Vivisection is a term that can be broadly used to describe any kind of invasive technique used in the process of experimentation on live animals for the purposes of biomedical research such as in the development of new vaccines, testing of consumer products like household cleaning products and industrial chemicals, and for educational purposes.
The literal Latin translation of vivisection means “live cutting”, but the term can also encompass procedures such as infecting an animal with a virus or disease, injection, forced ingestion of harmful substances, gassing, burning, or blinding.
Brief History of Vivisection
The earliest recorded cases of vivisection date back to around 500 B.C. when one of the earliest known vivisectionists, Akmaeon of Croton, discovered the optic nerve’s role in vision by cutting it in live animals. Galen of Pergamon, physician to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius also pioneered live animal vivisection in order to better understand health and disease in the human body.
Present Facts and Figures about Vivisection
According to the US organisation In Defense of Animals (IDA) the number of animals used today in experimentation is estimated to be between 20-70 million each year, and this does not account for animals which are not required by federal laws to be reported such as rats, mice, and cold-blooded animals.
- IDA state that approximately 28 million warm-blooded vertebrate animals are tested on each year for scientific purposes in the US alone.
- About 18 million of these are killed for research.
- In England that figure stands at approximately 2.51 million, 1.66 million in Canada, and 0.73 million in the Netherlands.
In the US, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), passed in 1966 with its most recent amendment in 1985, is the main law covering laboratory animals. It regulates how an animal is to be treated leading up to and after experimentation however does not place limits on what can be done to an animal during the process. It requires that laboratories account for the number of animals such as cats, dogs, primates, hamsters, guinea pigs, and rabbits used in scientific studies but does not protect mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals which make up between 85 - 90% of animals used in testing procedures and are bred by laboratories with the specific intent of scientific research.
Ethical Issues Surrounding Vivisection
The practice of live animal vivisection poses several ethical concerns. Many consider it to be cruel to inflict pain and harm on an otherwise healthy animal. Edmund O’Meara was an Irish physiologist living from the mid to late 1600s and was one of the leaders of the anti-vivisectionist movement. His main critique of the practice was that the pain suffered by the animal as it was cut into would interfere with and skew experiment results and that putting an animal into an unnatural state through such treatment would prove to be misleading about the functioning of a healthy animal.
Some religious groups, spiritual, and humanistic traditions believe that tolerating the infliction of harm on living creatures can only have damaging implications for the human psyche and spirit and perpetuate a kind of psychological callousness. But many scientists and pro-vivisectionists believe that animals are an invaluable surrogate when understanding humans and that the benefits to humanity through breakthroughs in medicine and human health far outweigh the cost to animal lives.
Scientists in support of minimising animal testing such as those from the John Hopkins Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) believe that the problem with using animal models for human disease lies not only in their basic metabolic, anatomic, and cellular differences to people but that researchers often engage in incorrect statistical methods, arbitrary methodology, and failure to publish negative results. They also believe that humane science is a prerequisite for accuracy.
Alternatives to Vivisection
In today’s technologically advanced age those concerned with animal welfare consider the practice of live animal vivisection outdated and unnecessary and where possible see genuine alternatives. Group for the Education of Animal Related Issues (GEARI) names these alternatives to animal vivisection:
- Artificial or "Synthetic skin" called Corrositex which is grown in a laboratory to replicate human skin
- Computer modelling
- Improved statistical design
- The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) to evaluate skin sensitisation
Organisations opposed to the cruel experimentation on animals acknowledge that the total abolition of vivisection is at present unlikely and propose the 'three Rs' as a temporary approach to the dilemma:
1) Refinement: minimise suffering and distress
2) Reduction: minimise the number of animals used
3) Replacement: avoid the use of living animals
For more information on the background and alternatives to live animal vivisection see the websites for GEARI Geari.org and the John Hopkins University Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing. (Caat.jhsph.edu)
Other Sources:
Pro Test: Standing Up For Science Pro-test.org.uk Accessed 5 July 2010
The Truth About Vivisection Viviscetioninfo.org Accessed 5 July 2010
Vivisection - An Ancient History Science.jrank.org Accessed 5 July 2010
Join the Conversation