A rat is not a chimp is not a dog is not a human
That’s pretty basic biology, right? Then why does animal experimentation still continue when species vary so greatly from each other? To put it in simplest terms, disease manifests itself VERY differently in different species and they will therefore react differently to medications. Similarly, humans and non-humans are so different in terms of physiology and in terms of cellular and molecular level (which is where disease occurs) that to vivisect (or cut up) an animal as a means of extrapolating results to apply to human illness is laughable
Whose crazy idea was vivisection in the first place?
Hippocrates had the right idea way back around 400 B.C.E. when he founded the concept of clinical research. Essentially, by observing disease in a number of humans, physicians can predict the course of an illness. Clinical observation still remains the most accurate method of gleaning useful medical information to this very day.
And then came a Dark Age for medical progress.
In second century Rome, the state-supported Church frowned upon the co-called desecration of human corpses and autopsies were outlawed. With no human bodies to learn from, the respected physician to the gladiators, Galen, had little choice but to cut up pigs and other animals, hence earning him the title “Father of Vivisection.” Left with only superficial observation of patients and physiological data from animals, many of his theories, such as the way blood travelled through the human body, were later proved false. Still, Galen was highly respected and medical progress was derailed for centuries in the Western world (though in Asia where autopsy prevailed, discoveries in medicine thrived).
Then, in 1543, Belgian anatomist Andreas Versalius, lit a fire under scientific progress by daring to revive the practice of human autopsy, making ground-breaking discoveries like the fact that contrary to the book of Genesis, both men and women possessed twelve ribs. He was subsequently accused of heresy by the Church and fled for his life. Thankfully, the truth could not be stifled and Versalius eventually became physician to Holy Roman Emperor Charles. For a while, the human autopsy was widely accepted as the superior way of gathering medical knowledge and the Western world entered a scientific renaissance with the ever-growing body of knowledge fed by the work of Versalius and others.
So why do we experiment on non-human animals in the twenty-first century?
Sadly, Versalius’s Golden Age was short-lived. In a bizarre turn of events, science took several steps backwards in the mid-nineteenth century. A failed playwright turned mediocre medical student by the name of Claude Bernard obtained a position in a physiology lab and became hell-bent on establishing the archaic practice of vivisection into an acceptable practice. It was in laboratories, not at bedsides, he claimed, that would provide the greatest insight into medicine. He even went as far as to kill the family pet in the name of science, much to the horror of his family (who established a home for stray dogs, hoping to find them before Dad did!)
Why did the establishment buy this theory? Animal experimentation, however inaccurate, produces lots of data, which leads to the publication of medical papers and articles, which leads to more grant money.
Does this mean that all medical researchers are putting dollars before science? It’s difficult to tell as Congress introduced the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, making it mandatory for drug manufacturers to provide proof that their medications were “safe” in 1938. Meaning, they had to be able to “prove” that some breed of animal could be given the drug without harm before it could be administered to humans. This was also quickly established as a neat and tidy way for pharmaceutical companies to avoid lawsuits if patients suffered negative effects from their drugs. In a rush to get drugs on the market, human trials, once seen as the true test of a drugs effectiveness, are often abbreviated. Then in the 1950s, it was mandated that most drugs would require prescriptions from their doctors, which meant physicians could make more money simply by the increase in necessary appointments to obtain these prescriptions. And by helping physicians make more money, the pharmaceutical companies made money too.
However, people still suffer ill effects from drugs tested as “safe” on animals, and have often died of something not discovered in a lab. Perhaps the most famous and chilling example of such effects occurred with the introduction of Thalidomide, a drug created to alleviate nausea in pregnant women. Though the drug produced no harmful effects on lab animals, mothers who took Thalidomide gave birth to babies who suffered from teratogenesis, or serious birth defects and malformations. Many babies were born without developed limbs!
Animal testing has also prevented or delayed many drugs that are helpful to humans when they predict falsely negative side-effects. The release of Penicillin, for an example, was delayed for many years because it did not work on rabbits (who, incidently, excrete penicillin in their urine, unlike people). Alexander Fleming, having nothing else to give a sick patient, administered penicillin after observing it kill bacteria in a petri dish, with successful results.
Tens of thousands of people get sick from legal pharmaceuticals every year. So much for the predicative value of animal testing in regards to humans. And yet it still prevails today!So now what?
It’s our tax dollars and donations to medical charities that fund these cruel, useless experiments, so we have more of a say than you might think. It’s up to each individual to expose scientific fallacy and demand legislation that will ensure real medical progress and real cures for the diseases that plague us and our loved ones.
