Sample Paper on The Island of Dr Moreau and Vivisection

The Island of Dr Moreau and Vivisection

The term vivisection is no longer seen as an expression that is familiar to a few number of scientists that work in the field. It is now known to millions of people all over the world. The issue of vivisection is perhaps best explained by Herbert George Wells in his book, The Island of Doctor Moreau. It exemplifies the weight of this concept by generating questions related to the morality of this practice. Vivisection has been defined as the surgical process that is performed on the living creatures for the purpose of discovering a new cure of helping those who are alive. In this novel, Dr Moreau beasts act as precursors of the future of vivisection, and at the same time present the issue of morality in the science of vivisection.

By reading Wells novels, one cannot help but marvel at the fact that the book is a masterpiece that functions with an aim of stretching the limitations of the society. The book is composed with brilliance and focuses more on the question of whether a human has the right to become a semi god; where the animals are equipped with forms by the use of surgery. It is true that the concept of vivisection centers on animal and a technological and a modern world that has failed to embrace, the transformation in the sector of the medical experimentations. Edward Pedrick who survives the hostile shipwreck experiences the sadistic experimentation of Doctor Moreau, who engages in the creation of a monstrosity of the living creatures in the Island. As Pedrick contends, most of the experimentations harm the animals, for example, the Puma is mutilated and in bad shape. Dr Moreau admits that he is not moved by the fact that the animals are in a deathly state. The doctor explains that his processes usually involve grafting (Wells 10). The doctor is not concerned about the ethics of the matter; just like the many scientists out there, Dr Moreau pontificates concerning the virtuous and altruistic motives in explaining the cruel methods of torture to the animals. He seems to believe the necessity and the moral right of the animal experimentation  and play the emotional card with Pendrick “A puma or your life”.

The case against the concept of vivisection is made stronger by the evidence that comes from the studies into their predictive value. This kind of evidence is valuable, especially when it comes from the sources that have systematic reviews. Published papers can be reviewed and analyzed to come up with overarching conclusions. Barbara J king Article ‘When Animals Mourn’ shows that animals like humans do mourn. It contrasts with what Dr Moreau wants people to believe that animals have no emotions. In the article, the dolphin is distressed over its lost baby. It tries to push its new born away from the observer’s boat and the ocean currents but to no avail.

The female dolphin continues to act this way for a number of days, she does not eat normally, a behavior that could be risky to her health given the nature of the animal’s high metabolism (King 116). During the last few years new observations on the behavior of animals and how they respond to the concept of death has come out and startled many. It has been confirmed that many animals, for example, the elephants and dogs solely depend on their own personalities, these animals grieve when a loved one or a friend die (King 117). With this in mind, it is easy to justify whether what Dr Moreau is doing is right on a morality scale.

In her Article, Lori Duin Kelly analyses the issue of vivisection by looking at different works of literature that have been completed in the past. She specifically focuses on Phelps, who contends that the practice of training the vivisection doctors contributed to the fact that they became bad doctors. Phelps explains her story by using a little dog by the name Trixy who was kidnapped and sold to a medical school, she expands her belief in a way that goes beyond the boundaries of the scientist and the animal lovers. She includes a wider demographic-the consumers of the medical services (Kelly 62). By using the perspective of the patient, she magnifies the concept of anxiety by stating that it emanates from the fact that many physicians are trained in an indifferent laboratory. The animal plot in Phelps novel, is specifically one that talks about the abduction and the painful experiences that animals are subjected to, and is closely related to Dr Moreau practices; ‘Inhumane Acts That Subject Animals To Painful Suffering’.

With no doubt, the controversy that surrounds the practice of vivisection has the ability to do and divide a country. People may differ in their opinions on the morality of using animals experiments, but there is no scientific justification for inflicting suffering on the animals. Many people expect that anything done through science should always receive justification. Science as depicted is an exact subject that has been created by universal laws that have the power to stand the tests of accuracy, predictability and reliability. In this notion, it would not be right to consider estimates or the vulgarities of determining if something is guesswork. The animal models that are used for the reasons of science experiments are just crude approximation that is physiologically different and have complex biological systems. The millions of years of evolution have contributed to the intricate differences in these animals, and these are process that cannot be reversed in the laboratory no matter how hard the scientist may try. Dr Moreau contends that he manipulated the brain of a gorilla to make him look like a human being; he perceived the gorilla to be a fair specimen of the Negroid. Though he was partially successful in making the gorilla look like a human being. The Gorilla changed to an animalistic nature, Dr Moreau let it go free for fear that it might be dangerous. This signifies an important fact in the vivisection concepts, that no matter the efforts, this process will always be flawed.

Presently, vivisection can only generate more questions than answers, for example, dogs have been used for tests on new drugs and learning about the heart diseases, however, they do not have any of the organs that are in humans, for example, the appendix. They can suffer from the drugs that are used by humans, for example, aspirin. Their anatomy is different compared to the human being.

One notable contributor of the concept of vivisection was Edward Klein. He created the basic standard for utilization in the microbiological research (Atalic and Fatović-Ferenčić 710). He insisted on the microscopic identification, the cultural isolation and the animal inoculation. The published works, the Handbook have resulted in a controversy that was characterized by public outage due to the animal vivisections, within its pages. All the experiments that Kelin performed did not use anesthesia. This is despite the fact that chloroform was in use in many areas around the world during that time. Kelin describes several experimentations on tadpoles, frogs, lizards, chickens, ducks and rats. His work is commonly phrased by his summary concerning the experimentation on the histology of the eye. In his experiments, the corneas of live frogs are scraped by using sharp cataract knives to remove the epithelium. To carry out the examination of the Peyer’s follicle with the wax mass, a rabbit was denied food for one or two days, to create the inflammatory changes in the liver cells, a sharp needle was put into a liver and the animal eliminated after one or two days after the injury (Atalic and Fatović-Ferenčić 170). Klein is a model of Dr Moreau, whose paucity of cases in the development models that look like human comes at an enormous cost. In this case, it results in death, while in the case of Klein it results to enormous use of finances and animal resources. The biggest problem with this kind of research is that the success has occurred by chance than from good science.

Experimenters like those of Dr Moreau are immensely quick in trumpeting their impressive yarns in the medical advances that can be credited to the experiments they carry out on the animals. However, this is just mere instances where they are used, this is not the same as saying that the animals in the experiments were utilized for the purpose of the medical discoveries, and this assertion cannot be proved in any way. As production models of the human response to the drugs and the disease, the animals in most cases get it right less frequent. It is not acceptable that in the 21st century people’s money and resources are squandered for the purpose that ends up with nothing than a game of chance. It is a fact that with the issue of vivisection, the only true and reliable scientific certainty in the animal research is the use of large sums of money and resources and the loss of millions of animal lives.

In his article, Stewart Richards contends those scientists are beginning to discover there is a morality that the enterprise of science demands. A good example of this is the scientist call to reject the unethical practices. In this light, the justification of the concept of vivisection has been debated in Britain for very many years (Richards 28). The morals of vivisection are exemplified in the article vivisection morals and medicine, in the article the editor contends that that the pain experienced by the animals during the vivisection period cannot be justified on grounds that there is a benefit that is conferred. For example, if the medics are not to test the vaccine on people, they need a reason that justifies the test on the animals and not the humans. If the scientist purports to have a reason that contends there is a greater value in the animal, then the scientist must also reckon with the fact that the value of human life is bound and that it varies according to the quality (Frey 96). This creates a way for some of the animals to have a higher quality of life than some of the humans and for some humans to have a life that is so low to approach that of an animal. By considering both ways, it is not clear if at all we need to test animals (Frey 96).

The brutality of the vivisection procedures can be traced back at history, during the 16th century, the performance of vivisection was closely tied to the concerns with the differences between the living and the dead bodies (Shotwell 173).  In the earliest decades of the sixtieth century the common form of vivisection included the operation of the recursive nerve, this involved the cutting and typing of the nerves that caused casing animal to lose its voice. Many typical accounts stated that the operations on one or even two nerves resulted in the reduction in the volume of the voice. To perform this step a person had to operate on a live animal, which involved making an incision for the purpose of reaching the nerves (Shotwell 173).

Besides being inhumane and unethical, the concept of vivisection is bad science, in consideration of the above research done by various scientists; this can be the stumbling block in the history of scientific research and discovery. If vivisection was to be perceived as a valid and valuable method for learning  about the human health in people. Because the animals respond differently to the varieties of drugs and foods, it is obvious that utilizing one species to validate the cure or the effects of treatments is not acceptable. Many laws in different countries across the world allow the doctors to be burned, shocked and even starved for the purpose of research. In most cases, the experiments do not utilize any form to reduce the pain of these animals, even when there are alternatives to do so.

Equally, extreme in regard to the animal suffering is the test for the toxic chemicals on his animals. Vivisection experiment is made in methods that produce endpoints. In addition to the physical stress that the animals are subjected to, the surgical mutilations and the removal of the most important organs of the animal fundamentally compromise the well being of the animals. As shown by Dr Moreau, the environment in the laboratory is full of constant stress. Animals cannot move freely, they cannot move away from their own waste. The gorilla in the Dr Moreau is confined and cannot move freely.

Vivisection is bad science and Dr Moreau becomes a model of this ill practice that justifies its doings by claiming that it is for the good of the human race. Dr Moreau interest seems to serve his inner gratification that can be measured by the extent that he goes in harming animals. As this study has shown animals around the world have been subjected to medical practices that have done little to eradicate their pain and misery, science continues to justify its means and ways and continues to promote the concept of vivisection. Despite the justification, all, the facts point to the principle that vivisection is bad science.







Works Cited

Atalic, Bruno and Fatović-Ferenčić, Stella. “Emanuel Edward Klein—The Father of British Microbiology and the Case of the Animal Vivisection Controversy of 1875.” Toxicology Pathology 37.6 (2009): 708-713.

Frey, R. Gauth. “Vivisection Morals and medicine.” Journal of Medical Ethics (1983): 94-97.

Kelly, Lori Duin. “Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Trixy, and the Vivisection Question.” Legacy: A Journal of American Writers (2010): 61-82.

King, Barbara J. “When Animals Mourn.” Scientific American (2010): 116-124.

Richards, Stewart. “Drawing the life blood of Physiology: Vivisection and the Physiologists Dilemma.” Annals of Science (1986): 27-56.

Shotwell, Allen. “The Revival of Vivisection in the Sixteenth century.” Journal of History of Biology (2012): 171-197.

Wells, Herbert George. The Island of Dr Moreau. New York: Dover Thrift, 1996.