History Main / AnimalTesting

* ''{{Felidae}}''. Dear Lord. Like the murders weren't nightmare fuel enough. Francis comes across a tape of a perfectly healthy cat, shown meowing and struggling, [[StrappedToATable being bolted to a table]] and having its head cut open to test a new "glue" for wounds. Said glue ''eats through its skull into its brain while it is conscious'' as the scientist impartially narrates and observes its dying twitches. Enough to give anyone nightmares (and check that your own pets are where you left them). As if that wasn't enough, most of the cats in Francis' neighbourhood are mangled by the lab's experiments - Felicity is blinded, Bluebeard has a withered paw, and Claudandus goes insane.

** The Book (''MrsFrisbyAndTheRatsOfNIMH''), was more evenhanded in their treatment of the researchers, who adhered to all modern animal testing ethics.

Animal testing is one of those sticky subjects that should never be brought up at dinner parties - unless you really like watching your guests squirm. Some of us wholeheartedly support all animal testing as life saving progress. Others wholeheartedly denounce it as cruel and barbaric. Still more are wildly uncomfortable with the practice itself, but are forced to acknowledge that if it wasn't for (some) animal testing, many of the people we love would not be alive today, making for a moral quandary. On the other hand, many dogs, cats, rats and other intelligent creatures have suffered tremendously and died because of animal experimentation (sometimes for trivial reasons), when there may be [[http://www.aavs.org/researchProblems.html better scientific alternatives]].

The media, however, favour the Black And White Morality, so don't expect to see too many shades of grey (it's worth mentioning that they do exist however - see the third group of examples).

The actual term can cover a number of things, which raise different dilemmas...and different levels of controversy. Behavourial experiments, like that of rats in mazes or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov%27s_dogs Pavlov's dog]] don't tend to raise too many hackles unless physical or psychological trauma is involved (i.e. raising a baby animal in total isolation to see how its development is affected). Cutting animals open while still alive (vivisection) usually turns up in FreeTheFrogs plots and sci-fi/horror films, usually involving a degree of moral dilemma. Medical testing (using animals to test new drugs and procedures in order to benefit human patients) is probably the most contested minefield, with both staunch supporters and equally determined detractors. Cosmetic testing (using animals to test lipstick, shampoo, mascara etc.) rarely turns up in the media, unless the scientist is a villain in an animal-centric show. If it does show up, it is almost always exaggerated, especially since using animals for cosmetics testing is falling out of favor--cultured human cell lines are turning out to be much more useful, and better for PR.

* In ''ANightInTheLonesomeOctober'', Snuff the dog is captured and nearly cut apart by some Victorian-era anatomists. As it's a period piece, the hellish conditions aren't necessarily something the reader is meant to condemn in the present day, so much as being ''very'' glad that sort of thing isn't standard scientific practice anymore.

* ''ThePlagueDogs'' seems to oppose animal testing in crushingly depressing, [[HighOctaneNightmareFuel gory]], [[IngmarBergman Bergman]]-esque watercolor animation. Just in case any kiddies are watching this film because of ''WatershipDown'', you have a ShoutOut: in the first 5 minutes the dogs walk through a room full of immobilized rabbit heads in the dark. Apparently [[WordOfGod the author stated]] that he wasn't looking to make the message against vivisection, but a story about the brutality of modern society and humanity in general. Whether or not it supports anything, one of the dogs does comment about the testing, that "It must do ''some'' good..." The book is much different and that example is under the "amiguous" sections.

* ''ThePlagueDogs'' by Richard Adams is a difficult enough case to judge. While it seems at first glance to definitely take the side of the animals in the debate, several instances in the book, such as the inclusion of a scientist who is only doing what he feels is necessary to help his LittlestCancerPatient daughter, prevent the book from taking a definite side. The movie is far less ambiguous.

* ''MrsFrisbyAndTheRatsOfNIMH'' - the book that ''TheSecretOfNIMH'' above is based on - is more neutral. It's still the rats' point of view, but the experiment is depicted more like a real one would be, even citing--of all things for a kids' book featuring cute critters--a ''control group''.

-->'''Echo:''' You're saying she's evil?//
'''Adelle:''' Worse. An idealist.

-->'''Echo:''' You're saying she's evil?\\

** House himself plays with both sides of this with his pet rat Steve McQueen (at first he's supposed to kill it, instead he traps it, treats it, and keeps it, then later uses it as a test subject)

* ''ThePlagueDogs'' seems to oppose animal testing in crushingly depressing, [[HighOctaneNightmareFuel gory]], [[IngmarBergman Bergman]]-esque watercolor animation. Just in case any kiddies are watching this film because of ''WatershipDown'', you have a ShoutOut: in the first 5 minutes the dogs walk through a room full of immobilized rabbit heads in the dark. Apparently [[WordOfGod the author stated]] that he wasn't looking to make the message against vivisection, but a story about the brutality of modern society and humanity in general. Whether or not it supports anything, one of the dogs does comment about the testing, that "It must do ''some'' good..."

* ''ThePlagueDogs'' not only opposes animal testing, it uses the subject to attack modern society and and [[HumansAreBastards humanity in general]] in crushingly depressing, [[IngmarBergman Bergman]]-esque watercolor animation. Just in case any kiddies are watching this film because of ''WatershipDown'', you have a ShoutOut: in the first 5 minutes the dogs walk through a room full of immobilized rabbit heads. ''In the dark.''
** Er... how, exactly? The film is far less ambiguous than the book, but pretty much the entire film is told from the dogs point of view, and they spend all of their time in a scarcely populated part of the Lake District. Aside from a few short scenes to show how hideously the labs handled the situation of the dogs escaping (because otherwise, they would have likely been caught or killed quite early), there is pretty much no mention of modern society. Hell, most of the human cast comprises of nameless farmers and soldiers who are just doing their jobs!
** Did you see the same film? The opening sequence is pretty much a litany of horrors, apparently done ForTheEvulz. The first thing we see is a dead dog being picked up by a shovel and thrown in the incinerator... The laboratory is named ARSE ("Animal Research-Scientific and Experimental"). Experiments consist of prolonged isolation and water torture... And the worst part of it? The artists say all the scenes were based on actual incidents of animal abuse in (hopefully since-closed) laboratories. Oh, and when one of the hunters tracking them falls and kills himself, the dogs respond by [[ImAHumanitarian eating him]]... Admittedly they were very hungry at the time.
** Just because the movie shows some instances of the less-than-savoury things that the more sadistic scientists of the past were allowed to do to animals hardly qualifies it as "attacking modern society and humanity in general". Very few people knew what was going on in the labs at the time and even now many documents have been hushed up regarding unnecessary testing in the last few decades. Even today, very few people are aware of ongoing tests like [=LD50=] ("Lethal Dose 50%" - "how much of a substance/radiation can be used until half of all the test subjects are dead"?) that have little scientific value but are still used. And I don't see how the example of the starving dogs scavenging a dead humans carcass supports your claims.
** Whether or not it supports anything, one of the dogs does comment about the testing, that "It must do ''some'' good..."

!!Examples:

[[AC:Pro-animal testing]]
* Many police procedurals/whodunnits will feature a respectable lab at the mercy of a crazy AnimalWrongsGroup. Strangely enough, they never seem to be the ones who actually commit the murder, although they're usually portrayed as fanatical enough to kill a scientist. There are some aversions, however - DalzielAndPascoe episode ''Project Aphrodite'' apparently concluded that ''everyone'' involved in the debate was nuts.
* Documentaries...well sort of. No matter how much they try to present a balanced argument, most end up on the "Animal Rights people are nuts/ Science is Good" side of the argument through the use of interview and commentary.

* ''TraumaCenter'': New Blood. Marcus inadvertently unleashed Stigma via vivisection, but vivisection itself seem to be largely considered something that medical researchers just have to do - the ends justify the means (he talks about "disposing of the subject", not "killing the rat.") Some room for disagreement here, of course.

[[AC:Anti-animal testing]]
* ''{{Felidae}}''. Dear Lord. Like the murders weren't nightmare fuel enough. Francis comes across a tape of a perfectly healthy cat, shown meowing and struggling, [[StrappedToATable being bolted to a table]] and having its head cut open to test a new "glue" for wounds. Said glue ''eats through its skull into its brain while it is conscious'' as the scientist impartially narrates and observes its dying twitches. Enough to give anyone nightmares (and check that your own pets are where you left them). As if that wasn't enough, most of the cats in Francis' neighbourhood are mangled by the lab's experiments - Felicity is blinded, Bluebeard has a withered paw, and Claudandus goes insane.
** Note to self: Never, ever, ''ever'', '''ever''' watch that movie.
*** Can't remember seeing that in the movie. Though violent, it was nothing compared to the novel, which takes some of these scenes to the extreme. Especially when Claudandus takes revenge on the scientist who tortured him.
* ''ThePlagueDogs'' (film) not only opposes animal testing, it uses the subject to attack modern society and and [[HumansAreBastards humanity in general]] in crushingly depressing, [[IngmarBergman Bergman]]-esque watercolor animation. Just in case any kiddies are watching this film because of ''WatershipDown'', you have a ShoutOut: in the first 5 minutes the dogs walk through a room full of immobilized rabbit heads. ''In the dark.''
** Er... how, exactly? I'll admit that the film is far less ambiguous than the book, but pretty much the entire film is told from the dogs point of view, and they spend all of their time in a scarcely populated part of the Lake District. Aside from a few short scenes to show how hideously the labs handled the situation of the dogs escaping (because otherwise, they would have likely been caught or killed quite early), there is pretty much no mention of modern society. Hell, most of the human cast comprises of nameless farmers and soldiers who are just doing their jobs!

** Definitely ParanoiaFuel.

* ''TheSecretOfNimh'': The animation in the laboratory, and the effects of the concoction given to the rats and mice, are pretty nightmarish.
* The {{Legally Blonde}} sequel ''Red, White, and Blonde'' centers around an attempt to ban cosmetics testing on animals.

* The anti-animal testing episode of CaptainPlanetAndThePlaneteers saw Dr. Blight testing cosmetics on animals ForTheEvulz.
* Another cosmetics-testing example, back when it was making headlines: a BloomCounty story arc had Opus thinking his mother was one of these for Mary Kay cosmetics. He ends up caught between the Mary Kay commandos and a terrorist animal-freedom group in a shootout.
* ''{{We3}}'' is pretty unambiguously anti animal testing, and the covers implicitly support the "family pets stolen and sold to testing labs" allegations alluded to above.

* {{Oddworld}}. In Munch's oddysee, test creatures (called "fuzzles") are experimented on by evil scientists ("Vykkers"), who are one of your antagonists.

[[AC:Ambiguous]]

* ''ThePlagueDogs'' by Richard Adams is a difficult enough case to judge. While it seems at first glance to definitely take the side of the animals in the debate, several instances in the book, such as the inclusion of a scientist who is only doing what he feels is necessary to help his LittlestCancerPatient daughter, prevent the book from taking a definite side. The movie is far less ambiguous.

* In 90s teen movie {{Drive me Crazy}}, the tension between the main character and his ex girlfriend centers around this. She is against animal testing and wants to attend a protest, and he declines. She becomes angry and breaks up with him, but it turns out that he declined because his mother died of cancer and might have been saved through advances in animal testing.
* {{Fringe}} had a weird version of this. The AnimalWrongsGroup is made up of morons with nothing resembling common sense, the animal testing scientists created a horrible monster that goes on a bloody rampage the moment it's released.
* ''PinkyAndTheBrain'' are themselves a product of testing and research, and act with levels of freedom ranging from 'escaping every night' to 'practically running the labs'. AnimalTesting here is more of the back story; it can become a rare plot device, an artifact of the backstory, or what they're doing in the story itself. They also end up encountering an AnimalWrongsGroup and vainly try to tell them that they're genuine lab mice--as in not able to survive in the wilderness.
* ''MrsFrisbyAndTheRatsOfNIMH''--the book that ''TheSecretOfNIMH'' above is based on--is more neutral. It's still the rats' point of view, but the experiment is depicted more like a real one would be, even citing--of all things for a kids' book featuring cute critters--a ''control group''.
* Ratbert from ''{{Dilbert}}'' started out as a test subject. The scientist he works for is a bit odd, but did have to be careful, since Ratbert was his ''only'' test subject. Ratbert eventually left him, before the comic moved to its more business setting.

* ''House'' managed to use multiple aspects of both positions in ''a single opening sequence'', when a dying, wheelchair-bound researcher is shown sacrificing and dissecting one of his lab rats. On the one hand, we see the animal injected, killed, and cut open in a gruesome close-up; on the other, the researcher's frailty is obvious even before he seizes and passes out, and he apologizes to the rat before administering the injection.

* ''When the Wind Blows'' takes this stance, surprisingly. While it's revealed that the School has performed rather gruesome experiments on the lab mice, Frannie does take care to note that as a vet, she has benefited from discoveries made by animal testing and could argue both sides of the issue. The main thing that angers her is that the lab mice were left with no food, ultimately all starving to death.

<<|PoliticsTropes|>>

* ''PinkyAndTheBrain'' are themselves a product of testing and research, and act with levels of freedom ranging from 'escaping every night' to 'practically running the labs'. AnimalTesting here is more of the back story; it can become a rare plot device, an artifact of the backstory, or what they're doing in the story itself. They also end up encountering an AnimalWrongs group and vainly try to tell them that they're genuine lab mice--as in not able to survive in the wilderness.

* '''You will see:''' Horrific procedures with NightmareFuelUnleaded aplenty; [[ElectricTorture far too many electrodes]]; cute animals suffering; the viewpoint of the animals themselves; demented scientists with no redeeming features/faceless scientists with no features at all, animals dead or disfigured due to the testing, and often one horrified human who can't believe that this is going on.

It's pretty obvious that even in fiction, there are no easy answers. For a start, whichever side of the debate that the show/book/comic falls in, it will probably caricature the other side - either scientists are evil animal killers who will do anything ForScience, or anyone who has anything to do with animal rights is a misinformed and fanatical vigilante. It would be extremely unusual for a scientist and an animal rights person to sit down and have a civil conversation about their differing points of view (for a start, it makes for [[RuleOfDrama pretty bad drama]].

* ''TraumaCenter'': New Blood. Marcus inadvertantly unleashed Stigma via vivisection, but vivisection itself seem to be largely considered something that medical researchers just have to do - the ends justify the means (he talks about "disposing of the subject", not "killing the rat.") Some room for disagreement here, of course.

* ''{{Felidae}}''. Dear Lord. Like the murders weren't nightmare fuel enough. Francis comes across a tape of a perfectly healthy cat, shown meowing and struggling, being bolted to a table and having its head cut open to test a new "glue" for wounds. Said glue ''eats through its skull into its brain while it is conscious'' as the scientist impartially narrates and observes its dying twitches. Enough to give anyone nightmares (and check that your own pets are where you left them). As if that wasn't enough, most of the cats in Francis' neighbourhood are mangled by the lab's experiments - Felicity is blinded, Bluebeard has a withered paw, and Claudandus goes insane.

* On that note...quite a few animal care books will warn you against thieves who kidnap pets in order to sell them to laboratories. Given that even people who support animal testing in principle would balk at the idea of that happening to Tiddles or Fido...ParanoiaFuel, anyone? It is difficult to get a fix on the reality of this situation - pet care manuals and sites, and certainly the Animal Rights supporters, will definitely warn you against it; scientific sources will maintain it's an urban myth. What ''is'' true is that ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_animal_sources animal shelters]]'' in certain US states are ''obliged'' to hand over animals to any "Class B" dealer (selling to laboratories) who asks for them.

* '''You will probably NOT see:''' the gorier of the procedures; dead animals; cosmetic testing; very much of the animal subjects themselves (unless the scene is set up to show the scientist caring for them), far less their viewpoint; cats, dogs and other cute animals that are kept as pets or that people [[EverythingsBetterWithMonkeys tend to have an affinity for]]; an animal rights person with any semblance of sanity.

** Another Akino manga, ''Genju No Seiza'', features a plotline where the animals killed via animal testing start possessing living animals in the area. Again, it's technically ambiguous - Fuuto can hear the animals' torment as they die, frightened and in agony...but can also sense the lead doctor's desire/desperation to save people who otherwise face a slow death. The doctor pulls the "well, you eat meat, don't you?" card, stopping Fuuto in his tracks as he berates the doctor. However, the doctor appears to be operating illegally (using an AbandonedHospital), and his gene splicing results in an unnatural hell-beast that cannot be calmed by any of the Guardian Beasts, and which ultimately attacks Fuuto. Coupled with the test subjects' desperate cries for help that are repeated throughout the chapter...''Genju'' comes out slightly more on the animals' side that ''Petshop''.
** There's then the subplot, which involves D's "long-lost sister" being sent to visit him by her father...with the explicit purpose of him taking whatever organs or body parts he needs for an unspecified illness he's suffering from. When D refuses to accept that offer, she promptly attacks him, furious that her big brother doesn't "need" her as she was always told. [[spoiler:It turns out that the "sister" was actually an orangutan and D ultimately does use its blood as a cure, after his pets are forced to kill it.]]

** Just because the movie shows some instances of the less-than-savoury things that the more sadistic scientists of the past were allowed to do to animals hardly qualifies it as "attacking modern society and humanity in general". Very few people knew what was going on in the labs at the time and even now many documents have been hushed up regarding unnecessary testing in the last few decades. Even today, very few people are aware of ongoing tests like [=LD50=] ("Lethal Dose 50%" - "how much of a substance/radiation can be used until half of all the test subjects are dead"?) that have little scientific value but are still used. And I don't see how the example of the starving dogs scavenging a dead humans carcass supports your claims.

* ''{{We3}}'' is pretty unambiguously anti animal testing, and the covers implicitly support the "family pets stolen and sold to testing labs" allegations alluded to above.