Customer Reviews

The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The prose in this book makes it a pleasure to read. Ms. Rudacille tells fasinating stories in illustrating her subject. I am not sure when I last read such a beautifully written book. I am jealous of her writing skills!

Unfortunately, I have two complaints. First, Ms. Rudicille buys completely in to the fantasy perpetuated by the scientific establishment that animal research has benefited mankind. Since she is attempting to write a balanced story of the pro and anti-vivesection movements, I would have liked for her not to have so readily accepted the standard dogma promoted by those who earn their livings from animal experimentation that we would all be dead were it not for the marvels discovered by injecting dogs, cats, rats, chimps, etc with all nature of compounds. Even a limited review of the scientific literature rapidly illustrates the fallacies of the animal experimentation lobby.

Secondly, about two thirds of the way through the book, the author leaves her subject and addresses post modernistic philopsphy. I kept waiting for her to bring it back to the title topic, that is the history of animal experimentation, but she never tied it together to my satifaction.

Jean Greek, DVM Co-author of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese

For those who are interested in a general overview of the controversy and politics over vivisection, Rudacille's book is pretty good. Surely the book does not profess to change your mind on this issue, but it is hard to read through the book without recognizing where the author stands. I find it to be a problem for those who may have only recently considered this issue. This book really does not provide much moral discussion for the reader to weigh the arguments, I think that many people who may not be versed in the moral issues may simply grow to adopt the author's position after reading the book, which is: "Vivisection is a necessary evil. We definitely should continue using animals, but we certainly should make it as less evil as possible." I'm not sure if writing the book with this slant is appropriate for a book that professes to provide a historical analysis (surely I recognize that many historical works are written with slants). I think it would be a much more valuable work if it paid more attention to and presented the philosophical/moral debates in a historical perspective. However don't get me wrong, I think people who are interested in vivisection should definitely get this book for it provides many insights that I believe to be quite interesting.

This book presents a well-documented history of the animal protection movement and the largely antagonistic relationship that has existed between animal protectionists and the biomedical research community since the mid-19th Century. Rudacille combines thorough documentation of sources with incisive analysis and first-hand professional experience to create a book that animal researchers, laboratory technicians, veterinarians, animal care committee members and anyone else who has a stake in animal welfare and/or research should read. Indeed, Rudacille's free-flowing prose makes for easy, fast and informative reading -- just the ticket for busy scientists, vets and "techs" who aren't yet familiar with this history, and who "don't have time for this stuff, anyway."

Readers who may already be familiar with this topic will find that Rudacille has been accurate with the facts and fair with her analysis. She contrasts the new breed of 19th Century scientists who embraced animal experimentation as the key to understanding human physiology and curing disease with the equally new breed of social activists, mostly female, it turns out, who were horrified and repulsed at the mere thought of someone invading living bodies of sentient creatures for any purpose, but especially for mere "science." In tracing the development of the animal protection movement from those beginnings, Rudacille skillfully explores and clarifies the roots, relationships and interconnectedness of some main-stream modern-day animal protectionist and antivivisectionist societies. Her inclusion of pertinent biographical details on some of the more prominent players in these groups adds to the reading enjoyment.

Rudacille's analysis leaves little doubt that the conflict between animal welfarists and the animal research community is here to stay, at least for as long as our society continues to believe in and support animal research. Her basic message is that the warring factions must find some reasonable middle ground that serves the interests of both groups. How difficult that task may be comes clear when one realizes that the battle cry of the 19th-Century antivivisectionists ("animal research is useless") is the same as that of their modern-day counterparts, as repeatedly quoted by Rudacille throughout this book. Outfit these modern nay-sayers with long dresses, bustles and parasols, and we're back in the 19th Century.

In the end, this book is more than an entertaining historical read. It shows with great clarity how deep the roots of opposition toward animal research extend, and it underscores the importance of participation in the dialogue -- some would say the war -- between members of the biomedical research community and those animal welfarists who are willing to engage in discussion. Sadly, many of my colleagues in the research community hardly know there's a war on, much less that they're in the army that's supposed to be fighting it.

This book presents a well-documented history of the animal protection movement and the largely antagonistic relationship that has existed between animal protectionists and the biomedical research community since the mid-19th Century. Rudacille combines thorough documentation of sources with incisive analysis and first-hand professional experience to create a book that animal researchers, laboratory technicians, veterinarians, animal care committee members and anyone else who has a stake in animal welfare and/or research should read. Indeed, Rudacille's free-flowing prose makes for easy, fast and informative reading -- just the ticket for busy scientists, vets and "techs" who aren't yet familiar with this history, and who "don't have time for this stuff, anyway."

Readers who may already be familiar with this topic will find that Rudacille has been accurate with the facts and fair with her analysis. She contrasts the new breed of 19th Century scientists who embraced animal experimentation as the key to understanding human physiology and curing disease with the equally new breed of social activists, mostly female, it turns out, who were horrified and repulsed at the mere thought of someone invading living bodies of sentient creatures for any purpose, but especially for mere "science." In tracing the development of the animal protection movement from those beginnings, Rudacille skillfully explores and clarifies the roots, relationships and interconnectedness of some main-stream modern-day animal protectionist and antivivisectionist societies. Her inclusion of pertinent biographical details on some of the more prominent players in these groups adds to the reading enjoyment.

Rudacille's analysis leaves little doubt that the conflict between animal welfarists and the animal research community is here to stay, at least for as long as our society continues to believe in and support animal research. Her basic message is that the warring factions must find some reasonable middle ground that serves the interests of both groups. How difficult that task may be comes clear when one realizes that the battle cry of the 19th-Century antivivisectionists ("animal research is useless") is the same as that of their modern-day counterparts, as repeatedly quoted by Rudacille throughout this book. Outfit these modern nay-sayers with long dresses, bustles and parasols, and we're back in the 19th Century.

In the end, this book is more than an entertaining historical read. It shows with great clarity how deep the roots of opposition toward animal research extend, and it underscores the importance of participation in the dialogue -- some would say the war -- between members of the biomedical research community and those animal welfarists who are willing to engage in discussion. Sadly, many of my colleagues in the research community hardly know there's a war on, much less that they're in the army that's supposed to be fighting it.

The author does an excellent job in presenting both sides of the arguments. Through some chapters you will be siding with those who want to ban animal research but in others you will see the importance of animal research to our lives. Instead of advocating for one particular side, the author remains neutral and effectively present both sides to the argument. The historical background of animal research presented is also of interest as you can see the transition from animal research in the early times to animal research in the 21st century. Fantastic Read.

The prose in this book makes it a pleasure to read. Ms. Rudacille tells fasinating stories in illustrating her subject. I am not sure when I last read such a beautifully written book. I am jealous of her writing skills!

Unfortunately, I have two complaints. First, Ms. Rudicille buys completely in to the fantasy perpetuated by the scientific establishment that animal research has benefited mankind. Since she is attempting to write a balanced story of the pro and anti-vivesection movements, I would have liked for her not to have so readily accepted the standard dogma promoted by those who earn their livings from animal experimentation that we would all be dead were it not for the marvels discovered by injecting dogs, cats, rats, chimps, etc with all nature of compounds. Even a limited review of the scientific literature rapidly illustrates the fallacies of the animal experimentation lobby.

Secondly, about two thirds of the way through the book, the author leaves her subject and addresses post modernistic philopsphy. I kept waiting for her to bring it back to the title topic, that is the history of animal experimentation, but she never tied it together to my satifaction.

Jean Greek, DVM Co-author of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese

I read Rudacille's book at a time when I needed to make an important ethical decision about animal experimentation.

The book provides many historical references about the subject. It is not one-sided. Its shows both historical references pro-animal experimentation, for example in the chapter about the polio, as well as evidence against animal experimentation, for example in the chapter about the Nazi human experimentation. Moreover, the back of the book contains pointers to other resources (including the Internet) for further reference.

The book did not biased my decision. When I finished reading the book I was as confused as when I started but I was considering more elements in my decision.

In summary I found in the book a good and not biased source of historical information about the ethical issues of animal experimentation.

The folly of this book is that Ms. Rudacille paints it as a matter of Animal Research vs. Animal Protection, when the real dichotomy (not that animal research doesn't torture animals, because it does) is Animal Research vs. Good Science. This book presupposes that animal research helps people, which evidence shows is faulty at best. 92% of all new drugs that pass animal testing go on to fail in human clinical tests because they are too toxic or ineffective. Of the remaining 8% that pass the human tests, HALF are later withdrawn from the market because of side effects (sometimes lethal) that animal tests did not predict. That means FOUR PERCENT of drugs that pass animal tests stay on the market (and who knows how many humans they kill or maim in the process)!

If you want to read a more accurate work, check out "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals" by Dr. C. Ray Greek and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM.