DOCSLIB.ORG

THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY in AMERICA CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE Friends of Thoreau Environmental Program Franklin Institute, University of Alcalá

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY in AMERICA CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE Friends of Thoreau Environmental Program Franklin Institute, University of Alcalá THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE Friends of Thoreau Environmental Program Franklin Institute, University of Alcalá Guiding Students’ Discussion Scholars Debate Works Cited Links to Online Sources Acknowledgements & Illustration Credits MAIN PAGE Rabbit being used for experimental purposes. Courtesy of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS). MAIN PAGE 1. Introduction and Note on the Text Vivisection and animal experimentation constitute one of the institutionalized pillars of animal exploitation, and they bear a long history of political, ethical and social 1 controversies. Vivisection must not be considered as solely the moment in which an animal’s body is cut into; as will soon become evident, vivisection and animal experimentation include a whole array of procedures that are not limited to the act of severing (see Item 2 of the MAIN PAGE, hereinafter referred to as the MP), and should as well include as part of their signification the previous and subsequent conditions to the procedures in which the animals are in. It is quite difficult to ascertain the number of nonhuman others that are annually used in the United States for scientific and educational purposes, mainly due to the neglect in recording information regarding invertebrate specimens. According to the Last Chance for Animals website, the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reported that in the year 2009 1.13 million animals were used in experiments. These numbers did not include rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and agricultural animals used for agricultural experiments. To this, an estimate of 100 million rats and mice were added. There is no reason to believe that these digits have in any way decreased in the last five years (for updated details on the use of primates, prosimians and simians both in the US and in the EU see the PhD thesis by Gloria Fernández Lázaro in WORKS CITED). The object of this case study is to introduce students and scholars approaching the topic of animal experimentation or the fields of animal rights and animal welfare to the historically grounded controversy surrounding vivisection in America. Through a cultural studies perspective, it is structured in such a way that may aid the reader in learning about what kind of issues were involved in the process towards institutionalizing vivisection and its subsequent ramifications into other forms of invasive procedures for either research or educational purposes. From ethical concerns regarding the utility and cruelty associated to certain experiments to the ties between national sentiment and scientific practice, and from how the anti-vivisection cause was strongly bound to the women’s movement to how anti-vivisection stances translated into activism and aesthetic responses, the overall focus offers a comprehensive, historiographical account of how America absorbed European scientific influences and attempted to negotiate its position within them. Precisely because the transatlantic influence cannot be evaded in a project with such scope, the initial items of the MP are dedicated to a general overview of the historical origins of vivisection, the emergence of experimental physiology and the social controversy that vivisection aroused in nineteenth-century Britain. The remaining items of the MP offer a comprehensive account of the cultural and ethical context within which vivisection was ‘imported’ to America, an exposition of the leading figures enmeshed in the nineteenth and early twentieth-century pro- and anti-vivisection controversy, and analysis of key texts, and present the medical issues that were of particular concern during the period and the research undertaken as a response. The MP closes with the downfall of the anti-vivisection movement in the first decades of the twentieth century. The two following sections, titled GUIDING STUDENT DISCUSSION (hereinafter GSD) and SCHOLARS’ DEBATE (hereinafter SD), are structured as a series of short items, each of which presents a short introduction to a particular topic related to the vivisection controversy in America and provides specific research material for readers to develop their critical skills and knowledge. In these sections, readers will become acquainted with current regulations and legislation regarding animal experimentation, with the contrast between the animal rights and liberation movement and the nineteenth- 2 century animal protection movement, with the links between animal cruelty, racism and child abuse, with the American literary and film productions related to animal experimentation and animal liberation activism, with product testing and with forms of research beyond the medical field, among other topics. Regarding the text itself, readers are informed that the term ‘animal(s)’ has generally been used as a substitute of the term ‘nonhuman other(s)’ to refer to animal species other than human for the sake of simplification. In addition to this, the text is consistent with the spelling of the term ‘anti-vivisection,’ but quoted excerpts that may include an alternative spelling are left untouched. In order to facilitate the connections and cross- references between different sections and different items, indications are given as to where to find the related information (with the abbreviations of the sections – MP, GSD, SD). Regarding the WORKS CITED section, entries might sometimes be listed in accordance to the title of the publication when the author is not known, particularly in the case of newspaper articles and reports (note that some publications may begin with the word ‘The’). Regarding the LINKS TO ONLINE SOURCES section, the websites that have been listed are mostly those of a number of animal rights and liberation organizations that offer revealing information about animal experimentation today. In most of the cases, each of these websites offers links to other sources that may be of further use for readers. Finally, readers are warned that some of the excerpts quoted and especially some of the footage accessed through links provided in this case study are very graphic and may contain images of animal cruelty; viewer discretion is advised. 2. Definition of the Term ‘Vivisection’ The etymology of the compound noun ‘vivisection’ can be traced back to the Latin ‘vivus’ (living) and ‘sectio’ (cutting). In their brilliant essay on the evolution of vivisection from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century, Maehle and Tröhler identify the precursors to the term: Its early Latin forerunners were ‘incidere vivorum corpora’ (cutting the bodies of the living) in Roman Antiquity and ‘vivi animantis sectio’ (cutting of a living being), ‘vivorum sectio’ (cutting of the living) or ‘viva sectio’ (cutting alive) in the Renaissance. (1987: 14) They go on to add subsequent expressions that were to come into use during the seventeenth century and that for the first time seemed to have marked a distinction based on the subject used in the practice: ‘vivorum anatomia,’ ‘animantium dissection,’ ‘vivorum dissectio’ and ‘vivorum sectio’ were used to refer to the sectioning of living beings in general, whereas ‘vivorum hominum section’ referred to the cutting of living human beings and ‘vivorum brutorum sectio’ to the cutting of living animals (Maehle and Tröhler 1987: 14). The earliest instance of the term in English has been fairly recently found by Sugg (2007: 161) in the 1698 work by surgeon and anatomist William Cowper, The Anatomy of Human Bodies. Although etymologically not associated to the act of experimentation, modern connotations suggest a profound link with such types of procedures, particularly since the mid-late nineteenth century and the emergence of experimental physiology. And yet, for all its denotations of ‘cutting,’ vivisection has, especially throughout the twentieth 3 century, also come to designate forms of experimentation that are not necessarily limited to surgical or anatomical intervention. As Rupke (1987a) notes, nowadays the list of fields that are attached to vivisection stretch beyond biological sciences such as physiology, pharmacology, or microbiology, among others, and beyond clinical medicine such as immunology, pathology, or surgical studies to include not just behavioral experimentation, but the more alarming research on the cosmetic, drink and tobacco industries, and even the testing and trials of common household products for cleaning, disinfecting, etc. Without a doubt it is this incessant expansion of fields in which animals are tested which has rendered the term ‘animal experimentation’ as the more adequately suited (and perhaps more public-friendly designation?) to refer to the invasive intervention on animals’ bodies and/or minds, as opposed to ‘vivisection’ (J. Turner 1980: 166), which has somewhat fallen into disuse. By favoring this term experimenters have condoned a relational link between their disparate procedures and hence, to some extent, have fortified their justification. Cancer research would potentially nominally fall into the same category as behavioral and psychological studies on the effects of, for instance, profound isolation. The latter example may not necessarily require any ‘cutting,’ transfusions, deliberate infections, or forced administration of hazardous drugs on the subject; yet, in a way, the sharing of the term ‘animal experimentation’ equates the relevance of the ‘means’ to that of cancer research, however distinct both their ends may be. Cancer research being perceived
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 書 名 1 0 to 10
    No. 書 名 1 0 to 10. 2 1,2,3 to the zoo : a counting book. 3 10 cut-ups. 4 10 in the bed 5 1001 things to spot on the farm. 6 101 dalmatians : Walt Disney's classic. 7 101 dalmatians : Walt Disney's classic. 8 101 ways to get your child to read. 9 25 Terrific art projects : based on favorite picture books. 10 366 and more Animal Stories. 11 A bad case of stripes. 12 A ball for Daisy. 13 A bear called paddington. 14 A Bear-y good neighbor. 15 A big ball of string. 16 A book of sleep. 17 A bug, a bear, and a boy paint a picture. 18 A busy day at the factory. 19 A cake all for me! 20 A cake all for me! 21 A cat in the tree. 22 A chair for my mother. 23 A child's garden of verses. 24 A Civil action. 25 A color of his own. 26 A dark dark tale. 27 A day at the beach. 28 A day in the woods. 29 A fine balance. 30 A fox : the sound of x. 31 A friend for dragon. 32 A good trick. 33 A Halloween happening. 34 A Halloween mask for monster. 35 A handful of quiet : happiness in four pebbles. 36 A house for hermit crab. 37 A house is a house for me. 38 A is for aloha : a Hawaii alphabet. 39 A kiss for Cleo. 40 A little bit of winter. 41 A million little pieces. 42 A monkey grows up.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Programs Have Been Identified As Examples of Successful Practices
    National Leadership Forum Sept. 28, 2006 American Humane’s Getting to Zero Initiative is a critical, national undertaking based on the profound belief that American society can ultimately reduce to zero the number of healthy or treatable dogs, cats and other companion animals that are euthanized in animal care and control facilities. American Humane has made the reduction and eventual practices” in spay/neuter, transfer, adoption, foster care and elimination of shelter and animal control euthanasia of healthy training. Phase Two is this Leadership Forum to shed light on dogs and cats one of its highest priorities. Although many the problem and highlight some of the best practices in use Americans maintain a deep love and affection for animals, and today. Phase Three is the funding and implementation phase. pets are cherished members of millions of families, the millions With funding secured, American Humane will implement the of healthy, adoptable dogs and cats euthanized each year replication and delivery process to facilities, starting initially remains a source of shame for our country. with six animal welfare agencies or consortia of animal care and control entities in six geographic regions in each of the next two In order to combat this problem, American Humane is years, for a total of 12 community-based programs during the committed to helping identify, support and obtain funding for initial phase of the campaign. Animal care and control facilities the replication of community-based interventions that have will apply and be assessed as to their potential to implement the demonstrated success in reducing the euthanasia of healthy or best practices.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Laws" "Higher
    tcny n<,rt IIInl J J A BENEFACTOR OF HIS RACE: THOREAU'S "HIGHER LAWS" AND THE HEROICS OF VEGETARIANISM ROBERT EPSTEIN grasped and lived by is the law which says: "Follow your own gen­ Berkeley, California ius"--be what you are, whether you are by your own nature hunter, or Was Thoreau a vegetarian or not? There wood chopper, or scholar. When you are several answers to this question. have become perfect you will be perfect; but only if you have If dietary practice is to be the sole learned to be, all along, what at criterion for judging, then Thoreau cannot be each manent you were. (pp 84-5) considered a vegetarian, since, by his own account, he ate fish and meat (though the Echoing Thoreau, the eminent psycholo­ latter rarely). gist, Carl G. Jung once wrote: Yet, despite this fact, Thoreau espoused I had to obey an inner law which a vegetarian ethic. So, his practice does was :irr\posed on me and left me no not suffice as a criterion for judging the freedanfreedom of choice. Of course I did extent of his vegetarianism. Consequently, not always obey it. How can anyone he has been criticized numerous times, e.g. live without inconsistency? (1965, by Wagenknecht, 1981, Garber, 1977, Jones, p. 356) 1954, for being inconsistent. How consistent was he in adhering to the vegetarian ideal? What we need to do in Thoreau scholarship-­ The question is not easy to answer. We must particularly regarding his dietary views--is ask: consistent from whose point of view? put aside our judgments of inconsistency The notion of consistency cannot always and (which frequently represent a defense against easily be objectively detennined,determined, because the areas of conflict in us) and attempt to un­ critic's own biases distort that which is derstand Thoreau franfrom within his own frame of ref~ence.[l] being viewed, in this case Thoreau's vegetar­ The question with which we ianism.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Pages
    ! ! UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ! RIVERSIDE! ! ! ! ! Tiny Revolutions: ! Lessons From a Marriage, a Funeral,! and a Trip Around the World! ! ! ! A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction ! of the requirements! for the degree of ! ! Master of !Fine Arts ! in!! Creative Writing ! and Writing for the! Performing Arts! by!! Margaret! Downs! ! June !2014! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Thesis Committee: ! ! Professor Emily Rapp, Co-Chairperson! ! Professor Andrew Winer, Co-Chairperson! ! Professor David L. Ulin ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Copyright by ! Margaret Downs! 2014! ! ! The Thesis of Margaret Downs is approved:! ! !!_____________________________________________________! !!! !!_____________________________________________________! ! Committee Co-Chairperson!! !!_____________________________________________________! Committee Co-Chairperson!!! ! ! ! University of California, Riverside!! ! !Acknowledgements ! ! Thank you, coffee and online banking and MacBook Air.! Thank you, professors, for cracking me open and putting me back together again: Elizabeth Crane, Jill Alexander Essbaum, Mary Otis, Emily Rapp, Rob Roberge, Deanne Stillman, David L. Ulin, and Mary Yukari Waters. ! Thank you, Spotify and meditation, sushi and friendship, Rancho Las Palmas and hot running water, Agam Patel and UCR, rejection and grief and that really great tea I always steal at the breakfast buffet. ! Thank you, Joshua Mohr and Paul Tremblay and Mark Haskell Smith and all the other writers who have been exactly where I am and are willing to help. ! And thank you, Tod Goldberg, for never being satisfied with what I write. !Dedication! ! ! For Misty. Because I promised my first book would be for you. ! For my hygges. Because your friendship inspires me and motivates me. ! For Jason. Because every day you give me the world.! For Everest. Because. !Table of Contents! ! ! !You are braver than you think !! ! ! ! ! ! 5! !When you feel defeated, stop to catch your breath !! ! ! 26! !Push yourself until you can’t turn back !! ! ! ! ! 40! !You’re not lost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: a Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University
    Sociology Compass 6/2 (2012): 166–181, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature Lyle Munro* School of Applied Media and Social Sciences, Monash University Abstract Traditionally, philosophers have had most to say about the ethics of our treatment of non-human animals (hereafter animals); it is only in recent years that social scientists have engaged with issues concerning humans and other animals. However, in the sociological literature and more generally in the emerging field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS), evidence of interest in the animal protec- tion movement is slight. This review of Eliasian theory, Marxist realism, feminism, ecofeminism, and social constructionist theory – along with key activist approaches to animal activism and advo- cacy – indicates the theoretical richness of the topic that is nonetheless empirically poor. The ani- mal protection movement is referred to here simply as the animal movement or where appropriate, as one of its three strands – animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights. The article concludes with a discussion of how social movement theory (the ‘why’) and practice (the ‘how’) might be enhanced by social movement scholars working in collaboration with animal acti- vists. Introduction A number of writers including Tovey (2003), Hobson-West (2007), and Irvine (2008) have recently drawn attention to the rare appearance of human–animal topics in social science texts. Work in the field of Human–Animal Studies (HAS) has mainly been con- fined to specialist journals and more recently to edited anthologies of previously published articles (Arluke and Sanders 2009; Flynn 2008; Wilkie and Inglis 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Society Register
    ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan ISSN 2544-5502 SOCIETY REGISTER 3 (3) 2019 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan SOCIETY REGISTER 2019 / Vol. 3, No. 3 ISSN: 2544-5502 | DOI: 10.14746/sr EDITORIAL TEAM: Mariusz Baranowski (Editor-in-Chief), Marcos A. Bote (Social Policy Editor), Piotr Cichocki (Quantitative Research Editor), Sławomir Czapnik (Political Science Editor), Piotr Jabkowski (Statistics Editor), Mark D. Juszczak (International Relations), Agnieszka Kanas (Stratification and Inequality Editor), Magdalena Lemańczyk (Anthropology Editor), Urszula Markowska-Manista (Educational Sciences Editor), Bartosz Mika (Sociology of Work Editor), Kamalini Mukherjee (English language Editor), Krzysztof Nowak-Posadzy (Philoso- phy Editor), Anna Odrowąż-Coates (Deputy Editor-in-Chief), Aneta Piektut (Migration Editor). POLISH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Agnieszka Gromkowska-Melosik, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland); Kazimierz Krzysztofek, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Roman Leppert, Kazimierz Wielki University (Poland); Renata Nowakowska-Siuta, ChAT (Poland); Inetta Nowosad, University of Zielona Góra (Poland); Ewa Przybylska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland); Piotr Sałustowicz, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Poland); Bogusław Śliwerski, University of Lodz (Poland); Aldona Żurek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland). INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Tony Blackshaw, Sheffield Hallam University (United King- dom); Theodore Chadjipadelis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki (Greece); Kathleen J. Farkas, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); Sribas Goswami, Serampore College, University of Calcutta (India); Bozena Hautaniemi, Stockholm University (Sweden); Kamel Lahmar, University of Sétif 2 (Algeria); Georg Kam- phausen, University of Bayreuth (Germany); Nina Michalikova, University of Central Oklahoma (US); Jaroslaw Richard Romaniuk, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (US); E.
    [Show full text]
  • (CCAC) Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals Volume
    Canadian Council on Animal Care Conseil canadien de protection des animaux Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals Volume 1, 2nd Edition Sections of this document that have been revised are replaced by links to the relevant documents. The remaining sections are undergoing revision; however, they will continue to be used for CCAC assessments until revised guidelines are published. Editors Dr E.D. Olfert Dr B.M. Cross Mrs A.A. McWilliam Director Asssistant Director Information Officer Animal Resources Centre Animal Resources Centre Canadian Council on Animal Care University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan 1000-151 Slater Street Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H3 S7N 0W0 S7N 0W0 In keeping with the CCAC policy of revising statements and guidelines as needed, users of this Guide are encouraged to forward any comments to the Secretariat. Citing certain devices or manufacturers is not to be perceived as the endorsement of the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) of one particular product over another. Publication Date: 1993 Revision Date: April 2020 © Canadian Council on Animal Care, 1993 ISBN: 0-919087-18-3 Canadian Council on Animal Care 190 O’Connor St., Suite 800 Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2R3 http://www.ccac.ca Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................1 PREFACE.........................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Consideration of Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals for Research and Teaching
    Division of Laboratory Animal Resources Consideration of Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals For Research and Teaching From the ETSU Animal Study Protocol form: The search for alternatives refers to the three Rs described in the book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959) by Russell and Burch. The 3Rs are reduction in the number of animals used, refinement of techniques and procedures to reduce pain or distress, and replacement of animals with non-animal techniques or use of less-sentient species. Refinement: The use of analgesics and analgesia, the use of remote telemetry to increase the quality and quantity of data gathered, and humane endpoints for the animals are examples of refinements. Reduction: The use of shared control groups, preliminary screening in non-animal systems, innovative statistical packages or a consultation with a statistician are examples of reduction alternatives. Replacement: Alternatives such as in vitro, cell culture, tissue culture, models, simulations, etc. are examples of replacement. This is also where you might look for any non-mammalian animal models—fish or invertebrates, for example—that would still give you the data you need. The AWIC (Animal Welfare Information Center) recommends alternative searches be performed in 2 phases. Phase 1 considers reduction and refinement and the recommendation is NOT to use the word "alternative" unless the particular area of research happens to be an area in which there has been considerable work in developing alternatives (e.g. Toxicology and education). This phase should get after no unnecessary duplication, appropriate animal numbers, the best pain-relieving agents and other methods that may serve to minimize or limit pain and distress.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty Free International
    Cruelty Free International Sector: Household and Personal Care Region: Based in the United Kingdom, operates globally Cruelty Free International certifies brands producing cosmetics, personal care, household and cleaning products that do all they can to remove animal testing from their supply chains ('cruelty- free') and comply with the Leaping Bunny certification criteria. Cruelty Free International’s sustainability claim is the Leaping Bunny logo on products, which aims to allow shoppers to make more informed choices. Cruelty Free International and its partners have, so far, certified over 1000 brands around the world. Mindset Life Cycle Thinking: The claim focuses on the product manufacturing stage (i.e. the relevant phase where animal testing would occur). A supplier monitoring system must be implemented to monitor the claim, to ensure that the brand has not carried out, commissioned or been party to experiments on animals during the manufacturing of a product throughout its supply chain (including its raw materials and ingredients), whilst an independent and rigorous audit is conducted within the first 12 months of certification, and then every three years. Hotspots Analysis Approach: As a single-issue certification scheme, Cruelty Free International does not aim to assess all relevant impacts of the products it certifies and has therefore not undertaken a hotspots analysis. Cruelty Free International focuses on monitoring and enforcing high cruelty free standards throughout a brand’s manufacturing of a product. Mainstreaming Sustainability: Cruelty Free International encourages certified brands to apply the cruelty free logic to other products in their portfolio. Partnerships with ethical and cruelty free brands are also designed to support a brand's external sustainability and advocacy strategies and internal objectives.
    [Show full text]