The body is complex. Within it, fluids travel, nutrients diffuse, and organs interact in hidden ways. Compelled to expose these invisible processes, scientists cut things up to find out what’s inside.
Throughout history, surgeons performed vivisections on animals, especially when human cadavers were difficult to obtain. Galen of Pergamum, the ancient Greek physician who claimed to do a dissection every day, was sometimes misguided—he had not anticipated the discrepancies between animals and humans—but his examinations established dissection as a profound research tool. The dominant opinion that animals did not feel pain persisted through centuries, and in more alarming cases, scientists sought to explicitly demonstrate animals’ pain capacity. In the 1500s, a pupil of Andreas Vesalius, founder of modern human anatomy, conducted an experiment on a pregnant dog: remove a fetus from the womb, display the newborn pup to its mother, and hurt the pup to elicit a reaction. When the mother responded with distress, observers celebrated the animal’s expression of love. Although such instances were likely based in genuine curiosity, it seems that humankind’s desire to understand itself and other organisms has often come with the price of cruelty.
Image Source: ilbusca
Where it was historically ignored, the discussion of ethics has recently become part of animal research. Reducing the number of animals used, refining practices to limit suffering, and replacing animal tests with alternative models are primary goals in regulating animal use. Knowing that animals are sentient and that they experience a gradient of complex emotions and relationships, researchers must respect animals by designing experiments that will be medically useful and applicable to humans.
When results from animal testing do not mirror the realities of human physiology in clinical trials, it is often due to careless lab procedure. Blinding and randomization are necessary for avoiding bias when conducting animal research, but overlooking these steps generates disparities between experimental observations and real-life effects. Additionally, experiments that yield positive results are more likely to be published than unsuccessful ones, promoting a misguided notion that all animal tests are essential.
In many experiments, including those that produce unreliable results, animals experience unnecessary pain and death. Animal tests cannot be completely eliminated as there is no alternative model for behavior or for a drug’s larger biological effects. However, poorly designed experiments cannot reveal these phenomena either. Unproductive experiments are a waste of life, so scientists must refine current models and develop replacements.
The Wyss Institute at Harvard University has worked toward reconstructing human tissue, replicating a miniature, functional organ on a microchip. Advances like these will allow scientists to manufacture organoid chips that have been personalized to contain one person’s cells, a collection of which could mimic an entire organ system. Such an invention will be able to simulate the minute and holistic effects of a drug, minimizing the need for research animals.
