for two reasons: money and establishment. Vivisectors receive millions
of dollars for such experiments as observing fat and fiber’s effect
on hamsters’ cholesterol; studying mice to determine the role of
selenium in breast cancer; and feeding animals copper because humans don’t
VIVISECTION LINES POCKETS
Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry, with many
interconnected parties. Vivisectors receive hundreds of thousands of dollars,
even millions, for experimenting on animals. Research grants are frequently
awarded based on political and economic motives rather than scientific
potential, which explains why clearly nonsensical experiments continue
to receive funding
Recently the National
Institute of Mental Health was cited for squandering valuable research
money on wasteful experiments such as fish communication. Medical professionals
are resolutely opposing the institute’s decision to spend millions
of dollars on studies regarding the mental processes of animals and only
5.8% of the budget on clinically relevant, human-based research. Here
are some examples of ludicrous experiments and their cost to taxpayers:
- Squirrel monkeys
dosed with lithium, a potent drug used in the treatment of psychotics,
lose their appetites; National Institute of Mental Health, $407,200.
- Old rhesus monkeys
do not have the learning or memory abilities of young monkeys; Boston
University & Yerkes Regional Primate Center, $1,225,000.
- Old cats do not
sleep well in very hot or very cold rooms; Stanford School of Medicine,
- Baby macaque monkeys
separated from their mothers at birth may suffer emotional and behavioral
problems later in life; University of Colorado, $262,400.
- Dogs with narcolepsy
(a disease causing uncontrollable sleeping) spend more time drowsy and
asleep than normal dogs; Stanford University School of Medicine, $847,000.
- Female rhesus monkeys
sprayed with copulins (sex scents) have more sexual encounters than
unsprayed monkeys; Emory University, $164,000.
Millions and millions
of dollars are being channeled into animal experimentation with the publicized
message that it helps people. Yet a closer look reveals not only the inaccuracy
of the animal model, but also the duplicative and wasteful nature of these
experiments. We already know human children suffer without a mother’s
love, and that narcolepsy will make a dog drowsy. Why pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars for scientists to conclude what is already known?
of equipment, food and services relevant to animal experimentation reap
the financial benefits too. These are the companies that produce and sell:
- cages, racks, tanks,
food dishes and water bottles;
- carts, dollies,
and trays to store and move animals;
- restraining chairs
and restraining devices to hold animals immobile;
- pain gauges and
other measuring equipment;
- syringes, feeding
tubes, and other delivery systems;
- transport, isolation
and test chambers;
- self-piercing tags
and tattoo machines;
- collar monitors;
- laboratory monitoring
and alarm systems;
- lab planning services;
- cage and rack cleansers
- the animals themselves:
animal suppliers, animal breeders, and animal dealers.
and offer animals who have been surgically or otherwise modified, even
“created.” Read Animals in Laboratories
to learn more about them.
technicians, and animal care personnel who work with animals in laboratories
make their living by riding on the coattails of vivisection. Of course,
they can seek similar employment elsewhere.
These associates lobby
for the continuation of animal experimentation; without it, they would
financially suffer. Compounding this pressure, there is a lack of monetary
support for the development and implementation of non-animal research.
Within the industry, there is a stronger acceptance of animal-based tests,
regardless of the superiority of available replacements. This bias makes
it too easy for a researcher to receive grant money for an animal experiment,
and unfairly difficult to impossible at times to receive money for an
VIVISECTION IS HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED
study has found 75% of Americans are opposed to testing our personal care
and household products on animals. Then why does product testing on animals
continue? Because the companies that manufacture personal care and household
products have convinced consumers that it is necessary for our safety.
Yet their only aim is to avoid responsibility for any damage done by their
products. With industry-accepted animal data deeming a product safe, the
company is customarily not held responsible if the product then harms
are set up to cage, restrain, and experiment on animals. This requires
a lot of equipment, which means a lot of money has already been spent.
It may seem a significant undertaking to re-establish the laboratory as
a non-animal testing facility; who these days wants to spend money? Yet
the truth is that by utilizing non-animal testing methods, money will
in fact be saved. Gone are the expenses for the animals themselves, their
cages, food and water bottles, the restraining equipment and testing tools.
By embracing change and adopting non-animal tests, less money is spent,
and the tests will finally be legitimate.
Vivisection has not
proven to be valid or useful, but its long history is enough to convince
some that it is legitimate. Insurance companies and lawyers fall into
this category. They typically rely on animal data to assess and ensure
human safety, assuming such an old tradition must be well-founded. Their
ignorance and fear of potential liability lead them to overwhelmingly
accept animal data over replacement techniques.
This long history
also endows vivisectors with a false sense of relevance and importance
in their profession. With blind acceptance of such an enduring tradition,
they see no need to question the value of their test methods. But, just
because vivisection has been conducted for centuries does not indicate
legitimacy or usefulness. Remember, child abuse and slavery were also
Vivisectors’ resistance to questioning their line of work can stem
from a huge ego to an honest belief in doing good. Some continue using
animals because they’ve already committed to it, and to change tactics
would be admitting defeat or wrongdoing.
Some vivisectors claim
to love animals, undoubtedly a ruse to deny the suffering they are causing
them. Some are just ignorant, some too lazy to learn new techniques, some
too comfortable with their established routines. Others continue testing
on animals because they don’t want to concede to the animal rights’
So for these feeble
reasons, cruel and ridiculous experiments continue to be performed on
animals. Vivisection has not proven to be relevant or reliable.
It persists because of custom.