Prepared by: Alexey Kats

The Internet loves animals, especially when they appear in unexpected places. So when a flying frog was filmed next to NASA's Minotaur 5 launch vehicle carrying the LADEE lunar orbiter on September 7, 2013, it became an instant hit.

One small step for a frog, one giant leap for all frogs... Well, maybe. But this amphibious acrobat is actually not the first representative of the “high-flying frogs”; their history is very long, and in this article we will list its main milestones.

It all started with flights on unnamed stratospheric balloons that were launched in the USA in the 50s. Frogs were among the animals that were “lucky” to become passengers of these devices. Among these stratonauts were monkeys, dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, fruit flies and a goldfish, which fulfilled the last wishes of their companions.

The first attempt to send frogs into space took place on September 19, 1959. Two frogs, a dozen pregnant mice and other biological objects were supposed to fly to the stars on a Jupiter AM-23 rocket. Interestingly, the frog essence was present on the ship in another form: along with living frogs, there was a culture of frog skin tissue on board. But the launch was unsuccessful, and these animal astronauts did not make it into space that day, but instead ended up in heaven.

In March 1961, Soviet frogs were in space for the first time on board the Sputnik 9 spacecraft along with mice. guinea pigs, other small creatures, the dog Chernushka and the mannequin Ivan Ivanovich. We've found some good company. The ship landed successfully, no one was hurt - this strengthened the Soviet leadership in the decision to send a man into space, which was carried out three weeks later.

In 1966 and 1967, NASA sent frog eggs on flight as part of the Biosatellite program, along with insects, plants, fungi, bacteria and microorganisms. The purpose of the experiments was to see how they would survive exposure to microgravity and radiation. Only the second device successfully returned to Earth.

Frogs flew unaccompanied into space in 1970 when NASA launched the Orbiting Frog Otolith-A (OFO-A) spacecraft. A very telling name, since the mission was designed to study the effect of space flight and weightlessness on motion sickness. Otoliths (literally “ear stones”) are small, hard particles in inner ear. They are the most important part of the vestibular apparatus - an organ of balance that helps us maintain correct position bodies. The receptors of the otolithic apparatus perceive mainly changes in linear acceleration and gravity.

Frogs were chosen because their inner ear has proven to be a very good model of the human ear, and the factors that cause motion sickness in frogs are the same as in humans and other mammals. In addition, frogs also proved valuable technically due to their amphibious nature: pre-flight operations were carried out out of the water, but the frogs were able to remain in the water during the experiment. This was important for two reasons. First, water softens the vibrations that occur when you launch an 18-ton rocket into space. Secondly, the water picks up the carbon dioxide and heat generated by the frogs, cooling them and enabling gas exchange. The circulation of gases and water was ensured by a special system. All this became possible due to the fact that frogs are able to breathe through their skin while immersed in water at a comfortable temperature of about 15 °C.

Two bullfrogs were chosen to fly into space ( Rana catesbeiana). Both had electrodes implanted in their thoraco-abdominal cavity and vestibular nerves - the data obtained with them was necessary for scientists to understand how the animals survived the stress of flight. The nerves going to the muscles of the unfortunate amphibians' limbs were cut in cold blood so that the frogs would not accidentally pull out the electrodes, splash water at each other from the joy of being accepted as astronauts, and generally not kick. The results of the electrocardiogram recordings showed that the frogs remained in good health throughout the flight, if, of course, this can be said about animals with cut nerves and implanted electrodes. By the end of the seven-day flight, the frogs' vestibular system had returned to normal operation. This means that they have adapted to the unfamiliar situation in which they find themselves. But the heroic amphibians were not destined to return home - the return of the satellite to Earth was simply not planned.

The bullfrog dreams of space (just not to die, like in 1970).
Photo: Eric Esselee

Frogs made another trip into space in December 1990, when Japanese journalist Toyohiro Akiyama took Far Eastern tree frogs with him to the Mir station ( Hyla japonica). On board Mir, these frogs again took part in experiments to study weightlessness and motion sickness, as well as movement and reactions to external stimuli. Thus, it was discovered that in microgravity conditions, the ability of frogs to adjust the color of their skin to the color of the surface on which they sit was weakened or lost. Reactions to other types of stimuli, as a rule, did not change as long as the animals were in stable contact with the surface. As soon as the ground disappeared from under their feet and the frogs began to swim in weightlessness, they lost the ability to coordinate movements and navigate properly.

Domestic and American amphibians, naturally, were bitter rivals and participated in the space race. The USSR and Russia sent them on various missions on the Bion series of ships in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the United States aboard NASA shuttles until the late 1990s. Together with them, a whole zoo of other creatures visited space: monkeys, mice, rats, newts, snails, fish, sea ​​urchins, shrimp, jellyfish, worms, fruit flies, crickets, bees, other insects and quail eggs.

In September 1992, clawed frogs were launched into space aboard Endeavor. Xenopus laevis). The purpose of the study was to study the reproduction and development of amphibians in microgravity conditions. Half of the eggs laid by females developed in microgravity, and the other half were placed in normal conditions. All the tadpoles returned to Earth alive and well, but those who grew up in microgravity subsequently drowned because they did not distinguish between up and down and were unable to take their first breath with their lungs on the surface of the water.

A female clawed frog being prepared for flight aboard Endeavor, 1992.

Monkeys and dogs have become quite familiar “astronauts”. You won't surprise anyone with them in orbit. However, these are far from the only representatives of fauna that have been in space.

Turtles

The first time turtles went into space was in 1968 on board the Soviet spacecraft 7K-L1, which in print was called Zond-5. It was this ship that made the first flyby of the Moon in the world. The entire flight lasted 7 days, all the animals that were present on board tolerated it quite well. It is noted that the turtles after returning to Earth were active and ate with appetite.

Guinea pigs

Rodents in space are commonplace. Laboratory mice, rats, hamsters and even guinea pigs have been there many times as part of a variety of missions. Basically, they are sent into orbit to conduct various experiments in a state of weightlessness.

Fish

Not as frequent guests in space as rodents, of course, but also necessary, since they were also involved in experiments on bone degradation and muscle atrophy in zero gravity. Although, while in the water, the fish still experienced the effect of microgravity and swam not in the usual lines, but in loops that were atypical for them.

Frogs, toads and newts

Tritons were first sent into space in 1985 as part of the Soviet space program"Bion". Quite a few other amphibians such as toads and frogs also visited there. Their behavior and reactions to various stimuli in space have always been of great interest to scientists because of the unusual habitat of these animals on Earth - between land and water.

Jellyfish

Jellyfish in space had a very important mission: on June 5, 1991, 2,478 small jellyfish were packaged and sent into orbit to find out how gravity would affect those individuals that would be born in conditions of weightlessness. Jellyfish adapted to life in space quite well and soon their numbers reached 6,000 individuals. Unfortunately, on Earth, jellyfish born in space suffered from vertigo and were unable to adapt to gravity.

Nematodes

Tardigrades

But these handsome guys became real celebrities after their flight into space. In 2007, about three thousand of these tiny translucent “caterpillars” were sent into space to test whether they really are so hardy. Tardigrades were influenced by cosmic radiation and exposure to outer space, but most of them remained safe and sound.

Spiders

If you think that there is nothing worse than a spider suddenly taking up residence in your house, imagine what it would be like to release a spider from a jar in space? In 2011, two spiders from the golden-weaving order were sent to the MSC in order to study their ability to weave webs in conditions of weightlessness or very weak gravity. It's good that they didn't manage to escape. The animals reacted quite normally to the flight and behaved very calmly.

In this article you will learn about the amazing abilities of some animals. Did you know that chickens get rid of the sperm of unsuccessful roosters? Or how does the purring of cats affect a person?.. About these and other abilities in the continuation of the topic.

Tree frogs can survive being frozen

The tree frog (Rana sylvatica), native to Alaska, freezes to such an extent in winter that it resembles ice. While frozen, the frog does not breathe, its heart and circulation stop, and it cannot move. However, with the onset of spring, the frog “thaws” and returns to normal life. It is highly unlikely that such a skill could develop spontaneously, by coincidence. Getting the frog's body systems to function again requires an extremely complex genetic program. In winter, about 35–45% of the frog's body fluid freezes. This extracellular ice is mainly found under the skin and between muscles. This makes the frog as hard as a piece of ice! Most of these ice frogs survive the winter in Alaska in burrows, at ground level. With the arrival of spring, the tree frog truly ends his life. amazing transformation. In just a few hours, the frozen body of the frog comes to life: normal breathing, heartbeat, blood circulation, as well as the functioning of the brain and all functional systems are restored. The frog can move, jump and mate again.

Sea cucumbers can transform from liquid to solid and vice versa

Sea cucumbers (also known as sea egg capsules, also known as sea cucumbers) belong to the class of invertebrates such as echinoderms. They are somewhat similar to large worms - both in appearance and to the touch. (Have you ever touched a worm? Feel it!) In general, as it may seem, completely helpless creatures. If sea ​​cucumber Fall into dangerous situation, it quickly acquires a kind of protection: its surface instantly hardens, becoming, as it were, armored. According to biologists, the hardness of the skin is ensured by the numerous collagen fibers located inside it. When a cucumber becomes scared for some reason, its body produces a special substance that causes these same soft fabrics temporarily harden, and they (being also equipped with the mentioned fibers) become very hard. The result is a sea cucumber in a shell, and not a flabby worm.

Some squids have built-in lights

Colossal squid. Not to be confused with the better known but smaller giant squid. The colossal squid is the largest invertebrate known to science, and it also has some of the largest eyes in the animal kingdom. Each squid eye reaches a diameter of up to 30 cm, it can be larger than a plate, and the lens of its eye is the size of an orange. These huge eyes allow the squid to see in dim light, which is very useful for an animal that spends most his life hunting at depths of more than 2000 meters. It should be noted that so far only juvenile colossal squid have been caught, but an adult can grow up to 15 meters in length. These giants have even bigger eyes. Unlike the giant squid, the colossal squid has stereoscopic vision, and has excellent ability to accurately estimate distances. An even more amazing feature is that each eye has a built-in "headlamp", an organ that can produce as much light as the squid needs to see its prey in the dark.

Chickens get rid of the sperm of loser roosters

Chickens choose fathers for their offspring after intercourse. If the rooster is not the leader, then the hen does not resist copulation (probably so as not to get hit on the head with its beak), but after ejaculation it “pouring” his seed out of itself. If there is too little ejaculate (which means the male is weak and genetically inferior), then the seed also goes to the trash heap. In an experiment with wild chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), biologists measured the amount of rooster ejaculate. Moreover, they measured both the volume that the rooster left in the female and the volume that the female “poured” out. It turned out that chickens select sperm - they get rid of the seminal fluid of socially low-ranking roosters. This means that if the rooster is not the leader, then the hen does not resist copulation (probably so as not to get hit on the head with its beak), but after ejaculation “pouring” his seed out of herself. Having compared the volumes of sperm received and ejected, the researchers came to the conclusion that hens “cast” the semen of unsuccessful roosters with greater intensity - up to 80% of the ejaculate goes to the “trash.” Chickens get rid of the ejaculate of the leader roosters with less effort. It is also interesting that the smaller the volume of ejaculate, the more actively the chicken gets rid of it. It turns out that the amount of seminal fluid also serves as a marker of the genetic usefulness of the rooster. “If he doesn’t have enough sperm, it means he’s weak, and it’s not worth leaving offspring from him,” that’s roughly what chicken logic should be. "The release of sperm can serve effective mechanism, increasing the chances of a successful male leaving offspring,” writes Rebecca Dean in a blog post about the results of a study published in American Naturalist.

Cats purr to heal

Firstly, it’s not for nothing that they say “tenacious as a cat” - these flexible creatures have a huge ability for self-healing and treatment. For example, it was noticed: if someone in a cat pride gets sick, then the rest of the family members lie down next to him to give him energy or take away bad energy. Cats perceive their owners as “big cats”, so, following their nature, they will also treat us. Scientists from the Fauna Research Institute in North Carolina have concluded that vibrations at the frequency at which cats purr speed up the process of cell regeneration. A new method of treating various diseases - cat therapy - was developed at the London Institute therapeutic methods impact. The luminaries of science took up this issue closely after one night their institute pet, the cat Martha, entered the laboratory where employees were conducting an experiment late into the night. When she passed by the low-frequency current generator, all the sensors suddenly went off scale. Just for fun, scientists decided to measure Martha's electromagnetic field. Imagine their surprise when it turned out that instead of a modern, expensive generator, they could safely use a cat, since it is capable of generating a much stronger field. After this, the experts decided to continue the experiment. At that time, the institute was developing a method for treating chronic inflammatory diseases using low frequency currents. Keeping the sensors' response to the cat in mind, the scientists divided the sick volunteers into two groups. They continued to treat one group with low-frequency currents, while people from the other group were put on sore spot cat. A month later, scientists compared the results of the experiment: the patients treated with the help of the cat all recovered, while in the other group only half of the patients were cured. Why does a cat experience low-frequency currents? And how do they affect the human body? Scientists claim that low-frequency currents in cats are produced due to their thin and delicate fur. When the animal moves, the hairs rub against each other, which creates a powerful electric field.

Where and who did it all start and why did it continue?

A long time ago, more than 300 million years ago, the waters parted and the first vertebrate capable of living on it climbed onto land. True, it and its descendants did not completely disappear from the water, they moved from one habitat to another as needed, so much later, when experimenters appeared on land, they gave these creatures the name “amphibians,” that is, amphibians. By that time, amphibians had been reduced to such an extent that they could be observed without risk to life. And there is something to watch. Even the most ordinary grass frog easily, and most importantly, quickly demonstrates an amazing achievement of evolution - access to land. An aquatic herbivore emerges from the egg and in 66 days becomes predatory and terrestrial.

The tadpole is actually a fish; he has lateral line(a typical fish sense organ), a horny beak, with which it scrapes greens from snags and stones, gills and a tail that replaces fins. Before the eyes of the amazed audience, this creature grows paws. (Just imagine a fish with knees!) Lungs appear, and in order to use them, it is necessary to remake the circulatory system designed for gills. The narrow mouth widens and the eyes bulge to peer out of the water. The long intestine of a vegetarian is rebuilt to accept animal food. At the same time, gills and other swimming devices disappear. It was a fish - it became a four-legged animal.

Of course, the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly is also stunning, but it happens secretly from us, in a cocoon, but here everything is in plain sight. Something dissolves, something is rebuilt, and the animal swims around as if nothing had happened. Unless he fasts for a few days. It is not surprising that embryologists and evolutionists, one might say, cannot take their eyes off frogs. But, unfortunately, the matter was not limited to looks alone.

From the second half of the 18th century, frogs began to be slaughtered: “everyone is terribly interested in what is hidden inside.” It is difficult to find a creature more convenient for understanding the basics of physiology. They are easy to catch (they began to breed frogs specially later, but this is also not difficult); The size is the most suitable - it fits in your fist, and the insides are clearly visible. And inside the frog is a heart, skeletal muscles and nervous system, which work on the same principles as in other vertebrates. A mammal must be shaved before cutting, but a frog is naked, and this is also a great convenience. All of her organs, muscles and nerves are very easy to dissect, and the equipment needed for this is very simple.

The famous dispute between two Italian scientists: the doctor and anatomist Luigi Galvani and the physicist Alessandro Volta took place over the cut off hind legs of a frog. Galvani discovered that a freshly dissected frog's leg, suspended on a copper hook from an iron balcony railing, contracted whenever it touched the iron.

This experience went down in the history of physiology under the name “balcony”. Galvani was convinced that the reason for the contraction was “animal electricity,” which is generated in the frog’s leg. Galvani began to repeat Volta's experiments and quickly found out that a frog's leg is not needed to create an electric discharge between two metals - an electrolyte solution is enough, that is, there is no electricity in the frog. But Galvani stood his ground and proved that metals are not needed to twitch a paw; you can simply throw a prepared sciatic nerve on the damaged area of ​​the calf muscle. Thus, L. Galvani laid the foundation for a new direction in physiology - the study of electrical processes in the body, and A. Volta invented a device that was later called a galvanic cell.

In the 19th century, frog surfing took on such proportions that it became a sign of the times and appeared on the pages of many literary works. Two medical students, the future husbands of Vera Pavlovna, perform their thesis on frogs, and Doctor Bazarov does not part with them even during the holidays. “I have seen (I regret to say) that ladies, just like men, for example, go for walks every day with empty pill boxes and catch lizards, beetles, spiders and frogs, and when returning home, they stick pins in the unfortunates or cut them into pieces without the slightest remorse... And when you wonder what this disgusting cruelty means, you are told that a young master or a young lady has an inclination towards natural sciences,” grumbles the butler Betteredge from Wilkie Collins’s novel “Lunar stone".

While writers were writing, real scientists were making epoch-making discoveries on frogs. Thus, our famous physiologist I.M. Sechenov described the phenomenon of central inhibition. It lies in the fact that the higher parts of the central nervous system can inhibit or facilitate reflex activity spinal cord. For example, a frog reflexively withdraws its leg from sulfuric acid, but if you place a crystal on the visual hillocks of the brain table salt, as Sechenov did, the frog does not withdraw its paw. Students at the physiological workshop still repeat Sechenov’s experiments, as well as Galvani’s experiments, as well as the experiments of the Austrian physiologist Otto Lewy, which laid the foundation for the mediator theory.

Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov

Neurotransmitters are substances that are released from nerve endings when nerves are stimulated. With their help, the nervous system controls the body. Levy proved the existence of neurotransmitters by performing a complex experiment with two isolated frog hearts. Then the scientist isolated one of the mediators, acetylcholine, and in 1936 received the Nobel Prize for his work.

To list all the experiments that have been carried out and are being carried out on frogs means rewriting most of the physiological workshop. The massive edifice of physiology is supported by myriads of frog-headed caryatids. Over two and a half centuries of development of the physiology of frog blood, a sea has been shed. Sometimes students rescue a puppy or kitten they like from the vivarium, but no one will save the frog. Because they are so wet, cold, and unaffected by humans, almost no one thinks of frogs as creatures worthy of compassion or even respect. And the frog, by the way, is a very complex and interestingly organized animal. She has unique eyes that not only perceive visual information, but also partially process it, that is, they perform the function of the brain. Signals from the eye come mainly not to visual department brain, but to the reflex center. Having received information, the brain no longer thinks about what to do, but immediately activates the muscles of the body in accordance with the decision of the retina. Even such a skilled hunter as a cat cannot do this. By the way, frogs may not live fewer cats, under eighteen years of age.

Although it is a rare frog that succeeds.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

Views: 212

- What is vivisection?

Vivisection is the practice of interfering with a living organism, using violent technologies on living animals. The term comes from the Latin word "vivus" - living. Vivisection is commonly referred to as experimentation on animals. It includes the use of animals in scientific research, product testing and in education.

- Who funds animal research?

Most research is funded by taxpayers, in the form of grants to hospitals, universities and research laboratories from National Institute US health. About half of all NIH grants involve animal research, and the money comes from taxpayers. In addition, the Department of Defense has a multi-million dollar budget to support military laboratories that use animals to test firearms, biological weapons and other weapons. Private research is supported by grants from charitable and non-profit organizations, pharmaceutical companies and other corporations.

- How many animals are used in research?

It is impossible to say exactly, but the number is estimated to be tens of millions of animals on an annual basis. Largest quantity The animals used are about 90% rats and mice, which are bred specifically for laboratory tests. (More than 150 million animals die annually. - Ed.)

- Why should I be against experiments on animals?

For two main reasons: first, animal experimentation is an unethical practice in which one species is exploited for the supposed benefit of another.

Experiments on animals are also a counterproductive practice, since the data obtained from such experiments cannot be effectively applied to humans. Because animals differ significantly from humans in many ways important indicators, they are inaccurate models for studying human disease - hence the stalemate of medical progress and the loss of time, resources and talent.

- But animals have always been used for study life processes?

Since ancient times, people have studied animals in order to better understand the nature and functioning of the human body. In the distant past, when people knew very little about life processes, this could have been useful as general scientific information. This happened at a time when people could observe clear similarities between humans and animals. For example, both people and animals have a heart, liver, lungs, kidneys; and the biological processes are also the same for many species.

However, in the modern world, when most research is carried out at the cellular and intracellular level, even the slightest difference between an animal and a person at this level leads to the fact that the data obtained from these two species become completely incomparable. It is equally important to remember that although animal experiments led to certain results, they (the experiments) were not necessary.

For example, animals can be used to grow viruses, but Petri dishes and human tissue cell cultures can be used for this with equal success.

- When did people start experimenting on animals?

The history of animal experimentation did not begin with early attempts at medical research. In fact, back in the 4th century BC. Hippocrates, now known as the father of medicine, recognized the importance of observing diseases in humans to study the likely effects, as well as to find out who was most susceptible to these diseases.

However, in the second century in the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church issued a ban on performing autopsies on human corpses. As a result of this ban, Galen, physician to gladiators and court physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, stopped his research on human models and began dissecting goats, pigs and monkeys. Today, Galen, who has become one of the most famous and influential doctors in the history of medicine, is considered the “father” of vivisection.

- What does the term “research on animal models” mean?

When scientists call animals “models” for humans, they mean that animals are used as mechanisms for understanding unknown phenomena by analogy with qualitatively different but known ones. To put it simply, animal experimenters believe that what happens to a mouse will happen to a person, because there is a precise relationship between these two living systems.

Early animal experiments suggested that if the same type of tissue different types performs the same function - say, respiratory - the random, involuntary mechanism will also be identical. This concept led researchers to believe that animals were suitable random analogue models and could therefore be used to study human disease. In laboratories, animals are used as analogue models for the study of human diseases, as test subjects (for example, testing drugs for carcinogenicity), as research tools for new theories, and for dissection in education. In addition, animal tissues are used to study physiological processes.

- Why are animal experiments a logically inconsistent way to study human diseases?

Because artificially inoculating animals with disease symptoms during experiments cannot adequately predict or replicate human disease. For a model to be scientifically acceptable—that is, to be predictive—it must exhibit the same symptoms, the same presumed source of disease, the same neurobiological mechanism, and the same response to treatment.

Although certain animals may meet some of these characteristics under certain conditions, no animal can consistently meet all four criteria. This is because animals and humans differ in many ways - anatomical, psychological and metabolic.

- But are all animals - human and non-human species - more similar than they are different?

At a general anatomical level, both animals and humans are similar. All living forms on Earth share some common characteristics because all living things evolved from a single living form that inhabited the Earth 3.5 million years ago. Through a branching process known as speciation, this basic life form evolved into the 10 million species of plants and animals that exist today. These evolutionary changes occurred at the microscopic level by changing the DNA sequence of organisms.

Thus, although all plant and animal species share genetic material, since all originate from the same set of DNA, it is the composition or assortment of that genetic material that causes the differences. Individual differences at the intracellular level characterize differences in the ways in which cells of different species respond to food, environment and medications. These minute differences can lead to dramatic differences in the entire organism.

- Why couldn't anti-vivisectionists convince scientists to stop testing on animals?

The media often portrays opponents of vivisection as crazy old ladies in sneakers, or as domestic terrorists. As a result, public opinion views anti-vivisectionists as anti-scientific and marginal to America. This is a deformed, skewed idea, because opponents of vivisection belong to different social groups and segments of the population. These include doctors, teachers, plumbers, medical students, mothers and government officials - a wide range of people, professions and lifestyles. But they are all united by one vision of a society that does not harm any living species for the supposed benefit of another species.

But presenting anti-vivisectionists as calm, rational and informed individuals who seek to help both people and animals does not meet the demands of the sensationalist media. Thus, attention is paid only to the extremes of the animal rights movement. Moreover, the income of the media - newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations - directly depends on advertisers. They are reluctant to offend deep-pocketed funders - such as pharmaceutical companies and health organizations that are part of the animal research industry - with stories arguing the dubious value of animal testing.

For largely the same reasons, anti-vivisectionists, regardless of track record and high reputation in scientific world, it is almost impossible to get your works published in scientific journals. Editors scientific journals depend on scientists who supply them with materials for publication. It is clear that they care about how the scientific community views their publication. Editors are very reluctant to present articles that might challenge those who vigorously and actively cultivate the myth of the advisability of experimentation on animals. Of course they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them!

Moreover, every article seeking publication must be approved by a committee of scientists who, in the interest of protecting themselves and their goldmine of animal research, routinely reject articles that demonstrate the dubiousness of such research. And without access to published material, it is difficult for anti-vivisectionists to gain credibility in the scientific world.

Why do some anti-vivisectionists object to the term "alternatives" when talking about the need for research without the use of animals?

The concept of "alternatives" has long been used by both anti-vivisectionists and the wider scientific community to refer to animal research. However, we consider the use of this term inappropriate, since the word “alternative” implies an option of secondary importance, that is, non-ideal.

In other words, you may want to take an alternative route home from work this evening - because there are road works going on along the main route. However, you prefer the main route, because it’s faster and more convenient to get there - in fact, that’s why it initially became the main one.

The same logic applies to this term when talking about animal research. By offering alternatives, it is implied that animal testing is the best way and that there are other options. But anti-vivisectionists are confident (and numerous scientific facts confirm this) that animal research is not inherently the most valuable option - so it is illogical to talk about alternatives here.

- Are there any for a long time? known methods without using animals?

Research methods that do not require animal testing have been the cutting edge of medicine since ancient times and are still used today.
These are autopsy and clinical studies that involve observations of human patients. Epidemiology, that is, the study of disease incidence within population groups, has also been used since the early 17th century.

Development of precise modern technologies has enabled epidemiologists to create large databases and analyze data very quickly and efficiently highest degree accuracy.

- Are laboratory animals treated humanely?

It can be argued that none of the laboratory animals are treated humanely, if only because they are forced to live in an artificial environment. These "laboratory" animals were forever denied the right to live their lives as nature intended, whether in the wild, as in the case of monkeys, or in at home, as is the case with cats, dogs, rabbits and guinea pigs.

Even those few "laboratory" animals that are used in less aggressive experiments suffer from fear, isolation, depression and anxiety - and this pain is as real as physical pain. Moreover, there is indisputable evidence that animals feel pain more acutely than humans. Animals are much more dependent on the world around them; and their reactions of flight or struggle for existence are much more intense. In fact, the pain that the animals experience is simply unbearable - because they cannot know when the experiment will stop - and the suffering associated with it.

- But don't animal rights laws apply to research?

The Animal Welfare Act requires that animals in laboratories receive adequate food, living space and veterinary care, being in clean and bright rooms, ventilated and with a certain temperature regime.

The Animal Welfare Act also mandates that businesses that use animal experimentation must register with the US Department of Agriculture.

Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service is a department within the Department of Agriculture that conducts periodic inspections of such establishments to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.

According to the US Department of Agriculture's 2001 annual report, the number of animals used in painful and stressful experiments without the provision of painkillers is as follows:

Dogs: 1,671
Cats: 408
Primates: 853
Guinea pigs: 36,145
Hamsters: 44,921
Rabbits: 5,036
Sheep: 497
Pigs: 1,230
Other farmed animals: 1,798
Other animals: 12,956
Total: 105,515
Because the current Animal Welfare Act does not cover mice, rats (which make up 90% of the total number of animals used in research), and birds, the total number of animals used in experiments without the use of painkillers is much higher.

- What types of animals and why are most actively used in experiments as “laboratory animals”?

Rodents (mice and rats) are most widely used in experiments. Millions of mice and rats suffer and die every year, but the exact number is difficult to estimate. Because rodents are not protected under the current Animal Welfare Act, the exact number of rodents used in experiments is not required by law. As a result, there is no way to determine exactly how many millions of animals suffer and die each year in publicly or privately funded research.

Once upon a time, rodents became favorite “laboratory” animals - not because there were indisputable scientific prerequisites for this, but simply based on considerations of space, economy and convenience. Rodents are small animals, and many more of them can be housed in a laboratory than animals. bigger size, say, cats, dogs or monkeys. In addition, rodents reproduce quickly and are cheaper to buy and maintain.

- How are animals used in agricultural research?

Intensive farming where large numbers of animals are kept inside production premises, arranged in several tiers, created the need for a new category of animal experiments.

In overcrowded premises, in unsanitary conditions of factory farms, conditions are created for the development of infectious and other animal diseases. To control disease and reduce the mortality rate of farm animals - and to maintain the income of factory farms - antibiotics are needed. Agricultural scientists and other researchers use animals to develop these new drugs and to test their safety and effectiveness. Animal research in the agricultural industry is also aimed at finding new ways to produce larger animals to increase income. For example, researchers have altered the genes of chickens and turkeys to produce larger animals—that is, more meat.

- Are there scientists who protest against experimentation on animals?

Many scientists have written and spoken publicly about the limitations of animal models for obtaining information about human diseases. Among them: Ray Greek, M.D., and Jean Swingle Greek, authors of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Price Humans Pay for Animal Experimentation. The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals").

A lot others scientists express serious doubts about the value of experimentation on animals, among them:

Dr. Arnold Welsh, Department of Pharmacology, Yale University / Dr. Arnold D. Welch, Department of Pharmacology, Yale University School of Medicine;
- G. Timothy Johnson, MD, medical editor for ABC News and WCVB-TV news in Boston;
- Dr. Albert Sabin, developer of the polio vaccine / Dr. Albert Sabin, developer of the polio vaccine;
- Irwin Bross, Ph.D., former director of Biostatistics at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research;
- Dr. Mark Feinbert, AIDS researcher/Dr. Mark Feinbert, AIDS researcher;
- Professor George Teeling-Smith / Professor George Teeling-Smith;
- Doctor of Philosophy Jane Goodall / Jane Goodall, Ph.D.;
- Dr. Gerhard Zbinden, toxicologist at the Institute of Technology in Zurich/Dr. Gerhard Zbinden, toxicologist, University of Zurich’s Institute of Technology;
- Dr. Andrew Rowan, Associate Vice President of Education, Research and international issues Humane Society of the United States/Dr. Andrew Rowan, Senior V.P. of Education, Research and International Issues for the Humane Society of the United States;
- John Buchanan, former officer air force USA, specializing in nuclear physics / John Buchanan, former U.S. Air Force officer specializing in nuclear physics;
- Sam Cohen, former Pentagon advisor and nuclear weapons expert;
- MD Werner Hartinger, German surgeon / Dr. Werner Hartinger, MD, German surgeon;
- Dr. James Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederly Laboratory/Dr. James C. Gallagher, Director of Medical Research, Lederle Laboratories;
- Dr. Tony Chew, Hammersmith Hospital, London / Dr. Tony Chu, Hammersmith Hospital, London;
- Dr. Tyler Jacks, MIT / Dr. Tyler Jacks, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Many other scientists who conduct experiments on animals realize that it is a waste of time, money and the talents of the people involved in the process; but in the interests of protecting the prestige of their scientific community, not to mention their jobs, they prefer to remain silent about it.

- Why do most researchers defend animal experiments?

Although many scientists question the value of animal research, most adhere to the party line - for various reasons.

This is mainly because careers and job funding are at stake. The safety and security of a scientist’s work largely depends on the quantity scientific works, which he or she may publish. This is the so-called “publish or perish” syndrome. Experiments on animals bring faster results at lower costs, because the life cycle of an animal is shorter than that of a human. This way, animal researchers can conduct more studies and publish more articles than those who study man.

The easiest way is to accept a concept that already exists, rather than trying to change it a little.

- Who else, besides scientists, makes a profit from conducting experiments on animals?

Animal experimentation is a multi-billion dollar business and a wide variety of groups benefit from it.

The main motivating factor is greed. Academic institutions benefit from receiving grants for animal research from the American National Institutes of Health ( National Institutes for Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.

Breeders - those who breed animals - also receive rich rewards from animal experiments. In 1999, for example, mice sales reached $200 million. Suppliers of cells and equipment used in animal experiments have also built lucrative businesses.

Pharmaceutical companies also feed the animal research machine by using animal testing to support their clinical trials (research is based on study of man), protecting yourself from claims in the event of an unexpected reaction to medications. These corporate giants use animal testing for legal safety - convincing juries that they have done everything required by law - proven the drug is safe on animals - and therefore are not subject to punishment if the drug causes harm to humans.
Even the media get their share of the profits from animal research - they use the results of animal experiments to proclaim "medical miracles", which helps them sell more newspapers and increase TV ratings. Professional journals thrive on articles describing animal experiments.

- What are the ethical considerations for using nonhuman animals as laboratory subjects?

Opponents of vivisection are ethically convinced that harming one species of animal for the supposed benefit of another is immoral. They support the concept of expanding the circle of mercy and compassion to all living beings - human and non-human species alike.

In a humane society, all beings must have the opportunity to live in conditions consistent with their nature and biological needs; free from any form of cruelty and exploitation. Those who object to animal experimentation on ethical grounds also believe that the fact that animals are sacrificed for human interests has an impact on society. Killing animals in laboratories dehumanizes society, we are deprived of the ability to sympathize with the pain and suffering of another being, and this undermines, destroys empathy, the ability to empathize with all those around us - both people and animals. Moreover, it destroys the character and nobility of the one involved in the process.

- Weren't animals created so that people could use them at their whim?

Many people think so. Such people consider animals - whether used as food, clothing, transportation or research material - as a resource, a tool to make human life more convenient. It is a matter of placing more value on human life than on animal life... that is, if an animal is sacrificed for human gain, it is a "necessary evil."

Anti-vivisectionists view animals through a broader ethical lens - not as materials or products, but as living beings living alongside us and deserving of moral consideration and a place in their own right and complex life chain.

- Anti-vivisectionists propose testing on humans instead of animals?

For many people, research with human subjects is still associated with images of Nazi camps, prisoners and disabled individuals being used as experimental subjects.

However, the truth is that thousands of people are the subjects of experimental research every day and it is all completely legal.

These tests involving people are called voluntary clinical trials. All pharmaceuticals Developed in the laboratory and tested on animals, they always undergo clinical tests before being released into widespread production. Experiments on animals are just an expensive and unnecessary, time-consuming, intermediate step that delays the receipt of the necessary medicine by those people who urgently need it.

- What does disease prevention have to do with experimentation on animals?

Not a day goes by without the media hyping up yet another “successful” case of animal research, touting some dramatic breakthrough in the fight against fatal diseases. This increased focus on the promise of new treatments and cures from animal research reinforces a false sense of security among people who believe that before the creation of the so-called. The “magic bullet” against cancer, heart disease, AIDS, diabetes and other diseases is just around the corner.

It is unlikely that such a "magic bullet" will emerge in the near future, especially if scientists continue to rely on animal research in hopes of gaining advanced medical knowledge.

Meanwhile, focusing on animal experiments obscures the importance of preventative treatment and lifestyle changes as the most effective ways to reduce disease incidence. The bottom line is that about 2/3 of diseases can be prevented. Nutrition: healthy food with low content fat, exercise and quitting smoking - these measures have been proven to have a decisive impact on preventing disease and increasing life expectancy. For example, researchers have proven that a diet of fruits and vegetables instead of fats, in combination with a weight control program and physical exercise can lead to a 30-40% reduction in the overall incidence of cancer over time. If at least some of the funding currently available for animal testing were instead directed to preventive programs, there would be a dramatic change for the better in disease prevention. If they were given proper attention in educational programs, such diseases would not occur at all - that is, there would be no need for further research into them. More funds would be available to study diseases that cannot be prevented, and then our chances of finding cures for these diseases could increase significantly.

- What is animal testing?

Animal testing is the process of using animals to test cosmetics, personal care products and household chemicals. In these types of tests, animals are forced to digest hazardous substances or the substances are placed on the skin and/or eyes of the animals. Animal testing is used by companies (and laboratories hired by those companies) to produce both finished products, and components.

- How are animals used in product testing?

Most animal tests include tests for eye and skin irritation, as well as a test that is used to measure the toxicity level of certain ingredients in live animals.

- What do tests for skin and eye irritation include?

The Draize test is the most well-known test for skin and eye irritation. They try to measure the dangers of chemicals by observing the damage they cause to the eyes and skin of animals. In the Dries eye irritation test, a solution of the test product is placed directly into the eyes of conscious rabbits. During the test, which usually lasts at least seven days, the rabbits are forced to suffer extreme pain, often leading to blindness. At the end of the test period, all animals are killed to determine the internal effects of toxic substances.

The Dries skin irritation test involves immobilizing the animal while the test substance is applied to shaved and damaged skin. (The skin is damaged by pressing the adhesive tape tightly against the animal's body and sharply tearing it off. This process is repeated until several layers of skin are torn off.)

The Draize test was invented about 50 years ago by Food and Drug Administration toxicologist John H. Draize. Since the test's introduction, it has been heavily criticized for its extreme cruelty and failure to provide reliable data that can be extrapolated to humans.

© Translation - Elena Kuzmina, editing - Vita Animal Rights Center