 |
Above: An important part of the research at INRS of Nancy, in France is the registration of the harmful effects of industrial equipment. Guinea-pigs a\re surrounded by numerous amplifiers all emitting the noise of an industrial printing press.
Mice were by far the most popular subjects, with 1.6 million experiments in 1986. They are followed by 830,000 rats and 148,000 fish then 145,600 birds, and 132,400 guinea-pigs, 129, 400 rabbits, 32,500 other rodents, 12,900 dogs, 10,700 reptiles, 5,600 primates, 5,300 cats, 2,700 other mammals, and 2,600 other carnivores. Finally, there were 700 experiments on horses and donkeys.
Vivisection, the act of operating or experimenting on living animals for medical or scientific research, is an issue which ought to leave the caring individual stranded in the painful no-mans-land between two equally unpalatable alternatives.
Suppose vivisection were to be abolished tomorrow. It would be the greatest kindness to the animal community. But we might thereby block the path to the development of medicines and vaccines which would have been of some considerable benefit to mankind.
Whatever stand we take, we cannot declare neutrality on the subject. Through our taxes, we pay for much of the research, financed by means of government grants to the 500 or so universities, hospitals and state institutions, which in addition to some private laboratories of different drug companies, carry out the various experiments.
The anti-vivsectionists pitch their vamp in the moral high ground. "Animal experimentation is another form of prejudice, like racism and sexism" said Jan Creamer, press officer of the 10,000 strong Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) which has campaigned for its abolition for the past 100 years
"If it's right to abuse creatures less intelligent than ourselves, then it's right to abuse other humans less capable than us. Rights should not be accorded on the basis of intelligence. Every creature has a right to life"
The supporters of vivisection counter this with another absolute."Animals provide us with information that cannot be obtained by any other means before we go into human studies" said Marjorie Johnson, spokeswoman of the Animals in Medicines Research Information Centre, (AMRIC)
"No on is 'pro' the use of animals.
"No one is pro the use of animals. Scientists would like nothing better than to stop using animals. But the alternatives do not exist.Virtually none of the medicines or vaccines we use today, antiseptics, antibiotics, anaesthetics, \and rejection drugs would have been possible without trials on laboratory animals. That is an uncomfortable fact"
On the face of it, there is little meeting of minds between the two sides.. The NAVS contends that vivisection does not work and has actually delayed medical progress, It claims misleading results in animal experiments actually delayed the introduction of blood transfusion by 200 years and corneal transplants by 90 years.'
 |
"No one is "pro" the use of animals. Scientists would like nothing better than to stop using animals. but the alternatives do not exist. |
"The disadvantages far outweigh any advances" said Jan Creamer."Vivisection hasn't improved out health in any way whatsoever. All the great advances in health and welfare in the eradication of infectious diseases have been achieved by great social reformers"
She said diphtheria, measles and smallpox were in steep decline before vaccines and antibiotics were developed. And where such diseases occur in Third World countries, the solution depends on improving environmental health rather than on new drugs perfected through animal experiments.