Editing Crash test dummy (section)

=== Animal testing ===
By the mid-1950s, the bulk of the information cadaver testing could provide had been collected. It was also necessary to collect data on accident survivability, research for which cadavers were woefully inadequate. In concert with the shortage of cadavers, this need forced researchers to seek other models. A description by [[Mary Roach]] of the ''Eighth Stapp Car Crash and Field Demonstration Conference'' shows the direction in which research had begun to move. "We saw [[chimpanzee]]s riding rocket sleds, a [[bear]] on an impact swing...We observed a [[pig]], [[anesthesia|anesthetized]] and placed in a sitting position on the swing in the harness, crashed into a deep-dish steering wheel at about 10 mph."<ref>[http://archive.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html I was a human crash-test dummy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051125034009/http://archive.salon.com/health/col/roac/1999/11/19/crash_test/index1.html |date=November 25, 2005}} (November 19, 1999).</ref>

One important research objective that could not be achieved with either cadavers or live humans was a means of reducing the injuries caused by [[impalement]] on the [[steering column]]. By 1964, over a million fatalities resulting from [[steering wheel]] impact had been recorded, a significant percentage of all fatalities; the introduction by [[General Motors]] in the early 1960s of the collapsible steering column reduced the risk of steering-wheel death by fifty percent.

Pigs were used for steering wheel impacts and other cabin collisions because they have an internal structure similar to humans, and can be easily placed correctly via sitting upright in the vehicle.<ref name="live animals"/> The ability to sit upright was an important requirement for test animals so that another common fatal injury among human victims, [[decapitation]], could be studied. Additionally, it was important for researchers to be able to determine to what extent cabin design needed to be modified to ensure optimal survival circumstances. For instance, a [[dashboard]] with too little padding or padding that was too stiff or too soft would not significantly reduce head injury over a dash with no padding at all. While knobs, levers, and buttons are essential in the operation of a vehicle, it was essential to determine which design modifications would best ensure that these elements did not tear or puncture victims in a crash. [[Rear-view mirror]] impact is a significant occurrence in a [[Traffic collision|frontal collision]]: How should a mirror be built so that it is rigid enough to perform its task, yet of low injury risk if struck?

While work with cadavers had aroused some opposition, primarily from religious institutions, it was grudgingly accepted because the dead, being dead, felt no [[pain]], and the indignity of their situations was directly related to easing the pain of the living. Animal research, on the other hand, aroused much greater passion. Animal rights groups such as the [[American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]] (ASPCA) were vehement in their protest, and while researchers such as Patrick supported animal testing because of its ability to produce reliable, applicable data, there was nonetheless a strong ethical unease about this process. Researchers at the University of Virginia have to call the cadaver's family and tell them what they are using their loved one for, after getting consent from the family. This seems to lessen ethical dilemmas in contrast to animal testing, because there is no sufficient way to get consent to use an animal.<ref name="LA Times">{{Cite news|last1=Marshall|first1=Tyler|title=Auto Safety Crash Testing Ignites Furor : Germany: The program uses human bodies. U.S. tests using cadavers at 3 universities are disclosed.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-25-mn-60691-story.html|access-date=15 February 2016|work=Los Angeles Times|date=25 November 1993}}</ref>

Although animal test data were still more easily obtained than cadaver data, the anatomical differences between animals and people and the difficulty of employing adequate internal instrumentation limited their usefulness. Animal testing is no longer practiced by any of the major automobile makers; General Motors discontinued live testing in 1993 and other manufacturers followed suit shortly thereafter.

In 1980, animals such as bears and pigs were tested in car crash simulations. This led to moral dilemmas and was not the first time that animals were used in car crashes. In 1978, The [[University of Michigan]] Highway Safety Research Institute used baboons as a substitute for human test subjects in car crashes. Although there was the objection of animal cruelty that arose, there was also the controversy of how they are similar to humans and can be used as a sufficient testing substitution for us.<ref name="live animals" /> The researchers did not end up stopping the use of baboons because of moral objections, but instead stopped because they had collected sufficient data. The moral inputs from other people and organizations were inconsistent, which caused implications when deciding to ban healthy animals from research testing. The animals were put under anesthesia, so there was no pain put upon them, but the aftereffects cannot justify this.<ref name="live animals">{{cite journal |last1=Heneson |first1=Nancy |title=Live Animals in Car Crash Studies |journal=International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems |date=1980 |volume=1 |issue=14 |pages=214–217 |url=https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_arte/19/ }}</ref> General Motors used animals for testing, and also suggested that they put the animals under anesthesia and then would kill the animals after completing the testing.<ref name="new york">{{Cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/28/us/19000-.html | title=Animals Killed in Automotive Crash Tests | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=September 28, 1991 | access-date=26 March 2016}}</ref>

Although the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute did get bad publicity, it was suggested that this is not the reason why they stopped using baboons. The University of Michigan's mission was to create safer cars for human use. In order to reach this goal, research and testing is inevitable. The cruelty and the moral dilemmas of animal testing did not trump researchers still using them as subjects. They reasoned that biomechanics data are needed for an experiment like this, which will lead to safer cars.<ref name="live animals" /> Years later, animal testing ceased and instead an instrumented dummy was created as a replacement. In 1978, animals were their only subjects that could be a reliable substitution for the human being. The disadvantage, though, to using an instrumented dummy or a human cadaver, is that the tissue is not alive and will not elicit the same response as a live animal.<ref name="live animals" /> By 1991, the use of animals in vehicle collision tests was in decline because of advances in computers and technology.<ref name="new york" /> It is difficult to use cadavers instead of animals because of human rights, and it is difficult to obtain permission from the families of the deceased. Consent for a research and testing can occur only if the person responsible for giving consent is mentally competent and comprehends the research and testing procedures fully.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Chung|first1=Christine S.|last2=Lehmann|first2=Lisa Soleymani|title=Informed Consent and the Process of Cadaver Donation|journal=Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine|date=August 2002|volume=126|issue=8|pages=964–968|url=http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/0003-9985(2002)126%3C0964:ICATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2|access-date=24 April 2016|doi=10.5858/2002-126-0964-ICATPO|pmid=12171497|url-access=subscription}}</ref>