Like the chicken and the egg, experimentation and conjecture revolve around each other at the heart of the scientific method. In the science of life, however, isolation of variables and repetition of trials have often proven difficult and ethically convoluted. Biological study largely evolved in conjunction with the philosophy of medicine, the natural connection being that an understanding of biological function is crucial in repairing dysfunction. Regardless of whether theory or practice arose first, “good” medicine may arguably be characterized by conservative practice. Ironically, however, most medical advances arise from happen stance, or from isolated extenuating circumstance, and after wide spread dissemination and adoption are they more thoroughly investigated; surgery for instance. Amputations, weapon removal, cataract couching, denture fixation, and even basic reconstructive surgery are documented early in the first millennia BC. Homer describes many surgical practices in his depictions of the Trojan War, but still attributed infection and disease to the uncontrollable will of the Gods. The complexity behind why of two people, with apparently similar health (or as the case may be, ailment), one turns out fine whereas the other might fall into sickness or die was beyond the philosophy and instruments of the time (and in fact wasn’t even fully understood until the 1850’s with the founding of epidemiology by John Snow). Without the proper physiochemical and biomolecular tools, and live imaging techniques of the modern century, an in depth holistic understanding of biological function was unattainable. Instead, experiments presented themselves as anatomical dissections to determine what all, and where all, everything is. Naturally, theory developed in response and vivisections subsequently arose and developed to test what all everything does, a task still hardly dented in the modern age.
Without the instruments or methods for developing philosophy, ancient medicine progressed through widespread dissemination of practices, often between remote destinations, proven to be tried and true. Good examples are rhinoplasty, in which skin from the forehead is used to replace a nose, and cataract couching, in which the crystalline deposit blocking vision is moved out of the way, where first described in Hindu medical texts mid-millennia BC, and subsequently where included, described in generally similar terms, in the medical encyclopedia composed by Celsus (~300 AD). Shared nuances, such as specifying which hand is best for certain parts of the procedure, construction of instruments, and important help to include for expediting the process are too great for coincidence, and indicate they didn’t arise separately. Doctors tackling the issue of ‘experimenting’ with new procedures was first documented in Alexandria (~300 BC), with Herophilus and Eristatus practicing procedures on criminals sentenced to death by first inflicting than repairing ailments. Although the logic being many would benefit from the suffering of few, the practice may still seem ostensibly analogues to the atrocities of Nazi medical experimentation. The two, however, couldn’t possibly more apart, and in their separate ways each illustrate the general consensus of ‘good’ medicine being typified by a cautious and conservative approach. Permission to perform the first criminal vivisections was a city wide affair, and surprisingly controversial considering the era, and the subjects being dead men walking anyways. Though a relatively rare occurrence, the hands on experience was invaluable for training doctors, and garnished major contributions to understanding biological function. On the other hand, the reckless abandonment of human life displayed in Nazi medical experimentation, often focused on testing the bounds of human tolerance for extreme conditions, actually afforded very little relevant and no scientifically useful information despite the massive number of trials and variety of subjects implicated.
The ethics of justified medical experimentation, however, historically only apply to human subjects and very little regard has been paid to animals. The amount of animals that die each month from experimentation is roughly equal to the number of lives lost in the Holocaust (~6-10 million), and arguably from far more gruesome means. The difference, however, is that the information is unattainable by any other means, and has proven essential for treating human diseases and developing less invasive techniques. One may argue that the ends justify the means or that animals lack the agency to comprehend their circumstance. Ironically however, the more we learn the more it seems that in fact our and animal psyches are not all that different, and that barring inherited genetic disorders, the cause of ailment is based on environmental circumstance (including contact with other organisms) and lifestyle, and that there are no ‘magic-bullet’ cures, just good old fashioned healthy living. Further, a huge body of evidence is accumulating suggesting regular use of most drugs (inherently always developed through animal testing) actually have severe health repercussions. Unlike the chicken and egg problem, which has been solved through the theory of evolution (the egg must have came first, and was a mutant laid by an almost chicken), the tragic comedy of medical experimentation may have no answer, and the harder we look the more it seems we’ve had the solution all along.
