38 common questions authoritative answers : subject animal experimentation

Subject:

ANIMAL

T

Since the understanding of all life can come only through the observation of living things, animal experimentation is the foundation of modern medicine. Every major medical contri­ bution has been based upon research with animals and could not have been accomplished otherwise. If human disease is ever to be elim­ inated, it must be with the aid of animals.

Yet, there is a small, and in the main, fanat­ ical group of people who oppose medical research and seek to hinder its advance. Thev are able to prevent or handicap seriously th� passage of laws designed to further medical progress and benefit both man and animals by permitting that some of the unclaimed, unwanted animals normally wastefully destroyed in pounds and animal shelters be saved for medical use.

National opinion polls have established that 85 per cent of this medically conscious public favor the experimental use of animals. How then, can this minority group obstruct medical progress and defeat or jeopardize legislation that will protect and enhance the general well-being of the public?

By confusing and distorting the issue and through misinterpretation of facts.

Because these tactics have seriously impeded research and have cost medical institutions great financial loss, antivivisectionists cannot be lightly regarded. Their standard mis-statements appear over and over again, and follow a same general pattern.

This booklet has been published in the hope that its contents will shed greater light on the aims, objectives and benefits of animal experi­ mentation, and in the interests of sound-medical science and progress. Factual answers, any of which can be verified upon investigation, are herewith presented to these antivivisectionist arguments. The book has purposely not been copyrighted. Any part of it may be used freely so long as the meaning remains intact.

WHAT IS MEANT BY VIVISECTION?

Originally, the term "vivisection" referred only to surgery. Webster defines it as "the cut­ ting of, or operation upon a living animal for physiological or pathological investigation." The definition is misleading, since most experimental animals are used in drug tests or experiments which involve no dissecting of the living animal. Today the word "vivisection" is primarily a propaganda word applied to animal experimen­ tation by persons who are attempting to dis­ credit it.

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION?

The medical scientist studies the body func­ tions of living creatures; he studies their di­ seases; he studies the effects of various medical and dietary treatments. A typical experiment might involve giving a drug to an animal and observing the effect upon blood pressure, kidney function, etc.

WHO ARE THE SPONSORS OF

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION?

The governments of all but the most primitive countries support animal experimentation in the form of medical education, research and health measures, as well as research in veterinary medi­ cine and animal husbandry. Among the osten­ sible supporters and direct beneficiaries of "vivisection" are all persons who have ever taken aspirin or any other drug, because a drug is nothing more than a substance with a known effect within the living body-first tested upon experimental animals. This includes also all those who have donated blood, taken immunization shots or vaccines, permitted pets to be treated by a veterinarian; also the person who buys certified pure foods. Most of what is known about nutri­ tion and the prevention of food poisoning is the result of animal experimentation.

WHO ARE THE OPPONENTS OF

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION?

Collectively constituting about 8 per cent of the population, opponents are organized under a variety of titles. The antivivisectionists, who oppose any form of animal experimentation, are

the most active element in a group of anti­ medical science cults. Tbe anti-vaccinationists oppose immunization. The faith healers oppose natural efforts to protect health. The anti-dis­ sectionists oppose anatomical and pathological examinations. Some anti-science philosophers are also among the affiliates. Quack healers are included also, since they welcome any oppor­ tunity to strike back at sci�ntific medical men. Finally, there are the publicity seekers an:i pro­ fessional promoters who capitalize upon these groups. On the fringes are persons, poorly or mis-informed, who are misled by antivivisec­ tionist propaganda.

WHAT FAMOUS AUTHORITIES CHAMPION THE

ANTIVIVISECTION CAUSE?

The "authorities" quoted are, in the majority, long since dead. Leading names are Rousseau, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, George Arliss. Living "authorities" are generally past 80 years of age. A large number are actors, dancers, etc., whose scientific qualifications are indistinct. Signifi­ cantly, no antivivisectionist is a scientist making concrete contributions to human knowledge. Not a single national organization, except for the actual antivivisectionist societies and their temporary front groups, has ever taken a stand in opposition to animal experimentation. The American Humane Association and the principal animal breeders groups have specifically rejected such action.

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULTS OF

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION?

The life-saving results of animal experimenta­ tion fill thousands of volumes. Indeed, a great portion of all medical scientific literature is comprised of reports of the discoveries made through animal studies. From such studies have come practically all of our knowledge about the function of body organs, nutrition, drugs and surgery. Without experimental animals there would be no insulin, penicillin, blood trans­ fusions, heart surgery or anesthesia. Without test animals, we would know nothing about vita­ mins or hormones. Since 1900, discoveries largely based on animal experiments have in­ creased man's expected life span from 47 to 67 years in countries which apply modern medicine.

DO ANIMALS BENEFIT FROM ANIMAL

EXPERIMENTATION?

Although man has been the chief beneficiary, animals have also gained. The sciences of animal husbandry and veterinary medicine have, of course, been developed almost entirely through animal reseanh. The health of pets and livestock is as much dependent upon medical research as is the health uf human beings.

ARE THERE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ANIMAL

EXPERIMENTATION?

Attitudes on these questions are more likely to be determined by temperamental bias and accidental prejudice than by any clear vision of fundamental principles. If estimated in terms of results, animal experimentation has precisely the same kind of warrant as that which attaches to all great social enterprises. In each of these we are ready to sacrifice a lesser good for a greater one, and are willing to encounter a moderate evil in order to escape a greater peril. As the preservation and welfare of the human race is the objective of medical science, it is frequently at the expense of the lower animal kingdom. This basic biological law cannot be denied. All creatures live by it. None survive who do not follow it. Those who ignore it may go hungry or unclothed if they evade its con­ cepts. Scientific men are under direct obliga­ tions to society to experiment upon animals insofar as that is the alternative to random and possibly harmful experiments upon human beings, and insofar as animal experimentation is a means of saving human life and increasing human vigor and efficiency.

ARE ANIMALS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO MAN

TO MAKE ANIMAL RESEARCH APPLICABLE

TO HUMAN MEDICINE?

The similarities in the functions of all living bodies far exceed the differences. The similarity of body functions also makes veterinary and human medicine advance hand in hand. The use of several animal species for preliminary tests make it possible to predict quite accurately what will happen in the human animal.

IS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION OUTLAWED

BY ANY COUNTRY?

No. The only country that ever tried an anti­ vivisection law was Germany under Hitler. Buchenwald, Dachau and Auswitz, where po­ litical prisoners were arbitrarily used for animal experimentation, are monuments to the Hitler antivivisection ideal. It is a favorite claim of antivivisectionists that animal experimentation is outlawed in Great Britain. Actually, Great Britain specifically licenses animal studies. Late statistics establish that at least 1,700,000 experi­ ments on animals were performed in a year under British law.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER WAYS TO

CONQUER DISEASE EXCEPT BY

STUDIES WITH LIVING CREATURES?

The mechanism of the living body can be learned only by the study of living creatures. The diseases of living creatures can be under­ stood only by the study of diseased living crea­ tures. The only way to know whether any medical treatment is likely to be effective is on the basis of .its effects in actual tests. Medical scientists would eagerly abandon the use of animals if they could possibly do so. So far, the best scientific minds have been unable to devise a satisfactory substitute. Careful case histories are kept in hospitals but these cannot give all of the necessary insight for intelligent treatment of disease. Clinical observations provide only limited opportunity for the use of "controls" and other rigorous tests of scientific evidence.

IS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION PAINFUL?

Many experiments involve some degree of dis­ comfort just as do the things which happen to human beings in hospitals. Animals undergoing major surgery probably experience much the same after-distress as human beings do. How­ ever, it is essential to the accuracy of the study that the best clinical practices be employed, and every device known to medical science•is used to minimize pain and distress. The efficiency of the experiment generally demands that the animal should suffer as little as possible.

It is also in the interest of the scientist to treat his animals well and obtain their confidence. A cooperative animal will greatly facilitate his

work. A fearful, ill-tempered and uncooperative animal can be an expensive loss. It would also be shortsighted and wasteful to attempt im­ portant research work if proper standards of animal care were not maintained. Animal quar­ ters are usually on a par with the veterinary hospital. Standards are observed as to cage size, construction, cleanliness, diet, etc. Animals are carefully watched for signs of sickness, for one sick animal could infect the whole quarters with disastrous results. The total amount of suffering which animals in medical laboratories undergo is negligible with that which confronts most of them in a state of nature.

IS IT NECESSARY TO USE ANIMALS

IN CLASSROOM TEACHING?

One might as well ask whether it is necessary to use machines in training mechanics, musical instruments in training musicians, water in train­ ing swimmers. Experimental animals and human patients are the fundamental materials of medical teaching. The first practice steps of the doctor are made with the experimental animal. With animals, he learns the use of the syringe and scalpel, and with animals he gains a sound understanding of the mechanics of the living body. Only thus is he fit to treat a human patient. Other teaching aids, such as movies, models and dead bodies are extensively used, but none completely supplants the need to attain a first hand knowledge of the living body.

ARE THOSE WHO EXPERIMENT WITH ANIMALS

"TORTURERS" AND "SADISTIC"?

Because of the very nature of their profession -the alleviation of human suffering-persons en­ gaged in medical research are drawn to it by humanitarian instincts. When the surgeon re­ moves an appendix or gall bladder, he is not re­ garded as a cruel monster. Yet he had to be a "vivisector" in order to learn to perform the operation. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty-the wanton and needless infliction of suffering-is unquestionably wrong. The assumption that animal experimentation as conducted in medical laboratories is a form of cruelty, even when it involves some pain, or more commonly, death without pain, is not ethically justified.

ARE THOSE WHO EXPERIMENT WITH ANIMALS

EXEMPT FROM HUMANE LAWS?

Humane laws apply to all persons equally.

Where cruel acts are specifically defined 0r clearly understood by common opinion, no

serious problem arises in the fair and equitable administration of statutes relating to cruelty. Unfortunately, cruelty, like all abstract terms, is

l

subject to variable definitions. To antivivisec-tionists, all attempts to conquer pain and disease

through the study of living creatures is cruel without exception. They would attempt to

per-vert the function of humane laws in order to outlaw medical research entirely. For this

rea-son, a clause which specifies "nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent properly conducted experiments" has been inserted in the humane

laws of many states. Medical experimenters guilty of acts of outright cruelty recognized as

such in the law and in the minds of an impartial jury are subject to the full penalty of the law.

ARE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS NONSENSICAL,

UNNECESSARY, IMPRACTICAL AND

WITHOUT HONEST PURPOSE?

Some experiments are more fruitful than others, but even the discovery of what does not work is a step toward the ultimate answer. The discovery of insulin, for example, was pre­ ceded by years of work by hundreds of scientists on thousands of animals. All of these studies produced discoveries which led to final solution of the problem. Unfortunately, the person with­ out scientific training often appreciates only the final step and condemns as nonsensical and use­ less the groping first efforts upon which the final discovery must be based. Scientists are no more inclined to waste their time and avoid the glory of achievement than anyone else. There­ fore, they work to get results.

WHAT ANIMALS ARE USED FOR

RESEARCH PURPOSES?

Animals from microscopic protozoa to cattle are used in medical research. Most frequently used are mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, hamsters, cats, goats, sheep, pigs and monkeys. Each animal has special qualifications depending on the type of study being made.

l

_I

ARE ANESTHETICS USED IN ANIMAL

EXPERIMENTATION?

Anesthetics are used whenever possible and in almost every instance in which there might be discomfort. Since it would be virtually impos­ sible to operate on an unanesthetized animal, anesthetics are always used in the small per­ centage of animal experiments calling for sur­ gery, or other potentially painful procedures. Nutritional studies require no anesthetics. Anes­ thetic before the injection of a drug is useless. The injection of the anesthetic would cause the same amount of discomfort as the injection of the drug. In the 19th century most operations on animals-and on man as well-were done without anesthetics. Anesthesia, which was first developed on animals, was not known until 1846.

FOR WHAT EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES

ARE ANIMALS USED?

1. The acquisition of basic knowledge about body mechanics

2. The development of new remedies or pre­

ventives of disease

3. The teaching and perfecting of knowledge and skills, especially in surgery

4. The routine testing of medicines required by law

5. Diagnostic tests

CAN THE DOG BE OMITTED AS AN

EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL?

No. In certain types of research, the dog is indispensable. Its anatomy and physiology very closely resemble that of man. The organs of smaller animals are usually too small for teaching or training in surgical skills. The dog suffers from a number of the same diseases as man. In pregnancy and shock, the dog reacts very much as man does. Chimpanzees and apes can replace dogs in some cases, but they are very expensive and difficult to raise. They are vege­ tarians and their digestive processes are not so similar to man as tl,iat of the dog. Furthermore, not enough physical-medical facts have been compiled on these animals and research would proceed more slowly.

ARE ANIMALS ESSENTIAL FOR THE

TESTING OF DRUGS?

The only way that the effect of a drug can be determined is by actual trial. Animals are used for preliminary trials of all drugs. New drugs are not used on human volunteers until tests on a number of different species of animals have made their safety almost certain. Even after a drug has been approved for general use it is often necessary chat each batch be standardized by further tests on animals. Insulin, for example, must be tested on rabbits before it can be sold. A large percentage of the drugs in current use are required by federal law to be tested upon animals. When a chemical or physical test of a drug is developed which correlates exactly with its physiological effect, animal tests are no longer necessary. Scientists work constantly to eliminate routine animal experiments by substi• tuting simpler and more economical chemical assays whenever possible.

IS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION CARRIED

ON BEHIND LOCKED DOORS?

Medical laboratories are no more barred to the public than the average office, factory, hospital or school. Obviously, an operating or sick room cannot have a procession of assorted curiosity seekers tramping through it. However, every institution is anxious to have the public under­ stand its work. Public support is based on public understanding. Most institutions depend on the public for the greater part of their financial undergirding.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ANTIVIVISECTIONISTS

TO PUBLISH THEIR EXTREME AND FALSE

CHARGES AGAINST MEDICAL SCIENTISTS?

Nearly everyone mistakenly assumes that there is some legal protection for the public against extremely false propaganda or lying allegations. The fact is that the public, as such, has virtually no protection against falsehoods. The perjury statutes relate to deliberate lying under oath; the libel laws, even those provided in the criminal statutes, all relate to cases in which it can be demonstrated that a particular individual has suffered concrete damage due to slander or libel. Scientists have found it difficult to avail them­ selves of this protection for two reasons: 1.

I·

vivisectionist charges usually are not directed against particular individuals, hence no individ­ ual has a case and it is not possible, in most instances, to sue on behalf of an entire profes­ sion under a concept of group libel. 2. Where charges are directed at an individual, the legal defense can usually be made that the scientists were done no demonstrable harm, since the in­ stitutions who pay them are not influenced by the doubtful sources from which the charges come and the false propaganda cannot harm the sci­ entists among thinking people.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO TELL THE

ANTIVIVISECTIONIST GROUPS FROM THE

GENUINE HUMANE SOCIETIES?

The genuine humane societies are concerned with the positive advancement of animal welfare such as humane education, the rescue of animals in distress, the prevention of wanton cruelty to animals. Fraudulent groups are horror mongers. Usually there is a striking difference in the busi­ ness operations of the two types of groups. A genuine humane society publishes financial re­ ports, holds open meetings and devotes its resources to giving concrete help to animals. The antivivisection groups are usually surrep­ titiously operated by slick promoters, make no public accounting and spend their money for propaganda. There are more than 100 antivivi­ section groups in the United States, including three national societies.

WHERE ARE ANIMALS OBTAINED

FOR RESEARCH USE?

Most animals used in experiments are either raised by the research institutions themselves or are purchased from dealers. However, in the case of dogs and cats, many are obtained from public pounds which make available unclaimed animals that otherwise would have to be killed. Such arrangements are in effect in 31 cities and are prescribed by state law in six states. Dogs and cats are, of course, specially raised for cer­ tain research projects in which it is essential to have an exact hereditary background, but the cost of the specially raised animal (about $125.00 apiece) is prohibitive for general use.

ARE DOGS STOLEN FOR LABORATORY USE?

Probably in some cases, yes, because in those localities which do not provide for the use of unwanted animals from public pounds, dealers buy dogs where they can. Despite affidavits of ownership, there is evidence that individuals sometimes sell dogs that do not belong to them. Pet dogs are not needed or wanted by medical schools and no animal known to be stolen will be accepted by any reputable laboratory.

DO MEDICAL STUDENTS ENGAGE IN

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION?

Research work with animals is performed by students only under direct supervision of a senior faculty member. Only the exceptional pre-doctoral student is selected for this type of training. Students do not have free access to animals or animal quarters.

CAN HORMONES AND VACCINES BE

PRODUCED WITHOUT ANIMALS?

Ultimately it might be possible to produce all animal products synthetically, but until each life­ saving product such as insulin can be duplicated synthetically, the lives of millions of people depend upon animal extracts.

WHAT IS MEANT BY POUND LEGISLATION?

animals which would otherwise be killed in public pounds in accordance with local laws. Such legislation is sponsored by medical groups or groups in sympathy with medical progress. The specific provisions of such measures are naturally determined by local conditions, but their main purpose and intent is to save doomed pound animals for service in medical studies.

DOES LEGISLATION TO SAVE UNWANTED

POUND ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH REQUIRE

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW POUNDS?

No. The only concern of such legislation i� to give unclaimed animals held in already estab­ lished pounds a reprieve from the death chamber so that they can serve as experimental subjects.

DOES POUND LEGISLATION MAKE THE

ST A TE TURN "DOGNAPPER"?

The legislation has nothing to do whatever with provisions for the picking up of stray animals. The state already provides for the establishment of pounds and for the condemna­ tion of animals to death. The legislation ap­ plies to these condemned animals only, and reprieves them for medical service.

DO ANIMAL WELFARE GROUPS MENACE

THE SAFETY OF PETS?

Some animal welfare groups are actually greater menaces to the safety of pets than those they malign. By picking up stray, unlicensed dogs on streets, they assume the right and inter­ fere with the responsibility of the municipality to provide a central clearing place for the loca­ tion of lost pets, and the protection to tax-paying owners that such a clearing agency provides.

DOES POUND LEGISLATION IMPOSE

EXTRA BURDENS ON TAX PAYERS?

On the contrary, the use of otherwise uselessly slaughtered animals decreases costs to the public by direct savings of state university, government research grant and public research funds.

HOW DOES POUND LEGISLATION

AFFECT HUMANE SOCIETIES?

It affects genuine humane work only favor­ ably. Humane societies are still operating suc­ cessfully in the states and cities that have pound laws in effect. There is certainly no conflict between preventing suffering due to disease and preventing suffering due to neglect or cruelty. Pound laws to expedite medical progress are a humanitarian measure.

DOES POUND LEGISLATION FORCE AN ANIMAL

WELFARE AGENCY TO VIOLATE ITS CHARTER?

It is doubtful if the charter of any humane society forces the society to kill animals rather than to save them for life-giving humanitarian purpo�e�.

DOES POUND LEGISLATION VIOLATE

PROPERTY RIGHTS?

Such arguments have no basis in Jaw and are in reality carefully fostered "legal myths." The powers of the states and municipalities to enact Jaws providing for the orderly sequestering of stray animals as a protection to the public until the owners identify themselves, or for their disposal, are well established. Since a state or municipality is rightfully able to order the im­ pounding, and, if necessary, the destruction of stray animals, it is equally empowered to reserve such animals, as might otherwise be destroyed, for medical use. All courts which have faced this issue have confirmed this point.

HAS ANY LEGISLATION EVER BEEN PROPOSED

TO SEIZE PETS FOR EXPERIMENTAL USE?

Never. The only proposal ever made is that doomed pound animals which nobody wants be saved for service in medical research and teach­ ing. If a pet owner wants his animal killed at the pound, he may so dictate. However, home­ less strays normally killed by the tens of thou­ sands in pounds and animal shelters, are allow­ ed under these laws to live at least for awhile in the service of humanity. "Pet Seizure Bill" is a deliberately misleading label applied by anti­ vivisectionists to stir up public antagonism to such legislation.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF

POUND LEGISLATION?

Pound legislation is protective legislation be­ cause

it:-1. Expedites medical research and teaching 2. Protects pets and pet owners by eliminating

hazardous situations in so far as the pro­ curement of animals is concerned

3. Insures humane care of laboraiory animals by providing that only inspected and certified laboratories are eligible to secure animals

from a pound

4. Conserves public funds which must other­ wise be spent on the purchase of animals

Published in.Jhe interest of public enlightenment by the

NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH

208 NORTH WELLS STREET CHICAGO. 6, 11,LINOIS