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