Vivisection

Having recently been made aware of the existence of the ARC by Professor Bump, I wondered who if anyone would be willing to admit that they worked there and what they did there. Thinking about the diverse ideas held by students on the issue, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be upfront about their participation in cruelty towards animals. I was amazed by the experiences described by both students who have been a part of the work done in the ARC. This building has “one hundred experimental laboratories” (551), I can’t begin to imagine how many animals have been in and out of these rooms and all for the purpose of science.






These students vividly described their participation in vivisection experiments which are “commonly understood as dissecting a live animal or performing some other painful operation on it for scientific purposes” (550). A comment was made about how this idea is “a morally complex case of animal abuse” (550) but I couldn’t understand why. After reading their testimonies the only thing that crossed my mind was why would someone want to research these things and still think it morally complex? I understand that the reasoning behind conducting these experiments is mainly for medical advances but when reading the description of the two experiments I couldn’t understand what advances would be obtained.





In one of the experiments they would take Japanese quail and find the “copulatory (sexual) behavior” (553) of birds in different conditions that varied in sexual experience and the novelty of their partners. The second experiment measured the amount of alcohol intake from different genetic strains of mice” (558), no reason was really given for why this experiment was being done. Seriously, what could be learned that will be considered a breakthrough for scientists? In both these cases the students knew what was being done to the animals after they were used and still stuck around thinking of it as a good experience for medical school or as necessary. One of the students even claimed they felt guilty but learned to “love with detachment” (558) in order to continue his work. In reading this I was a little frightened by how easy it becomes to some people to just stand around and make excuses for things that are going on around them. In reading this I was a little frightened by how easy it becomes to some people to just stand around and make excuses for things that are going on around them.



In reading the essay by Carroll, I was a bit confused on his stance on the issue. While I think this is due to reading his book and focusing only on the cruelty described in the book I also think he really was just trying to point out all their mistakes and not really his stance in the matter. “All who recognize the difference of right and wrong must admit, if the question be closely pressed, that, the infliction of pain is in some cases wrong” (541). The problem with this statement to me that it leaves everything up to interpretation allowing for the justification of any action in any situation. Like Carroll points out, corruption exists even when the best intentions are perceived. Who is to say that everyone or a certain group of people should be allowed to make the decision on what is considered to be ok. This is what’s led to events like the Holocaust and slavery, a group believing they know what the right option is. Carroll does point out that “repression of all human sympathies, shall have developed a new and more hideous Frankenstein” (548) showing the importance of really being conscious of the decisions we make in regards to other earthlings.