ON CERTAIN MISTAKES OF SCIENTISTS
Every reflecting student of history is struck by the divergence of
opinions manifest among educated men in regard to the great problems
of life. Why is it that so few of us are able to state the facts and
arguments which favour conclusions to which we are utterly opposed?
Take, for instance, the great question of religious belief. Can one
refer to any Protestant writer of our time who has placed before his
readers the arguments which inclined men like Newman or Manning to the
Catholic faith? Has any Catholic writer of our time been able to
present fairly the arguments which seem so overwhelmingly convincing
to Protestant thinkers? In either case, is there not something of
distortion or exaggeration? Certainly it cannot be due to intentional
and perverse obliquity of mental vision. As a rule reasonable men
endeavour to be just and fair. Now and then, in the heat of
controversy, a tendency to overstatement or exaggeration may be
evident, especially where great issues appear to be involved; but
the purpose can be reconciled with honesty. Is it not more than
probable that the principal reason for divergent views on the part of
honest opponents is IGNORANCE OF FACTS?
Take, for example, the opinion held to-day by the great majority of
young physicians concerning animal experimentation. As a rule they
regard all criticism of vivisection with infinite contempt. During
their medical studies they were continually imbued with the idea that
the opposition to laboratory freedom of experimentation was an
agitation of comparatively recent date, and confined to a small class
of unthinking sentimentalists. Of that strong protest against cruel
experiments which made itself heard more during more than a century,
and of the atrocities which led to that protest, the average physician
of to-day knows nothing whatever. Plunged into the practice of a
profession which may absorb every moment of time, he has perhaps
neither leisure to investigate nor disposition to doubt whatever he
has been told.
Now, if the average student of medicine is thus ignorant of history,
is it not because those who have taught him were equally devoid of
knowledge of the facts? Of the history of the vivisection controversy
previous to 1875, some of the most distinguished men in the medical
profession have proved themselves profoundly ignorant. Illustrations
of this lack of information might be almost indefinitely adduced, but
I propose to bring forward only a few instances typical of their kind.
On June 10, 1896, Dr. Henry P. Bowditch, then professor of physiology
in Harvard Medical School, delivered an address on vivisection before
the Massachusetts Medical Society. The character of his audience, and
the profession of the speaker, might be presumed to give assurance of
absolute accuracy concerning any question of historic fact. A quarter
century before, Dr. Bowditch had studied physiology in German
laboratories Returning to America in 1871, he had been given the
opportunity of reorganizing the teaching of physiology at Harvard
Medical School, so as to bring it into conformity with Continental
methods. It is quite probable that to him, more than to any other
person, is due the introduction of Continental methods of
physiological instruction in the medical colleges of the United
States.
According to Dr. Bowditch, the criticism of vivisection in England
began in 1864. To his audience of physicians he made the following
statement:
"The first serious attack upon biological research in England seems to
have been made in an essay entitled `Vivisection: is it Necessary or
Justifiable?' published in London in 1864, by George Fleming, a
British veterinary surgeon. This essay is an important one, for
although characterized at the time by a reviewer in the London
Athenaeum as `ignorant, fallacious, and altogether unworthy of
acceptance,' its blood-curdling stories, applied to all sorts of
institutions, have formed a large part of the stock-in-trade of
subsequent vivisection writers."
The sneering reference to "blood-curdling stories" is of itself
extremely significant. It indicates unmistakably the utter contempt
which nearly every physiologist feels for the sentiment of humaneness
which underlies protest against experimental cruelty. The speaker
omitted to tell his audience that this essay of Dr. Fleming received
the first prize offered by the "Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals," and that the Committee which decided the merits
of the essay included some of the most eminent scientific men of
England, among them Sir Richard Owen and Professor Carpenter--the
latter one of the most distinguished of English physiologists of his
time. He forgot to add that if the examples of atrocious vivisection
given in this essay were horrible--as they were--yet every instance
was substantiated by reference to the original authorities, and that
their accurate quotation could not be impugned. Especially curious is
the fact that Professor Bowditch placed the beginning of criticism at
1864. Of the arraignment of cruel vivisections by English physicians
and English medical journals before that time, Dr. Bowditch apparently
never heard, and all the infamous atrocities which they condemned he
dismissed with a sneer as "blood-curdling stories." Yet, in his day,
the speaker was one of the leading physiologists of the United
States. We cannot believe that the suppression of material facts was
intentional; it was due rather to complete ignorance of the history of
that protest against physiological cruelty which England witnessed
during the first part of the nineteenth century, and of which some
account shall follow.
Take another instance. In the International Journal of Ethics for
April, 1904, there appeared an article in defence of animal
experimentation by Professor Charles S. Myers of the University of
Cambridge, England. Of any abuses of the practice, Dr. Myers gave his
readers no reason for believing that he had ever heard; and as an
indication, perhaps, of an animal's eagerness to be vivisected, he
tells us that "again and again dogs have been observed to wag the tail
and lick the hands of the operator even immediately before the
beginning of the operation." Commenting upon the singular conclusion
which this fact seemed to suggest to Dr. Myers, the present writer
quoted a sentence or two from an editorial which once appeared in the
columns of the London Lancet.[1] It would apparently seem that
Dr. Myers brought the quotation to the attention of someone in the
editorial office of the Lancet, on whose judgment he thought he might
safely rely; for, in a reply, he refers to it as a quotation
"attributed to the editor of the Lancet, which, AFTER SPECIAL INQUIRY,
I HAVE REASON FOR DOUBTING." Concerning a reference to some of
Dr. Sydney Ringer's experiments upon patients in a London hospital, he
is even more confident that they could never have occurred, and
indignantly rejoins, "I unhesitatingly declare SUCH ABOMINABLE
ACCUSATIONS TO BE FALSE."
[1] See p. 73 for this Lancet editorial.
Now, all this indignant scepticism was rather creditable to the
writer's heart. That an English medical journal like the Lancet
should denounce vivisection cruelties, or that a reputable London
physician should experiment on his patients with various poisons,
seemed to Dr. Myers beyond the bounds of belief. But it is always a
serious thing positively to deny any historical reference simply
because of personal ignorance of its truth. It was quite easy to
refer the sceptic not only to the editorial which he thought he "HAD
REASON FOR DOUBTING," but also to the experiments on human beings
concerning which his indignation rose so high. To be ignorant of
Dr. Ringer's experiments on his patients is to be ignorant of the
history of modern medicine. The Medical Times (London) in its issue
of November 10, 1883, thus editorially commented upon certain of these
experiments:
"...In publishing, and, indeed, in instituting their reckless
experiments on the effect of nitrite of sodium on the human subject,
Professor Ringer and Dr. Murrill have made a deplorably false
move.... It is impossible to read the paper in last week's Lancet
without distress. Of the EIGHTEEN adults to whom Drs Ringer and
Murrill administered the drug in 10-grain doses, all but one averred
that they would expect to drop down dead if they ever took another
dose.... Whatever credit may be given to Drs. Ringer and Murrill for
scientific enthusiasm, it is impossible to acquit them of grave
indiscretion. There will be a howl throughout the country IF IT COMES
OUT THAT THE OFFICERS OF A PUBLIC CHARITY ARE IN THE HABIT OF TRYING
SUCH USELESS AND CRUEL EXPERIMENTS ON THE PATIENTS COMMITTED TO THEIR
CARE."[1]
[1] In all quotations, here and elsewhere throughout this volume, the
italics have been supplied.
What but ignorance of the history of medicine during the last fifty
years could lead any one to deny the occurrence of experiments, the
proofs of which rest on statements in medical journals, and in the
published works of the experimenters themselves?
One of the most singular statements concerning vivisection that ever
appeared in print was given out not many years ago by one of the
professors of physiology in Harvard Medical School.[2] The accuracy of
this manifesto--which purported to be "a plain statement of the whole
truth"--received the endorsement of five of the leading teachers of
science in the same institution, men whose scientific reputation would
naturally give great weight to their affirmations regarding any
question of fact. So impressed was the editor of the Boston
Transcript with the apparent weight of this testimony, that he
declared in its columns that "the character and standing of the men
whose names are given as responsible for this explanation to the
Boston public, FORBID ANY QUESTIONING OF ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS." What
is the value of authority in matters of science, if assertions so
fortified by illustrious names are to be received with doubt?
[2] See "The Vivisection Question," pp. 114-133 and 253.
The inaccuracy which characterized this "statement of the whole truth"
was demonstrated at the time it appeared; but to one paragraph
attention may be recalled. The manifesto touches the question of past
cruelties in animal experimentation, not merely without the slightest
criticism or condemnation, but, on the contrary, with what would seem
to be a definite denial that anything reprehensible had ever
occurred. It contemptuously referred to evidence of abuses, as "these
reiterated charges of cruelty, THESE LONG LISTS OF ATROCITIES THAT
NEVER EXISTED." What other meaning could the average reader obtain
than the suggestion that the cruelties of Spallanzani, of Magendie, of
Mantegazza, of Brown-Se'quard, of Brachet, and a host of others,
existed only in the imagination, AND HAD NO BASIS OF FACT? For this
astounding suggestion, what explanation is possible? That there was a
deliberate purpose to mislead the public by an affirmation that cruel
and unjustifiable experiments were a myth, the creation of
imagination, is an hypothesis we must reject. But there must have
been a stupendous ignorance concerning the past history of animal
experimentation. Simply because of their utter lack of knowledge
regarding history, distinguished scientists became responsible for
suggesting to the public that the story of the past cruelty of
vivisection was a myth, and unworthy of belief.
While illustrations of this singular ignorance of the past might be
almost indefinitely multiplied, another example must for the present
suffice. It is afforded by the evidence given before the Royal
Commission of Vivisection in 1906, by Sir William Osler, M.D., Fellow
of the Royal Society, and Regius Professor of Medicine at the
University of Oxford. In the course of his examination, the following
dialogue occurred:[1]
"Are you familiar with the writings of Dr. Leffingwell?"
"Yes."
"I think he points out that it was through the strong attacks that
appeared in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal that the
Vivisection Act was passed?"
"THAT IS NEWS TO ME."
"You do not know that?"
"NO."
[1] Minutes of Evidence, Questions 16,780-16,782.
Perhaps the question asked may have implied somewhat more of influence
on the part of the medical journals named than actually belonged to
them; but these periodicals certainly initiated that exposure and
condemnation of cruelty in vivisection--which in England led to an
agitation for reform. Sir William Osler's replies, however, suggest
something more than mere word-fencing; he was evidently surprised to
hear it intimated that medical journals like these could ever have
been found attacking vivisection in any way. Of the strong attacks
which appeared in these organs of medical opinion less than forty
years before, he had apparently never heard. Now, when men like
these, leaders in the formation of public opinion on medical matters,
are thus ignorant of history, ought one really to wonder at the lack
of knowledge on the same subject betrayed by the new generation of
physicians in active practice to-day--men not only of lesser
influence, but of more restricted opportunities for gaining
information? Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the physicians
engaged in medical instruction in England and America probably would
have replied to the questions asked Sir William Osler to the same
effect--"It is news to me." Sitting at their feet, how can pupils be
expected to do otherwise than to absorb both their prejudices and
their learning? How can any medical student distinguish between them?
We are all inclined to give implicit faith to men whose abilities in
any direction we admire and reverence. It is only with the advance of
years and the test of experience that men come to learn the distrust
of authority, the wisdom of doubt, and the value of personal inquiry
concerning every great problem of life.
Suppose, then, that we look into this question. Was Professor
Bowditch correct in assigning the beginnings of criticism concerning
vivisection to Dr. Fleming's essay published in 1864? Or was its
origin long before? Were the professors of the Medical School accurate
of statement when they practically denied that cruelty in vivisection
was a historic fact, and endorsed a reference to authenticated
instances as "long lists of atrocities THAT NEVER OCCURRED"? Is it a
fact--although Dr. Myers of Cambridge and Sir William Osler of Oxford
apparently never heard of it--that it was the MEDICAL journals of
England whose indignant condemnation of vivisection cruelties led up
to its attempted regulation by law? The public assumes that
authorities like these are not likely to err concerning methods of
medical instruction or research. In the mind of the average man,
every prepossession is in their favour; he cannot easily bring himself
to believe that if cruelty ever existed, THEY should be so completely
ignorant of it. It may, indeed, be questioned whether in the
literature of controversy on the subject there has been a single
defender of unrestricted freedom in vivisection, who has intelligently
referred to the horrible experiments of past vivisectors except either
to sneer or to condone. Even Mr. Stephen Paget, in his recent work,
"Experiments upon Animals," never once condemned the cruelty that but
a generation ago excited indignation throughout the medical profession
of Great Britain.
The truth of this matter is not to be attained by unquestioning
acceptance of authority, but by a study of the history of the past.
It would be impossible, except in a volume, to write a complete
history of that protest against the unjustifiable cruelties of animal
experimentation, which gradually led to a demand for their legal
suppression. All that may here be attempted is a demonstration that
the sentiment is not of recent origin; that more than a century ago
the cruelties, which to-day are so carefully ignored, were
unquestioned as facts, and that to medical journals of England is
principally due that weighty condemnation of cruel vivisection, which
probably more than any other influence was the foundation of the
agitation for vivisection reform.