you pay to fund this research? These questions may sound silly, but the millions of dollars that are spent on vivisection every year come from your pocket. As a tax payer, you are funding animal testing. Many researchers and test centers receive billions of dollars in grants annually (3). Consumers who purchase products from companies that sponsor vivisection are indirectly funding it, and donations that are selflessly given to certain charities are forwarded to funding animal testing.

Companies that do/do not support vivisection:http://search.caringconsumer.com/

Vivisection is especially gruesome due to the fact that animals undergo experiments without necessary preparation, precaution, or post-op treatment. Many animals undergo experiments without any anesthesia. They are kept in painful conditions and positions until the condition kills them or until the researcher kills them. They are immobilized, and many animals are given substances for a certain amount of time, then killed so that their organs and insides can be examined. The Environmental Protection Agency requires that pesticides be tested on dogs, so dogs are forced into inhalation chambers where they breathe in poisonous gas to see the effects (8). The military uses animals to test chemicals and weapons, and even animal-food producers, such as Iams and Menu Foods, contract with facilities that perform animal testing. These animals rarely receive pain killers or any post-operative treatment, even if their skulls are cut open and their brains are left exposed.

This Dog was Gassed in a Terrorist Experiment

One of the biggest reasons vivisection is such an unfortunate undertaking is because there are so many other options out there. Epidemiology, or human population studies, have proven to be very productive in examining and identifying health risks, thereby increasing knowledge about preventative measures. Epidemiology has even been taken to the molecular level, where researchers can study what causes damage to DNA, and learn prevention and treatment approaches for issues such as cancer and birth defects (3). Patient studies are important and helpful as well, and because of modern technology, it is possible to evaluate ongoing effects via imaging devices and biopsies in living human beings. One source claims that a small skin biopsy could have predicted the risks of Vioxx that animal tests did not, and that consequently killed thousands of human beings (3). Additionally, there are in vitro human tissue tests that have proven to be extremely helpful, with results that can be directly applied to human beings successfully. Computer modeling and human microdosing are two other techniques that have also shown increased success and safety. All of the options listed above are significantly safer for people, the results are more accurate, and the animal death toll is nearly zero.

Vivisection is a practice that has been able to continue for a number of reasons. First of all, the question of morality does not come up among the researchers. If the ones engaged in the act are incapable of recognizing the inherent problems with their work, vivisection will never end. Vivisection is very lucrative for those involved, and the results of animal experiments can be very easily published. Researchers do not need to discover anything new or novel; instead, "the many species available and the nearly infinite possible manipulations offer researchers the opportunitity to "prove" almost any theory that serves their economic, professional, or political needs" (3). One example is that researchers have "proved" that cigarettes do and do not cause cancer, depending on the animal, species, situation, amount, or any other variable involved (or, as one source states, "depending on the funding source") (3). Additionally, having the studies as evidence protects companies that are involved in lawsuits for adverse drug/chemical reactions, as these experiments provide legal protection for those companies, who assert that everything was done that could have been done to protect the consumer.

Additionally, legal protections for animals involved in testing are minimal at best. The Animal Welfare Act is meant to protect these animals, but it really does nothing. Recently, Columbia University was fined a mere $2000 for using cruel killing methods on puppies. The following video is footage taken from Columbia University, showing the treatment that primates are forced to suffer:http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=columbia_primates

The "academic" journal, Lab Animal, is published every month, and is filled with peer-reviewed articles about any type of animal test. Though you have to pay to read the articles (which I will not do), you can view the titles for free! Here are some of the titles that fill the pages of this journal:
- Ovariohysterectomy in Ferrets
- Surgical management of canine aural hematoma
- Tissues from privately owned dogs
- Effect of intravenous ketamine and lidocaine on isoflurane requirement in sheep undergoing orthopedic surgery
- Solitary foot mass on a Sprague-Dawley rat
- Corrigendum: Refining timed pregnancies in two strains of genetically engineered mice
- A jugular bleeding technique in rabbits
- Intraperitoneal catheter placement for pharmacological imaging studies in conscious mice
- Helping injured rats regain movement
- Nasogastric tube placement in the rabbit
These are only some of the titles that lie within the binding of the Lab Animal Journal for 2010. In all fairness, I have not read these articles, and I am completely unaware of the methods utilized, but how do you think those rats lost movement in the first place? Do you think the sheep actually needed orthopedic surgery? How did the dogs get aural hematomas that required surgery? Why is it necessary to be able to insert a catheter into a conscious mouse?
This is the website for the Journal: http://www.labanimal.com/laban/index.html

Pastor Martin's words are important even in this situation, especially in this situation, because animals cannot speak out at all. And in order to preserve humanity, it is important to speak up and take action when inhumane activities are taking place. Otherwise, the inhumanity will continue and grow until those who are inactive become the victims of inhumanity themselves.

The most difficult thing about vivisection is that it is so expansive, and it is ingrained in so many institutions, that it is an overwhelming issue to tackle. This article alone could be infinitely longer. I'm eager to hear people's thoughts on the issue!

I believe that photos are very important for really understanding an issue, particularly when it comes to vivisection. The pictures allow the reader to the see the scope of vivisection; it does not discriminate between animals or types of experiments. I have left the worst photos off of this site, but for more photos, you can visit:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/gallery/cosmetic.html
Click for Additional Photos

The Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine is a big advocate for humane and non-animal research. PCRM has created a video in response to vivisection funded by the March of Dimes that is available on YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvKjEnjeltY&eurl

Actor James Cromwell narrates this video on PETA's website about the horrors of vivisection: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=test_of_civ&Player=wm

It is important not only to avoid literally buying into those who fund vivisection, but to also support those who do not. I've already posted a website that has a list of companies that do and do not fund vivisection, but here is a condensed version of well-known companies that do not fund vivisection:
- Almay
- Aveda
- Avon
- Bare Escentuals
- Bath and Body Works
- Botanics Skin Care
- Bobbi Brown (Make-Up)
- Burt's Bees
- Calvin Klein Cosmetics
- California Tan
- Coca Cola Company
- Color Me Beautiful
- Conair
- Crown Royale
- Dermalogica
- Earthlight Organics
- Earth Science
- Earth Solutions
- EczemX
- e.l.f. Cosmetics
- Essential Oil Company
- Estee Lauder
- Fair and Flawless
- Head Organics
- Hello Kitty
- Hard Candy
- Hannah Montana
- H2O Plus
- IT Cosmetics
- Jamba Juice
- Kate Spade Beauty
- Liz Claiborne Cosmetics
- L'Occitane
- MAC Cosmetics
- Mary Kay
- Naked Juice
- Nordstrom Cosmetics
- Ocean Spray
- PepsiCo
- Pet Guard
- POM Wonderful
- Revlon
- Safeway
- Steel Skin Care for Men
- Tommy Hilfiger
- Trader Joe's
- Urban Decay
- Whole Foods 365
Be Careful not to confuse the stores with the products they sell. For instance, Safeway is on this list - that means that the items that are the Safeway Brand are safe - all of those Neutrogena products that line the shelves, for example, are not.

The following links to PETA's "shopping guide to compassionate clothing:"http://www.peta.org/living/clothingguide.asp

Links have been placed within the article listing charities and business that do and do not fund vivisection. Before donating to a charity, make sure it does not fund vivisection. For any charity that does, there is another charity out there that is serving the same cause that does not fund vivisection. For example, the City of Hope, an AIDS charity, does fund vivisection, but the AIDS Emergency Fund, the Children's Circle, and many others do not. The American Heart Association does, but the American Pediatric Heart Fund and the Lown Cardiovascular Research charities do not.

As difficult as it may be, try to avoid companies that fund animal testing, such as Proctor and Gamble and Listerine.

Educate others about the practices that Universities commit against animals. According to PETA, these are the top 10 worst school laboratories:
-University of Wisconsin-Madison
-Emory University
-UC San Francisco
-UC Davis
-Tulane University
-Harvard University
-Johns Hopkins University
-Oregon Health and Science University
-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
-Columbia University
The following link supplies more information about these particular schools, as well as other Universities that test on animals:http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs.asp

Sign PETA's pledge to become a caring consumer and to discontinue supporting companies that fund vivisection:https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2061

Send an Email to Congress requesting that they ban the use of live animals for testing in the military!https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1710

For more videos:http://www.petatv.com/viv.html

---------------------------

------------------------------

Additional Sources:
- http://www.navs.org/
- http://www.nzavs.org.nz/
- http://www.neavs.org/
- http://www.mercyforanimals.org/vivisection.asp
- http://www.irishantivivisection.org/

Citations:
1. http://www.dictionary.com/
2. http://www.impactpress.com/articles/augsep00/editorial8900.html
3. Anderegg et al., A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation. 2006. Medical Research Modernization Committee. http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf
4. http://www.aavs.org/
5. http://www.caringconsumer.com/charities_donations.asp
6. http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=81
7. http://www.mrmcmed.org/crit3.html
8. http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-gov.asp