Animal research arouses passion, sparks debate

Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 5-15

  Mench, Joy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3543018933     PISSN: 08878218     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. The full letter is reprinted in Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 414-415. The next year the British Parliament passed the Cruelty to Animals Act, landmark national legislation regulating the treatment of animals used in scientific research.
2. Robert Sharpe, The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research (Wellingborough, UK: Thorsons, 1988).
3. For a discussion about turn-of-the-century debates over vivisection in the United States, see Susan E. Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in Nicolaas A. Rupke, ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987). For contemporary views, see Deborah Blum, The Monkey Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey Cowley, et al., "Of Pain and Progress," Newsweek (Dec. 26, 1988), pp. 50-59; and Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," The Washingtonian (Aug. 1986), pp. 112-157 and "Beyond cruelty," The Washingtonian (Feb. 1990).
4. For a discussion about turn-of-the-century debates over vivisection in the United States, see Susan E. Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in Nicolaas A. Rupke, ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987). For contemporary views, see Deborah Blum, The Monkey Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey Cowley, et al., "Of Pain and Progress," Newsweek (Dec. 26, 1988), pp. 50-59; and Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," The Washingtonian (Aug. 1986), pp. 112-157 and "Beyond cruelty," The Washingtonian (Feb. 1990).
5. For a discussion about turn-of-the-century debates over vivisection in the United States, see Susan E. Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in Nicolaas A. Rupke, ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987). For contemporary views, see Deborah Blum, The Monkey Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey Cowley, et al., "Of Pain and Progress," Newsweek (Dec. 26, 1988), pp. 50-59; and Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," The Washingtonian (Aug. 1986), pp. 112-157 and "Beyond cruelty," The Washingtonian (Feb. 1990).
6. For a discussion about turn-of-the-century debates over vivisection in the United States, see Susan E. Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in Nicolaas A. Rupke, ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987). For contemporary views, see Deborah Blum, The Monkey Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey Cowley, et al., "Of Pain and Progress," Newsweek (Dec. 26, 1988), pp. 50-59; and Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," The Washingtonian (Aug. 1986), pp. 112-157 and "Beyond cruelty," The Washingtonian (Feb. 1990).
7. For a discussion about turn-of-the-century debates over vivisection in the United States, see Susan E. Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in Nicolaas A. Rupke, ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987). For contemporary views, see Deborah Blum, The Monkey Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Geoffrey Cowley, et al., "Of Pain and Progress," Newsweek (Dec. 26, 1988), pp. 50-59; and Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live, Who Will Die," The Washingtonian (Aug. 1986), pp. 112-157 and "Beyond cruelty," The Washingtonian (Feb. 1990).
8. National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), The Humane Care and Treatment of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: NABR, 1993). NABR is the largest and most well-known advocacy group for biomedical research.
9. Strachan Donnelley and Kathleen Nolan, eds., Animals, Science, and Ethics (Briarcliff Manor, NY: The Hastings Center, 1990).
10. Historical aspects of the animal research controversy in the United States are discussed by Susan Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in James Turner, ed., Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980); and Andrew Rowan, Of Mice, Models & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany, NY; SUNY Press, 1984).
11. Historical aspects of the animal research controversy in the United States are discussed by Susan Lederer, "The Controversy over Animal Experimentation in America, 1880-1914," in James Turner, ed., Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980); and Andrew Rowan, Of Mice, Models & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany, NY; SUNY Press, 1984).
12. Ironically, Ezra Cornell, the founder of Cornell University, was another author of the ASPCA bill. Cornell University is now one of the nation's major animal research institutions. It is also responsible for one of the most controversial decisions in the current debate about animal research. In 1988, Cornell terminated Michiko Okamoto's research on barbiturate addiction in cats, although the research had been peer-reviewed and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse for 14 years. Animal activists criticized Okamoto's research not on the grounds of cruelty or illegality; rather, they contended that barbiturate addiction in cats was a poor model for addiction in humans. See Colin Norman, "Cat Study Halted Amid Protests,"Science (Nov. 1988), pp. 1001-1002).
13. Oxford English Dictionary defines vivisection as the "dissection or other painful treatment of living animals for the purposes of scientific research." It is sometimes used as a generic term to describe animal research. It is also used to depict groups and individuals expressing complete opposition to animal research - the anti-vivisection movement.
14. Barbara Orlans, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation (NY: Oxford University Press, 1994).
15. Consider, for example, the sentiments expressed in the letter by George Hoggan cited at the beginning of this essay. He wrote: "I think the saddest sight I have witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized with horror...They would make friendly advances to each of the three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, and tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in vain." Quoted in French, Antivivisection and Medical Science. The procurement of dogs and cats from municipal shelters, and the treatment of dogs by dealers, continue to be hotly debated issues. See The Use of Dogs and Cats in Research and Education (Washington, DC: NABR, 1994).
16. Consider, for example, the sentiments expressed in the letter by George Hoggan cited at the beginning of this essay. He wrote: "I think the saddest sight I have witnessed was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory for sacrifice. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized with horror...They would make friendly advances to each of the three or four persons present, and as far as eyes, ears, and tail could make a mute appeal for mercy eloquent, they tried it in vain." Quoted in French, Antivivisection and Medical Science. The procurement of dogs and cats from municipal shelters, and the treatment of dogs by dealers, continue to be hotly debated issues. See The Use of Dogs and Cats in Research and Education (Washington, DC: NABR, 1994).
17. Although the Animal Welfare Act defines an animal as any "warm-blooded vertebrate," the USDA, which enforces the act, is given authority to determine which animals (in addition to those specifically designated by Congress) will be included in the regulations. The act initially covered dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and nonhuman primates. It has been gradually extended to include gerbils, marine mammals, wild animals, and farm animals used in biomedical research. However, there is still no coverage for the species that comprise the majority of animals used in research: laboratory rats, mice, and birds. USDA cites a lack of sufficient funding for enforcement as the principle reason for not including these species in the regulations.
18. Taub's research involved severing the sensory nerves in the spinal cord in a way that left monkeys with the use of only one arm. The monkeys were then forced to use the limp arm either through shock therapies or through immobilization of the healthy arm. Taub wanted to find out whether the severed nerves would regenerate. Such information could prove important for the rehabilitation of people who had suffered strokes and spinal injuries. See Peter Carlson, "The Strange Ordeal of the Silver Spring Monkeys," The Washington Post Magazine (Feb. 24, 1991), pp. 14-31, and Constance Holden, "Scientist Convicted for Monkey Neglect," Science 214 (1981), pp. 1218-1220.
19. Taub's research involved severing the sensory nerves in the spinal cord in a way that left monkeys with the use of only one arm. The monkeys were then forced to use the limp arm either through shock therapies or through immobilization of the healthy arm. Taub wanted to find out whether the severed nerves would regenerate. Such information could prove important for the rehabilitation of people who had suffered strokes and spinal injuries. See Peter Carlson, "The Strange Ordeal of the Silver Spring Monkeys," The Washington Post Magazine (Feb. 24, 1991), pp. 14-31, and Constance Holden, "Scientist Convicted for Monkey Neglect," Science 214 (1981), pp. 1218-1220.
20. "Animal rights" is a term that usually refers to individuals or organizations that are opposed to the use of animals by humans, while "animal welfare" is a term that refers to individuals or organizations that support the use of animals but who would like to ensure that the animals are treated humanely. In fact, the attitudes and philosophies of individuals in a particular organization may vary, and the boundaries often blur. In this essay, "animal protection movement" is used as an umbrella term for all organized animal groups.
21. For divergent views as to whether Taub provided appropriate care for his monkeys, see the correspondence "Humane Use of Animals" in Nature 368 (Apr. 7, 1994), pp. 9-10.
22. Blum, The Monkey Wars and Orlans, In the Name of Science.
23. Blum, The Monkey Wars and Orlans, In the Name of Science.
24. As assessed by annual budgets, the largest animal welfare organizations in the United States are the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. See Animal People (Dec. 1994), pp. 11-13. The Washington, DC-based Animal Welfare Institute, while smaller than these organizations, also has been particularly active on research animal issues. See Orlans, In the Name of Science.
25. As assessed by annual budgets, the largest animal welfare organizations in the United States are the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. See Animal People (Dec. 1994), pp. 11-13. The Washington, DC-based Animal Welfare Institute, while smaller than these organizations, also has been particularly active on research animal issues. See Orlans, In the Name of Science.
26. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1985) and Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: PHS, 1986).
27. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1985) and Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: PHS, 1986).
28. Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin, The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (NY: The Free Press, 1992); and Susan Sperling, Animal Liberators (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
29. Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin, The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (NY: The Free Press, 1992); and Susan Sperling, Animal Liberators (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
30. Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin, The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (NY: The Free Press, 1992); and Susan Sperling, Animal Liberators (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).
31. Steven R. Kellert and J. Berry, Knowledge, Affection, and Basic Attitudes Towards Animals in American Society (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 1981).
32. For examples, see Donald R. Griffin, Animal Minds (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin, Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1994).
33. For examples, see Donald R. Griffin, Animal Minds (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin, Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1994).
34. Adrian Furnham and Cecilia Hayes, "Psychology Students' Beliefs about Animals and Animal Experimentation," Personality and Individual Differences 15 (Winter 1993), pp. 1-10, and Harold A. Herzog and Shelley Galvin, "Common Sense and the Mental Lives of Animals," in Robert Mitchell, et al., Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, in press).
35. Adrian Furnham and Cecilia Hayes, "Psychology Students' Beliefs about Animals and Animal Experimentation," Personality and Individual Differences 15 (Winter 1993), pp. 1-10, and Harold A. Herzog and Shelley Galvin, "Common Sense and the Mental Lives of Animals," in Robert Mitchell, et al., Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, in press).
36. Animal Industry Foundation, Survey on How Americans View Modern Livestock Farming (Arlington, VA: Prepared by BMC Strategies for AIF, 1989).
37. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (NY: Collier Books, 1961), p. 239.
38. For an excellent discussion of the part that pain has played in the movement against animal research, see James Turner, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain and Humanity in the Victorian Mind (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).
39. American Medical Association, Public Attitudes Toward the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: Focus Groups and National Surveys of Adults and Children: A summary of Findings (Chicago: prepared by LaScolas Qualitative Research and Meilman and Lazarus, Inc., 1989); Media General, Testing with Animals (Richmond, VA: Media General, Sept. 1-5, 1985);
40. American Medical Association, Public Attitudes Toward the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: Focus Groups and National Surveys of Adults and Children: A summary of Findings (Chicago: prepared by LaScolas Qualitative Research and Meilman and Lazarus, Inc., 1989); Media General, Testing with Animals (Richmond, VA: Media General, Sept. 1-5, 1985);
41. Linda Pifer, et al., "Public Attitudes Toward Animal Research: Some International Comparisons," Society and Animals 2 (1994), pp. 5-9.
42. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 1986).
43. Andrew N. Rowan, et al., The Animal Research Controversy (North Grafton, MA: Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, 1994). For a discussion of the interpretation of animal numbers, see Barbara Orlans, "Data on Animal Experimentation in the United States: What They Do and Do Not Show," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 37 (Winter 1994), pp. 217-231.
44. Andrew N. Rowan, et al., The Animal Research Controversy (North Grafton, MA: Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, 1994). For a discussion of the interpretation of animal numbers, see Barbara Orlans, "Data on Animal Experimentation in the United States: What They Do and Do Not Show," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 37 (Winter 1994), pp. 217-231.
45. Trends and Alternatives in Testing 1 (Spring/Summer 1993). The Newsletter of the Joseph F. Morgan Research Foundation.
46. See Lilly Marlene-Russow, "Ethical Theory and the Moral Status of Animals," in Donnelley and Nolan, Animals, Science, and Ethics.
47. See Orlans, In the Name of Science.
48. Arnold Arluke, "Going into the Closet with Science," Jn. of Comparative Ethnography 20 (1991), pp. 307-331.
49. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) estimated that there were 313 such incidents between 1977 and 1993; the Animal Liberation Front took credit for 60 percent of them. See OTA's 1993 Report to Congress on the Extent of Domestic and International Terrorism on Animal Enterprises.
50. Animal Rights Extremists: Impact on Public Health (Washington, DC: NABR, 1993).
51. Carlson, The Strange Ordeal of the Silver Spring Monkeys.
52. See, for example, Committee on Models in Biomedical Research, Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985); Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, "Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Some Epistemological Worries," Public Affairs Quarterly 7 (1992), pp. 113-130; and Robert W. Leader and Dennis Stark, "The Importance of Animals in Biomedical Research," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 30 (1987), pp. 470-486.
53. See, for example, Committee on Models in Biomedical Research, Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985); Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, "Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Some Epistemological Worries," Public Affairs Quarterly 7 (1992), pp. 113-130; and Robert W. Leader and Dennis Stark, "The Importance of Animals in Biomedical Research," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 30 (1987), pp. 470-486.
54. See, for example, Committee on Models in Biomedical Research, Models for Biomedical Research: A New Perspective (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985); Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, "Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Some Epistemological Worries," Public Affairs Quarterly 7 (1992), pp. 113-130; and Robert W. Leader and Dennis Stark, "The Importance of Animals in Biomedical Research," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 30 (1987), pp. 470-486.
55. Lee Krulisch, "Information resources on research-animal issues for medical communicators," AMWA Journal (Spring 1993), pp. 16-21.
56. Marian Stamp Dawkins, Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare (London: Chapman and Hall, 1980).