Editing Animal testing (section)

===Historical debate===
[[File:Claude Bernard 5.jpg|right|thumb|[[Claude Bernard]], regarded as the "prince of vivisectors",<ref name=Croce11/> argued that experiments on animals are "entirely conclusive for the [[toxicology]] and hygiene of man".<ref name=Bernard>[[Claude Bernard|Bernard, Claude]] ''An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine'', 1865. First English translation by Henry Copley Greene, published by Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1927; reprinted in 1949, p. 125.</ref>]]
As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of [[Galen]]ic physiology [[Edmund O'Meara]] said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state".<ref name=Ryder54>[[Richard D. Ryder|Ryder, Richard D.]] (2000). ''Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism''. Berg Publishers, p. 54 {{ISBN|1-85973-330-1}}.</ref><ref name=ANZCCART>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20090327033757/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/resources/AnimalExperimentation.pdf "Animal Experimentation: A Student Guide to Balancing the Issues"]}}, Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), accessed 12 December 2007, cites original reference in Maehle, A-H. and Tr6hler, U. ''Animal experimentation from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century: attitudes and arguments''. In N. A. Rupke (ed.) Vivisection in Historical Perspective. Croom Helm, London, 1987, p. 22.</ref> O'Meara and others argued pain could affect animal physiology during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections ethically, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals.<ref name=ANZCCART/> Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle—many people believed animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.<ref name="Ethical"/><ref name=ANZCCART/>

On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. [[Claude Bernard]]—who is sometimes known as the "prince of vivisectors"<ref name=Croce11>Croce, Pietro. ''Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health''. Zed Books, 1999, {{ISBN|1-85649-732-1}} p. 11.</ref> and the father of physiology, and whose wife, [[Marie Françoise Bernard|Marie Françoise Martin]], founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883<ref>Rudacille, Deborah (2000). ''The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict'', University of California Press, p. 19 {{ISBN|0-520-23154-6}}.</ref>—famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen".<ref name=TelegraphNov2003>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080213180427/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2003%2F11%2F24%2Fhsick23.xml "In sickness and in health: vivisection's undoing"]}}, ''The Daily Telegraph'', November 2003</ref> Arguing that "experiments on animals {{nowrap|[.{{hsp}}.{{hsp}}.]}} are entirely conclusive for the [[toxicology]] and hygiene of man {{nowrap|[.{{hsp}}.{{hsp}}. T]he}} effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree",<ref name=Bernard/> Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard [[scientific method]].<ref name=LaFollette>LaFollette, H., Shanks, N., [http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/BERNARD.HTM Animal Experimentation: the Legacy of Claude Bernard] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200110205729/http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/BERNARD.HTM |date=10 January 2020 }}, ''International Studies in the Philosophy of Science'' (1994) pp. 195–210.</ref>

In 1896, the physiologist and physician [[Walter Cannon|Dr. Walter B. Cannon]] said "The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, 'Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.{{'"}}<ref>{{cite journal | author = Nicoll CS | title = A Physiologist's Views on the Animal Rights/Liberation Movement | journal = The Physiologist | volume = 34 | issue = 6 | pages = 303, 306–08, 315 | year = 1991 | pmid = 1775539 }}</ref> These divisions between pro- and anti-animal testing groups first came to public attention during the [[Brown Dog affair]] in the early 1900s, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.<ref name=Mason>Mason, Peter. [http://www.london-books.co.uk/books/browndog.html ''The Brown Dog Affair''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201006123454/http://www.london-books.co.uk/books/browndog.html |date=6 October 2020 }}. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997.</ref>

In 1822, the first [[Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822|animal protection law]] was enacted in the British parliament, followed by the [[Cruelty to Animals Act 1876|Cruelty to Animals Act (1876)]], the first law specifically aimed at regulating animal testing. The legislation was promoted by [[Charles Darwin]], who wrote to [[Ray Lankester]] in March 1871: "You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for proper investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Life-and-Letters-of-Charles-Darwinx29407.html |title=''The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II'' |publisher=Fullbooks.com }}</ref><ref>Bowlby, John (1991). ''Charles Darwin: A New Life'', W. W. Norton & Company, p. 420 {{ISBN|0-393-30930-4}}.</ref> In response to the lobbying by anti-vivisectionists, several organizations were set up in Britain to defend animal research: [[The Physiological Society]] was formed in 1876 to give physiologists "mutual benefit and protection",<ref>{{cite book|last=Ilman|first=John|title=Animal Research in Medicine: 100 years of politics, protest and progress. The Story of the Research Defence Society|year=2008|publisher=Research Defence Society|isbn=978-0-9560008-0-4|page=16}}</ref> the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research was formed in 1882 and focused on policy-making, and the [[Research Defence Society]] (now [[Understanding Animal Research]]) was formed in 1908 "to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them".<ref>{{cite book|title=Publications of the Research Defence Society: March 1908–1909; Selected by the committee|url=https://archive.org/details/b21509025|year=1909|publisher=Macmillan|location=London|page=xiv}}</ref>

Opposition to the use of animals in medical research first arose in the United States during the 1860s, when [[Henry Bergh]] founded the [[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] (ASPCA), with America's first specifically anti-vivisection organization being the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS), founded in 1883. Antivivisectionists of the era generally believed the spread of mercy was the great cause of civilization, and vivisection was cruel. However, in the USA the antivivisectionists' efforts were defeated in every legislature, overwhelmed by the superior organization and influence of the medical community. Overall, this movement had little legislative success until the passing of the [[Laboratory Animal Welfare Act]], in 1966.<ref>Buettinger, Craig (1 January 1993) {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20080215121937/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-13506650.html Antivivisection and the charge of zoophil-psychosis in the early twentieth century.]}} ''The Historian''.</ref>

Real progress in thinking about animal rights build on the "theory of justice" (1971) by the philosopher John Rawls and work on ethics by philosopher Peter Singer.<ref name="Ethical"/>