When was vivisection first used

But this century also saw the beginnings of an anti-vivisectionist movement. Physician Jean Riolan Jr. Descartes believed that the mind and the body are separate entities, and that animals differ from humans in that they have bodies but no true minds.

As such, animals were morally no different from machines, and so vivisection was not morally wrong. Descartes even went so far as to say that animals did not feel real pain a belief that is sometimes still repeated today, although few believe it to be true , although he stressed that vivisection was primarily defensible because it helped humans, not because hurting animals was right. He simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, which he had dissolved in DEG, and the company marketed the product.

The preparation led to mass poisoning causing the deaths of more than a hundred people. No animal testing was done. The public outcry caused by this incident and other similar disasters led to the passing of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed. Another tragic drug fiasco occurred in the late s and early s with thalidomide.

It was found to have an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and hence, thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. The drug was withdrawn in and after a long campaign. The above-mentioned incidents and others illustrate the harm to humans from the use of substances that have not been first tested on animals and underline the importance of animal experimentation to avert or prevent human tragedy.

The practice of using animals in biomedical research has led to significant advances in the treatment of various diseases. This has led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search 1 for the replacement of animals with non-living models; 2 reduction in the use of animals; and 3 refinement of animal use practices. However, total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines, and treatment.

By employing the 3Rs when continuing to use animals for scientific research, the scientific community can affirm its moral conscience as well as uphold its obligation to humanity to further the advancement of science for civilization and humanity.

However, awareness and knowledge of the types of procedures animals are subjected to for the purpose of scientific and medical progress provides for an educated, public, scientific and philosophical debate on a long-standing and controversial topic. This blog post explores the thoughts, beliefs, and scientific advancements surrounding animals and their place in the biomedical research world throughout history. Early Greek physician-scientists, who believed that nature could be understood by exploration and experiments, dissected animals for anatomical studies and to satisfy anatomical curiosity.

Animals were used as experiment and test subjects, although, it appears that humans, specifically criminals, were also used in biomedical research and experiments at the time.

Dissections performed on animals are called vivisections, defined as the exploratory surgery of live animals. During vivisections, physician-scientists examine sensory nerves, motor nerves and tendons in order to understand their functional differences. He used these methods of research for practice, in contrast to the exploratory research in the Greek tradition.

In order to understand, even briefly, the ancient thoughts towards vivisection and experimentation on live animals, it is essential to remove oneself from the thoughts of today and approach the subject matter with the knowledge and beliefs of the time period. The Christian Church subscribed to the view that humans did not share a common lineage with other animals, and for most ancient Greeks, using live animals in experiments did not raise any relevant moral questions.

Throughout the Age of Enlightenment c. At this point, the thoughts on the use of animals in research went from animals being here to serve humankind in any way we see fit, to the acknowledgement of their sentience and the fact that they could feel pain, but the justification that their pain was a necessary evil. Over the seventeenth century, animal experiments would prove to be more informative and relevant in obtaining scientifically sound knowledge.

However, the moral acceptability of inducing suffering in animals in the name of scientific advancement also became an issue raised in opposition of vivisection before the end of the seventeenth century.

Yet even those who acknowledged that animals suffered through experiments, nevertheless defended themselves against the accusation of cruelty by alleging that the suffering of animals in the name of science was justified for the sake of humankind. This defence is not unfamiliar today. The 18th Century marked the rise of moral consideration for animals. Stephen Hales was the first to measure pressure in the blood vessels, and contributed significant advancements in the understanding of cardiovascular and respiratory physiology.

Albrecht Von Haller is known for his work on inflammation, neurophysiology, heart function, and hemodynamics.