Julia

Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

English I-Search Report
Section I
Each year, more than 28 million animals are killed in laboratories across the United
States alone. These animals endure cruel, unusual operations, and are then monitored on their
health and behavior, left in pain by these surgical procedures for the purpose of scientific
experimentation. The practice of performing operations on live animals, such as replacing
certain body parts or deliberately giving them diseases, is known as Vivisection. The main goal
of most of these tests is to recreate or stimulate the way a disease or injury would affect a human,
and then test ideas on how to cure it. In the world of science, it is said to be a necessity in order
to make medical breakthroughs that could potentially save human lives. However, avid animal-
right supporters will argue that this interference is unnecessary and immoral.
Personally, I believe that the interference between science and nature can be very risky,
and while the difference may seem clear, there is a very thin line between what is moral, and
what is not. I do think that science can interfere in positive ways, like building a dam to control
water sources or creating alternative sources of energy. However, in cases such as vivisection, I
find it unethical for science to interfere with nature in such a way that presents harm, such as the
tests that leave thousands of animals mutilated, terrified, and dead. In this paper I will be
discussing both the opposing and supporting sides of this controversial subject. I will finish by
expressing my opinions and point of view on what Ive learned.
When first given this project, this topic was one of the ones that immediately jumped out
to me, because it is something that I am interested in and Animal Welfare is something I am
passionate about. When doing a research project, I know the importance of picking something
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

that interests you, and that is mainly what brought me to my decision. Another reason that I
picked this is because despite me being unfamiliar with vivisection, I knew Id find plenty of
information through my research. I also liked the questions listed under my topic, and knew
theyd be helpful in my writing process.
During conducting my research, I hoped to learn just what Vivisection was and find some
examples of it, in order to gain a better understanding and opinion. Because my topic is rather
emotional, I wanted to make sure I carefully looked at both sides and tried not to be biased. All
of this knowledge will benefit be because I will be learning about something new from not just
one side, but from many perspectives. This helps me learn how to pick and defend my own
opinions, while countering other ones. Other than that, learning about something new can always
benefit me, and being able to explain something that may be unfamiliar to others can help them
spark an interest on the same topic.
Section II
I chose vivisection as my topic because it was something that stood out to me apart from
the others, since Ive always loved animals and been interested in animal rights. Before
conducting research I knew a few things about vivisection since it is a form of animal testing,
something that has came up many times when I was conducting research for my MYP project.
From what I have read and seen, I know that the experiments in those laboratories vivisection are
inhumane and very unfair to the animals. They are raised in poor conditions only to be faced
with cruel and abnormal tests and trials, some of which may not even have a solid purpose. I also
know that other than small mammals like rats and rabbits, cats, dogs, and monkeys are most
commonly used in these tests.
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

However, any previous knowledge or opinions I have regarding this topic have been
drawn from one point of view. One thing that I am definitely unfamiliar with are the exact
benefits of these experiments. Starting out, I know nothing about how this has advanced medical
studies or what it has been able to cure. I can assume that vivisection has been beneficial and
helpful in some cases, but also that it is extremely controversial. I understand that some animals
may have similar DNA, but I still feel that most of the anatomy o humans and animals is
significantly different. I figure what goes on in those laboratories, and is deliberately hidden
from the public, is horrific, wrong, and from an ethical standpoint, wholly immoral, since no one
in this industry wants it to be seen.
Section III
To find my print sources, I picked three books from the school library that clearly applied
to my topic. Since most of them were broken up into certain sections, I was able to determine
what I was looking for, (pros, cons) and then found quotes that connected. The quotes that I
found emotional or disturbing jumped out at me most, and then the interesting ones with solid
arguments that made most sense. As for my online sources, there were a lot more options and
endless articles, making it a lot more difficult to sort through what to use and what to skip over.
First, I used the data bases in the school library. These all have summaries, making it much
easier to filter through the results that come up. Once I determined that the article could be
useful, Id go back and read the entire thing more carefully. Of course, I paid close attention to
the actual source and author of the article, paying close attention to the ones written by scientists,
professors, an animal rights organization, etc. For this project, I felt it wasnt necessary to use an
interview as a source. Although it could be useful, I felt like the information I found on the
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

computer would be enough and I had a good amount of solid, reliable sources. Since it would be
difficult to find someone with actual experience regarding my topic, I do not need an interview.
While conducting my research, I did run into a few difficulties. Most of the articles I found were
very long and thorough, so picking out the important parts was hard and tedious. Also, many of
the quotes themselves were long, or I felt that I needed every part to it, so condensing them was
another difficult task.
Throughout my research, Ive learned many things on the topic of vivisection.
Something that was made very clear in my investigation was that vivisection notably violates
animal rights, conducting too many experiments on such a huge number of innocent and
defenseless creatures. One animal rights website states Estimates of the number of animals
tortured and killed annually in U.S. laboratories diverge widely - from 17 to 70 million animals
[...] Because [mice,rats,birds] are not covered by the Act, they remain uncounted and we can
only guess at how many actually suffer and die each year. (Vivisection online) This quote
shows that so many animals are dying in the labs that no one is even sure of an exact number.
Excluding the most commonly used animals from an act (Animal Awareness Act) that is
supposed to be protecting them is pure irony, and a clear violation of any rights those animals
may have. The most common thought among those against animal testing is Just as we do not
experiment on humans who are incapable of consenting to experimentation, we should not
experiment on non-human animals. (Lin Online) I came across this several times, many people
claiming that none of these animals singed off a consent form, therefore their bodies are not ours
to test on. My research came up with several examples of vivisection, one being An
experimenter at the University of California-Los Angeles who addicts monkeys to
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

methamphetamines, kills them and dissects their brains recently defended the practice of
tormenting animals in laboratories by saying that it was a "fact of science. (Goodman, online)
This along with many other cruel examples is the reason that numerous activists argue that
Vivisection is a plain and clear violation of animal rights.
Another thing I discovered during my studies was that vivisection is not always a reliable
method of medical research. There are alternatives within todays technology that could
potentially work just as or more effectively. It is said that, over-reliance on animal
experimentation has historically hindered scientific advancement and endangered human safety
because results from animal research typically cannot be applied to humans. (Vivisection
online). This is something that I actually had assumed before and strongly agree with. Even if
some parts are similar, human anatomy differs from that of a rat, just as that of a rat does from a
dog or monkey. Even the slightest difference could be something to throw off test results, which
is why alternatives should be used whenever possible. Professor Phillip S Rucker explains "For
every instance where they're using live animals, there are methods that can be used instead that
would provide either equivalent or superior educational value." (Phillip Rucker, online)
Alternatives include things like In Vitro, genetic research, autopsies, and many other methods
using todays advanced technology. Finally, many procedures done in laboratories end up being
a waste of time and money, yielding no cure or answers. Of course, when experimenting, this
will happen. However, some of the tests arent even specifically for the cure of a designated
disease; they are more of random trial and errors to better understand general something, or
somewhat of an what would happen to this, if we replaced it with this and so on. For instance,
[] certain laboratories carried out more than 3.6 million animal tests in 2009 yet less than 20
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

per cent of research is directly testing treatments for serious human diseases. (The Independent
newspapers,online)
The last thing that I learned definitely stood out to me the most and actually was what
shaped my opinion on this topic. As mentioned earlier, Animals used for testing are supposed to
be protected by the Animal Awareness Act, which one would think is obviously meant to protect
them, treat them equally and fairly, and keep things more humane. This is not the case, as The
AWA only requires that research facilities count the number of dogs, cats, primates, rabbits,
(some) farm animals, and other animals that are used in experiments. Rats, mice, hamsters, birds,
and cold-blooded animals are not protected by the AWA and represent approximately 85 percent
of the total number of animals used in experimentation. (IDA, The truth about Vivisection) It is
clear that the AWA does not do a good job protecting the animals at all. Aside from this, I
personally think that the government has an interesting approach to making ethical boundaries to
keep up with rapid changes in medicine and science. I found in the book Do Animals Have
Rights? that Rapid advances in research are allowing more cases of animals being given
human characteristics. Mice have been injected with the human DNA for language, for example -
and they squeak differently. Goats implanted with human stem cells have blood and organs
similar in DNA to humans. (Carroll, 57) This quote then leads into the fact that Todays
research is aimed at creating animals with enough humanlike parts to test new drug or medical
therapies- so humans dont need to be test subjects. The U.S tried to sort out the ethical
boundaries for such research nearly a decade ago. The result was a set of federal guidelines, such
as not injecting apes with human brain cells. (The Christian Science Monitor online). This was
very interesting to me, because it made me wonder just what determines the difference between
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

something like giving a goat human stem cells and an ape human brain cells, the type of animal
or the organ its self? It made me wonder just what makes a hamster of less value than a cat, or an
ape of greater value than all other animals.
Aside from all the research I conducted from those against Vivisection, I did gather some
information from those that are for it. One very interesting quote that I found was What makes
(refinement, reduction, and replacement) disastrous, however, is that they were not developed
from the perspective of good science but from the perspective of animal welfare. Adopting this
perspective inevitably encourages introspection as to what it might be like to be the experimental
animal, and, once that perspective is adopted, [] all experimentation will be seen negatively
since few experiments are in the interests of the animal. (Spiked Science Online) If it werent
for people having a soft spot for animals, then there would be no issue. When it comes to animal
testing, people often tend to disregard the scientific perspective all together. An example of a
medical breakthrough that I found was, Chimpanzee research models have led to major medical
advances, including the vaccines for hepatitis A and B, which have significantly reduced the
frequency of infection in the United States. (Sirs online) This quote is proof that animal testing
can be very beneficial to humans, and if its capable of finding a cure for Hepatitis, then it could
possibly lead to even bigger advanced like cures for cancer or aids. Finally, those that support
animal testing find it extreme for people to put humans equal to animals, "By arguing that
animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights
proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals.
Humans are clearly superior to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and
degrading to humans" (Carroll, 79). While, to me, it seems a bit extreme to say that giving rights
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

to animals would be degrading to us humans, I think it is fascinating that they say it would bring
us down to nothing more than biological entities. I support the other two quotes but dont
really agree with this one, since I believe in evolution and that we in fact came from animals.
Other than that, looking at things from another side did end up changing my point of view to
something different than what it was at the beginning of this project.

Section IV:

I have learned a lot throughout the entire process of this research project. Before looking
up my information I didnt really have a clear idea of what Vivisection was in general, so I
learned many broad things about that. I assumed that most articles would be against it, or in
favor of animal rights, which was true; although I was surprised at the number of articles I found
supporting it, or even in the middle. I also knew that the number of animals used and killed
would be high, but I had no idea itd be as many as it was, and that its only that high in the
United States. The numbers were much lower in just about every other country, especially the
UK, where there are even strict laws protecting animals and limiting how much testing goes on
and to what extent. Going into this project, I definitely assumed that there would examples of
what animal testing has so far accomplished. I did find specific examples of how vivisection has
benefited humans, but not as many as I thought I would. Vivisection was a very useful method of
experimentation when the science world was far less advanced than it is today. Now, a lot of
medical experiments may involve vivisection as well as other forms of advanced technology, so
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

several discoveries are not entirely thanks to the animal that endured the testing. This of course,
makes sense, but I never thought of it before my research.
Ultimately, I think that the line of morality on this topic is very thin, and its a tough
thing to pick a side on. Although heartbreaking, the deaths of these animals have in the past, and
can continue to provide information that can lead to medical breakthroughs, a cure for terminal
illnesses or disabilities. Because it is something that has gone on for so long, it is hard to put a
complete end to Vivisection, and I do believe that we will continue to see it in the close future at
least. Despite this, I feel that present day as well as near future technology can also do a fantastic
job without negatively affecting nature. At the current rate of innovation and the rapid advancing
of science today, it is possible to come up with ways to rule out vivisection entirely, at some
point. As for now, I believe that if science on the verge of a medical miracle that could help
thousands of human beings, then perhaps testing this on an animal with similar anatomy is
necessary. However, I think that this is something that should only be done when it is absolutely
needed, when and if the alternative methods fail. In addition to this, vivisection is something that
should be done in moderation. If it is absolutely necessary for it to continue, then I believe that
the way that labs conduct their experiments can be done in a much better way, such as how it is
done in the UK. This includes needing a special license for each project, having a limited amount
of time and resources on each project, and needing to renew a license should anything change.
This way, less animals will need to be sacrificed. As of now, the closest thing to this happening
in favor of the animals by the Animal Welfare Act is that the number of only certain animals
killed must be recorded. I think that this is where the line needs to be drawn. If vivisection is
going to be practiced, then I do not think it is morally right to put a higher value on one animal
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

than another. Scientists have already established that all animals are less significant than humans
by experimenting on them in general, since no human would ever even be asked to volunteer for
these tests. The AWA takes it a step further, by establishing that a mouse or a rabbit is not as
valuable as a dog or a monkey. Personally, I believe that if the difference has already been
established between humans and animals, then it is immoral to further this classification by
determining how the different animals are treated based simply on their species.
I think that my belief can also go for many other views on scientific topics. Essentially,
when it comes to things as controversial as this, there is often not a solid yes it is moral or no,
it is not moral I think that the ethics of one thing depends on certain factors and scenarios, for
example the animal experimentation being done in moderation and when meeting certain, well
enforced, requirements. When specific requirements are met, something may be moral. When as
much as one thing is not, then It may not be moral. This knowledge or point of view could be
useful in my future studies because it can be applied to other questions or situations, teaching to
look deeper into a broad subject for the little details that could completely change ones mind on
the ethics of the subject.
One thing that I would like to see happen regarding this subject is for the AWA to apply
to all animals, Educating society on this could help that happen. Also, I think if people were to
realize how much more testing the US is conducting than other countries and how costly it is,
they would want to see change as well. These are things that someone typically would not be
aware of unless they were to be researching this as well, so education is key. Over all, I think it
is unethical to take advantage of our advanced scientific abilities in the way that we do. 28
million known animals that suffer and die each year, so that we can have a chance to discover
Julia
Murphy
Pd.5
3/27/12

something to lead us to a cure for the many illnesses and diseases we are faced with today. If we
have the ability to decrease that number, by a small fraction, maybe even by one half, then it is
something that we should do. Our world of Science depends entirely on us and what we do with
it; we cannot let it get out of hand.