“Asphyxiation,” “Blinding,” “Burning,” “Centrifuge,”
“Compression,” “Concussion,” “Crowding,” “Crushing,”
“Decompression,” “Drug Tests,” “Experimental Neurosis,”
“Freezing,” “Heating,” “Hemorrhage,” “Hindleg Beating,”
“Immobilization,” “Isolation,” “Multiple Injuries,” “Prey
Killing,” “ProteinDeprivation,”“Punishment,”“Radiation,”
“Starvation,” “Shock,” “Spinal Cord Injuries,” “Stress,”
“Thirst,” and manymore. While some of the experiments
mayhaveledtoadvancesinmedicalknowledge,thevalueof
thisknowledgeisoftenquestionable,andinsomecasesthe
knowledgemighthavebeengainedinotherways.Manyof
the experimentsappear to be trivial or misconceived, and
some of them were not even designed to yield important
benefits.
Consider, asanotherexampleof thewayin whichendless
variationsofthesameorsimilarexperimentsarecarriedout,
theseexperimentsrelatingtotheexperimentalproductionof
shockinanimals(bywhichismeantnotelectricshockbutthe
mentaland physicalstateofshockthatoftenoccursaftera
severeinjury).Aslongagoas 1946 aresearcherinthefield,
Magnus Gregersen of Columbia University, surveyed the
literature and found over eight hundred published papers
dealingwithexperimentalstudiesofshock.Hedescribesthe
methods used to induce shock:
Theuseofatourniquet ononeormoreextremities, crush,
compression,muscletraumabycontusionwithlighthammer
blows, Noble-Collip drum [a device in which animals are
placedandthedrumrotated;theanimalstumblerepeatedlyto
the bottom of the drum and injure themselves], gunshot
wounds, strangulation or intestinal loops, freezing, and burns.