Clutton R Eddie
The Wellcome Trust Critical Care Laboratory for Large Animals, Roslin Institute, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK.
Animals (Basel). 2020 Oct 21;10(10):1933. doi: 10.3390/ani10101933.
Previous histories of animal experimentation, e.g., Franco (2013) have focused on ethics, the law and the personalities involved, but not on the involvement of anaesthetics or analgesics. Given that these were major subjects of (UK) Parliamentary debates on vivisection in the mid-19th century and viewed as "indisputable refinements in animal experimentation" (Russell and Burch 1959), it seemed that an analysis of their role was overdue. This commentary has, in interweaving the history of animal experimentation in the UK with the evolution of anaesthesia, attempted to: (1) clarify the evidence for Russell and Burch's view; and (2) evaluate anaesthesia's ongoing contribution to experimental refinement. The history that emerges reveals that the withholding or misuse of anaesthetics and, or analgesics from laboratory animals in the UK has had a profound effect on scientists and indirectly on the attitudes of the British public in general, becoming a major driver for the establishment of the anti-vivisection movement and subsequently, the Cruelty to Animals Act (1876)-the world's first legislation for the regulation of animal experimentation. In 1902, the mismanaged anaesthetic of a dog in the Department of Physiology, University College London resulted in numerous events of public disorder initiated by medical students against the police and a political coalition of anti-vivisectionists, trade unionists, socialists, Marxists, liberals and suffragettes. The importance of anaesthesia in animal experiments was sustained over the following 150 years as small mammalian species gradually replaced dogs and cats as the principle subjects for vivisection. In discussing experimental refinement in their 1959 report, "The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique" Russell and Burch described anaesthetics as "… the greatest single advance in humane technique, (which) has at the same time been virtually indispensable for the advance of experimental biology". Since then, the role of anaesthetics and in particular analgesics has become an unavoidable consideration whenever animal experiments are planned and conducted. This has been accompanied by a proliferation of training and educational programmes in laboratory animal anaesthesia.
以往关于动物实验的历史研究,例如弗兰科(2013年)的研究,主要关注伦理、法律以及相关人员的个性,而未涉及麻醉剂或镇痛药的使用情况。鉴于这些在19世纪中叶是(英国)议会关于活体解剖辩论的主要议题,并且被视为“动物实验中无可争议的改进措施”(罗素和伯奇,1959年),对其作用进行分析似乎早就该进行了。本评论将英国动物实验的历史与麻醉学的发展交织在一起,试图:(1)阐明支持罗素和伯奇观点的证据;(2)评估麻醉学对实验改进的持续贡献。呈现出的历史表明,在英国,不给实验动物使用麻醉剂或镇痛药,或者滥用这些药物,对科学家产生了深远影响,并间接影响了英国公众的总体态度,成为反活体解剖运动兴起的主要推动因素,随后促成了《动物保护法》(1876年)的出台——这是世界上首部规范动物实验的立法。1902年,伦敦大学学院生理学系一只狗的麻醉处理不当,引发了医科学生针对警方以及反活体解剖者、工会成员、社会主义者、马克思主义者、自由主义者和女权主义者组成的政治联盟的多起公众骚乱事件。在接下来的150年里,随着小型哺乳动物逐渐取代狗和猫成为活体解剖的主要对象,麻醉在动物实验中的重要性一直持续。在1959年发表的《人道实验技术原理》报告中,罗素和伯奇在讨论实验改进时将麻醉剂描述为“……人道技术方面最重大的单项进展,同时对于实验生物学的进步几乎不可或缺”。从那时起,每当计划和进行动物实验时,麻醉剂尤其是镇痛药的作用就成为了一个不可回避的考量因素。与此同时,实验室动物麻醉方面的培训和教育项目也大量涌现。