260
Articles
Animal Rights and Animal Experimentation Implications for Physicians ARMAND P. GELPI, MD, Palo Alto, California
Practicing physicians are just becoming aware of the animal rights movement, which during the 1 980s spawned numerous acts of violence against research facilities throughout the United States. The animal rightists are challenging physicians to show moral justification for the human exploitation of nature and the world of subhuman species. They have aroused public interest in animal welfare, sparked protective legislation for experimental animals, and indirectly encouraged the creation of committees to oversee the conduct of animal experimentation and the conditions of animal confinement. This controversy has necessitated a closer look at the questions of animal experimentation and animal rights against the backdrop of human experimentation and human rights. Physicians and specialists in animal care seek to alleviate suffering and anxiety, and, as moderates, they may be able to bring both sides of the animal rights controversy together in a spirit of mutual tolerance and in the common cause of promoting both human and animal welfare. (Gelpi AP: Animal rights and animal experimentation-Implications for physicians. West J Med 1991 Sep; 155:260-262)
Physicians have been summoned to the aid of their colleagues, the medical scientists, under siege by the animal rights movement. Recent articles in clinical journals have outlined the history of the antivivisection and animal rights movements in America, and they have highlighted the response of organized medicine-rationalization, philosophical justification, and policy statements-to actual and threatened constraints on animal experimentation.1'2 Physicians have been exhorted to convince their patients and each other of the merits of animal experimentation and to warn against any restrictions or interruptions. The animal rights movement until recently had received little attention in clinical journals but considerable coverage by the popular press and in bioscience periodicals. Although there is no clear distinction between medical science and clinical medicine, bioscience researchers have been the primary targets of the rightists. It may therefore surprise clinicians to learn that the animal rights debate now shares center stage with such compelling issues affecting both medicine and society as abortion and the prolife-prochoice controversy, genetic engineering and its human applications, and the rationing of health services. The animal rights movement has aroused frustration and exasperation within the scientific community. Is the future of science in jeopardy? In the interest of animal welfare, will health standards deteriorate? Do animals have rights? If so, are they equivalent to human rights? These questions are difficult to answer if one relies on the tirades from animal rights militants or on the defensive rhetoric from scientists. Historical precedents for the current animal rights movement were set over a century ago with the antivivisection campaign that arose in England, bringing together an unlikely coalition of feminists, aristocracy (including Queen Victoria), and trade unionists-all protesting against cruelty to animals, degrading examinations and treatment of women at the hands of certain gynecologists, and the deplorable conditions that often existed in hospitals and clinics provided
for the poor.3'4 A popular target for the antivivisectionists was the eminent 19th century physiologist, Claude Bernard, who to them epitomized scientific arrogance and cruelty. When Bernard wrote, "A physiologist . . . no longer hears the cries of animals, no longer sees the blood that flows, he only sees his idea, only the organisms concealing problems which he intends to solve," he guaranteed himself a permanent niche in the rogues' gallery of animal abuse.' Yet it was Bernard's single-minded approach to research-his total absorption in its questions and its goals, rather than its process-that should have exonerated him from charges of deliberate cruelty. The antivivisection movement found its way to the United States, but for a variety of reasons-not the least of which was effective containment by a handful of respected and energetic medical scientists at the turn of the century-it never gained momentum until transformed into the animal rights movement of the late 1970s.6'7 This delay is reflected in the lack of protective legislation for experimental animals that ended with the passage of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.8 Although England had had its Cruelty to Animals Act in effect for the preceding 90 years, the provisions were so ambiguous, evasion so easy, and creative interpretation by researchers so widespread that no scientist has ever been prosecuted. Australian philosopher Peter Singer revived the antivivisection crusade both here and abroad with his book, Animal Liberation, published in the mid- 1970s.9 The idea of animal rights may have caught on at this point precisely because Singer was able to invest the transformed movement for animal protection with some of the sentiments that had aroused the English a century before. His concept of "speciesism"the exploitation of animals-dovetailed with those of sexism and racism at a time when the nation was examining its collective conscience on these last issues and at a time when the public was entering another cycle of disaffection with science. The scientific community remained largely indifferent to this confluence of grievances until the laboratory
From the Division of Extended Care, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, California. Reprint requests to Armand P. Gelpi, MD, Division of Extended Care, VA Medical Center, MPD, 116/B5, 3801 Miranda Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
THE WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE * SEPTEMBER 1991
*
155
break-ins by radical elements of the animal rights movement in the 1980s.10 The movement has picked up speed and adherents despite attempts by some scientists to discredit the animal protection bloc, portraying it as a mix of dotty old women, affluent busybodies, sentimental fools, and terrorists. It is unfortunate that in the case of the more militant organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, criminal acts of extremists have damaged the reputations of all advocates and obscured their message. It is no less regrettable that, with the possible exception of the Humane Society of the United States, the moderate leadership within the animal welfare organizations has neither disassociated itself from its radical elements nor condemned the trashing of research facilities and the thefts of experimental animals. Like other radicals from earlier years, those representing the animal rights movement see justifying precedents for breaking the law in historical images of social reform-avenues of progress littered with the bones of sacrificial reactionaries and the shards of outdated institutions. In the final analysis, the animal rights movement goes far beyond the issue of animal experimentation. It is concerned with the plight of those millions of animals slaughtered to satisfy our inflated appetites for meat, the millions destroyed in the course of product safety testing, the millions brutally killed for their pelts and furs, the millions sacrificed for trophies in the name of "sport," the millions of lost or abandoned pets put down in animal shelters, and the relentless extermination of endangered species. The rightists see this parade of misery, death, and environmental depredation as a type of genocide-a monstrous crime against nature. The animal rightists ask a fundamental question: "By what right do you scientists justify animal experimentation?" The usual response begs the question with "for human salvation" or "for the advancement of science." Aside from wrestling with troublesome moral questions, most researchers see little hope of giving up animal experimentation because it is an essential, if less often used, tool for bioscientific inquiry. When not philosophizing, the rightists complain that much animal experimentation is an unnecessary duplication of previous research. They assert that the health of the nation is a by-product of economic growth-sanitation, improved nutrition, and better housing-rather than a direct result of animal experimentation. They question the assumption that noble motives underlie research on animals, and even scientists balk at the suggestion that at the heart of every animal experiment is the hope or expectation that somehow the work will lead to the relief of human suffering or the prolongation of human life. Until the laboratory break-ins of the past decade, with their disclosures of inferior standards of animal care in some of the vandalized facilities, and until the enactment of additional federal legislation in the form of amendments to the 1966 welfare act that provided more exacting standards of animal care and experimentation, some scientists viewed the animal rightists with scorn or amused detachment. Others only grudgingly conceded that there had ever been a need for the protection of experimental animals or that this protection should be ensured by legislative safeguards and by the creation of animal welfare committees for research facilities. They denied that laws had been broken or that abuses apparently uncovered by rightist raiders were in fact abuses. This holding pattern has given way to alarm, to initiatives for
3
2261
educating the public on the merits of unrestricted animal experimentation, and to the characterization of animal rights apologists as enemies of science.1I-13 The label seems unfair, if only because animal experimentation has a limited role in biomedical research and because biosciences represent but a fraction of science. Moreover, most of us were taught that science consists of a rigorous type of inquiry to test certain hypotheses in search of the truth, rather than simply an array of embattled researchers with their expensive equipment and captive animals. Better to charge the animal rights moderates with philosophical error and the militants with vandalism and robbery. On one point both sides would agree: most, if not all animal experiments would be unthinkable with human subjects. Or would they? On the eve of World War II, ignoring the record of adverse behavioral changes in primates subjected to prefrontal lobotomy14 and lacking an animal model for human psychosis, a prominent American neurologist and a collaborating neurosurgeon nevertheless set out to cure psychosis by coronal section of the anterior forebrain in mentally ill patients.1" Their technique might be charitably described, even for the times, as primitive and blind. There was no public outcry, and there was virtually no peer criticism other than restrained debate in professional journals. 16 Later, many psychiatrists would be doing this procedure, which during its heyday, from 1949 to 1952, was carried out on several thousand mentally ill patients a year. 17 Sad to say, this operation was never convincingly shown to have been of benefit, and it was not until 1973 that statutes were in place to regulate this and other types of psychosurgery. 18 Many scientists and most of those representing the animal welfare bloc would regard this type of experimentation as a fair illustration of the blurred boundary between human and animal rights abuse. Despite increasing constraints on animal experimentation in our time, the pace of discovery in medicine and other biosciences will increase, with or without a public sensitive to the animal rights issues, with or without added legislative controls on animal experimentation, and despite animal welfare committees. Both sides of the animal rights controversy must agree on some basic premises before they can come together in a common cause that sets reasonable standards for animal welfare, while allowing for humane and essential experiments on animals.19 The future lies with the moderates in both camps, and there-are some encouraging signs. Veterinarians, representing animal care facilities at major universities, are speaking out for increasing sensitivity to the physical and social needs of captive animals and for further refinements in experimental techniques and anesthesia to protect animal subjects from pain and anxiety. 20 There is a final irony to the animal welfare issue that is completely ignored by the rightists and often forgotten by researchers: a substantial proportion of animal experimentation is concerned with restoring health and alleviating suffering in both domestic and wild animals. Physicians may well have a key role in resolving some of the differences between the animal welfare coalition and scientists. This role should be neither to simply echo the charges of offended scientists nor to necessarily preserve the status quo with animal experimentation. Physicians whose commitments to direct patient care often remove them from contact with the laboratory and participation in research could gain valuable insights about current standards for the humane
262
ANIMAL RIGHTS 262~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANMLRGT
treatment of experimental animals from visits to animal care facilities and familiarity, even participation, with animal care committees in place at medical schools throughout this country. For those physicians wishing to view the issue of animal welfare from the rightists' perspective, selections from such publications as The Animals' Voice, The Animals 'Agendapublished by the Compassion for Animals Foundation, Inc and the Animal Rights Network, respectively-and 7he Bulletin of the National Antivivisection Society may be helpful. Finally, physicians, aside from their early training in the scientific method and their exposure to the life sciences, are by nature and tradition caring persons. They are the chief representatives of the caring professions. In this capacity they may be the most effective arbiters for both sides of the animal rights controversy. REFERENCES 1. Loeb JM, Hendee WR, Smith SJ, Schwartz MR: Human vs animal rights-In defense of animal research. JAMA 1989; 262:2716-2720 [comment in JAMA 1990;
263:17661
2. Marwick C: Additional voices heard in support of humane animal use in research (news). JAMA 1990; 263:2863 3. Lansbury C: Gynaecology, pornography, and the antivivisectionist movement. Victorian Studies 1985/86; 28:413-437 4. Elston MA: Women and antivivisection in Victorian England, 1870-1900, chap 11, In Rupke NA (Ed): Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London, Croom, Helm, 1987, pp 259-294 5. Bernard C: Experimental considerations peculiar to living beings, part 2, chap 2, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. New York, NY, Macmillan, 1927, pp 87-150
6. Sechzer JA: Historical issues concerning animal experimentation in the United States. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15F:13-17 7. Gossell PP: William Henry Welch and the antivivisection legislation in the District of Columbia, 1886-1900. J Hist Med 1985; 40:397419 8. Rozmiarek H: Current and future policies regarding laboratory animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:175-179 9. Singer P: Animal Liberation. New York, NY, Avon Books, 1977 10. Rowan AN: Animal research: An animal welfare case file, chap 11, In Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. New York, NY, State University of New York Press, 1984, pp 163-176 11. Caplan A: Beastly conduct. Ann NY Acad Sci 1983; 406:159-169 12. Vaughan C: Animal research: Ten years under siege. Bioscience 1988; 38: 10-13 13. Ritvo HH: Plus ca change: Antivivisection then and now. Bioscience 1984; 34:626-633 14. Valenstein ES: The emperor's new clothes: Moniz's theoretical justification for psychosurgery, chap 5, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 80-100 15. Valenstein ES: Releasing black butterflies, chap 8, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 141-166 16. Valenstein ES: Opposition to lobotomy-and a brief new life, chap 13, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 254-267 17. Valenstein ES: Lobotomy at its peak, chap 11, In the Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 221-253 18. Valenstein ES: Psychosurgery in the 1970s and 1980s, chap 15, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 284-290 19. Moss TH: The modern politics of laboratory animal use. Bioscience 1984; 34:621-625 20. Fleming AH: Animal suffering: How it matters, In Orlans FB, Simmonds RC, Dodds W (Eds): Effective Animal Care and Use Committees. Lab Animal Sci 1987; 37 (special issue): 140-144
Articles
Animal Rights and Animal Experimentation Implications for Physicians ARMAND P. GELPI, MD, Palo Alto, California
Practicing physicians are just becoming aware of the animal rights movement, which during the 1 980s spawned numerous acts of violence against research facilities throughout the United States. The animal rightists are challenging physicians to show moral justification for the human exploitation of nature and the world of subhuman species. They have aroused public interest in animal welfare, sparked protective legislation for experimental animals, and indirectly encouraged the creation of committees to oversee the conduct of animal experimentation and the conditions of animal confinement. This controversy has necessitated a closer look at the questions of animal experimentation and animal rights against the backdrop of human experimentation and human rights. Physicians and specialists in animal care seek to alleviate suffering and anxiety, and, as moderates, they may be able to bring both sides of the animal rights controversy together in a spirit of mutual tolerance and in the common cause of promoting both human and animal welfare. (Gelpi AP: Animal rights and animal experimentation-Implications for physicians. West J Med 1991 Sep; 155:260-262)
Physicians have been summoned to the aid of their colleagues, the medical scientists, under siege by the animal rights movement. Recent articles in clinical journals have outlined the history of the antivivisection and animal rights movements in America, and they have highlighted the response of organized medicine-rationalization, philosophical justification, and policy statements-to actual and threatened constraints on animal experimentation.1'2 Physicians have been exhorted to convince their patients and each other of the merits of animal experimentation and to warn against any restrictions or interruptions. The animal rights movement until recently had received little attention in clinical journals but considerable coverage by the popular press and in bioscience periodicals. Although there is no clear distinction between medical science and clinical medicine, bioscience researchers have been the primary targets of the rightists. It may therefore surprise clinicians to learn that the animal rights debate now shares center stage with such compelling issues affecting both medicine and society as abortion and the prolife-prochoice controversy, genetic engineering and its human applications, and the rationing of health services. The animal rights movement has aroused frustration and exasperation within the scientific community. Is the future of science in jeopardy? In the interest of animal welfare, will health standards deteriorate? Do animals have rights? If so, are they equivalent to human rights? These questions are difficult to answer if one relies on the tirades from animal rights militants or on the defensive rhetoric from scientists. Historical precedents for the current animal rights movement were set over a century ago with the antivivisection campaign that arose in England, bringing together an unlikely coalition of feminists, aristocracy (including Queen Victoria), and trade unionists-all protesting against cruelty to animals, degrading examinations and treatment of women at the hands of certain gynecologists, and the deplorable conditions that often existed in hospitals and clinics provided
for the poor.3'4 A popular target for the antivivisectionists was the eminent 19th century physiologist, Claude Bernard, who to them epitomized scientific arrogance and cruelty. When Bernard wrote, "A physiologist . . . no longer hears the cries of animals, no longer sees the blood that flows, he only sees his idea, only the organisms concealing problems which he intends to solve," he guaranteed himself a permanent niche in the rogues' gallery of animal abuse.' Yet it was Bernard's single-minded approach to research-his total absorption in its questions and its goals, rather than its process-that should have exonerated him from charges of deliberate cruelty. The antivivisection movement found its way to the United States, but for a variety of reasons-not the least of which was effective containment by a handful of respected and energetic medical scientists at the turn of the century-it never gained momentum until transformed into the animal rights movement of the late 1970s.6'7 This delay is reflected in the lack of protective legislation for experimental animals that ended with the passage of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.8 Although England had had its Cruelty to Animals Act in effect for the preceding 90 years, the provisions were so ambiguous, evasion so easy, and creative interpretation by researchers so widespread that no scientist has ever been prosecuted. Australian philosopher Peter Singer revived the antivivisection crusade both here and abroad with his book, Animal Liberation, published in the mid- 1970s.9 The idea of animal rights may have caught on at this point precisely because Singer was able to invest the transformed movement for animal protection with some of the sentiments that had aroused the English a century before. His concept of "speciesism"the exploitation of animals-dovetailed with those of sexism and racism at a time when the nation was examining its collective conscience on these last issues and at a time when the public was entering another cycle of disaffection with science. The scientific community remained largely indifferent to this confluence of grievances until the laboratory
From the Division of Extended Care, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, California. Reprint requests to Armand P. Gelpi, MD, Division of Extended Care, VA Medical Center, MPD, 116/B5, 3801 Miranda Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
THE WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE * SEPTEMBER 1991
*
155
break-ins by radical elements of the animal rights movement in the 1980s.10 The movement has picked up speed and adherents despite attempts by some scientists to discredit the animal protection bloc, portraying it as a mix of dotty old women, affluent busybodies, sentimental fools, and terrorists. It is unfortunate that in the case of the more militant organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, criminal acts of extremists have damaged the reputations of all advocates and obscured their message. It is no less regrettable that, with the possible exception of the Humane Society of the United States, the moderate leadership within the animal welfare organizations has neither disassociated itself from its radical elements nor condemned the trashing of research facilities and the thefts of experimental animals. Like other radicals from earlier years, those representing the animal rights movement see justifying precedents for breaking the law in historical images of social reform-avenues of progress littered with the bones of sacrificial reactionaries and the shards of outdated institutions. In the final analysis, the animal rights movement goes far beyond the issue of animal experimentation. It is concerned with the plight of those millions of animals slaughtered to satisfy our inflated appetites for meat, the millions destroyed in the course of product safety testing, the millions brutally killed for their pelts and furs, the millions sacrificed for trophies in the name of "sport," the millions of lost or abandoned pets put down in animal shelters, and the relentless extermination of endangered species. The rightists see this parade of misery, death, and environmental depredation as a type of genocide-a monstrous crime against nature. The animal rightists ask a fundamental question: "By what right do you scientists justify animal experimentation?" The usual response begs the question with "for human salvation" or "for the advancement of science." Aside from wrestling with troublesome moral questions, most researchers see little hope of giving up animal experimentation because it is an essential, if less often used, tool for bioscientific inquiry. When not philosophizing, the rightists complain that much animal experimentation is an unnecessary duplication of previous research. They assert that the health of the nation is a by-product of economic growth-sanitation, improved nutrition, and better housing-rather than a direct result of animal experimentation. They question the assumption that noble motives underlie research on animals, and even scientists balk at the suggestion that at the heart of every animal experiment is the hope or expectation that somehow the work will lead to the relief of human suffering or the prolongation of human life. Until the laboratory break-ins of the past decade, with their disclosures of inferior standards of animal care in some of the vandalized facilities, and until the enactment of additional federal legislation in the form of amendments to the 1966 welfare act that provided more exacting standards of animal care and experimentation, some scientists viewed the animal rightists with scorn or amused detachment. Others only grudgingly conceded that there had ever been a need for the protection of experimental animals or that this protection should be ensured by legislative safeguards and by the creation of animal welfare committees for research facilities. They denied that laws had been broken or that abuses apparently uncovered by rightist raiders were in fact abuses. This holding pattern has given way to alarm, to initiatives for
3
2261
educating the public on the merits of unrestricted animal experimentation, and to the characterization of animal rights apologists as enemies of science.1I-13 The label seems unfair, if only because animal experimentation has a limited role in biomedical research and because biosciences represent but a fraction of science. Moreover, most of us were taught that science consists of a rigorous type of inquiry to test certain hypotheses in search of the truth, rather than simply an array of embattled researchers with their expensive equipment and captive animals. Better to charge the animal rights moderates with philosophical error and the militants with vandalism and robbery. On one point both sides would agree: most, if not all animal experiments would be unthinkable with human subjects. Or would they? On the eve of World War II, ignoring the record of adverse behavioral changes in primates subjected to prefrontal lobotomy14 and lacking an animal model for human psychosis, a prominent American neurologist and a collaborating neurosurgeon nevertheless set out to cure psychosis by coronal section of the anterior forebrain in mentally ill patients.1" Their technique might be charitably described, even for the times, as primitive and blind. There was no public outcry, and there was virtually no peer criticism other than restrained debate in professional journals. 16 Later, many psychiatrists would be doing this procedure, which during its heyday, from 1949 to 1952, was carried out on several thousand mentally ill patients a year. 17 Sad to say, this operation was never convincingly shown to have been of benefit, and it was not until 1973 that statutes were in place to regulate this and other types of psychosurgery. 18 Many scientists and most of those representing the animal welfare bloc would regard this type of experimentation as a fair illustration of the blurred boundary between human and animal rights abuse. Despite increasing constraints on animal experimentation in our time, the pace of discovery in medicine and other biosciences will increase, with or without a public sensitive to the animal rights issues, with or without added legislative controls on animal experimentation, and despite animal welfare committees. Both sides of the animal rights controversy must agree on some basic premises before they can come together in a common cause that sets reasonable standards for animal welfare, while allowing for humane and essential experiments on animals.19 The future lies with the moderates in both camps, and there-are some encouraging signs. Veterinarians, representing animal care facilities at major universities, are speaking out for increasing sensitivity to the physical and social needs of captive animals and for further refinements in experimental techniques and anesthesia to protect animal subjects from pain and anxiety. 20 There is a final irony to the animal welfare issue that is completely ignored by the rightists and often forgotten by researchers: a substantial proportion of animal experimentation is concerned with restoring health and alleviating suffering in both domestic and wild animals. Physicians may well have a key role in resolving some of the differences between the animal welfare coalition and scientists. This role should be neither to simply echo the charges of offended scientists nor to necessarily preserve the status quo with animal experimentation. Physicians whose commitments to direct patient care often remove them from contact with the laboratory and participation in research could gain valuable insights about current standards for the humane
262
ANIMAL RIGHTS 262~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ANMLRGT
treatment of experimental animals from visits to animal care facilities and familiarity, even participation, with animal care committees in place at medical schools throughout this country. For those physicians wishing to view the issue of animal welfare from the rightists' perspective, selections from such publications as The Animals' Voice, The Animals 'Agendapublished by the Compassion for Animals Foundation, Inc and the Animal Rights Network, respectively-and 7he Bulletin of the National Antivivisection Society may be helpful. Finally, physicians, aside from their early training in the scientific method and their exposure to the life sciences, are by nature and tradition caring persons. They are the chief representatives of the caring professions. In this capacity they may be the most effective arbiters for both sides of the animal rights controversy. REFERENCES 1. Loeb JM, Hendee WR, Smith SJ, Schwartz MR: Human vs animal rights-In defense of animal research. JAMA 1989; 262:2716-2720 [comment in JAMA 1990;
263:17661
2. Marwick C: Additional voices heard in support of humane animal use in research (news). JAMA 1990; 263:2863 3. Lansbury C: Gynaecology, pornography, and the antivivisectionist movement. Victorian Studies 1985/86; 28:413-437 4. Elston MA: Women and antivivisection in Victorian England, 1870-1900, chap 11, In Rupke NA (Ed): Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London, Croom, Helm, 1987, pp 259-294 5. Bernard C: Experimental considerations peculiar to living beings, part 2, chap 2, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. New York, NY, Macmillan, 1927, pp 87-150
6. Sechzer JA: Historical issues concerning animal experimentation in the United States. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15F:13-17 7. Gossell PP: William Henry Welch and the antivivisection legislation in the District of Columbia, 1886-1900. J Hist Med 1985; 40:397419 8. Rozmiarek H: Current and future policies regarding laboratory animal welfare. Invest Radiol 1987; 22:175-179 9. Singer P: Animal Liberation. New York, NY, Avon Books, 1977 10. Rowan AN: Animal research: An animal welfare case file, chap 11, In Of Mice, Models, and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. New York, NY, State University of New York Press, 1984, pp 163-176 11. Caplan A: Beastly conduct. Ann NY Acad Sci 1983; 406:159-169 12. Vaughan C: Animal research: Ten years under siege. Bioscience 1988; 38: 10-13 13. Ritvo HH: Plus ca change: Antivivisection then and now. Bioscience 1984; 34:626-633 14. Valenstein ES: The emperor's new clothes: Moniz's theoretical justification for psychosurgery, chap 5, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 80-100 15. Valenstein ES: Releasing black butterflies, chap 8, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 141-166 16. Valenstein ES: Opposition to lobotomy-and a brief new life, chap 13, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 254-267 17. Valenstein ES: Lobotomy at its peak, chap 11, In the Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 221-253 18. Valenstein ES: Psychosurgery in the 1970s and 1980s, chap 15, In The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Radical Treatments. New York, NY, Basic Books, 1986, pp 284-290 19. Moss TH: The modern politics of laboratory animal use. Bioscience 1984; 34:621-625 20. Fleming AH: Animal suffering: How it matters, In Orlans FB, Simmonds RC, Dodds W (Eds): Effective Animal Care and Use Committees. Lab Animal Sci 1987; 37 (special issue): 140-144
