VIVISECTION AND THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE
Let us now leave the opinions of anti-vivisectionists, and carry the
problem on to higher ground. Let us see what are the rights of man in
Nature, and what is the purpose of human life.
Amidst all the unsettled and contradictory theories accumulated by
philosophers, thinkers and founders of religion, there remains scarcely any
fixed and immutable theory save that of one dominating principle: The
respect and love of our brothers in humanity. All else is contestable and
contested. Though we are unable to demonstrate it formally, there is one
universal moral law (the great Categorical Imperative of Kant) which
commands us to be just and beneficent to our fellow-creatures. All the most
subtle sophisms will never be able to persuade me that I ought not, above
all things, to feel solicitude for the lives and happiness of men.
I willingly admit that beside man there is the animal, _our inferior
brother_ as it has been ingeniously called, so that we have also our duties
towards these inferior brothers. But _this must never be to the detriment
of our real brothers_. It seems to me insane to consider the life of a cat
of more account than that of a man; the pain of a dog than that of a child.
All the more so because living matter, if I may use that expression,
possesses varying degrees of perfection; from the sea-weed up to man there
are successive stages of living forms which constitute an uninterrupted
chain ending in its final phase, which is man.
Man, by his power of thought, and consequently of suffering, by the
conception which he is able to make of the non-self, by his faculties of
abstraction and the notion of good and evil, is vastly superior to every
other living being. So that, for respecting, defending and loving men, I
have not only the reason that man is my brother, but also that this brother
is superior to every other living thing.
That is why a moral code must be essentially human, having for its highest
object the happiness of other men. Every other code of morals, having in
view a different purpose supporting itself on metaphysical lucubrations or
haunted by puerile anxieties, such as the adoration of beasts, appears to
me to bear the stamp of fetishism. An unknown power has caused us to be
born; we are entirely ignorant of our destinies, we know not why we were
born, why we die, why, following in the wake of countless generations, we
transmit the vital spark to countless succeeding generations. We know
nothing of all that; but it matters little from the point of view of our
duty. Duty is independent of all theory. No mere religion is necessary to
constitute a moral code.
_Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto_, or rather our moral code, will
be the religion of humanity. It does not seem to me possible to conceive of
any other.
And when we say humanity, we take that word in its largest acceptation. It
is not a question of compatriots, nor of Europeans, nor even of humanity of
to-day. It is also a question of the humanity of the future. We have our
duties towards the man of to-day; but we have also our duties towards the
man who will live in the centuries to come. We should prepare the way for a
happier and better humanity. Our task is not limited to the present hour;
it extends to all those human beings who will come after us. Inasmuch as we
of to-day, at every moment of our lives, benefit from the accumulated
services of our ancestors, so the men to come will profit by the benefits
which we are endeavouring to prepare for them.
Assuredly, Humanity will not be eternal, and Science seems to prove that a
time will come when the sun's heat will be insufficient to develop life on
the surface of our puny planet. A time will come when the earth will have
cooled down and become like our pale satellite, the moon, a dead star,
where the debris of extinct multitudinous civilisations will disappear
under the ice. But what matter! We have not to trouble ourselves about
those far-off times. We have to think of the man of the coming centuries,
and, at the same time, it goes without saying, of the man of to-day.
To lessen their misery, to make their existence less lamentable, to develop
within them the sentiments of justice and brotherhood, to secure their
moral welfare and their material welfare, that is our strict and sole duty.
I recognise no other.
Now, there is but one way open to attain this noble goal: Science. We are
plunged in an ocean of gloom. All is dark, unknown, disturbing. We have not
yet understood anything of the blind forces surrounding us on all sides. We
are but feeble beings cast into the midst of sovereign powers which
overwhelm and bear us down. Now, to avoid being completely and definitely
crushed out of existence, it is necessary to penetrate into the nature of
these forces. Alas! we shall never penetrate into them, for it is madness
to think that a particle of the whole can ever fully cognise the whole; but
we may at least demonstrate some facts, fathom some phenomena, perhaps
trace a few of the features of certain laws. That is enough to make us
instantly the masters of matter and not its slaves.
Every new truth at once brings about an amelioration in human conditions.
It may be said that our _happiness is made up of truth_. Let us suppose
what is improbable, that is to say, that we have come to know all the laws
of Nature, should we not immediately become all-powerful? Should we not be
the sovereign masters of disease and pain, perhaps of old age and death?
Such, indeed, appears to be the conviction of the human societies which
assign a preponderating role to Science. They have understood that there is
no better future in store for the human being than that which Science will
bring about for him.
To be able to appreciate the extent to which the man of to-day is
materially and morally happier than the man of past ages, we have only to
compare the present state of our civilisation with the state of past
civilisations. We may say that an English labourer of to-day has a much
easier existence than had an Italian prince of the fourteenth century.
Everywhere, the progress achieved by Science has entered into the life of
each individual. We find it in the book we read, in the electricity which
gives us light, in the train or the steamer which carries us to the
uttermost corners of the earth in little time and at little cost. It is the
same thing also with medicaments, which are certainly able to lessen the
pain of disease.
Moral progress has kept pace with material progress. At the same time that
matter has been overcome, our customs have become gentler; individual
liberty is a sacred thing; each citizen takes part in the decisions of his
government; there is no longer either slavery or torture or tyranny of
conscience. In a word, the man of to-day is happier and more powerful than
the man of bygone days.
This happiness has not been acquired through any providential "miracles."
No God came down from His Heaven to alleviate human misfortunes. It is man,
and man alone, who, by his genius and his labours, has been able to make
himself master of the forces which, even yesterday, held him in bondage.
And we cannot be too grateful to our fathers for their immense and fruitful
labours, by which they succeeded in constructing the society in the midst
of which we live. It is still wretched enough, this society of ours,
afflicted with crimes and horrors, the infamy of which we understand full
well; but however wretched it may be, it is a thousand times less wretched
than was society of yore.
Therefore, this formal conclusion may at once be deduced; we must do for
our descendants what our fathers did for us. We would be without excuse if
we rested content to benefit from the works of our predecessors without
ourselves also creating something, without leaving, by means of our
personal labours, a better lot to our descendants. The man who has not
understood this supreme duty is truly unworthy of being a man.
Verily, every individual, when he has arrived at the end of his life,
should examine his conscience and ask himself if in the humble sphere of
his action, he has not, even he also, contributed a stone to the human
edifice, if he has not done his share in promoting and increasing the
forces of humanity.
Since matters stand thus, since the development of Science is the
fundamental condition of the happiness of man, we must resolutely put
Science at the basis of every civilisation. Alas! it has not been so up to
the present; and if we study the development of human societies, we see
that they are above all things attracted to war. Science has had only the
leavings. But the time has come when man should no longer believe that the
principle of morality is man's struggle against man. That was the history
of bye-gone times. The history of to-day, and especially the history of
to-morrow, is the struggle of man against matter, the subjection of natural
forces to our intelligence. And there is no other way to subjugate these
forces than by learning to know them.
Then Science will be put in the foreground. And without making any
classification which distinguishes between the sciences, which are all
useful, beautiful, and noble, for all contain a portion of truth, we shall
be permitted to say that the Science of life is one of the most useful, the
most noble, and the most beautiful.
Now, the Science of life is Physiology, taking physiology in its widest
sense, that is to say, the study of normal beings and of diseased beings.
It is proved by innumerable facts, facts which only bad faith and ignorance
can call into question, that our physiological knowledge is due, in a very
large measure, to experimentation. If in thought we suppressed the
scientific results which experimentation has conquered, we should have but
an inferior science, within the reach of the Brahmans may be, but unworthy
of our present scientific standing. We should know nothing of the
circulation of the blood, nor the function of the blood corpuscles, nor the
formation of sugar, nor the innervation of the glands, nor the
contagiousness of disease, nor the power of poisons; we should be reduced
to the notions of Hippocrates, we should be less advanced than Galileo, the
first ingenious experimenter who indicated, less by his writings than by
his experiments, that the basis of physiology, and consequently of the
whole of pathology, is experimentation on animals.
Those most sincere persons who wish to banish experimentation from Science
are consequently, I do not fear to say it, standing in the position of
direct contradiction to true morality. To refuse man the right to study
living nature, is as though we declared that living nature ought not to be
known. Alas! anti-vivisectionists will not listen. In vain do we tell them
that we, physiologists, preserve man from disease; that we have alleviated
the ills of our human brothers. They stop up their ears; they shut their
eyes; they have no pity for the sufferings of human beings. It seems as
though the tears of their brethren were profoundly indifferent to them. Is
this a high morality? Is this a realisation of their duty as men? They
cover with opprobrium the names of Harvey and Jenner, Bernard and Pasteur,
Spallanzani and Helmholtz. What base ingratitude! It is these great men who
have turned aside many excruciating sufferings from humanity; it is these
grand men who have bestowed a better lot on so many human beings. When,
therefore, they dare to calumniate the masters who have scattered over us
so much beneficence, anti-vivisectionists seem to me to be not only the
most ungrateful but even the cruellest of men.
Fortunately the conquering march of Science will not be hindered. We shall
never return to those sinister times when our great Vesalius had to forfeit
his life for having dared to dissect a human corpse. We shall continue to
make Science advance towards its great aim, the good of man.
And this is the moment which has been chosen for striving to arrest the
march of Science: when epidemic disease, such as the plague and cholera, is
checked; tuberculosis half-conquered; diptheria rendered inoffensive;
operations become almost harmless; cancer on the eve of being understood
and subjugated! And are we to stop there? Are we not to seek to fathom the
many problems still waiting to be solved, and on which depend the lives of
so many human beings, and so much human happiness? Do you believe that
Science has come to an end? Certainly we already know a great deal; but
what we know is as nothing compared to what we do not know.
An immense domain of unknown truths lies open to our activity. And we are
able to forsee what inexpressible benefits these new truths will scatter
over suffering humanity. Consequently, everyone, every man enamoured of
goodness and justice, should be filled with respect for Science, and set
all his hopes on her.
At the same time, however great may be my adoration for Science, it must
not be at the expense of human personalities, or, let us say it distinctly,
at the expense of animal personalities, which although uncertain and
indistinct, still merit a share, and a large share, of justice and of pity.
As for human personalities, without the slightest doubt, we have not the
right to sacrifice an innocent creature for Science. Every human being
ought to be treated with respect, and we have not the right to kill and
martyrise a human being even if his death and his martyrdom might serve the
cause of Science.
As for animal personalities, the question becomes much more doubtful. For
inferior beings with indistinct consciousness, and, without a doubt
powerless to perceive pain, no scruple should hold us back. But if it
concerns beings nearer to ourselves, such as monkeys, cats, dogs, horses,
all certainly capable of feeling pain, we must be chary of inflicting pain,
and experiment only after having totally abolished in them all sensation of
pain. But under penalty of falling into fetishism, we must not fear to use
the life of these beings in order to prolong the life of man. Every time we
propose to make an experiment, it is as though we put this question to
ourselves: is this dog worth more than a man? or than a hundred men? or
than the whole of humanity to come? Thus put, the problem bears only one
solution: Avoid giving pain to the animal on condition that it is not at
the cost of innumerable human pains. Moreover, it is the same here as in
every question we may wish to investigate: Each of the two adversaries set
out from a just principle, incontestably just. But each one pushes the just
principle so far that he ends by transforming it into a colossal absurdity.
In the present case, the anti-vivisectionists say: pain is an evil, even
the obscure pain of the lowest animal is an evil. Now, we should do no
evil; therefore we should not at any price inflict any pain whatsoever,
however light it may be, on even the lowest animal. That is their
syllogism. It cannot be replied to, for it is perfectly correct.
We on our side say: The suffering of man is a sacred thing. Science casts
aside suffering from man. Therefore we ought to sacrifice inferior beings
to the cause of Science, that is to say to the happiness of man. There
again lies an irreproachable syllogism.
But these two syllogisms, if driven up to their ultimate conclusions, would
lead to nonsense on the one hand and cruelty on the other. If we were to
listen only to the friends of animals, we should not have the right to
bleed a horse in order to save the lives of 400 children; and this
contention would be both foolish and cruel.
If we were to listen only to the friends of man, we should have the right,
simply as dictated by our might and fancy, to cause suffering to dogs,
cats, monkeys, all innocent and sensitive animals, under pretext that these
tortures are capable of alleviating human pain. That also would be folly
and cruelty.
Fortunately, wisdom avoids both extremes; it fears the brutality of hard
and fast syllogisms, which are absurd even by their very severity. Yes,
there are the rights of man; yes, there are the rights of animals; and all
our efforts should consist in holding an even balance between these two
sometimes antagonistic rights. Do not let us push our reasonings to their
logical but absurd extremes. Pre-occupation for the welfare of future
humanity and of Science does not authorise us to be wicked and unjust
towards the men of to-day, even towards one single man. So that,
notwithstanding my worship of Science, I would not sacrifice human lives to
her. And, notwithstanding all my respect for animal pain, I would look upon
the man as supremely ridiculous, even guilty, who would not innoculate a
microbe into a rabbit to achieve a great discovery for humanity. Wisdom,
therefore, consists precisely in this: to know where to stop in pushing a
reasoning to extremes. This is what physiologists have sought and are
seeking to do.
In any case, and as a last conclusion, Science ought not to be sacrificed.
Now, the death-knell of science will have sounded when _savants_ are
prevented from pursuing their investigations on living beings. We who, in
full confidence, hope for a happier and better humanity, will never resign
ourselves to closing our laboratories, to burning our books. On the
contrary, we are determined, every one of us, to continue our hard labours
for the great good of the men of to-day and of the generations to come.
And when we speak of Science, we do not mean only the material benefits she
scatters abroad; we think also of her power as a moral force. Material and
moral conquests walk hand in hand. Science is the basis of the moral law.
The universal consciousness of humanity grows greater by the acquisition of
new truths. Each individual, by the very fact that he loves truth, has come
to understand the moral ideal which should be ever before his eyes.
And then, in a just measure, full of pity for all suffering, but placing
the suffering of man at a higher price than the suffering of the animal, we
shall strive to make the respect of animal suffering accord with the search
for the splendid and indispensable and divine TRUTH.
POST SCRIPTUM
In the various works, notices, discourses, etc., which have been published
upon Vivisection, generally against Vivisection, I find various erroneous
assertions which it is important should be pointed out. I will do so
briefly.
There is, however, one assertion which appears fairly just to me. This is
that in treatises on physiology, sufficient mention is not made of
Vivisection, of its limits and of its abuses. At the beginning of a
treatise on physiology, the author should distinctly declare there is
always cruelty in vivisection conducted without chloroform or chloralose;
the author should indicate that these anaesthetics ought to be administered
under such or such conditions. Before initiating medical students into the
study of life, it is also well to teach them to have respect for animal
suffering. I would that it might be thoroughly understood that it is a
matter of absolute necessity to operate upon the animal; and that when the
physiologist resigns himself to this necessity he ought to perform the
operation with sufficient humanity to prevent the animal from suffering. I
willingly recognise that the absence of this first moral precept is a great
gap in most treatises on physiology.
This, however, is about all I can concede to anti-vivisectionists; for
truly they indulge in such queer, extraordinary assertions that we are
completely disconcerted. Some of these fanatics pretend, for example, that
physiologists should practise vivisection upon themselves. To torture a dog
is as criminal as to torture a child, according to them; and animal
suffering is as much to be respected as human suffering! Truly such a
paradox cannot be taken seriously; if it were admitted, evidently the
question is settled. But it cannot be admitted, and the whole of our
argument rests upon this principle, which appears quite evident, that
living beings occupy different positions in the hierarchy of nature.
Let us take a besieged city reduced to famine: will anyone pretend that the
soldiers must be sacrificed before the horses, the mules, etc. Yet the case
is exactly the same. It is in order to avoid the death of human beings
that mice and guinea-pigs are put to death.
To deny the difference in rank of living beings is to deny evidence. A frog
is a nobler animal than a sea-urchin; a dog is a nobler animal than a frog;
for there are degrees in the intelligence, and consequently, in the
capacity to suffer, and in the _quality_ of suffering among the four animal
groups: the sea-urchin, the frog, the dog, and man.
Anti-vivisectionists do not admit reflex movements (which, moreover, they
do not understand); and they bewail the dogs that Goltz and Ewald subjected
to cerebral mutilations which took away all intellectual spontaneity and
prevented them from eating spontaneously. But in those very dogs, precisely
because there is no spontaneity, so there is no longer any consciousness of
pain. They are, therefore, of all the beings in creation those which
deserve the least commiseration; for they are protected against pain by
that very ablation of the brain, the seat of pain.
We are told that it is through cowardice, through the fear of disease, that
vivisection is practised. But fear of disease is not cowardice. I am
neither poltroon nor coward, but I would be very sorry to be attacked by
tuberculosis or cancer. I do not blush to confess that it would be very
disagreeable for me to be hanged, though hanging is much less painful than
tuberculosis or cancer. If it were necessary to have a hanged victim, I
would much prefer that a rabbit were taken in preference to myself; and I
would certainly not put my own neck in the cord to save a dog from torture.
The state of mind of anti-vivisectionists appears to me rather singular,
since they are not at all afraid of disease as far as man is concerned, but
they have great fear of it for animals. If pain is but an empty word,
according to the celebrated phrase of Zeno, why not apply that fine maxim
to the animal?
Sir James Thornton (_The Principal Claims on behalf of Vivisection_,
London, 1907), has endeavoured to compile a list of the contradictions to
be found in the treatises of physiology. He could have added considerably
to the length of this chapter, for the contradictions are innumerable;
which only proves, not that vivisection is useless, but that it is
difficult. What would chemists say if it were maintained that chemical
analysis was absurd because of the contradictions between chemists? They
would, and rightly so, continue to make analyses; for they know that
analysis is a necessary, though an imperfect, instrument. In the same
manner, we shall continue to practise vivisection, though we know right
well that vivisection is an imperfect, though a necessary, instrument.
In the course of a recent debate on vivisection, a voice was heard to call
out that Lister was a brute. That "crowns" everything, and one would think
that nothing more inept could be imagined.
Alas! something more inept still has been said, and I hand over this
prodigious and audacious assertion to the judgment of every man of heart
and common sense. It refers to bacteriology. The author, after having said
that microbes are not the cause of disease, takes refuge behind the opinion
of Lawson Tait (quoted by Mona Caird, _The Inquisition of Science_, p.
20).
"Such experiments never have succeeded, never can: and they have, as in the
cases of Koch, Pasteur, and Lister, not only hindered true progress, but
they have covered our profession with ridicule."
That is something which may well confound us, is it not? and I believe
those great benefactors of humanity, Koch, Pasteur and Lister, may indeed
murmur: "Forgive them; for they know not what they say."
To sum up: the objections of anti-vivisectionists are irrefutable if we
admit, (1) that man has not the right to kill an animal either in
self-defence or for nourishment; (2) that the suffering of an animal is as
worthy of respect as the suffering of a man; and (3) that the misery of one
individual is as sacred as the misery of a thousand individuals. No logical
reply can be made to these three assertions, which, according to my
reasoning, constitute an offence against the most elementary common sense.
But I doubt very much if we shall ever arrive at demonstrating that it is
better to allow one hundred children to die from diphtheria rather than
draw a little blood from a horse; or that we should practise vivisection
on man so as to alleviate the diseases of dogs.
Concerning the polemics of anti-vivisectionists as to the uselessness of
physiology, and the contradictions of physiologists, they are nothing but a
tissue of error and ignorance.
APPENDIX A
We give herewith a table showing the absolute and relative mortality due to
diphtheria in Paris from 1872 to 1905, out of a population of 2,500,000
inhabitants:--
ABSOLUTE. PER 100,000 INHABITANTS.
1872 1135 61
1873 1164 62
1874 1008 52
1875 1328 68
1876 1572 79
1877 2393 117
1878 1995 95
1879 1783 83
1880 2048 94
1881 2211 99
1882 2244 100
1883 1781 79
1884 1928 86
1885 1655 74
1886 1512 67
1887 1585 70
1888 1729 74
1889 1706 72
1890 1668 70
1891 1361 56
1892 1403 58
1893 1266 52
1894 1009 41
1895 435 17
1896 444 17
1897 298 12
1898 259 10
1899 339 13
1900 294 11
1901 736 28
1902 709 26
1903 399 15
1904 260 10
1905 204 7
Let us divide this mortality due to diphtheria into three groups (in Paris
per 100,000 inhabitants):--
A. Before the discovery of serotherapy, from 1872 to
1888.
B. During the period of experimentation with
serotherapy, from 1889 to 1894.
C. After the generalisation of serotherapy, from 1895
to 1905.
We have then the following averages:--
ABSOLUTE. PER 100,000
INHABITANTS.
Before serotherapy 1657 80
Intermediary period 1402 58
After serotherapy 398 15
And should these figures not seem sufficiently eloquent, let us set them
forth in another form:--
ABSOLUTE MORTALITY.
Before the discovery of serotherapy, 1888 1729
1st year of serotherapy, 1889 1706
2nd " " 1890 1668
3rd " " 1891 1361
4th " " 1892 1463
5th " " 1893 1266
6th " " 1894 1009
At this moment the practice of serotherapy, thanks to Roux, became general
in Paris.
1st year, 1895--435.
2nd " 1896--444.
During the next six years there were still hesitations and uncertainties as
to the best method to be employed.
The mortality during these six years, 1897-1902--439.
Then the practice was definitely established.
The mortality for the three years, 1903-1905--288.
These figures are so eloquent, so striking, so precise, that it is not
possible to misunderstand them. They cannot be ignored; and when once they
have been set forth, ignorance is no longer permissible, and it is for that
reason we have here given them.
In Berlin and in Vienna, it is the same thing. From 1894 the mortality due
to diphtheria has diminished to the extent of 150 per cent.
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams (C.). HUNTER AND THE STAG. _A reply to Prof. Owen._ (8vo, London,
1881.)
Adler (H.). ZUR FRAGE DER V. (_Wien med. Woch._, 1879, 1161, 1211, 1241.)
Anstie (F. E.) THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. (_Practitioner_, 1874, 38 and
321.)
Apinus (S. J.). DISS. EX JURE NATURAE: AN LICEAT BRUTORUM CORPORA MUTILARE
ET SPECIATIM OB ES RECHT SEY DASS MAN DEN HUNDEN DIE OHREN ABSCHNEIDE,
VARIIS OBSERVATIONIBUS AUCTA. (Altorphii Noricorum, 1722.)
Basch ZUR V. FRAGE. (_Wien med. Blaetter_, 1879, 2, 73.)
Beck (J. M.). THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF VIVISECTION. (_Medical News_, 1890, pp.
280-282.)
Bedtnitz (A.). DIE V. GAUKLER. (Wien, 8vo, 1883.)
Berdoe (E.). THE FUTILITY OF EXPERIMENTS WITH DRUGS ON ANIMALS. (8vo,
London, 1889.)
---- THE HEALING ART AND THE CLAIMS OF VIVISECTION. (12mo, London, 1890.) A
TRIUMPH OF VIVISECTION. (8vo, London, 1890.)
Bernard (Claude). LES VIVISECTIONS. (_Union medicale_, 1865, 305-310 _et
Revue Scientifique_, 1878, 799-802.)
Bigelow (H. R.). THE PRACTICAL UTILITY OF VIVISECTION. (_Maryland Med.
Journ._, 1880, 246-249.)
Bowditch (H. P.). VIVISECTION JUSTIFIABLE. (_Sanitar. New York Journ._,
1896, 229-243.)
Bos (A.). SULLE V. (_Imparziale_, 1874, 225-231.)
Brown (J. M.). VIVISECTION, A REPLY TO DR KEEN. (_J. Am. Med. Ass._, 1901,
592.)
Bryan (B.). THE BRITISH VIVISECTOR'S DIRECTORY, A BLACK BOOK FOR THE UNITED
KINGDOM. (12mo, London, 1890.)
Burt. THE ETHICS OF EXPERIMENTATION UPON LIVING ANIMALS. (Post-graduate,
1890, 53-55.)
Carpenter (W. B.). THE ETHICS OF VIVISECTION. (_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882,
237-246.)
Cejon (E. de). THE ANTI-VIVISECTIONIST AGITATION. (_Contemporary Rev._,
1883, 498-910.)
Coats. ON LUDWIG AND PASTEUR, AND ON VIVISECTION. (_Glasg. Med. Journ._,
1895, 330-335.)
Cobbe (Fr. P.). ILLUSTRATIONS OF VIVISECTION. (8vo, Philadelphia, 1887.)
Cobbe (Fr.). THE MODERN RACK; PAPERS ON VIVISECTION. (8vo, London, 1889.)
Cobbe (Fr. P.). VIVISECTION; FOUR REPLIES. (_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882,
88-104, and _Contemporary Rev._, 1882, 610-626.)
Coleridge (Lord). THE NINETEENTH CENTURY DEFENDERS OF VIVISECTION.
(_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882, 225-236.)
Dalton. EXPERIMENTATION ON ANIMALS. (12mo, New York, 1875.)
Dalton. MAGENDIE AS A PHYSIOLOGIST. (_Internat. Rev._, 1880, 120-129.)
Dalton (J. C). VIVISECTION: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT HAS ACCOMPLISHED.
(_Bull. B. York Acad. med._, 1866, 159-198.)
Darwin (Ch.). VIEWS ON VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1881, 424; et Rev.
Scient., 1881 (1), 731.)
Davis (N. B.). THE MORAL ASPECTS OF VIVISECTION. (_North Americ. Rev._,
1885, 203-220.)
Delolm de Lalaubie. VIVISECTION, DISS. IN. (Paris, 1868.)
Deswattines. SUGGESTIF PETIT TABLEAU DE LA CRUELLE ET INUTILE VIVISECTION.
(_Medecin_, 1904, 35.)
Ferguson (Sir W.). OPINIONS OF EMINENT SURGEONS, PHYSIOLOGISTS AND OTHERS,
AS TO THE FOLLY AND MISLEADING AND DEMORALISING RESULTS OF VIVISECTION.
(London, 1880.)
Fletcher. A FEW NOTES ON CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, ON THE INADEQUACY OF PENAL
LAW. (8vo, London, 1846.)
Foreau de Courmelles. ESSAI DE LIMITATION SCIENTIFIQUE DE LA VIVISECTION.
(_Revue med._, 1902, 481-484.)
Foster (M.). VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1873, pp. 672-685.)
Gamgee (S.). ON VIVISECTION AND SCIENTIFIC SURGERY. (_Brit. Med. Journ._
(2), 1876, 104.)
Guetzlaw (V.). SCHOPENHAUER UeBER DIE THIERE UND DER THIERSCHUTZ. (8vo,
Berlin, 1879.)
Harnack (E.). WIDER DIE V.-GEGNER. (_D. med. Woch._, 1905, 1115-1116.)
Harvey. THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE AND VIVISECTION. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1895,
49-57.)
Hehir (P.). VIVISECTION SO CALLED, ITS ROLE IN THE SERVICE OF MAN AND
BEAST. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1897, 91.)
Heidenhain (R.). DIE V. IM DIENSTE DER HEILKUNDE. (8vo, Leipzig, 1879.)
Hermann (L.). DIE V. FRAGE. (8vo, Leipzig, 1877.)
Hodge. THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1896, 614-630,
771-786.)
Horsley (V.). and Rutter (A.). THE MORALITY OF VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth
Century_, 1892, pp. 804-817.)
Hutton (R. H.). THE BIOLOGISTS ON VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth Century_, 1882,
29-39, and _Contemp. Rev._, 1883, 510-516.)
Jaeger (G.). V. UND HEILKUNST. (_Jaegers Monatsbl._, 1905, 137-141, 173-183,
197-203.)
Keen (W. W.). OUR RECENT DEBTS TO VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1889,
1-15 and _Harper's Mag._, 1893, pp. 28-139.)
Keen (W. W.). MISSTATEMENTS OF THE ANTI-VIVISECTIONISTS AGAIN. (_Phil. Med.
Jour._, 1901, 204-206.)
Kingsford (A.). THE USELESSNESS OF VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth Century_,
1882, 171-183.)
Kleffer (H.). LA VIVISECTION, SON UTILITE, SA MORALE. (GENEVE, GEORG, 12mo,
1883.)
Lawson (H.). THE VIVISECTION CLAMOUR. (_Pop. Sc. Rev._, 1876, 398-405.)
Leffingwell. VIVISECTION, A REPLY TO PROF. H. WOOD. (_Bost. Med. and Surg.
Journ._, 1899, 371.)
Leneveu (G.). DE L'UTILITE DE LA VIVISECTION. (Diss, in., Paris, 1883.)
Lund (P. W.). PHYSIOLOGISCHE RESULTATE DER V. NEUERER ZEIT (_trad. du
Danois_). (Kopenhagen, 1825.)
Macphail (J. A.). VIVISECTION. (_Montreal Med. Journ._, 1890, 895-919.)
Magnan. DE LA FOLIE DES ANTIVIVISECTIONNISTES. (_C. R. de la Soc. de Biol.
de Paris_, 1884, 101-104.)
Marechal (Ph.). LA VIVISECTION. (_Medecin_, 1904, 35, and _Revue du Cien_,
13-15.)
Maurel. LA VIVISECTION EST ELLE INDISPENSABLE. (_Ass. pour l'ac. des
sciences_, 1901, 294.)
Merbach. UEBER DIE GESCHICHTE DER V. (_Jahresb. d. Ges. f. Nat. u. Heilk.
in Dresd._ 1878, 98-103.)
Metzger (D.). LA VIVISECTION, LES DANGERS, ET LES CRIMES. (8vo, Paris,
1891.)
Moore (W. J.). HARVEY AND VIVISECTION. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1876, 230-233.)
Moquin Tandon. RAPPORT SUR LES VIVISECTIONS. (_Bull. de l'ac. de Medecine
de Paris_, 1862, 948-960.)
Nagel (R.). DER WISSENSCHAFTLICHE UNWERTH DER V IN ALLEN IHREN ARTEN. (8vo,
Berlin, 1881.)
Novi (J.). SULLA V. (_Boll. d. sc. med. di Bologne_, 1893, 263, 421.)
Paget (Stephen). EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS. (_Murray_).
Renault (E.). LA SOC. PROTECTS. DES ANIMAUX ET LA VIVISECTION. (_Rec. de
Med. veterin._, 1862, 231-247.)
Renooz (C). A PROPOS DE LA VIVISECTION. (_Medecin_, 1904, 178-179.)
Richet (Ch.). MAN'S RIGHT OVER ANIMALS. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1884, xxv.,
759-766.)
Smith (R. M.). MATERIA MEDICA AND VIVISECTION. (_Merck's Arch._, 1900,
44-47.)
Smith (R. M.). SHOULD EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS BE RESTRICTED OR ABOLISHED?
(_Therap. Gaz._, 1884, 497, 533.)
Smith (Pye). ON VIVISECTION. (_Brit. Med. Journ._ (2), 1879, 349.)
Stuser (E.). IS VIVISECTION A BENEFIT TO ANIMALS AND MAN, AND JUSTIFIABLE?
(_Med. News_, 1902, 108-111.)
Tait (Lawson.). THE USELESSNESS OF VIVISECTION UPON ANIMALS AS A METHOD OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. (London, 8vo, 1883 (?).)
Tuckermann. ABSTRACT OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON VIVISECTION.
(_Columb. Med. Journ._, 1897, 237-243.)
Weber (E.). LES CHAMBRES DE TORTURE DE LA SCIENCE. (Paris, Leroux, 8vo,
1879.)
Wilberforce (C). WOMEN, CLERGYMEN AND DOCTORS. (_New Review_, 1893, 85-95.)
Wilks. THE ETHICS OF VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1882, xxi.,
344-350.)
Williams. A FEW PERSONAL FACTS CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS OPPOSED TO
THE FALSE FANCIES OF THE PERSECUTORS OF VIVISECTORS. (_Brit. Med. Journ._,
(2), 1876, 104.)
Wolff. DISPUTATIO PHILOSOPHICA DE MORALITATE ANATOMES CIRCA ANIMALIA VICA
OCCUPATAE. (Leipzig, 1709.)
Wood (H.). THE CONTROL OF VIVISECTION. (_Bost. Med. and Surg. Journ._,
1895, 342.)
Zoellner (F.). UEBER DER WISSENSCHAFTLICHEN MISSBRAUCH DER V., MIT
HISTORISCHEN DOCUMENTEN UeBER DIE V. VON MENSCHEN. (Leipzig, 8vo, 1880, 2nd
ed., 1885.)
APPENDIX C
THE RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY
In January 1908, a Society with the above name was formed in England, the
aims and objects of which are clearly stated in the following letter from
Lord Cromer, its President; this letter was published in the English
newspapers on 24th April 1908:--
SIR,
A Society has been formed, with the name of the Research Defence Society,
to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the
immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments; and the
great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them.
The great advance that has been made during the last quarter of a century
in our knowledge of the functions of the body, and of the causes of
disease, would have been impossible without a combination of experiment and
observation.
The use of antiseptics, and the modern treatment of wounds, is the direct
outcome of the experiments of Pasteur and Lister. Pasteur's discovery of
the microbial cause of puerperal fever has in itself enormously reduced the
deaths of women in child-birth.
The nature of tuberculosis is now known, and its incidence has materially
diminished.
We owe the invention of diphtheria antitoxin entirely to experiments on
animals.
The causes of plague, cholera, typhoid, Mediterranean fever, and sleeping
sickness, have been discovered solely by the experimental method.
Not only have a large number of drugs been placed at our disposal, but
accurate knowledge has replaced the empirical use of many of those
previously known.
The evidence before the Royal Commission has shown that these experiments
are conducted with proper care; the small amount of pain or discomfort
inflicted is insignificant compared with the great gain to knowledge and
the direct advantage to humanity.
While acknowledging in general the utility of the experimental method,
efforts have been made by a section of the public to throw discredit on all
experiments involving the use of animals. The Research Defence Society will
therefore endeavour to make it clear that medical and other scientific men
who employ these methods are not less humane than the rest of their
countrymen, who daily, though perhaps unconsciously, profit by them.
The Society proposes to give information to all enquirers, to publish
_precis_, articles, and leaflets, to make arrangements for lectures, to
send speakers, if required, to debates, and to assist all who desire to
examine the arguments on behalf of experiments on animals. It hopes to
establish branches in our chief cities, and thus to be in touch with all
parts of the kingdom; and to be at the service of municipal bodies,
hospitals, and other public institutions.
The Society was formed on 27th January of the present year, and already
numbers more than 800 members.[9] It is not an association of men of
science or of medical men alone; its membership has been drawn from all
departments of public life, and includes representatives of every class of
educated Englishmen and Englishwomen, including many who have taken an
active part in the prevention of cruelty to animals. This fact is in itself
a remarkable protest against the attacks which have been made on the
researches that the Society has been formed to defend.
The annual subscription is five shillings to cover working expenses: but
larger subscriptions, or donations, will be gladly received. The acting
Hon. Treasurer, _pro tem._, is Mr J. Luard Pattisson, C.B. (of the Lister
Institute),[10] and an account in the Society's name has been opened with
Messrs Coutts & Co., 440 Strand. The Hon. Secretary is Mr Stephen Paget, 70
Harley Street, W., to whom all communications should be addressed.
Yours faithfully,
CROMER, _President_.
The following is a list of the pamphlets already issued by the Society:--
1. Letter from the President announcing the formation of the Society, April
24.
2. Report of the inaugural meeting.
3. Experiments on animals during 1907 in Great Britain and Ireland.
4. Some facts as to the administration of the Act.
5. The value of antitoxin in the treatment of diphtheria.
6. Evidence of Sir Frederick Treves.
7. Yellow fever and malaria.
8. Extinction of Malta fever.
9. Have experiments on animals advanced Therapeutics?
10. The work of the Research Defence Society.
11. Vivisection and medicine. Evidence of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton
before the Royal Commission.
All or any of these will be forwarded on application to the Hon. Secretary,
Mr Stephen Paget, 70 Harley Street, London, W. Other pamphlets are in
active preparation; arrangements are also being made for meetings, and for
the organisation of Branch Societies in many parts of the kingdom; the
Society is also concerned in the institution of a similar movement for the
defence of research in America.
Space does not permit the publication of the full list of members of the
Society. The following list of the President and Vice-Presidents, however,
will show that those who have joined are representative not only of the
leading men and women in the medical profession, but also of those who are
pre-eminent in various other branches of science, in literature, politics,
art, and theology.
PRESIDENT
THE EARL OF CROMER, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., O.M.
VICE-PRESIDENTS
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ABERCORN, K.G.
SIR WILLIAM ABNEY, K.C.B., F.R.S.
SIR T. CLIFFORD ALLBUTT, K.C.B., F.R.S. (_Regius Professor of Physic,
University of Cambridge_).
SIR L. ALMA-TADEMA, O.M., R.A.
MRS GARRETT ANDERSON, M.D.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON, BT., D.C.L., M.P.
THE RT. HON. LORD AVEBURY, F.R.S.
[A]SIR JOHN BANKS, K.C.B., M.D.
THE RT. HON. LORD BARRYMORE.
THE MARQUIS OF BATH.
LADY BLISS.
LADY BUCKLEY.
LADY BURDON-SANDERSON.
LORD BLYTH.
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY, D.D.
EARL CATHCART.
LORD ROBERT CECIL, K.C., M.P.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER, D.D.
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CHESTER, D.D.
LORD CHEYLESMORE, C.V.O. (_Chairman, Middlesex Hospital_).
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH, D.D.
SIR JAMES CRICHTON-BROWNE, F.R.S.
THE COUNTESS OF CROMER.
THE RT. HON. SIR SAVILE CROSSLEY, BT., M.V.O.
SIR EDMUND HAY CURRIE.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., F.R.S.
THE REV. DR DALLINGER, F.R.S.
FRANCIS DARWIN, ESQ., F.R.S.
SIR GEORGE H. DARWIN, K.C.B., F.R.S.
SIR JAMES DEWAR, F.R.S.
SIR A. CONAN DOYLE, LL.D.
THE REV. CANON DUCKWORTH, C.V.O.
THE RT. REV. THE BISHOP OF EDINBURGH, D.D.
EARL EGERTON.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, D.D.
LORD FABER.
THE REV. A. M. FAIRBAIRN, D.D., LL.D. (_Principal of Mansfield College,
Oxford_).
LORD FARRER.
SIR LUKE FILDES, R.A.
LORD FORTESCUE.
SIR THOMAS FRASER, M.D., F.R.S. (_Professor of Clinical Medicine,
University of Edinburgh_).
SIR DAVID GILL, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW, G.C.M.G.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF GRANTHAM, D.D.
FIELD-MARSHAL LORD GRENFELL, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.
THE HON. WALTER GUINNESS, M.P.
THE RT. HON. THE EARL OF HALSBURY, K.B., F.R.S.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTON.
H. A. HARBEN, ESQ. (_Chairman, St Mary's Hospital_).
J. T. HELBY, ESQ. (_Chairman, Metropolitan Asylums Board_).
SIR SAMUEL HOARE, BT.
THE HON. SYDNEY HOLLAND (_Chairman, London Hospital_).
SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, G.C.S.I., F.R.S., O.M.
SIR WILLIAM HUGGINS, K.C.B., F.R.S., O.M.
J. HUGHLINGS JACKSON, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.
MONTAGUE RHODES JAMES, LITT.D. (_Provost of King's College, Cambridge_).
SIR ALFRED JONES, K.C.M.G.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF KINGSTON.
THE EARL OF KILMOREY (_Chairman, Charing Cross Hospital_).
LORD LAMINGTON, G.C.M.G.
SIR E. RAY LANKESTER, K.C.B., F.R.S.
R. F. C. LEITH, M.SC., (_Professor of Pathology, Birmingham_).
THE RT. HON. LORD LINDLEY, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.
SIR NORMAN LOCKYER, K.C.B., F.R.S.
THE RT. HON. WALTER LONG, M.P.
HENRY LUCAS, ESQ. (_Chairman, University College Hospital_).
LORD LUDLOW.
THE HON. G. W. SPENCER LYTTELTON, C.B.
FREDERICK MACMILLAN, ESQ. (_Chairman, National Hospital for the Paralysed
and Epileptic_).
THE RT. HON. SIR HERBERT E. MAXWELL, BT., F.R.S.
LORD METHUEN, G.C.B., K.C.V.O.
HER GRACE THE DUCHESS OF MONTROSE.
LADY DOROTHY NEVILL.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK (_President, Cancer Hospital_).
LORD NORTHCLIFFE.
WILLIAM OSLER, M.D., F.R.S. (_Regius Professor of Medicine, University of
Oxford_).
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, D.D.
SIR GILBERT PARKER, D.C.L., M.P.
EDEN PHILLPOTTS, ESQ.
COUNT PLUNKETT.
SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BT., LL.D., D.C.L.
SIR JOHN DICKSON POYNDER, BT., M.P. (_Chairman, Great Northern Hospital_).
LADY PRIESTLEY.
THE RT. REV. THE BISHOP OF NORTH QUEENSLAND, D.D.
SIR WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B., F.R.S.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF RANGOON.
SIR JAMES REID, BT., G.C.V.O.
LADY RUSSELL REYNOLDS.
THE VERY REV. HON. THE DEAN OF RIPON, D.D.
BRITON RIVIERE, ESQ., R.A., D.C.L.
MRS ROGET.
MRS ROMANES.
SIR HENRY ROSCOE, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.
[A]THE RT. HON. THE EARL OF ROSSE, K.P., LL.D., F.R.S. (_Chancellor of the
University of Dublin_).
LORD ROTHSCHILD, G.C.V.O.
SIR ARTHUR RUeCKER, F.R.S.
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF SALISBURY, D.D.
THE RT. HON. THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
THE RT. HON. THE MARQUIS OF SLIGO.
ISABEL MARCHIONESS OF SLIGO.
THE RT. HON. SIR CECIL CLEMENTI SMITH, G.C.M.G.
SIR THOMAS SMITH, BT., K.C.V.O.
THE HON. W. F. D. SMITH, M.P. (_Chairman, Removal Fund, King's College
Hospital_).
THE HON. SIR RICHARD SOLOMON, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.
SIR EDGAR SPEYER, BT. (_President, Poplar Hospital_).
THE RT. HON. LORD STALBRIDGE.
LORD STANLEY, K.C.V.O.
LORD STRATHCONA, G.C.M.G.
LADY SUTTON.
MAJ.-GEN. SIR REGINALD TALBOT, K.C.B.
SIR FREDERICK TREVES, BT., G.C.V.O.
SIR JOHN BATTY TUKE, M.P.
SIR WILLIAM TURNER, K.C.B., F.R.S. (_Principal of the University of
Edinburgh_).
JAMES G. WAINWRIGHT, ESQ. (_Chairman, St Thomas's Hospital_).
_Earl Waldegrave._
_The Rt. Rev. Bishop Welldon._
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON, K.G.
A. W. WEST, ESQ. (_Treasurer and Chairman, St George's Hospital_).
SIR JAMES WHITEHEAD, BT. (_First President of the Lister Institute_).
MRS ROBERT PEEL WETHERED.
SIR SAMUEL WILKS, BT., F.R.S.
THE RT. HON. SIR ALFRED WILLS.
THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.
THE REV. H. G. WOODS, D.D. (_Master of the Temple_).
[Note A: Since deceased.]
FOOTNOTES:
[9] 22nd October 1908. The number of members is now over 1530, of whom 160
are ladies.
[10] 27th May. Dr Sandwith, 31 Cavendish Square, London, W., is now Hon.
Treasurer.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
End of Project Gutenberg's The Pros and Cons of Vivisection, by Charles Richet