- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Animal Rights
Animal Activists and Vivisection
In my bio on Opposing Views I stated that: “In Opposing Views I will be blogging and commenting about using animals in scientific pursuits.” This blog is somewhat tangential to using animals in scientific pursuits but still falls into the general category so here goes. In this blog, I want to explore how animal activists should approach discussing the scientific aspects of using animals in science. All are welcome to read this, but it is written for the animal activist community.
Science is hard. In undergrad, I majored in chemistry and minored in biology, then went to medical school for 4 years, then a residency for another four. At the end of that time I had a very good overview of science in general and specialty knowledge of medical science and anesthesiology. However, at that time I was incompetent in most of the scientific issues regarding using animals in science. If I was incompetent at that time, what are the odds an animal activist will be competent without all that training?
In order to finish out my education regarding the use of animals in science I had to read and study texts on philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, complex systems, and many other subjects. By doing this I was able to fill the gaps in my knowledge. But I was only able to read and comprehend all these books, more or less on my own (although I did have considerable guidance from Niall Shanks) because I had such extensive previous education in science in general and in the biological sciences specifically. Trying to teach myself about the science of vivisection without the formal education in science simply would not have been possible.
That is pretty much my point.
I realize there are many passionate animal activists out there who go to protests every week seeking to engage the opposition and make a point or prove the vivisector wrong or whatever. Your passion is admirable. You competence however is questionable. Without a formal science education your very use of language will give you away as not understanding the fundamentals of science. Without even listening to your point or data or whatever, the vivisection activist will be able to dismiss you because your use of language will make your ignorance obvious. Further, you are unable to read and understand the scientific literature so quoting sound bites out if it merely exposes your lack of education a second time. There is a difference between reading something and understanding it. As I have said many times in these blogs, the Internet is not the way to learn science either. You must have the requisite formal education and, in most cases, the specialty training after the formal education.
In addition, when the vivisection activist asks you a question (which I know they do because you then email me and ask what the answer is) you are again exposed as knowing less about the subject than the people with science educations. This does make your side look talented!
Even if you have read our new book FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science: A handbook for the scientifically perplexed (which was written specifically for people like you) you still do not have the education to engage people with decades of education in science. We state that in FAQs:
Even with the best of intentions, you probably couldn’t [argue with vivisectors]. But you can read and study enough to be able to present a rational, logical, reasoned, consistent, well thought out argument to open minded people. There are many books and articles available (see http://curedisease.com/resources.html), and if you study you can learn enough to make a good case for the points we make in this and other books [5, 129-131]. If you have minimal scientific background, we estimate it will take at least a year of very solid reading to learn enough about science in general and this field in particular to become acquainted with the issue. But even then don’t expect to learn enough to challenge vivisectors in their own areas of expertise. Even experts cannot learn everything about every area of medical research. People who have a financial or emotional interest in an activity and have more knowledge about that activity can steamroll opponents with less knowledge or experience. And some are not above using fallacious reasoning and worse in order to defend their position in society.
This problem is compounded when the person advocating change is not a doctor. The sheer mass of data one needs to learn in order to be competent in science usually requires eight years of formal education after high school. Physicians usually study about twelve years after high school. With this much knowledge of science, a vivisector can bulldoze his way through even outstanding arguments against him. If you can keep the vivisector to the specific issue, you may be able to win a few points. But we have never seen a layperson accomplish this. And even if you do win a few points, the vivisector will use the fallacy of appeal to authority. He will say that he is a scientist and you are not; therefore, you are wrong. And that will be the end of the argument in the minds of many listeners. This is not logical or rational, but most of the time a crowd of people will be swayed by it and you will appear to lose the argument.
That is not to say that with a background in general science and a lot of effort in learning about a scientific topic, you couldn’t present extensive arguments that reasonable people will accept. Just don’t expect that you’ll be able to remember every medical discovery or refute every argument vivisectors make. Given enough time, such arguments can be defeated, but it is unreasonable to expect one person to be able to defeat every argument without extensive preparation.
Our advice is not to argue with experts unless you are also an expert. Let people who are themselves experts make those arguments. If challenged by a vivisector, ask him to accept an invitation to a public debate with another scientist. He will most likely not accept, and that alone will win you more points with a crowd than any arguments you could make. And, if we are wrong and he does accept the invitation, great! Let us know, and we will be happy to join the debate.
There are scores of small groups and individuals out there who have essentially no formal scientific education but who have websites and make claims about the scientific aspects of using animals in scientific pursuits. I know many of these people. Merely repeating age-old arguments that were not really correct even in their day is not adequate. But it gets worse. Some of these people are, ironically, also opposed to science in general. Some are opposed to vaccines. Some deny the Germ Theory of Disease. Some think infectious diseases can be cured with milk and bed rest. Some use animal studies to support their nutrition claims but then oppose vivisection as scientifically useless. Almost all are strong supporters of alternative medicine. These positions are incompatible with science. Every time one of these antivivisectionists proclaims animal use in science as scientifically untenable while simultaneously supporting alt med, he or she helps the animal experimentation industry.
The same applies to many people with advanced degrees who are science advisors to major animal rights groups. Just as I was not competent after 12 years of intense science education and had to informally seek knowledge in evolution, complexity, philosophy of science and so forth, they simply do not have the training or knowledge to take on viv. Having a doctorate alone does an expert make. Furthermore, when people with doctorates make bad or outdated arguments it is worse and does more harm than when nonscientists make the same mistakes. At least the scientifically perplexed have an excuse.
If you are an animal activist and you just have to protest against the science behind viv, I suggest the following:
1. Learn the ethical arguments. Most of you that I have spoken with cannot even present the rights argument much less explain the differences between how animals are used in science. If your real argument is the ethics of using animals in science, at least be able to defend that position.
2. At protests, hand out flyers with scientific information then direct any questioners to the AFMA website or our latest two books (Animal Models in Light of Evolution if the person has a background in science and FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science: A handbook for the scientifically perplexed if the person does not). I am currently working on a flyer that you can download and hand out. (AFMA had nice flyers and brochures but it will cost us $50K to reproduce them. Anyone wishing to donate to the cause can do so at the website. We do not have the money to reproduce brochures like the old ones that so many of you request every week.) I will put the new flyer(s) on the AFMA website and let you know when they are ready.
3. You will not win an argument about science with a scientifically educated vivisection activist. Unless you have an education (formal and informal) similar to mine, the vivisection activist will rip your argument to shreds and you will probably be oblivious when it is happening. What your goal should be, when interacting with vivisection activists, is to arrange an activity involving the vivisection activist that will get media attention and allow them to explain their views for all to hear. I suggest you focus your energy not on arguing with people who know more science than you do but rather in goading them into debating the issue against me. One thing the vivisection activist has no answer for, and is obvious to society that they cannot defend, is why the vivisection activist will not engage in the quintessential American forum: the public debate. Don’t try to explain to the media why Dr So and so is wrong on viv, the media will blow you off as an uneducated in science. Explain to the media that Dr So and so will not publicly defend his views against a peer. Society and the media understand that and you can make a very good case that something must be wrong with a practice when the practitioners refuse to defend it against someone as qualified as they are. This should be your goal if you want to pursue defeating viv using scientific arguments. Let the experts be experts.
4. Finally, again, direct media questions to AFMA and refer others to the books and website.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am ignorant in far more fields than I am educated. If I need expertise in engineering, I employ an engineer. I do not argue engineering with an engineer. If I need advice regarding law, I employ a lawyer. Even in science, most areas are outside my realm of expertise. When we wrote the math equations in Animal Models in Light of Evolution, we asked experts in math to review them to make sure we did not make any mistakes. When family members ask me about a disease affecting their joints, I send them to an orthopedic surgeon or rheumatologist or other appropriate specialist. I AM IGNORANT IN THOSE FIELDS. You are ignorant in the science of viv. Deal with it.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
brochures
In November I posted (Above) that Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) would put together some brochures about the science of using animals in research. We have had a lot of requests over the years but since we could not afford to reproduce the originals, I have been reluctant to make new ones. Also, I did not want to do anything to give credence to the nonsense that AFMA is an AR groups in disguise. On the other hand, I have been critical of what some in the AR community say about the science of vivisection. So, I decided to make some 1-page, front and back, brochures that are scientifically accurate. While not being thorough, they at least hit some of the high points. The brochures can be found at http://www.afma-curedisease.org/animal-protection.html . Feel to download and print. Please let me know if you find typos or if you have suggestions.
Brochure feedback
They are excellent!--the brevity of these leaflets were perfect; just enough to stimulate someone to access your website. On behalf of all animal rights and human medical patient advocates everywhere,THANK-YOU.
Jon B
nonsense
The dearth of scientific discourse boggles the mind. An exercise in futility. Dr Ringach appears to be a sociopath.
Enough
Does society have its head so far up its arse, experts are needed to explain that killing is not right? Bollocks. Ask a child when in doubt. Scientists are bought & sold, bartered like common goods. Witness decades of evidence-based data about global warming systematically undone & replaced by utter nonsense that masquerades as reasonable doubt. I come from a family of scientists. However, scientists should not speak for the citizens or make the rules & the straitjackets. People will not tolerate control.
Lack of reason is akin to leprosy. If doing the same thing over and over is lunacy, what is pleading with vivisectionists to grant this or that? If an effective strategy doesn't exist, then seek one. Don't make a canoe out of anvils & expect to cross the lake. Publishing in PEHM was a wise use of energy . To some who clamor the ideology of “by any means necessary,” showboating is ineffective. To Animalcop, when vivisectionists pretend to be activists, it's woefully transparent. To the wild men & women who risk everything to counter the destruction of Earth, I'm forever in your debt.
The Holocene extinction. The ship is sinking. Stop looking for the best sundeck chairs. Help launch lifeboats or step out of the way.
see next blog
Thanks for all the comments!
For my responses please see my next blog at http://www.opposingviews.com/i/animal-activists-and-vivisection-ii
My impression of Ray Greek
It seems very clear to me that he has distanced himself from the animal activist community! Why? The answer seems clear that he has spent way too much time rubbing elbows with the vivisecting community and is exhibiting signs of Stockholm Syndrome! Further, as he is not getting any younger, he seems to have chosen the side that will benefit his future instead of the animals that are being tortured everyday!!
Impression of Ray Greek
Animalcop:
You are wrong! Dr. Greek in 2002 debated a very capable and competent Joan Donayer(sp), a female Gary Francione and was clearly the winner. This debate was at AR2002. I used to drive a Taxi and saw a huge difference in people being concerned about this topic when I switched from animal suffering to Harm to Humans in my vivisection leaflet holder on display in my taxi. Dr. Greek is correct and rarely makes mistakes in his field of expertise. He is human though and does make errors when it comes to psychic mediums(lab tested ones), homeopathy, and other forms of alternative medicine. I am not at all biased in anyway. My activism experiences reveal his tactics and recommendations work best where most other tactics often are counter productive. I DO believe and agree with the ALF too. What they do is necessary.
Jon B
Another open letter to Ray Greek
http://negotiationisover.com/2010/11/04/another-open-letter-to-ray-greek /
let me get this right
let me get this right: we are generally inept and need to employ your wisdom (through the purchase of your books) in order to make visible (to the public) the plight of animals (ab)used in labs?
i'm not interested in negotiating with butchers. cruelty is wrong and always will be. i find your tone insulting, perhaps because i'm not the poorly educated hysterical activist you assume dominates the animal rights movement. apologies for seeing through your text and finding an excess of ego. i though this was about animal cruelty.
Yes. But...
Akirraboo,
Yes, vivisection is wrong AND it is scientifically flawed as Dr. Greek so eloquently points out.
For many people the cruelty issue just does not resonate (unfortunately).
This is a multifaceted issue and we must shed light on ALL aspects of it and employ EVERY tool in the shed.
Please do not mistake Greek's tone for ego. He is arguing for what is right. We should be saving our anger for the vivisectors who torture animals and not people who at the end of the day, agree with the same thing. There is WAY too much work to do to spend time undermining those on our side. Please understand this.
Internal feuding does not help the animals. We need to come together so we can be a strong force. Please help make this happen, for the animals.
.
An Open Letter to Ray Greek
http://negotiationisover.com/2010/11/03/an-open-letter-to-ray-greek /
The three-ring circus in full swing.
Just a couple of things. I don't dispute your frustrating encounters with activists. Your descriptions do not match the majority of my own encounters. I know of no activist who is such a slacker as to e-mail a scientist for answers to questions about vivisection. Especially when the bibliographic material compiled on the AFMA site already serves that precise purpose.
In my own work opposing the humane myth of animal use in animal agriculture, when asked off-topic by members of the community about vivisection, I simply recommend the books and journal articles. That's it. That's logical. I mention that the books are ones I personally like and find useful and hope people will dig deeper on their own.
The valid points you do make here have been taken to heart. Know that you've been heard.
The three-ring circus in full swing
"such a slacker" I do not agree ONLY due to the vast knowledge one must have when answering questions about vivisection. Dr. Greek made it very CLEAR about the large volume of data that must be grasped in order to answer all questions. Despite my 9 Editorials letters published about vivisection I will sometimes get stumped by a question that I need answered from him and will ask accordingly. You will be surprised that if you accurately answer 99% of all questions appropriately you will be defined by the one question you cannot answer. It is best to state www.curedisease.com and hand-out the literature without speaking.
Jon B
No offense intended...
Ger, to clarify my comment: I meant that I personally know of no activist who would skip reading the books and ignore the materials provided on the AFMA site and just e-mail Dr. Greek for a quick answer. In lieu of taking the time to read.
You said, "It is best to state www.curedisease.com and hand-out the literature without speaking." I'm not certain what the confusion is about. Hey, I'm in total agreement with you. This was what I had stated in my original comment when I said I simply recommend the books and journal articles. I hope this clears up our misunderstanding.
Crystal Clear!
Thanks, I understand. I will give you an example for further clarification. I told a questioner on the sidewalk of my local University that researchers are no longer asking questions in TODAY's research on the gross medical levels but on the molecular level where the species differ the most(by far). This is accurate, but I was unable to give him(for sure) the approximate time in history when this shift ocurred(I am sure there is some over-lapping). I asked Dr. JV and he did not know. I asked both Dr's. Greek but they ignored me several times! It would take me countless hours to find this answer and Dr. Greek probably knows it but is not saying. I do not take it personally though, he is entitled to this, especially with all the bad experiences he must have had with activists acting illogically. The sad thing is my question arose from reading a really excellent Editorial Letter from his wife about 3 years ago, so it was very pertinent as well. I refuse to judge this guy because it is his books that not only allowed me 6 editorial printings of my hometown's local newspaper(in just 2 years) but the Editorial Page Editor of this newspaper was so enthralled with Dr. Greek's website and the book I mailed to him that he allowed no rebuttals to any of my letters!!
Jon B
On censorship.
The editor should print rebuttals. In a free society all perspectives must be heard or America marches deeper into a totalitarian mindset. We'll have more in common with the exploiters and tyrants than would make me comfortable.
In printing the rebuttals, the opportunity for a counter rebuttal would arise. Dialogue would grow. Without such dialogue, a person--note, I'm not saying you--devolves into yet another propagandist, no matter how worthy the cause.
Though the vivisection industry uses endless falsehoods, we can't compromise on fairness. It's in protecting the flame of justice regardless of the odds that our species is at its best. If we give that up, we're nothing.
There's a vast difference between being cantankerous and being dishonorable. Dr. Greek has been mischaracterized by those with their own personal agendas. This only fuels petty squabbles that go nowhere.
That said, I'd never sit down at the table with animal experimenters as long as it meant I couldn't acknowledge the fact that animal use in itself is devoid of ethical conduct. To do so is to abandon the whole truth.
Rebuttals?
What is it about the worn-out tired old myth and mantra: "virtually every medical advance we have today would be impossible without animal research" that you enjoy. Editorial Page Editors who refuse to print an absolute falsehood like this one from billion dollar industries should be commended.
Jon B
Literature
Dr. Greek let us know when the downloadable AFMA fact sheet brochures are ready, I hope it is soon!! We definitely needed them at Yale a few weeks ago where the only arguement offered was welfare and ethics and most activists were unable to present the details about the invalidity of the animal model.
Jon B
Viv
Thanks Dr. Greek, this was very helpful! It appears Dr. Ringach has no shame, after-all it was he who reneged on debating you. It seems even an activist w/o much training can focus soley on the lack of predictive value and based on this alonealways win the debate while heeding to basic research which is not goal-oriented and is rarely practiced(I believe) due to it's inability to land the grant $. Your website no longer lists your other book: Animal Models in Light of Science, I was wondering why?
Jon B
Books
The old books are no longer there because they were all wrong.
The new one invokes more convoluted arguments and half-truths, so it cannot be attacked so easily.
Books
Come on! I believe the answer may be : out of date. The latest book seems to contain evidence that is MORE powerful than the previous books. My Veterinarian completely loved the book from 2004 that I gave him, I wish I had it back; really loved the Susan Knickobocker analogy. The info. is not wrong. I think you should join the flat-earth society. Remember way back when the telescope confirmed the Earth being roundish in appearance: many with expertise in this area refused to look into it or quickly glanced into it so as to avoid seeing fully enough so they would not be forced to change their mind,sounds alot like you doesn't it?
Jon B
Proofs don't have expiration dates
I am sorry, but a rigorous proof never goes "out of date."
The previous books, we were told, were "a proof" our science is flawed.
The proofs did not work... so he wrote a new one.
The new book is submitted as yet another proof of our flawed science (this time is the right one!). The book goes through pages of half-truths and convoluted arguments, including a laughable appeal to chaos theory, in yet another failed effort to confuse the public.
No wonder Dr. Greek complains about the poor education of animal rights activists. After all, they are his students.
Proofs don't have expiration dates
For your information the word PROOF applies to mathematics where in science it is: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, basically what 99.99999% is to 100% in accuracy roughly speaking. Dr. Greek never claims proof. This is the reason why I have asked him to bring back a very small amazing section of his past website titled: Fallacious Reasoning, so people can see more clearly and in greater depth the specific category of illogic you resorting to. Dr. Greek has a way of ignoring questions that I do not always understand why. If someone is suggesting an educational tip to improve his website he should give an answer since his website states AFMA is an educational organization.
Jon B
Don't buy it....
If his previous books had "overwhelming evidence" there would not be a need for new convoluted arguments.
If AFMA is an educational organization he obviously thinks he is not doing a good job at educating animal rights activists, let alone the broad public.
Of course, it is obvious from this post that he does not want to educate the public, he merely wants the public to take his "expert" word for it.
Not Exactly
The issue seems to be that it is difficult to keep up with NEW medical data coming in regulary. 99.9% is less accurate than 99.99999%. The difference is that the mountain of nonempirical evidence that invalidates the animal-model keeps getting bigger! Dr. Greek, as an Anesthesiologist, retired very young in his early 40's(they earn $200,000/yr!) to unselfishly devote the time absolutely required to scientifically translate and record this growing body of extra evidence on behalf of human medical patients everywhere. Since he is swamped much like Hollywood movie stars are, like them it appears he cannot answer every inquiry especially with those dishonest people with whom he has had past negative experiences with(ie: you), maybe even me too! Sooner or later everyone gets on his list(that was a joke!).
Jon B
Hilarious
This is so funny... we finally agree on something!
Indeed, the vast majority of animal advocates are not able to articulate cogent scientific objections nor ethical ones. On the science , they merely repeat your mis-interpretation of scientific work (apparently not even to your satisfaction). On the ethics, they do even worse -- it is clear that most have never actually taken the time to read Singer, Regan, DeGrazia, Rachels and other moral philosophers.
“There is nothing wrong with being ignorant.”
You certainly practice what you preach.
“If I need expertise in engineering, I employ an engineer. I do not argue engineering with an engineer. If I need advice regarding law, I employ a lawyer....”
And if you need expertise in biomedical science you do what? You deny the opinion of 93% of scientists, the National Academy of Science, the National Institutes of Health, the USDA, the CDC, and multiple professional organizations and decide you are the only true expert on these matters.
Anything they say is an appeal to authority. Their reason? Financial gain. Their lack of willingness to debate nonsense? Proof you must be right.
If the shoe fits -- http://www.opposingviews.com/p/science-versus-everything-else
Finally, what is a ‘vivisection activist’? Is it someone that advocates surgery with anesthetics and analgesics in animal research with the goal of advancing medicine and medical knowledge for the benefit of all future generations?
pain is pain is pain is pain
I do not need a degree in biomedical science to understand what it feels like to cut into a piece of flesh, nor do i need one to understand what it feels like to be cut. have you ever thought about what this world will be like Dario if scientists discover a way to eliminate death??? okay, cure cancer but eventually there will be a massive overload of life on this planet. i guess natural selection will be obsolete. you scientists think you are doing such wonderful things for mankind,there will be consequences. what would you do Dario if one of your children brought home a frog and cut off all it"s legs and lit it on fire?? would you approve?? what if he or she said they were curious and wanted to learn about the effects of fire on frogs skin??? a scientist in the making ha???? curiousity killed the cat!! a curious mind is good but what you do with it is what defines you as a person. why can"t you understand that we might care about these animals and that we don"t want our medicines tested on them anymore. why as fellow human beings and fellow inhabitants of the earth cant we have a say in what goes on ???
hilarious for who?
thalidomide? yes, that was most helpful. hilarious for the animals, hilarious for those left with deformities and lost pregnancies ... i can see how a person such as yourself would consider suffering hilarious - its because you are not the one doing the suffering.
Thalidomide
You may not know that initially there was no testing of thalidomide in pregnant animals. Once the drug was pulled off the market, additional tests in animals were done, and it was found that mice, rats, hamsters, marmosets and baboons all suffered similar effects as observed in humans (references below). Perhaps you should follow the advise of Dr. Greek and let him discuss the science . Remember? He is the expert.
See:
1.Blake DA, Gordon GB, Spielberg SP. The role of metabolic activation in thalidomide teratogenesis. Teratology 1982;25(2):28A-29A.).
2.DiPaolo JA (1963). Congenital malformation in strain A mice: its experimental production by thalidomide. JAMA vol.183: 139-141
3.Homburger F, Chaube S, Eppenberger M, Bogdonoff PD and Nixon CW (1965). Susceptibility of certain inbred strains of hamsters to teratogenic effects of thalidomide. Toxicol Appl Pharmaco vol.: 686-69
4.Hamilton WJ & Poswillo DE (1972). Limb reduction anomalies induced in the marmoset by thalidomide. J Anat vol.11:505-50
5.Hendrick AG, Axelrod LR & Clayborn LD (1966). Thalidomide syndrome in baboons Natur vol. 210: 958-95
6.King CTG &; Kendrick FJ (1962). Teratogenic effects of thalidomide in the Sprague Dawley rat. The Lancet: ii: 1116
7.Rajkumar, SV (2004). Thalidomide: Tragic Past and Promising Future Mayo Clin Proc. 79(7).
Deadly obsession
The "studies" you cite represent many years of torture to prove a point. But which "study" would you have regarded as predictive for man? Presumably no other species were affected except this mere handful... ascertained after the fact?
In "The Safety of Medications and Animal Experimentation" (1975), physiologist Prof. Dr. Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University, maintained that "the foreseeable effects, effectiveness, and harmlessness to human beings of medicaments cannot be ascertained scientifically by experiments upon animals in our present state of knowledge. Just as little now as formerly can a medical disaster be prevented by experiments on animals... The example of the Thalidomide disaster, often cited as an argument for stricter testing and also mentioned several times in the justification for the Government's draft proposals to reform the law relating to medicine, illustrates this problem particularly clearly."
Even Prof. Widukind Lenz, the German scientist who, through posthumous tests with primates, had been able to obtain some malformed offspring, testified at the Thalidomide trial in former West Germany in 1970 that "there is no animal test capable of indicating beforehand that human beings, subjected to similar experimental conditions , will react in identical or similar fashion."
In Turkey there were no Thalidomide children, because Dr. S.T. Aygun had recognised in 1958 the effect of Thalidomide leading to deformaties in the course of a month's tests with cell-cultures and prevented its introduction into Turkey. He also informed the manufacturer Chemi Gruenenthal of the results of his investigation. However, the manufacturer replied that the product had been tested for three years on three thousand animals and so it was judged to be harmless. We know what happened.
Dr. Aygun portrays the testing of a drug on a womb in the course of a birth: "One should imagine the animal in the late stages of pregnancy, fixed by the paws, the abdominal cavity opened and the womb suspended outside the body. After the drug has been administered the movement of the womb is observed. And of course this is only possible when the animal is fully conscious as any anesthetisation would have a paralysing effect upon the proceedings. When one visualises this terrible scene and the unspeakable torture of the animal and at the same time realises that the desired effect can equally well or even better be produced on tissue cultures, it is enough to make one's heart turn in one's body. And this is just one experiment among thousands."
The systemic brutalisation represented by such method, which is taught to biologists and medical people at the universities, has already played its historic part, and naturally under the evil cloak of science . It was medical men who stood ready to serve in the concentration camps performing experiments as a part of that criminal system for the "destruction of life unworthy of living." The Russian Ivan Petrovich Pavlov devoted himself to research into so-called conditioned reflexes. He began with experiments on dogs and continued with experiments on people. The results of his research formed the basis for the methods of the political police for obtaining forced confessions, to extract self-accusations and conversions, ie, to attain what has come to be known as "brainwashing". Attempts to force human and animal behaviour by electric shocks go as far back as the experiments with cats done by Swiss psychologist W.R. Hess. Such malevolence caused Dr. med. Hans Much, professor at the University of Hamburg, one of the most famous researchers on TB in the last century, to brand the vivisectionist as "either a man of pathological disposition and a moral imbecile, or, if he is of normal disposition, a complete criminal and scoundrel."