Search for a Pet

Find Animal
Welfare Groups

Check us out on:

Science Watch

Animals in Research (Vivisection)

Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, Ph.D., Sr. VP Animal Sciences and Science Advisor

Operation: Three Rs

The use of animals in research has been a concern at The “A” since Bergh’s day.

And I have seen atrocities practiced every year in this city, upon these poor dumb creatures, sickening and disgusting,” stated Henry Bergh in The ASPCA’s First Annual Report published in 1867. He was not referring to the treatment of the horses who worked city streets, or to the many dogs maimed or killed during staged fights. The Society’s founder was referring to the practice of vivisection, and the many inhumane laboratory practices he had witnessed of late. It was not uncommon for professors to expose the organs of fully conscious animals to demonstrate their functions to students and spectators. Bergh soon found that in addition to rough-house teamsters and dogfighters, he could count members of the medical profession among those who would label him “The Great Meddler.”

He’d Only Just Begun

Bergh’s beliefs on vivisection were so strong that several times during his tenure he tried to introduce a bill in New York State prohibiting its practice. This would never pass due to the strong medical profession lobby. Bergh did, however, carry on a spirited debate with the medical establishment in a series of letters and responses in the dailies and periodicals of the day.

His revolution followed on the heels of Charles Darwin’s publication of “Origin of Species” in 1859, which helped stimulate an explosive period of biological research and discovery. This included the growing use of animals in experiments, especially in the field of physiology. While Darwin thought vivisection justifiable for “real” investigations, in an 1871 letter he condemned procedures conducted for mere “damnable and detestable curiosity.”

Following Bergh’s death in 1888, The ASPCA and many humane groups struggled with the moral questions surrounding the use of animals in research. The climate was particularly difficult during and just after the turn of the century, when the medical profession seemed to produce one “miracle” after another in health care, surgery and disease control.

Laying Down the Law

The ASPCA’s most controversial confrontation came more than half a century later, with the 1952 passage of the Metcalf-Hatch Act in New York State. Originally introduced in 1950, it called for mandatory relinquishment of unwanted animals from shelters to research laboratories. During the heated and emotional debate surrounding the bill, The ASPCA maintained a neutral position, while the majority of the humane movement fought vigorously for its defeat. In light of the support from the medical community the bill seemed to enjoy, The Society believed it could salvage a victory of sorts by gaining the right to inspect the laboratories that received animals from shelters. Regardless, the American Humane Association would consider a vote to censure The ASPCA for its failure to oppose the act.

Controversy surrounding the act enveloped The Society for many years. A number of members resigned, and others protested at annual meetings. Annual Reports during this period listed the numbers of animals provided to research laboratories and the results of inspections carried out by ASPCA veterinarians. These inspections focused on the elements that form today’s standard regulations regarding laboratory animal care: Is the food proper and wholesome? Are the quarters properly ventilated? Are animals able to stand up and turn around in a natural fashion? Are anesthesia and post-operative care provided?

In several cases, The “A” cited laboratories for improper conditions. To further facilitate humane care of laboratory animals, it also offered a course in their care and treatment. At the same time, The Society steadfastedly opposed the expansion of vivisection, particularly in schools. The Spring 1962 edition of ASPCA Animal Protection carried a warning that biology textbooks may recommend that children perform experiments such as “creating vitamin deficiencies in pigeons” and “catching live frogs and insects for dissection.” The article suggested that parents read their child’s books carefully, and complain to school authorities if they contained cruel homework suggestions. The Society maintained that while research with animals may be needed to expand knowledge to provide better care for animals and humans, it should be done only by trained professionals under controlled, supervised conditions.

The ASPCA eventually opposed the Metcalf-Hatch Act, and worked with other humane groups to have it repealed in 1976. The Society has also helped defeat pound-seizure laws in various places throughout the country.

Three Rs, Many Options

Today’s Society is, in general, opposed to experimentation and believes the scientific community should focus on non-animal experimentation while actively developing alternatives. Our recent efforts have followed the 3Rs theme that guides the movement today — to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in research. In 1985 The ASPCA helped to ensure that revisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act included provisions for the exercise of dogs and the psychological welfare of primates used in animal research. Other legislative victories include a New York State bill prohibiting harmful experiments on animals by primary and secondary school students. Known as the 1994 Animal Experimentation Bill, the law allows students objecting to dissection to complete an alternative project without a negative impact on their grade.

The Society also contributed toward the creation of the Resusci-dog — a canine mannequin used to teach the basics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intubation in lieu of live animals. Originally developed for the Cornell University Veterinary Department, the model also allows students to practice the appropriate rate, pressure and position of cardiac massage and coordination of respiratory cardiovascular functions.

Several years ago, a bequest from Bernard Lasker resulted in the formation of the ASPCA Lasker Center for Humane Alternatives. In 1993, Amelia Tarzi, then director of the Lasker Center, along with Dr. F. Barbara Orlans of the Kennedy Institute for Ethics at Georgetown University, presented a paper at the First World Congress on Alternatives on Animal Use in the Life Sciences. The pair introduced a directory that listed more than 59 sources of funding for research projects to develop alternatives to the use of animals. Since that time, scientists worldwide have utilized the directory in their search for alternatives. Next year The ASPCA, along with the Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, will co-sponsor publication of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science.

Our work continues up-to-the-minute — at this writing the author is about to board a plane to the Netherlands to represent The ASPCA at the Second World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. This extraordinary conference will once again bring together people from the humane movement, scientists from academia and industry and policy makers to promote further developments in the 3Rs.

The author is ASPCA Senior Vice President, Animal Sciences & Science Advisor. He is also a Contributing Editor to Animal Watch.

Courtesy of
ASPCA
424 East 92nd St.
New York, NY 10128-6804
(212) 876-7700
www.aspca.org

Next in How You Can Help Pets: Science Watch:
Animal Cloning