| Animal Experimentation |
Article Index for Animal |
Website Links For Animal |
Information AboutAnimal Experimentation |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING | |
| animal testing | |
| animal rights | |
| biology | |
| medical research | |
| physiology | |
| research | |
| science | |
| testsanimal testing | |
| animal rights | |
| biology | |
| medical research | |
| physiology | |
| research | |
| science | |
| tests | |
| bioethics | |
| animal welfare | |
| animal rights | |
|
before insertion into the Animal testing or '''animal research''' refers to the use of animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million to Non-human Primates — are used annually and either killed during the experiments or subsequently Euthanized . Although much larger numbers of Invertebrate s are used, these experiments are largely unregulated in law and not included in yearly statistics. The research is carried out inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense-research establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. "Introduction" , Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament. The vast majority of laboratory animals are bred for research purposes, while a small number are caught in the wild or supplied by pounds. "Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research", Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, The National Academies Press, 1988. Also see Cooper, Sylvia. "Pets crowd animal shelter" , ''The Augusta Chronicle'', August 1, 1999. The (mice), Organ Transplant (dogs), and work on Poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). "Nobel Prizes The Payoff from Animal Research" , Foundation for Biomedical Research. "Benefits of animal research" , AALAS "Survey of Nobel Prize winners" , SIMR The topic is controversial. Opponents argue that animal testing is unnecessary, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation. "FAQ insulin" , Americans for Medical Advancement "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs" , People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. HISTORY See Also: History of animal testing ’s dogs with a Saliva-catch container and tube surgically implanted in his muzzle. Pavlov Museum, 2005]] , from 1768, by Joseph Wright.]] The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the second and fourth centuries BC. Aristotle (Αριστοτέλης) (384-322 BC) and Erasistratus (304-258 BC) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals (Cohen and Loew 1984). Galen, a physician in second-century Rome , dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of Vivisection ." "History of nonhuman animal research" , Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group. Animals have played a role in numerous well-known experiments. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by giving Anthrax to sheep. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe Classical Conditioning . Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of Diabetes . On November 3 , 1957 a Russian Dog , Laika , became the first of many Animals To Orbit The Earth . In the 1970s, Leprosy multi-drug antibiotic treatments were developed first in armadillos, then in humans. In 1996 Dolly The Sheep was born, the first mammal to be Cloned from an adult cell. REGULATION Europe Experiments on vertebrate animals in the . Animal experimentation legislations in Germany , EBRA. Retrieved February 8, 2007
In France , legislation (principally the decree of October 19 , 1987 ) requires an institutional and project licence before testing on vertebrates may be carried out. An institution must submit details of their facilities and the reason for the use of animals they house, after which a five-year licence may be granted following an inspection of the premises. The project licensee must be trained and educated to an appropriate level. Personal licences are not required for individuals working under the supervision of a project license holder. Introduction: Regulation in France , Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, 16 July 2002. Retrieved February 8, 2007 These regulations do not apply to research using invertebrates. French animal protection legislation and animal research , EBRA. Retrieved February 8, 2007
See Also: Animal Procedures Committee Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 mice in a UK laboratory, 2000. Provided by RDS/Wellcome Trust Photographic Library Technician assessing health status of mice involved in the breeding of transgenic mice , RDS, August 2000. Retrieved February 8, 2007]] The types of institutions conducting animal research in the UK in 2004 were: universities (42.1%); commercial organizations (33.3%); non-profit organizations (4.9%); government departments (2.4%); National Health Service hospitals (0.9%); public health laboratories (0.6%); other public bodies (15.8%). [http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm67/6713/6713.pdf Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2004], UK Home Office Report, December 2005. Retrieved February 8, 2007 The refers to the Act's Cost-benefit Analysis , which is defined as "the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence" (Section 5(4)). A licence should not be granted if there is a "reasonably practicable method not entailing the use of protected animals" (Section 5(5) (a)). The experiments must use "the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of Neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering distress or lasting harm, and the most likely to produce satisfactory results" (Section 5(5) (b)). [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15004.htm#a4] During a 2002 House of Lords select committee inquiry into animal testing in the UK, witnesses stated that the UK has the tightest regulatory system in the world, and is the only country to require a cost-benefit assessment of every licence application. There are 29 qualified inspectors covering 230 establishments, which are visited on average 11-12 times a year. [http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications/publications/reports-and-reviews/annual-report A report by Animal Aid alleges that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is a "vivisectors' charter," allowing researchers to do as they please and making them practically immune from prosecution. The report says that licences to perform experiments are obtained on the basis of a "nod of approval" from the Home Office Inspectorate, and that the Home Office relies on the researchers' own opinions of the cost-benefit assessment regarding the value of the experiment versus the amount of suffering it will cause. "Unhappy Anniversary: Twenty years of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986" , Animal Aid, retrieved July 15, 2006. Japan The system in Japan is one of self-regulation. Animal experiments are regulated by the 2000 Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals, which was amended in 2006.''Japanese guidelines and regulations for scientific and ethical animal experimentation.'' Progress in Inflammation Research 2nd Edition 2006. DOI 10.1007/978-3-7643-7520-1_10 This law requires those using animals to use as few animals as possible, and cause minimal distress and suffering. Regulation is at a local level based on national guidelines, but there are no governmental inspections of institutions and no reporting requirement for the numbers of animals used. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report July 2002, Accessed 23rd August 2007 A 1988 survey published by the Japanese Association for Laboratory Animal Science reported that eight million had been used that year.''Experimental Animals'', 37:105, Japanese Association for Laboratory Animal Science, ''1988''. United States In the (IACUC), which is responsible for local compliance with the Act. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are of central importance to the application of laws concerning animal care and use in research in the United States. Research suggests that the IACUC system is unreliable. In 2001, the results of a study that evaluated the Reliability of IACUCs found little consistency between decisions made by IACUCs at different institutions. A Wesleyan University press release summarized part of the findings: The investigation, which took three years to complete, compared judgments made by 50 randomly selected animal care and use committees drawn from U.S. colleges and universities. To assess the consistency of approval decisions, 150 recent research proposals from these institutions were each independently evaluated by two different animal care and use committees. In response to the Plous article, a rebuttal letter to Science written by animal researchers, animal care staff, and members of professional research societies wrote:
Institutions are also subject to unannounced annual inspections from USDA APHIS Veterinarian inspectors. There are about 70 inspectors Compliance Inspections Animal Welfare - USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Accessed 06 September 2007 monitoring around 1100 research institutions. "See Facility Lists" The inspectors also conduct pre-licensing checks for sites that do not engage in animal research or transportation, of which more than 4000 exist (e.g. dog kennels). "APHIS AWA FAQ APHIS has been criticized by its own inspectors and the USDA Inspector General's office (OIG). Marshall Smith, an APHIS inspector for twelve years, resigned in 1997 recounting a litany of problems at the agency that impeded his duties. In a prepared statement, Smith made note of a 1992 OIG report citing the agency's inability to ensure the humane care of animals at dealers. Statement of Marshall Smith, previous APHIS inspector In 2000, Isis Johnson-Brown D.V.M. - another APHIS inspector - quit because of problems she documented at the Oregon National Primate Research Center , in Beaverton, Oregon. In a prepared statement Dr. Johnson said, "More than once, I was instructed by a supervisor to make a personal list of violations of the law, cut that list in half, and then cut that list in half again before writing up my inspection reports. My willingness to uphold the law during my site visits at the Primate Center led to me being 'retrained' several times by higher-ups in the USDA.[http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/ohsu/ijstmnt.html Statement of Dr. Isis Johnson-Brown, Former United States Department of Agriculture Animal Care Inspector for Oregon In 2005, the USDA OIG issued another report on APHIS:
Another regulatory instrument is the species in research at facilities receiving federal funds, even if the species are not covered by the AWA. OLAW does not carry out scheduled inspections, but requires that "As a condition of receipt of PHS support for research involving laboratory animals, awardee institutions must provide a written Animal Welfare Assurance of Compliance (Assurance) to OLAW describing the means they will employ to comply with the PHS Policy." {Link without Title} Compliance Oversight Procedures (PDF) OLAW. NIH. 2002. OLAW conducts inspections only when there is a suspected or alleged violation that cannot be resolved through written correspondence. Accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (. ANIMALS USED Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to obtain. The British Union For The Abolition Of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million animals are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the European Union The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that estimates range from 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals used annually worldwide. Animals bred for research then killed as surplus, or used for breeding purposes, are not included in the figures. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total number of animals used in that country in 2005 was 1,177,566.Just over one million mammals were used in the United States in 2004, not including rats and mice. ( FY 2005 AWA inspections ) not counting birds, mice, and rats, which make up 85% of research animals, and also excluding invertebrates, which are also not counted. Other sources estimate the percentage of all lab animals that are rats, mice, or birds at 85-90%, "National Association of Biomedical Research or 95% (Science Magazine, Trull and Rich 1999 Vol. 284. no. 5419, p. 1463.) The USDA's animal usage reporting has been challenged by Stop Animal Exploitation Now, an animal rights group." Animal group faults USDA report " June 8, 2007. United Press International, accessed August 28, 2007. For example, animals are not counted if they live at breeder sites that do not perform research. The Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group has used the USDA's figures to estimate that 23-25 million animals are used in research each year in America. In 1986, a report produced by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that "estimates of the animals used in the United States each year range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million," and that their own best estimate was "at least 17 million to 22 million."''Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing and Education'', U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1986, p. 64. In 1966, the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association estimated in testimony before Congress that the number of mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits used in 1965 was around 60 million. (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, 1966, p. 63.) In 2004, the Department of Agriculture listed 64,932 dogs, 23,640 cats, 54,998 non-human primates, 244,104 guinea pigs, 175,721 hamsters, 261,573 rabbits, 105,678 farm animals, and 171,312 other mammals, a total of 1,101,958, a figure that includes all mammals except purpose-bred mice and rats. The use of dogs and cats in research in the U.S. decreased from 1973 to 2004 from 195,157 to 64,932, and from 66,165 to 23,640, respectively. ([http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/quickfacts.htm "Foundation for Biomedical Research, Quick Facts ) In the UK, Home Office figures show that 2,854,944 procedures were carried out in 2004 on 2,778,692 vertebrate animals. "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals" , Great Britain, 2004, p. 14. This is an increase of 63,000 from 2003, the third consecutive annual rise and the highest figure since 1992. (Jha, Alok. "RSPCA outrage as experiments on animals rise to 2.85m" , ''The Guardian'', December 9, 2005) In 2005, the BBC reported that the UK figures continued to "creep up...mainly due to the growing use of genetically modified mice," ( "Quick guide: Animal testing" , ''BBC News'', 24 July, 2006) with 2,896,198 procedures carried out on 2,812,850 animals in that year. ( "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2005 , Home Office) As the figures show, most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are euthanized afterwards. A "procedure" refers to an experiment that might last several months or years. Pain, distress, and anesthesia In the U.S. in 2004, 615,000 vertebrate animals (not including rats and mice) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress, according to the researchers. Around 399,000 were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia, while 87,000 were used in studies in which researchers planned to cause pain or distress that would not be relieved. "USDA Animal Welfare Act Report 2004 . Over half the procedures in Britain in 2004 — 1,710,760 — either did not require Anesthetic (e.g. behavioral tests, breeding stock, controlled dietary intake) or anesthesia was not used because the researchers said it would interfere with the results. Of the procedures for which no anesthetic was used in the UK, 880,897 were conducted in connection with pure research; 114,081 were toxicology tests; 982,640 were for breeding; and most of the rest were for applied studies in human medicine, veterinary medicine, or dentistry. 9,035 procedures involved the deliberate infliction of "psychological stress". Species Listed in descending order of numbers of individual animals used:
See Also: Animal testing on invertebrates Although much larger numbers of invertebrates than vertebrates are used, these experiments are largely unregulated in law and are not included in yearly statistics. The most used invertebrate species are '' Drosophila Melanogaster '', a fruit fly, and '' Caenorhabditis Elegans '', a Nematode . In the case of ''C. elegans'', the precise lineage of all the organism's cells is known, and ''D. melanogaster'' is well-suited to genetic studies.1 These animals offer scientists great advantages over using vertebrates, including their short life cycle and the ease with which large numbers of individuals may be studied. Invertebrates are often extremely cost-effective, as thousands of flies or nematodes can be housed in a single room.
See Also: Animal testing on rodents .]] Rodents commonly used include guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats and mice. Mice are the most commonly used vertebrate species and are popular because of their small size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate.2 Mice are widely considered to be the best model of technology, genetically modified mice can be generated to order and can cost hundreds of dollars each. Taconic Transgenic Models , Taconic Farms, Inc. In the UK in 2004, 1,910,110 mice, 464,727 rats and 37,475 other rodents were used (84.5% of the total animals used that year). In 2005, the total number of rodents used was similar to the previous year: 1,955,035 mice, 414,335 rats and 40,856 other rodents. In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used are not reported, but have been estimated at 15-20 million. Quick Facts About Animal Research Foundation for Biomedical Research, Accessed 06 September 2007
In the UK, 194,562 fish and 18,195 amphibians were used in 2004. "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2004 , British government. In 2005, the number of fish used increased to 230,315 while the number of amphibians used decreased to 13,318. The major species utilized are the zebrafish, '' Danio Rerio '', which are translucent during their embryonic stage, and the African clawed frog, '' Xenopus Laevis ''.
See Also: Draize test Over 20,000 Rabbits were used for animal testing in the UK in 2004. Albino rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests because rabbits have less tear flow than other animals and the lack of eye pigment make the effects easier to visualize. They are also used in skin irritancy tests called the Draize Test .
became the first animal to be launched into space.]] See Also: Laika Russian space dogs Beagle s are used, largely because they are friendly and gentle, in toxicity tests, surgery, and dental experiments. Toxicology tests are required to last six months in the UK, although British laboratories carry out tests lasting nine months on behalf of Japanese and American customers. Of the 8,018 dogs used in the UK in 2004, 7,799 were beagles (97.3%). Most dogs are bred specifically for the purpose, for example by Harlan in Leicestershire .
primate-testing lab, See Also: Animal testing on non-human primates Non-human primates (NHPs) are used in toxicology tests, studies of s, Spider Monkey s, and Squirrel Monkey s are also used, and Baboon s and Chimpanzee s are used in the U.S; there are currently around 1,500 chimpanzees in U.S. research laboratories.
Felines are most commonly used in neurological research. In the UK in 2005, 308 cats were used. This is a decrease from 819 cats recorded in 2004 According to the USDA, over 25,500 felines were used in the USA in 2000, of these around half were reported to have been used in experiments that caused "pain and/or distress". [http://www.aavs.org/images/winter2003_text.pdf TYPES OF EXPERIMENT Experiments can be split into three broad, overlapping categories: pure research, in which experiments are conducted that have no direct commercial application, with a view to advancing knowledge, most often inside universities; applied research, conducted in order to solve specific biological problems or to develop commercial products, either for medical or non-medical use; and toxicology or safety testing, in which commercial products are tested on animals to measure potential adverse biological reactions to the ingredients. Pure research Basic or pure research aims to increase knowledge about the way organisms behave, develop, and function biologically. Both the largest number and greatest variety of laboratory animals are used in this type of research. ''Drosophila melanogaster'', ''Caenorhabditis elegans'', mice and rats together account for the vast majority, though small numbers of other species are used, ranging from Sea Slugs through to Armadillo s. "An A to Z of laboratory animals" Research Defense Society. Accessed 22nd August 20073 In the UK in 2005, 89 macaques, 114 marmosets, 133 dogs and 237 cats were used in basic research to investigate topics such as social behaviour, vision, nutrition and suckling. "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2005 , Home Office. Examples of the types of animals and experiments used in basic research include:
Applied research Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems, often relating to the treatment or cure of disease and disorder in humans and animals. Compared to pure research, which is largely academic in origin, applied research programmes are more likely to be carried out in the Pharmaceutical Industry , or in universities in commercial partnership. These may involve the use of Animal Model s of disease or condition, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the modern Drug Discovery process. Examples of animal use in this type of research include:
Xenotransplantation See Also: Xenotransplantation Xenotransplantation involves transplanting living cells, tissues, or organs from one species to another. Current research involves primarily using primates as the recipient of pig hearts. The U.S. FDA has written that the research is "driven by the fact that the demand for human organs for clinical transplantation far exceeds the supply." {Link without Title} The British Home Office released figures in 1999 showing that 270 monkeys had been used in xeno research in the UK during the previous four years. In 1999, three baboons and 79 cynomolgus monkeys were used. Medical journalists Jenny Bryan and John Clare have called xenotransplatation experiments "some of the most grisly procedures carried out anywhere in the name of science." They write that: "They do sometimes involve a full transplant of a genetically modified pig heart into a monkey. In some cases, however, the doctors will graft the Transgenic hearts onto a baboon's neck arteries, as this allows them to observe the way the pig heart behaves in another species, and monitor the rejection process. The operation is carried out under General Anaesthetic and the baboon is humanely killed afterwards. These measures, however, do not pacify animal rights campaigners, who say the experiments are cruel and unnecessary."Bryan, Jenny & Clare, John. ''Organ Farm'', Carlton Books, 2001. Drug testing in a UK facility, 2000. Provided by RDS/ In response to the Teratogenic effects of Thalidomide in the 1960s, many countries passed new laws to ensure all new pharmaceuticals underwent rigorous animal testing before being licensed for human use. Tests on pharmaceutical products involve:
Cosmetics testing See Also: Testing cosmetics on animals Cosmetics testing is particularly controversial. It is banned in the , has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court Of Justice in Luxembourg , asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.Osborn, Andrew & Gentleman, Amelia. "Secret French move to block animal-testing ban" , ''The Guardian'', August 19, 2003. CONTROVERSY inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.]] Huntingdon Life Sciences See Also: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty In 1997, , an international campaign to close HLS. Covance See Also: Covance In 2004, German journalist Friedrich Mülln was hired as a BUAV operative to shoot undercover footage of staff in Covance , Münster , Europe's largest primate-testing center, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them. The monkeys were kept isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light, no environmental enrichment, and high noise levels from staff shouting and playing the radio Undercover footage of staff in Covance screaming at and mocking monkeys (video). A lawsuit by Covance placed an injunction on Mülln from distributing the footage he shot; the same material remains accessible on the web at sites outside jurisdiction of the court. [http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/05/6/tsg.covancelabmonkey6.05.htm] Primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall described the living conditions of the monkeys as "horrendous," and told BUAV that to see them "crazed with boredom, and sadness probably, is deeply, deeply disturbing." Primatologist Stephen Brend told BUAV that using monkeys in such a stressed state is "bad science" and trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances is an "untenable proposition." PETA stated they found similar conditions in Covance's Vienna, Virginia lab during an undercover investigation in 2004-5. Covance sued PETA and their undercover operative as a result of the Vienna operation, and obtained a restraining order preventing the operative from performing any further undercover work for three years, and forced PETA and their operative to turn over all materials they obtained documenting conditions at Covance. PETA is further prevented from attempting to infiltrate Covance for five years. [http://www.covance.com/animalwelfare/media-resources.php University of Cambridge See Also: Primate experiments at Cambridge University In February 2005, while applying for a Judicial Review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom , BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University Of Cambridge 's primate-testing labs showed that Monkey s had undergone surgery to induce a Stroke , and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with no Veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five. The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00.html The experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for the purpose of research into Stroke s and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first trained to perform Behavior al and Cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains or by injecting toxins. The monkeys were then re-tested to determine how the damage had affected their skills. They were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours. [http://www.buav.org/zerooption/video/lessi.mpg (video) The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and the judge hearing BUAV's application for a judicial review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a license. [http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/530.html&query=buav&method=all The Research Defence Society, a lobby group representing 5,000 medical researchers and institutions in the UK, wrote in a summary of the case: " this research into stroke monkeys were fully anaesthetised, a piece of the skull bone was removed (in the same way as for human neurosurgery), one blood vessel was permanently blocked, the skull bone was replaced, the muscle and skin resewn and appropriate pain killers given. On recovery from anaesthesia, monkeys were kept in an incubator, offered food and water and monitored at regular intervals until the early evening. They were then allowed to sleep in the incubators until the next morning. No monkeys died unattended during the night after stroke surgery." [http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/news.asp?i_ToolbarID=6&i_PageID=1816 University of California, Riverside say they found him. "Britches" , Animal Liberation Front.]] See Also: Britches (monkey) One of the best-known cases of alleged abuse involved Britches , a macaque monkey born in 1985 into a breeding colony at the University Of California, Riverside , removed from his mother at birth, and left alone and tethered, with his eyelids sewn shut, as part of a sight-deprivation experiment. Britches was removed from the laboratory when he was five weeks old during a raid by the Animal Liberation Front , along with 700 other animals. The university criticized the ALF, claiming that damage to the monkey's eyelids, {Link without Title} allegedly caused by the sutures, had in fact been caused by an ALF veterinarian who examined the monkey after the raid and wrote a report. The experiment was condemned by the American Council for the Blind.(Newkirk 2000) The photograph of Britches on the right is taken from a video made by the ALF during the raid, and later released as a short film by PETA. The university said that the monitoring device attached to the monkey's head had been tampered with by activists before the photograph was taken.Newkirk 2000 Columbia University According to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" , 2001 , baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21 , 2001 , the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" {Link without Title} In a letter to PETA, Neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" . A USDA investigation of the Columbia baboons found "no indication that the experiments...violated federal guidelines." Further, the Dean of Research at Columbia's School of Medicine noted that Connolly stopped the experiments because of threats from animal rights activists, despite the fact that Connolly "remained convinced that his experiments were humane and potentially valuable." {Link without Title} University of California, Los Angeles In 2006, animal rights activists forced a primate researcher at requests for animal medical records. ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING See Also: Alternatives to animal testing Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs" {Link without Title} are guiding Principles for the use of animals in research in many countries:
THE ARGUMENTS IN BRIEF Advocates of animal testing Testing advocates argue that:
Governmental and medical group statements The U.S. Congress held a series of hearings in 1985 on animal research. In it, they heard testimony from veterinarians, doctors, scientists, and animal rights activists including Alex Pacheco . They wrote a summary of their findings on animal research into the law commonly called the Animal Welfare Act. They wrote
The American Medical Association , the largest US group composed exclusively of physicians and medical students, has an official policy statement on the use of animals in research, HR-460.932 that states
The American Veterinary Medical Association is authorized voice for the US veterinary profession in presenting its views to concerned publics. It has an official policy statement on the use of animals in research.
One moral basis for animal testing was summarized by a British House Of Lords report in 2002: "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes." "Chapter two: Ethics" , Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002. Some researchers also believe animals may suffer less throughout the testing process than human beings would because they have a reduced capacity to remember and anticipate pain. "Chapter three: The Purpose and Nature of Animal Experiments" , Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002. The House of Lords report further made the following statement about research experiments using animals "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge." Chapter 4, section 14 Opponents of animal testing Opponents argue that:
SEE ALSO
NOTES FURTHER READING
--
;Organizations
|
|
|