Vivisection: Right or Wrong?

According to statistics produced by Mercy for Animals, somewhere between 17-70 million animals are tortured and killed each year through vivisection, the practice of scientifically experimenting on animals.

The highly controversial practice of vivisection has its roots in the interdiction against the dissection of human corpses. While religious leaders ultimately lifted the bans of being able to study human corpses, unfortunately, vivisection was already an established method used in educational and medical institutions. As a result, the practice (which can elicit extremely passionate emotions) has not ceased.

The majority of animal lovers abhor the practice, deeming it utterly inhumane. On the other hand, many scientists use vivisection to continue extensive research aimed at discovering more effective treatment options and medications for human health conditions; they claim that vivisection can save thousands of lives.

Despite scientists affirmations that vivisection can and will save lives, the statistics produced by Mercy for Animals are truly eye-opening and disturbing. While the Animal Welfare Act mandates all laboratories to report the number of animals used experimentally, the act does not require laboratories to report the number of birds, mice and rats used which accounts for 80 to 90 percent of all animal experiments, which leaves animal welfare groups and concerned animal lovers in the dark about the precise number of animals who suffer and die (which accounts for the large gap between 17 million and 70 million in the group's estimate).

Owned by Bausch and Lomb, Charles River Breeding Laboratories,(CRBL),headquartered in Massachusetts, is the largest breeding company in the United States. The company provides 40-50 percent of all the rats, guinea pigs, hamsters mice, rhesus monkeys, imported primates, miniature swine and gerbils. CRBL also supplies researchers with dogs and cats for experimentation.

The world's largest funder of animal experiments is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Approximately $5 billion of all monies the organization grants annually goes to research in which animals are involved.  

Often animals used in research are obtained through "free to good home" advertisements in local papers. And while the Animal Welfare Act regulations covers animals raised for food, according to Mercy for Animals, this protection is minimal and often not rigorously inspected.

Many commercial manufacturers producing household goods and cosmetics still continue torturing animals while testing their products on them to assure “safety” for humans.

However, it is common knowledge that animal species differ widely physiologically. For example, in a 1989 research project designed to determine if fluoride was carcinogenic, 520 rats and 520 mice were dosed daily with the mineral for two years. While no mouse was affected adversely, rats developed bone and oral cancer. Simply put, if a rat and a mouse react differently to testing, how can a human’s reaction be predicted?

Some big names in the medical industry, including Dr. Charles Mayo, the founder of the Mayo Clinic, oppose vivisection.

"I abhor vivisection," Mayo said. "It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil."

With the modern human simulations available today, in this writer’s opinion, there is no longer any justification for continuing the practice of vivisection. Not only is vivisection inhumane, but the data obtained from it is unreliable, which warrants the practice to be discontinued. 

What are your thoughts on vivisection? Share your opinion with a comment.