Programs & Campaigns

The State of the Anti-Vivisection Movement:
Progress and Challenges

Presented June 2001 at the Animal Rights 2001 conference
by Theodora Capaldo, EdD
President, New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)

In the past century since the rampant growth of the use of animals in science, anti-vivisectionists have achieved many significant successes for animals in research, education, psychology, veterinary/medical training, and toxicity testing. These AV victories come after absolute persistence and years, even decades, of hard work and concentrated effort.

Of course, with each success, special interest groups attempt to dilute the impact of our progress, aided by the scare tactics and ploys of animal research lobbyists whose goals are to dupe the public into being suspicious of such progress and frightened by their claims that we are, for certain, all in peril if not just anti-vivisectionists but even animal welfarists have their way.

As an example of the ferocity with which our advances are countered, we need only to look to what occurred when the USDA agreed to a legal settlement to begin the regulatory process to extend AWA protections to birds, mice and rats. Lobbyists for researchers went into overdrive resisting the imposition of any regulations for rats, mice and birds. As a result, a rider was slipped into the USDA appropriations bill restricting funding for one year - with an ongoing battle promised.

Further, lest anyone think lobbying is not a top priority on biotech agendas, a report in the Boston Globe (6/15/01) was headlined, "The new lobby: biotechnology sector is spending more money in political circles." In 1997, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) spent $1.3 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 1999, that figure rose to $2.56 million.

For example, in 1999-2000, biotech powerhouse Amgen spent $659,000 on campaign contributions alone; Biogen spent $70,000; Genzyme spent $89,000; and Genentech spent $254,000 on campaign contributions and $1.04 million on lobbying.

As vivisectors are less and less able to make convincing arguments on behalf of their ethically blind and scientifically unsound industry to the increasingly sophisticated and animal-friendly, taxpaying public, we can be certain that they will increasingly throw money toward lobbyists, politicians, and special interest groups whose sole purpose is to defeat our movement.

Vivsectors continue their same senseless, useless and cruel experiments - sometimes for decades - while a politically connected and well-funded army of career vivisectors and academicians applauds them. Many vivisectors spend their entire careers using public money to finance their useless animal experiments.

One example is a researcher who is affiliated with Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. For roughly a quarter of a century, he has been performing vision experiments on kittens and primates with million of taxpayer dollars. Some of his experiments include keeping kittens in the dark for weeks on end. He has also performed experiments where he sews one eye of kittens shut for weeks, then reopens the lid on that eye and sews the other one shut. Then the kittens were subjected to "forced usage of the [original] deprived eye." The eyelid suturing had different effects on different cats. The researcher guesses this is because there are differences in sensitivity to eyelid suture from different litters of kittens. These experiments will not help humans. These experiments kill animals and line the pockets of vivisectors.

Approximately $4 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into another researcher’s cat brain experiments at Boston University. For 15 years, he has either cut or inserted cooling probes into the brains of fetal, one-day old, and older kittens and cats. He usually observes the cats with permanent brain probes for months, sometimes years before he or his co-workers kill them.

It is also safe to predict that we will see new arenas of struggle opening up in the coming years - xenotransplantation (the use of live cells, tissues or organs from animals that are transplanted into humans), "bio-pharming" (in which living animals are used as incubators to produce chemical substances of supposed medicinal value to humans) and genetic engineering (the "reshuffling" of genes, usually from one species to another), to name but a few. These horrors - tragically exemplified by the birth of ANDi, the world’s first "transgenic" monkey - create new challenges for those of us ready and willing to do battle with the monolith called animal research.

‘We have to do it this way.’ - how often have we heard that tired but supposedly irrefutable argument from animal experimenters.

Of course, it is no surprise that vivisectors continue to play the "medical necessity" card even in the face of continued and accelerating animal-free scientific accomplishments and growing criticism by scientists themselves of the outdated, crude and cruel animal method upon which science has relied and by which science has remained limited and compassionless.

They are, after all, deeply vested in both the habit and economic benefits of animal research. A century ago, President Eliot of Harvard testified, "I should not feel like putting any limit to [vivisecting] animals if it means saving the life of one child."

One hundred years later, the Associated Press wire service reported: The USDA’s agreement to include rats, mice and birds under AWA "protections," could endanger promising research into virtually all human diseases, according to officials at Johns Hopkins and could have "dire human, scientific, and economic consequences," according to Johns Hopkins general counsel.

Rather, we know that ending animal research will, in fact, be the single most important step science will take to ‘save the life’ of not just one child but of us all. Animal experimentation is poor science and bad ethics.

The heavy reliance on scare tactics to continue the myth of the necessity of animal research to human health is a primitive but extremely effective way of encouraging the public to hold firm and allow such atrocities in the name of their own well-being - even if, as studies indicate, the growing, caring public do so reluctantly. The results are the vicious circle of vested animal research interests receiving more vested taxpayer money with which to continue the path of dead end science and the suffering and death of countless animals.

Xenotransplantation (or inter-species cell, tissue or, as is usually the case, organ transplants) is a prime example of profit outstripping common sense, safety and compassion. The majority of xenotransplants are performed because scientists claim there is a shortage of human organs available for transplant. However, at present, only about 20% of people who die healthy (that is, in accidents or from violence and not disease) have arranged to donate their organs. A public awareness campaign would do much to increase organ donations and obviate the so-called "compelling" need for xenotransplants.

In America, where dollars, not noble goals, shape the face of science, the biomedical community has yet to lead the charge to pass ‘opt-out’ legislation similar to that in several European countries in which you are a donor unless you specifically request otherwise.

In addition, many of the people receiving transplants have diseases that are preventable. It is estimated that 100,000 first-time heart attacks could be averted and $13 billion in medical costs saved by 2005 if Americans simply reduced their average saturated fat intake by as little as 1-3 percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association).

Although there is apparently little interest from the medical research community in promoting healthy lifestyles instead of misleading "miracle cures," there is a great deal of interest and profit in animal experimentation. For instance, the Boston Globe (3/5/01) reports that "… as federally supported medical research has skyrocketed - more than tripling in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1970 - funding for research in engineering, the environment, and physical sciences has stagnated or shown only slight, often incremental increases." A senior research scholar observed of this trend, "It’s clear there’s been no attempt to systematically understand what the tradeoffs are between certain types of research in terms of what will give you the best social return for your dollar."

Research into cleaning up and stopping the pollution of our environment alone would not only save lives but would spare those lives illness in the first place.

Well, along with millions of other animals each year, we are too. And in addition to all the traditional species found in laboratories, increasingly, animal researchers are including "exotic" or non-traditional animals such as armadillos, snakes, fish, chameleons, and octopi in their experiments. The public’s perception of a species often determines which species is used. The experiments continue, but species considered "less cared about" are often substituted in attempts to make animal research more palatable.

According to USDA/APHIS, there are 1,217,998 regulated animals in research in the U.S. in 1999. (To date, 95% of the animals used in research - rats, mice, and birds - remain uncovered - although we know that will change.) Conservative estimates place the total number of animals used yearly at approximately 23 - 40 million. According to the USDA, at the end of FY 1999, there were 65 APHIS inspectors. These 65 inspectors had 1,644 research sites to inspect, in addition to some 6,000 other facilities of dealers, exhibiters, and in transit handlers and carriers.

Tens of thousands of researchers study the effects of animal experiments. However, just 82 FDA workers track side effects [in humans] once drugs are on the market (Associated Press, 12/12/2000). In spite of - or perhaps because of - erroneous animal studies, in the last four years alone, 11 popular prescription drugs were pulled from the market after causing deaths or serious injuries. So it’s no surprise the U.S. General Accounting Office once found that more than half of new drugs on the market had ‘serious post-approval risks’ not predicted by animal tests (Murry Cohen, MD, and Simon Chaitowitz).

Yet drug manufacturers continue to want it both ways, and use the uselessness of animal studies as well as their claims of its efficacy to their advantage. For example, in February of this year, clinical trials on Pfizer’s new medication for chronic pain were halted after the FDA became concerned because the drug caused tumors in mice. Pfizer countered that this "is no evidence that the drug causes tumors in humans."

The trusting public would do well to consider the remarks of Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, who, as the incoming editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, was quoted as saying that academic researchers should be able to own substantial stock in a company or accept sizeable consultant fees and still accept research support - as long as their studies don’t involve humans (emphasis added) - further proof of the lack of ethics and integrity surrounding animal experimentation!

In Fortune magazine’s Fortune 500 list of the most profitable industries for 1999, pharmaceuticals outranked all others in profitability when gauged by median return on revenue, assets and equity. In terms of profit as a percentage of revenue, pharmaceuticals outranked commercial banks, telecommunications, computer and data services, and securities, among others. In terms of profit as a percentage of assets, the drug companies outranked computer and data services, cosmetics, and food services. And in terms of profit as a percentage of shareholder equity, they outranked airlines, publishing, and beverages.

According to the Boston Business Journal (3/30-4/5/01), Boston reaps the most research grants from the NIH, netting a whopping $947 million in 2000. Boston’s hospitals garnered a total of $555 million in grants; the area’s colleges and universities raked in grants totaling more than $129 million.

The estimated cost of developing a single drug ranges from $300 million to $600 million, yet a scant 5.8% of those dollars go to post-market testing (how safe is the drug in humans). However, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that preclinical and animal testing receives a full 41.3% of R&D dollars expended.

Fighting Goliath and All His Relatives - The Next Rounds

We will conclude with a look at where current AV battles are occurring, are strongest, and are likely to be won; how and why the pressure must be kept up; and how and why mindsets must change so that every student who is a potential scientist, physician, psychologist, veterinarian or educator will receive a cruelty-free science education - the forefront for the abolition of vivisection.

Vivisection is not confined to, nor is the result of, only laboratories and ivied walls. As we know all-too-well, animals in ‘entertainment,’ in ‘sports,’ on factory farms, all directly or indirectly suffer as a result of the vivisection industry and the climate of cruelty and disrespect it creates and perpetuates. All of these other roads of animal abuse potentially lead to the vivisector.

The goal of the anti-vivisection movement is nothing less than to abolish animal experimentation, product testing and dissection. Along with focusing on laboratories and classrooms, we must also remain vigilant and active to help ensure that animals used and abused in other arenas of institutionalized cruelty do not end up in the vivisectors’ hands.

Therefore, for example, we are telling the public and our legislators that greyhound racing is not ‘sport’ - it is greed and cruelty and suffering masquerading as entertainment. Through advertising, education, and legislation, we are working to help those working to end greyhound racing across America so that we can be certain that these so-called "loser" dogs do not end up on dissection slabs or in horrific experiments.

The AV battle continues to be fought on many fronts. We are working to end the use of animals as drug factories for the bio-pharming industry - the horrors of which are exemplified in the plight of the ‘Premarin mares’ - pregnant horses exploited and often killed as a billion-dollar-a-year money-maker for companies such as Wyeth-Ayerst.

The AV movement is encouraging consumers and taxpayers to use the power of their pocketbooks to purchase only non-animal-tested products and to stop contributing to charities still vested in animal research and exploitation.

The Chimpanzee Health, Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act has become law. It provides for a national "supposed" sanctuary system for chimpanzees who have been used as research "subjects" or who were bred for research purposes. These long-suffering victims include descendants of the so-called "space chimps" and individuals injected with HIV and other diseases.

Not content to let these individuals "retire" in peace and dignity, pro-vivisectionists successfully fought to amend the CHIMP bill so that previously retired chimpanzees could be taken from so-called "sanctuary" and returned to research labs if "necessary." The goal of our movement must be to secure permanent retirement for these individuals so deserving of respect, dignity and an end to their physical and emotional suffering; and to not allow the government to dupe the public by calling a holding environment a "sanctuary." We must put "sanctity" back in any bill promising "sanctuary."

Within the movement, grassroots, regional and national organizations have assumed watchdog and rescue roles, resulting in encouraging and energizing successes. In just the past few months alone, for example, there have been:

At the same time, former and current primate caregivers themselves are banding together and working from both the inside and the outside to watch over animals still held captive in research facilities across the U.S. Their goal is to get them out of their deplorable living conditions, and to keep them out of the labs by ending all primate research once and forever.

As a movement, we are opening minds and eyes and hearts. In California, for instance, the first law of its kind in the nation requires testers of consumer products to use federally-sanctioned non-animal, alternative toxicity testing methods.

After a lengthy struggle, the Antibodies Without Animals Campaign now spares animals from the production of monoclonal antibodies, potentially saving one million animals a year, and numerous organizations are banding together to force an end to the EPA’s High Production Volume Challenge that would result in the loss of millions of animals’ lives. The ICCVAM Authorization Act has permanently established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods.

Perhaps most hopefully of all, as a movement, we are preparing the ‘next generation’ of anti-vivisection activists to finally and forever bring positive changes to the cruel and limited animal research industry.

The Year of the Humane Child took our message of compassion to classrooms, to science fairs, to comic books - encouraging Americans to think carefully and more insightfully about issues ranging from the effects of forced dissection to ways to break the cycle of violence engendered by animal and human abuse.

Starting as early as kindergarten with simple animal-friendly reading programs, continuing in the middle grades with lessons fostering ethical decision-making and the use of alternatives to dissection, and on into medical and veterinary training, our movement is fostering a new and promising generation of compassionate scientists.

Thanks to these efforts, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Florida, and, most recently, Illinois all have student dissection choice laws - and a similar victory in Massachusetts is now in sight. Schools across the country are no longer permitting the use of vertebrate animals in science fairs, and the one remaining hold-out - the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) - is now considering ending their sponsorship of projects that harm vertebrate animals for the purpose of competition.

Last year, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine (MA) became the first veterinary school in the U.S. to end all terminal surgeries on all species in its required and elective courses. UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine also is eliminating terminal surgeries in its core teaching curriculum, and is planning to eliminate terminal surgeries in its elective courses as well.

The veterinary schools at the University of Florida, U. of Wisconsin, U of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University have also have eliminated terminal surgeries in their mandatory courses. Veterinary students themselves were important catalysts in bringing about these changes. Western University of Health Sciences (CA) will become the nation’s 28^th veterinary school. Significantly, the curriculum is "non-consumptive" and no "teaching animals" will die in the Western U. - CVM curriculum.

Over the last decade, we have seen students within professions traditionally entrenched in vivisection - medicine, psychology, science, veterinary medicine, and education - put pressure on their own instructors and institutions to bring about positive change.

No longer can vivisectors rely on simply decreeing, "we must do it this way’ - the next generation of bright, inquiring and compassionate students are refusing to give blanket approval to killing and cruelty in the name of science and education.

All these examples are just the broad brushstrokes of campaigns and programs undertaken by organizations across the country. They are not intended to be comprehensive, but they are intended to be inspiring in their scope, in their commitment, and in what has been accomplished. Because, after all, activism is about getting things done, and about not stopping until you do.

We pledge, as did Tennyson’s Ulysses, "… to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

—June 2001

Action Alert!
> Kraft Foods Commercials
> Help pass H.1252
> Chimps in Commercials

Your support saves animal and human lives.


The State of the Anti-Vivisection Movement in America