Click here to go back.






Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry, with many interconnected parties. Vivisectors receive hundreds of thousands of dollars, even milli
ons, for experimenting on animals. Research grants are frequently awarded based on political and economic motives rather than scientific potential, which explains why clearly nonsensical experiments continue to receive funding


Recently the National Institute of Mental Health was cited for squandering valuable research money on wasteful experiments. Medical professionals are resolutely opposing the institute’s decision to spend millions of dollars on studies regarding the mental processes of animals and only 5.8% of the budget on clinically relevant, human-based research. Here are some examples of ludicrous experiments and their cost to taxpayers:

  • Squirrel monkeys dosed with lithium, a potent drug used in the treatment of psychotics, lose their appetites; National Institute of Mental Health, $407,200.

  • Old rhesus monkeys do not have the learning or memory abilities of young monkeys; Boston University & Yerkes Regional Primate Center, $1,225,000.

  • Old cats do not sleep well in very hot or very cold rooms; Stanford School of Medicine, $150,000.

  • Baby macaque monkeys separated from their mothers at birth may suffer emotional and behavioral problems later in life; University of Colorado, $262,400.

  • Dogs with narcolepsy (a disease causing uncontrollable sleeping) spend more time drowsy and asleep than normal dogs; Stanford University School of Medicine, $847,000.

  • Female rhesus monkeys sprayed with copulins (sex scents) have more sexual encounters than unsprayed monkeys; Emory University, $164,000.

Millions and millions of dollars are being channeled into animal experimentation with the publicized message that it helps people. Yet a closer look reveals not only the inaccuracy of the animal model, but also the duplicative and wasteful nature of these experiments. We already know human children suffer without a mother’s love, and that narcolepsy will make a dog drowsy. Why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for scientists to conclude what is already known?


Manufacturers of equipment, food and services relevant to animal experimentation reap the financial benefits too. These are the companies that produce and sell:

  • cages, racks, tanks, food dishes and water bottles;

  • carts, dollies, and trays to store and move animals;

  • restraining chairs and restraining devices to hold animals immobile;

  • measuring equipment;

  • syringes, feeding tubes, and other delivery systems;

  • transport, isolation and test chambers;

  • self-piercing tags and tattoo machines;

  • collar monitors;

  • laboratory monitoring and alarm systems;

  • lab planning services;

  • cage and rack cleansers and service;

  • the animals themselves: animal suppliers, animal breeders, and animal dealers.

They advertise and offer animals who have been surgically or otherwise modified, even “created.”


Veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and animal care personnel who work with animals in laboratories make their living by riding on the coattails of vivisection.


These associates lobby for the continuation of animal experimentation; without it, they would financially suffer. Compounding this pressure, there is a lack of monetary support for the development and implementation of non-animal research. Within the industry, there is a stronger acceptance of animal-based tests, regardless of the superiority of available replacements. This bias makes it too easy for a researcher to receive grant money for an animal experiment, and unfairly difficult to impossible at times to receive money for an animal-free experiment.