Critically Evaluating Animal Research

Researchers have sought to understand the mechanisms of human health and disease, for as long as the latter has existed. Serious interest in the structure and functioning of the human body has been evident at least since the ancient Greeks. However, the investigations of Greek physicians into human anatomy and physiology were greatly hampered by social taboos about dissecting hu­ man corpses (von Staden, 1989). But non-human animals (hereinafter referred to as animals), were not so revered or feared. Some dissected their corpses, while others, such as Alcmaeon of Croton (sixth-fifth century, BCE), prac­ ticed surgical or other invasive procedures on the living ( Court, zoos; Maehle and Trohler, 1990 ), and conducted some of the first animal experiments ever recorded. Almost two millennia passed before such social dogmas were seriously ques­ tioned. The Renaissance heralded a new era of scientific inquiry, during which Flemish physician and surgeon Vesalius (1514-1564) began to source human cadavers for dissection illegally. He discovered that a number of anatomical structures believed to exist, following animal dissections, were unexpectedly absent in humans. His highly accurate anatomical descriptions challenged the authoritative texts of classical authors (O'Malley, 1964). Throughout the seventeenth century the spirit of scientific inquiry grew and with it, experimentation on living animals. Some surgical investigations and demonstrations that predated anesthesia were infamously cruel and caused widespread social controversy. However, French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650 ), famously rebutted such critiques, claiming that animals were merely mindless automata, i.e., "machine-like" (Descartes, 1989 ); their cries were of no greater moral consequence than the squeals of a poorly-oiled machine. Nevertheless, by the end of the seventeenth century, the question of animal suffering and the acceptability of such procedures had become an increasingly