Vivisection through the eyes of Wilkie Collins, HG Wells and John Galsworthy

The article argues that, unlike Collins' adamantly negative view towards vivisection in the latter half of the nineteenth century and approaching the end of his writing career and life, Wells and Galsworthy's changing opinions responded to medical advances, reflected the dynamics of public opinion, and their own knowledge and experience at their time of writing. With its primary focus on Galsworthy, the study also explores the reactions of contemporary critics, readers, scientists and medical practitioners to these depictions of vivisection. Above all, the article argues that popular writers, particularly before modern multimedia, greatly influenced public attitudes towards changes in society, including medical research by vivisection. The ultimate change of heart towards vivisection by Nobel Prize winner Galsworthy, an indirect and eminent beneficiary of vivisection, the article concludes, would have boosted public acceptance and the cause of modern medicine.

Pain as Practice in Paolo Mantegazza’s Science of Emotions

Paolo Mantegazza’s science of emotions represents the dominant style of thinking that was fostered by the late nineteenth-century Italian scientific community, a positivist school that believed that the dissemination of Darwin’s evolutionary ideas would promote social progress in that country. Within this collective thought, Mantegazza was committed not only to studying the physiological experience of pain by means of vivisection but also to completing an anthropological study that examined the differences between the expressions of suffering in primitive and civilized cultures.Thus, the meaning of pain appears throughout Mantegazza’s research as a result of applying an ensemble of scientific practices integral to observation, experimentation, and he scientific self, which enabled its main physiological and psychological manifestations to be reproduced in the laboratory. Among these practices, photography allowed Mantegazza to mobilize pain as an emotion whose performativity shaped national identities, such as those that embodied the recently created Italian state.

Rumo à regulamentação da utilização de animais no ensino e na pesquisa científica no Brasil

A comunidade científica brasileira clama por uma sistematização definitiva e por uma norma federal abrangente e realista, mais orientadora e reguladora, e menos sancionadora, onde a questão da pesquisa científica com animais possa ser mais bem contemplada. OBJETIVO: Descrever a situação em que se encontra a regulamentação para o uso de animais em treinamento e pesquisa científica, no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Foi identificada e discutida a legislação existente no Brasil e no Estado do Rio de Janeiro acerca da utilização de animais no treinamento e na pesquisa científica. RESULTADOS: Não existe norma geral sistematizadora atualizada referente à vivissecção e experimentação com animais, nem para fins didáticos, nem científicos. A única lei referente a esse tópico data de 1979 e não chegou a ser regulamentada. Leis mais recentes equiparam a prática de experimentos científicos aos atos de abuso e maus tratos de animais, na presença de tecnologia alternativa. No município do Rio de Janeiro, a prática de vivissecção e de experiências com animais em instituições veterinárias públicas municipais está proibida, desde 2001. Atualmente, existe um substitutivo em discussão, na Câmara Federal, resultado da avaliação de projetos de leis mais recentes, que representa um avanço inestimável, sem, contudo, corresponder a um corpo de princípios e diretrizes que possam nortear eficazmente a questão. CONCLUSÃO: Ainda não existe uma regulamentação para a utilização de animais no ensino e na pesquisa científica em nosso país. Torna-se imperativo adotar dispositivos lúcidos e realistas que garantam a continuação dessa utilização. A comunidade científica dispõe-se a contribuir explicitamente para esse objetivo.

Laboratory animals and the art of empathy

Consistency is the hallmark of a coherent ethical philosophy. When considering the morality of particular behaviour, one should look to identify comparable situations and test one's approach to the former against one's approach to the latter. The obvious comparator for animal experiments is non-consensual experiments on people. In both cases, suffering and perhaps death is knowingly caused to the victim, the intended beneficiary is someone else, and the victim does not consent. Animals suffer just as people do. As we condemn non-consensual experiments on people, we should, if we are to be consistent, condemn non-consensual experiments on animals. The alleged differences between the two practices often put forward do not stand up to scrutiny. The best guide to ethical behaviour is empathy--putting oneself in the potential victim's shoes. Again to be consistent, we should empathise with all who may be adversely affected by our behaviour. By this yardstick, too, animal experiments fail the ethical test.

Animal experimentation: a rational approach towards drug development

Man's observation of animals as objects of study undoubtedly began in prehistoric times. The first recorded attempt involving the use of live animals for research was by Ersistratis in Alexandria in 300 B.C. Animal investigation has clearly made possible the enormous advances in drug development in this century. A cursory review of any modern text book of pharmacology or medicine will attest the many drugs currently available to benefit mankind in the struggle to eradicate and control diseases. The main purpose of this article is to describe some of the experimental work on animals which contributed to the discovery and development of drugs benefiting human beings and other animal species. Since animal experimentation has occupied a focal position in all the research leading to useful drugs, one will appreciate that it will be necessary to limit the discussion to certain aspects of this broad and interesting topic. With this in mind, an attempt is made to relate briefly the nature of animal investigations which were instrumental in the development of major classes of drugs. Some attention has also been focused on legislation's on animal experimentation of some developed countries with emphasis on India and to views on animal experimentation. We hope this article will stimulate the minds of the scientists for a rational debate on the future of animal experimentation.

From vilification to accommodation: making a common cause movement

The history of the vivisection debate is a case study in the use of vilification not unlike its rhetorical use by adversaries in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy. According to Vanderford, vilification in that debate serves a number of functions: to identify adversaries as “them and us”; to cast opponents in an exclusively negative light; to attribute diabolical motives to one's adversaries; and to magnify the opposition's power as an enemy capable of doing great evil. In the vivisection debate, both sides have attempted to delegitimize each other by one or more of these means. On the antivivisection side, Samuel Johnson in 1758 produced the fiercest attack up to that time on “the inferior Professors of medical knowledge” and “race of wretches whose lives are only varied by varieties of cruelty.” When the antivivisectionist movement peaked in England in the 1870s, the animal experimentalists began to organize in earnest to fend off the charge that vivisection was both cruel and useless. By the turn of the century an American neurologist, Charles Loomis Dana, identified a way to discredit the mainly female antiscience “cranks” in the antivivisection movement by inventing the disease “zoophil-psychosis” to describe one of the diseases affecting mainly women who, having no children or a useful occupation, joined animal protection societies and campaigned against vivisection. Zoophil-psychosis, it was claimed, was a form of mental illness, an incurable insanity that afflicted the hysterical opponents of vivisection.

Animals for teaching purposes: medical students' attitude

Animal rights movements have increased the scope and intensity of their activities over the past decade. While it is generally assumed that doctors and other members of the health care professions favour the use of animals for science, few data are available. Student protests in various medical schools against use of animals in teaching laboratories indicated further need for objective data. A questionnaire about attitudes to the use of animals for teaching purposes was distributed to all the medical students at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, present during classes on a given day. All students present (200) returned the questionnaire (70% of the student body). Also queried were attitudes towards related subjects. A high percentage of medical students surveyed had significant reservations about animal experimentation for teaching purposes and about the preferential priority for human life over that of animals. These attitudes, if confirmed, have serious implications for educators both in the health fields and otherwise.