BMJ 2001;322:115 ( 13 January )

Reviews

Book

Vivisection or science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health

Pietro Croce

Zed Books, £14.95, pp 209 

ISBN 1 85649 733 X

---------------------

Rating: star star star star

Animal rights activists have made the headlines several times already this year. However, if you think that antivivisectionists are just fanatical arsonists, weird hippies, or old ladies who feed stray cats, then think again. In this disturbing and thought provoking book Professor Pietro Croce, an Italian scientist who used to experiment on animals himself, explains why he now believes this is unethical. Surprisingly, this view is not based on his love of animals but rather his "concern for the health of other human beings."

His main argument is that using animals as an experimental model for humans is methodologically flawed and unscientific and has led to many people being harmed or even killed. He gives many examples of this, including the case of thalidomide. This drug was first prescribed to pregnant women in 1957 and marketed as a harmless tranquilliser. In 1961, after "repeated and rigorous animal experiments," British Distillers distributed the drug around the world, resulting in the birth of thousands of children with phocomelia. Croce argues that catastrophes like this are inevitable given the biological differences between animals and humans, and supports this with some fascinating examples. For instance, sweet almonds, the basic ingredient of marzipan, are poisonous to dogs, foxes, and turkeys; chloroform is toxic to cats and rabbits; and isoprenaline is tolerated by cats in doses 175 times greater than considered safe for humans.

Croce also says that experimenting on animals is a slippery slope to experimenting on humans. This may sound far fetched, but Croce gives many examples to bolster his concerns. Hepatitis B vaccine, for example, was first "tested" by Dr Krugman on institutionalised children without their consent. Krugman had started off experimenting on animals.

So what is the alternative? Croce explains in great detail how epidemiological methods, computer simulation, and in vitro studies can be effectively used instead of animal experiments. In fact he takes great exception to these methods being called "alternative" and instead calls them "scientific."

Although Croce doesn't mince his words, this is a balanced and thoroughly researched book. It also has a long history. It was first published in Italian in 1981 and was translated into English in 1991. This is an updated edition of what is generally regarded as "the Bible of antivivisection."

If you want to read a book that challenges everything you think you know about science and research, then this is the one for you. It certainly changed my view.

Rhona MacDonald, BMJ


© BMJ 2001

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Meyrick, J. (2006). What is Good Qualitative Research?: A First Step towards a Comprehensive Approach to Judging Rigour/Quality.. J Health Psychol 11: 799-808 [Abstract]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Misrepresentation of the history of thalidomide and other fallacies in the vivisection debate
J H Botting
bmj.com, 27 Feb 2001 [Full text]
Fallacy of the safety of animal testing
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 4 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Animal Research gives hope
Thomas Bromley
bmj.com, 5 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Benefits of animal research
Simon Festing
bmj.com, 5 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Reply
J H Botting
bmj.com, 5 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Reply
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 7 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Test of scientific theory
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 7 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Animal Research gives hope
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 11 Mar 2001 [Full text]
What about those of us who need new medicines?
Thomas Bromley
bmj.com, 12 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Reply to Drs Festing & Botting
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 12 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Response to Yoe of 12 March
J H Botting
bmj.com, 13 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Reply
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 13 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Double edged sword
Paul Ward
bmj.com, 12 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Reply
J H Botting
bmj.com, 12 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: What about those of us who need new medicines?
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 14 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Response to Yoe of 12 March
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 14 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Response to Yoe of 14th March
J H Botting
bmj.com, 16 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Vivisection - Flawed methodology
Valerie Kneebone
bmj.com, 19 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Vivisection - Flawed methodology
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 20 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Response to Kneebone
J H Botting
bmj.com, 21 Mar 2001 [Full text]
many prescription drugs are unsafe
Angela Roberts
bmj.com, 23 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Seriously Ill against Vivisection
Greg Jennings
bmj.com, 23 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Misrepresentation of the history of thalidomide and other fallacies in the vivisection debate
Dave Catleugh
bmj.com, 23 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Birth defects - who is responsible ?
Cris Iles
bmj.com, 23 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Response to Dr Botting/re.Thalidomide
V Kneebone
bmj.com, 23 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Vivisection
David Mitchell
bmj.com, 26 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Closing statement
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 26 Mar 2001 [Full text]
Re: Seriously Ill against Vivisection
Barbara Davies
bmj.com, 2 Jun 2001 [Full text]
The future
Cris Iles
bmj.com, 29 Mar 2001 [Full text]
The first and last law of vivisection
C K Yoe
bmj.com, 18 Apr 2001 [Full text]
Double standards in animal experimentation
Gordon Moran
bmj.com, 25 Sep 2003 [Full text]
Re: Re: Seriously Ill against Vivisection
C.K. Yoe
bmj.com, 30 Jul 2004 [Full text]



Student BMJ

Risk of surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: record linkage studies

What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+

www.student.bmj.com

Listen to the latest BMJ Interview