Ivan P. Pavlov's View on Vivisection.

Abstract--Pavlov's points of view on vivisection are analyzed and compared with the modem ethical conception of carrying out experiments on animals. It appears that Pavlov's points of view are largely in accordance with modern ethical requirements for experimenting on animals.

THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY of Ivan P. Pavlov's birthday was widely celebrated in 1999. A great number of papers were devoted to his scientific activity, but Pavlov's opinions on ethics in animal experiments were not discussed. The aim of this paper is to give an analysis of Pavlov's views on animal experiments in comparison to modem ethical conceptions for conducting animal experiments.

In his experiments on animals, Ivan P. Pavlov did not ignore bioethical problems. In his article "Vivisection," published in The Real Encyclopedia of Medical Sciences in 1893, modern aspects of animal experimentation, find their expression: "It will be correct to widen the meaning of the concept 'vivisection' to the notion of experimenting on a living animal in general, even in cases when the experiment does not demand an operation" (Pavlov, 1893).

One of the most important bioethical principles for conducting animal experiments is minimizing pain, discomfort and distress of animals during and after the experiment (Russell, and Burch, 1959; Flecknell, 1994; Anon 1994b). Pavlov paid special attention to the use of anaesthesia and other methods of sedation, with the aim of allaying or minimizing animals' pain during the experiment. Pavlov achieved this aim by using analgetics and anaesthetics and by improving experimental procedures. Pavlov wrote, "Wherever it is possible it is necessary without damaging the experiment to allay or completely prevent animal sufferings by applying chloroform, ether, opium, morphine, chloral hydrate, cocaine, alkaloids etc." (Pavlov, 1904). But Pavlov also insisted that the exercise of allaying and other considerations should not contradict the aim of the experiment (Pavlov, 1893).

Present-day research on animals is usually conducted in conformity with some sort of national legislation (Hampson, 1990; Hamm et al., 1995; Towsend and Morton, 1995; Kopaladze, 1998), such as from the Recomendations of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (Anon, 1986a) and the Directive 86/609/EEC (Anon, 1986b). Essential work on the humanization of animal experimentation is being conducted by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) as well as by Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) and European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). These organizations suggest that medical and biological research and safety evaluation of pharmacological preparations are still in need of animal experimentation. And yet humane attitude toward laboratory animals requires avoidance of pain and distress, widespread use of anaesthesia, and analgesia, and use of living animals in experiments only in those cases when there is no alternative (Anon 1985; Anon 1994b; Anon 1999).

Another important aspect of the humanisation of animal experiments is the decrease in the number of animals used, which demands the correct planning of the experiment itself and enhancing the quality of animals under the experiments (Russell, and Burch, 1959; Festing, 1994). Pavlov considered that while conducting physiological investigations the researcher should not limit oneself to merely a few experiments when a larger number would be required to achieve reliable results. Pavlov emphasized that the results of experiments should be irreproachable, reproducible and verified.

Admitting the fact that physiological experiments demanded a sufficient number of animals, Pavlov was sharply opposed to wastefulness. He requested scientists to control animal well-being, and did not allow using a number of animals in excess of what was required. He wrote, "For 10 years almost the entire medicine has been passionately straining to study microorganisms as causes of various pathological processes. But experimentators stay alien to this tendency and continue carrying out their chronic experiments in most cases without taking any appropriate measures of protection of animals as far as microorganisms are concerned." And he asked, "What's the efficacy of this useless waste of animals, labour, and time?" (Pavlov, 1893).