1. Neil McPherson Society & Human/Nonhuman Animal Relations (SOCY10015) Lecture 7: Vivisection: the nonhuman animal as biological referent in scientific research “Medical research has saved and improved the lives of millions of people. Animals have benefited too….Mainstream medical and scientific organisations and leading scientists all agree that animal research is essential for medical progress.” (Understanding Animal Research - here) Dr NEIL McPHERSON Email: neil.mcpherson@uws.ac.uk Twt:@neilgmcpherson SMS:07708 931 325

2. Neil McPherson What is vivisection Vivisection, from the Latin vivus (alive) + sectio(cutting) “dissection or other painful treatment of living animals for purposes of scientific research” (Oxford English Reference Dictionary 1996: 1617) However, it is commonly taken to refer to the “operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals” (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009: Online)

3. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection “Vivisection is a very old procedure. It has been practised since the beginning of scientific medicine, in ancient Greece and Rome. Through the seventeenth and eighteenth century it even acquired a degree of popularity. Doubt about vivisection, however, whether of a medical or moral kind has been virtually coeval with the existence of the practice. But this did not develop into a major controversy until the second half of the nineteenth century. By then, experimentation on living animals had become a quintessential part of the physiology as an institutionalized profession.” (Rupke 1990: 1-2)

5. differences between sensory and motor nerves

7. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – Galen Wrote 130 medical treatises – many discussing vivisection Platonic understanding of the body as a microcosm of the world (see French 1999) Mixed extant knowledge and knowledge produced by the vivisection of nonhuman animals Accounts speak of the vivisection of a number of animals, mostly apes and pigs (Preece & Chamberlain 1995)

8. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – Galen Accounts speak of the vivisection of a number of animals, mostly apes and pigs (Preece & Chamberlain 1995) Preferred pigs & goats due to the ‘unpleasant expression’ evident in the ape during vivisection (see Maehle& Tröhler 1990) Avoided aesthetic of Man during vivisection - visual similitude – but no compulsion about using nonhuman animals Repeated vivisections set him apart from others (Conrad 1995)

9. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Rennaisance Before the late 15th C vivisection was not a meeting place of medicine and anatomy as it was to become Galen’s text were accepted as theunquestioned authority on the structure and function of the anatomical systems of man and nonhuman animalsup until the end of the Rennaisance Galen’s texts constituted maps with which to guide the vivisector’s hands in the demonstration of God and Galen’s work

10. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Rennaissance Andreas Vesalius(1514-1564) Human dissections & animal vivisections – theatres of Padua & Bologna (see French 1999) Vesalius’s rationalism v the erudition of Galen Human dissection displays would be finished off with the vivisection of a nonhuman animal “putting the finishing touch to…the whole course of anatomical study” (Vesalius quoted in Maehle & Tröhler 1990: 17)

11. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Rennaissance De HumaniCorporisFabrica 1543

12. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Rennaissance RealdoColumbo(1515-1559) Influence of God’s word still evident “Columbohighlighted the crossing of the forefeet as forming the shape of a cross, and identified a ‘great piety’ in the bitch’s prime concern with her pups rather than herself. In doing so he located the sign of God in the bitch’s actions” (McPherson 2010: 100) Representative consideration of anatomy but not comparative anatomy as it is understood today

13. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Classical Age Influence of Descartes and the bête machine Reconciling God and science Mechanical andmetaphysical separation of man and nonhuman animal. Carte blanche to experiment on the ‘animal machine’

14. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Classical Age Fontaine and the Jansenistmonastery of Port-Royale By end of the 17th C all manner of people from quacks to charlatans to serious scientists were involving themselves in the processes of vivisection The dilettanti of the period were ‘cutting living animals like turnips’ (see Turner 1992) “fashionable ladies of France who used to attend the disembowellings of dead criminals for the frisson now watched living dogs turned inside out” (Turner 1992: 45. Original italicisation).

15. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Classical Age Vivisection was often a spectacle – entertainment Often the province of Natural Philosophy not Natural History “to entertain, to enlighten, to bedazzle” (Guerrini 2004: 224) A high point for vivisection “Descartes’s fatuous assertion that animals do not feel pain helped to ease the consciences of many experimenters in the years to come” (Ryder 2000: 52)

16. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Kant – man as subject and object of knowledge – categorical imperative – indirect moral status However no protection against vivisection “Vivisectionists, who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man’s instruments.” (Kant 1999: 565)

17. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Emergence of comparative anatomy “Animal species differ at their peripheries, and resemble each other at their centres; they are connected by the inaccessible, and separated by the apparent. Their generality lies in that which is essential to their life; their singularity in that which is most accessory to it. (Foucault 2002a: 291) Man – dolphin – shark

18. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age François Magendie- Collège de France from 1830 Examples of his experiments: removal of dog’s stomach, substituting it with the bladder of a pig filled with food in order to observe the effects of emetics; stuck thermometers into the hearts (without anaesthetic) of retired and diseased war horses; removed the cerebrospinal fluid to watch them ‘titubate’ (see Bernard 1957; Tansey 1993; Turner 1964)

19. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Although criticised for his use of vivisection, Magendie’s work produced some notable results Magendie is recognised as identifying the functions of anterior and posterior spinal roots, leading to the formation of the Bell-Magendie law (see Ochs 2004)

20. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Claude Bernard - Collège de France from 1841 Refined approach to vivisection (was preparateur for Magendie) Improved the scientific method and efficacy of vivisection Defined physiology as an ‘exact science’ & regarded as one of the founders of experimental biomedicine “The wisest judgments on scientific method ever made by a working scientist were indeed those of a great biologist, Claude Bernard” (Medwar 1984: 73).

21. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine(Bernard 1957 [1865]) Introduced demand for methodological rigour Defined a paradigmatic construct of experimental medicine Remains located at the centre discussions of experimental efficacy “The observer listens to nature; the experimenter questions and forces her to unveil herself” (Cuvier quoted in Bernard 1957: 6)

22. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Linking medicine and physiology Medicine had focused on surface of body – the observable Located study of pathology lay in comparative physiology Relocation of analysis to the laboratory

23. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age “In the philosophic sense, observation shows, and experiment teaches…An observer is a man who gathers observed facts and who decides whether they have been ascertained by the help of appropriate means. The experimenters must at the same time be good observers, and that in the experimental method, experiment and observation always advance side by side.” (Bernard 1957: 1, 21)

24. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Linking medicine and physiology Medicine had focused on surface of body – the observable Located study of pathology lay in comparative physiology Location of medical experimentation in the laboratory Clinical medicine could only ever be a handmaiden to experimental physiology

25. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Vivisection now focused on comparison Animal as direct biological referent to man Vivisection – to produce knowledge of biological function & dysfunction in humans “Science permits us to do to animals what morality forbids us to do to our own kind” (Bernard quoted in Turner 1964: 213-214)

26. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Vivisection now regarded as central to knowledge of biological function and dysfunction of the human “No hesitation is possible; the science of life can be established only through experiment, and we can save living beings from death only by sacrificing others…it is essentially moral to make experiments on an animal, even though painful and dangerous to him, if they may be useful to man.” (Bernard 1957: 102)

27. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Vivisector must ignore emotion & sentimentalism “[The physiologist] no longer hears the cry of animals, he no longer sees the blood that flows, he sees only his idea and perceives only organisms concealing problems which he intends to solve.” (Bernard 1957: 103)

28. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age “To learn how man and animals live, we cannot avoid seeing great numbers of them die, because the mechanism of life can be unveiled and proved only by knowledge of the mechanism of death.” (Bernard 1957: 99) “We should accept comparative experiment as a veritable command, to be executed even when useless, so as not to be missing when it is necessary” (Bernard 1957: 183).

29. Neil McPherson A history of vivisection – the Modern Age Modern vivisection had a purpose: “[The vivisector] has ever before his mind the thought that his efforts are going to bring a little alleviation to the great sum of human suffering. If he inoculates a rabbit with tuberculosis, he cannot help thinking of all the wretched consumptives who are at that moment in the throes of death. He knows well that each time he discovers even only a particle of truth, that little bit of new truth is going to bring in its train some consequence which will bear fruit in the healing of suffering mankind.” (Richet 1908: 86-87 - The Pros and Cons of Vivisection)

30. Neil McPherson Restricting vivisection 19th Century – golden age of vivisection & laboratory science Resistance – moral, scientific and legal Humanitarian reform Questioning of scientific legitimacy Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 – science to monitor its activities – formalised separation of public and scientist

31. Neil McPherson Restricting vivisection Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Defined ‘regulated procedures’ Introduced licencing & certification Introduced the necessity to keep accurate figures Does not include animals slaughtered as surplus to requirement

32. Neil McPherson Restricting vivisection Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2009 showed the following: Mice (73%), fish (11%), rats (9%) and birds (4%) were involved in the largest numbers of procedures. Dogs, cats and non-human primates combined were used in less than half of one percent of all procedures, with a combined total of 10,500

33. Neil McPherson Restricting vivisection Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2009 - here

34. Neil McPherson Contemporary figures In 2005, 58.3 million animals were used world wide in experimental research This did not included nonhuman animals killed for tissues, nonhuman animals used to maintain genetically-modified strains, and nonhuman animals euthanised due to being surplus to research requirements When those figures were included the conservative estimate increased to 115.3 million (see Taylor et al. 2008)

35. Neil McPherson Criticisms of vivisection – moral Ethical & political critiques Singer & utilitarianism Regan & rights based approaches Francione& moral veganism Adams & feminist critique

36. Neil McPherson Criticisms of vivisection – scientific Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine (DLRM) Doctors Against Animal Experiments Germany (DAAEG) “Clinging to animal experiments does not have scientific reasons, but rather is based largely on tradition…Bernard's doctrine lives on in a contemporary scientific paradigm that only accepts results that are analytically explicable, as well as measurable and reproducible. Within the framework of this scientific system, sicknesses become technical defects and animals become measuring instruments. (DAAERG 2009)

37. Neil McPherson Criticisms of vivisection - scientific Hans Ruesch(1976 & 1989) The Slaughter of the Innocent 1000 doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection “[I]t wouldn’t be possible to spend the billions of dollars the U.S. government gives to medical research at home and abroad if the researchers didn’t constantly think up new experiments, besides repeating the old classical standbys. In other words, first there is money, then means must be found to spend it.” (Ruesch 1976: 29. Original emphasis)

38. Neil McPherson Criticisms of vivisection - scientific Scientific inefficiency Me-too drugs The failures – Thalidomide, Opren Non-transferrable - aspirin and digitalis (they fail nonhuman animal tests but are effective in man) (see, alongside Ruesch, Angell 2004; Greek & Greek 2000; Preece & Chamberlain 1995).

39. Neil McPherson Scientific support for vivisection Americans for Medical Progress Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Boyd Group European Biomedical Research Association (EBRA) “Medical research is not concerned with the welfare of animals - and nor should it be’ (Derbyshire 2001: Online) (see also Gilland 2002; Paul & Paul 2001; Rowan 1984; Russell & Burch 1959).

40. Neil McPherson Alternatives to vivisection The 3Rs – replacement, refinement & reduction - here Computer modeling Improved statistical design Data sharing Synthetic skin

41. Neil McPherson Alternatives to vivisection “Are there 'alternatives' to animal experiments? Of course not: There are no 'alternatives' to vivisection, because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities. It is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always has been, more misleading and deceptive to human medicine than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be 'scientific' rather than 'alternative' methods.” (Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, December 2001 – here)