THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION
In the year 1906, a Royal Commission was appointed by King Edward to
investigate the practice of animal experimentation. Thirty years had
passed since the appearance of the earlier inquiry, upon which was
based the English law regulating the practice of such experiments. On
the one hand, it had been denounced as affording most inadequate
protection to animals liable to such exploitation; on the other hand,
in the United States it had been condemned as a hindrance to
scientific progress, and a warning against any similar legislation. A
new Commission was therefore appointed to inquire into the practice,
to take evidence, and to report what changes, if any, in the existing
statute might seem advisable.
The composition of the new Commission leaned heavily toward the
laboratory. It included no opponent to all vivisection. On the other
hand, three of the Commissioners at one time or another had held a
licence to vivisect, and one of them seems to have held this
permission for some fourteen years. The Commission also included
among its members the permanent Under-Secretary to the Government--an
official whose acts had again and again been arraigned, and were soon
to be challenged once more. The unusual spectacle was therefore to be
presented of men sitting in judgment upon themselves. One of the
Commissioners--Dr. George Wilson, well known for his work regarding
the public health--had at various times questioned the conclusions of
certain experimenters, but he was not opposed to all research upon
animal life. From a Commission so constituted, we might have expected
as the final result of their labours a report favourable to the
interests of the laboratory, to marked modifications of the existing
law by a lessened stringency of inspection, to relaxation of
restrictions, and to an endorsement of every claim of utility which
the experimenters should put forth.
Such an outcome of the deliberations of the Royal Commission must have
seemed to American vivisectors almost a certainty. During the past
twenty years, repeated attempts have been made in New York, in
Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, and in the city of Washington, to
obtain some legislation regulating the practice of animal
experimentation to the extent which obtains in England. At "hearings"
before various legislative and Senate Committees, all such attempts
have been vigorously combated by representatives and defenders of the
physiological laboratories, and their strongest argument has always
been the exceedingly detrimental effect of the English Act of 1876
both upon medical education and upon the progress of medical science.
Professor Bowditch once said:
"The amount of mischief which may be produced by the English law
depends very much on the good judgment of the Home Secretary.... In
general, it may be said that the system of licensing and Government
inspection is UNDER THE MOST FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS a source of serious
annoyance to investigation."
We shall have reason hereafter to see the inaccuracy of this
statement, so far as may be evinced by the opinions of English
physiologists and teachers.
Upon the secrecy now maintained in English laboratories, a vivid light
is thrown by the evidence given before the Commission. Quite as
strong as in America have been the precautions taken in England to
prevent any knowledge of the methods of vivisection from coming before
the general public except through the assertions of the experimenters
themselves. In America, where we have no legal limitations to
experimentation, such secrecy occasions no surprise; but that in
England the laboratory had secured so complete a degree of security
from criticism by concealment of that which we are told needs no
concealment gives reason for questionings. One of the Government
inspectors--a Dr. Thane--insists that although a physiological
laboratory is open to the visits of medical students at any time, it
would hardly be possible to permit a similar privilege to physicians
not in sympathy with experimentation. "I see no way of doing it," he
declares. He does not seem to be certain that one of the Royal
Commissioners before whom he was giving evidence could be admitted.
Dr. George Wilson asks him the question in regard to seeing the
various operations which are open to medical students. "I can go and
see them? I suppose I would have no difficulty?" Dr. Thane's reply was
by no means assuring. "I do not see how it could be done," he replied.
He could not see how one of the most distinguished physicians of
England could secure the legal right of admission to a physiological
laboratory!
Some of the evidence given regarding this point seems a little
suggestive of a willingness to mislead a thoughtless questioner. Was
there any wish to give an impression that the secrecy of the
laboratory did not exist? One of the Government inspectors--Sir James
Russell--informed the Commissioners that HE never had any difficulty
in getting into laboratories. "I simply walk into them, and have
always found the doors open," as if that proved that there was nothing
to be concealed. The professor of physiology at University College
was particularly examined on this point. "Would there be any
difficulty in a doctor who was very strongly opposed on all grounds to
experiments on animals presenting his card and being present?" "None
whatsoever," was the Professor's answer to his questioner, the
Chairman of the Commission. "I want to see," added Lord Selby, "what
sort of check there is upon the neglect of the statute; ... whether
any medical man who disagreed with the Act and disagreed with
vivisection altogether would be able to attend?" "In these advanced
lectures there is no means by which we can prevent him from
attending," was the instant reply. "In point of fact, are ANY steps
taken with a view of preventing it?" "None whatever," was the reply.
"There is NOTHING to prevent it?" persisted Lord Selby; and the reply
of the professor was reiterated: "There is nothing to prevent the
attendance of any medical man at these advanced lectures."
The distinguished jurist undoubtedly believed that by these repeated
interrogations he had reached a complete denial of the secrecy of
experimentation so far as the witness was concerned.
On the day following, the same professor of physiology continued his
evidence, and another member of the Commission--A. J. Ram, Esq.--"one
of our counsel learned in the law," took part in the examination. "One
hears a good deal in lay papers and so forth about experiments
conducted with closed doors. IS THERE ANYTHING OF THAT SORT AT ALL?"
The very form of his inquiry would seem to indicate his disbelief in
the practice of secret vivisection. His question, however, admitted
of two different replies. The physiologist might assert the necessary
seclusion of physiological experimentation, or he might construe the
question in a literal sense as pertaining merely to the locking of his
inner door. He preferred the latter course. "I have ever come across
a laboratory where there were any closed doors. In my laboratory any
student wanting to speak to me walks straight in. The door of my
laboratory, where I do the chief part of my work, IS ALWAYS OPEN TO
THE PASSAGE."
This is very clever. The two leading lawyers of the Commission have
sought to get at the truth concerning the secrecy of vivisection, and
apparently are quite satisfied. But some hours later another member
of the Commission, a plain Member of Parliament, without skill of
fence or experience in the examination of witnesses, asks a question
or two. "You have told us," said Mr. Tomkinson, "that any medical man,
on presenting his card, can obtain admission at once to a laboratory?"
Here was an inquiry that could be answered but in one way. "No,"
replied the physiologist; "to the advanced physiological lectures
which are given in the University of London." "NOT TO WITNESS ANY
OPERATION?" "No; only to witness the demonstrations that are given in
those lectures." "But might not the public be more satisfied if a
layman--a Member of Parliament, for example--had the right of entry on
presenting his card?" "Do you mean to the advanced lectures or to the
laboratory?" "I mean to an operation IN THE LABORATORY: say a Member
of Parliament or anyone whose position is assured?" "I should be only
too pleased to see any Member of Parliament or any layman who had any
doubt about it if he presented his card, but I SHOULD HAVE TO BE
SATISFIED OF HIS BONA FIDES."
It is a pity that no one thought to ask the physiologist how he
expected a Member of Parliament to prove his "good faith" before he
could enter precincts open to every student of the University. Sir
William Church came to his assistance by suggesting that the professor
would admit anyone "vouched for" by a person whom you know, or whose
position you know; but the curt monosyllabic reply was not indicative
of a welcome, and it was quite different from the conditions which had
just been laid down. The doors of the laboratory are "open," but only
to those in whose silence and discretion the vivisector may trust.
A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to the alleged
painfulness of vivisection. It is the great problem. If the absence
of sensation were a certainty in all operations of the kind, there
would be no reasonable objection to them, no matter to what extent
they might be carried. The physiologists of the present day occupy a
somewhat different attitude from those of half a century ago, or of
yet later periods. Thirty years ago, one of the leading experimenters
in England declared that he had "no regard at all" for the pain
inflicted upon a vivisected animal; that he never used anaesthetics
except when necessary for personal convenience; and that he had "no
time, so to speak, for thinking what the animal will suffer." We find
no such profession of indifference in the testimony of modern
physiologists. What seems to take its place is, in many cases, a
denial of the existence of pain in the experimentation of the present
day. Does anything here turn upon a definition of words? A professor
at King's College, London, giving his testimony, affirmed that "no
student in England has EVER SEEN PAIN in an animal experiment"--a
statement which in one sense everyone can accept, for who can say that
he ever SAW a pain anywhere? Professor Starling, of the University
College in London, declared that during his seventeen years of
experimentation "on no occasion HAVE I EVER SEEN PAIN inflicted in any
experiment on dog, cat, or rabbit in a physiological laboratory in
this country." The experimenter is undoubtedly correct. Neither he
nor anyone else in or out of a laboratory has ever "SEEN PAIN."
Some of Dr. Starling's testimony on the subject of pain is very
curious. Pain, he tells the Commissioners, "would spoil the
experiment," and "A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT WHICH IS PAINFUL IS
THEREBY A BAD EXPERIMENT." He is asked whether "there are any
operations performed under circumstances in which the animal is
necessarily and intentionally sensitive to some pain?" Without any
apparent hesitation he replied: "NO, NEVER." Surely this is a
remarkable assertion. He is not speaking, so far as one can see, of
his own laboratory, but of all the laboratories of the world. If,
since the discovery of anaesthesia over sixty years ago, there has
been painful physiological experimentation in England, in America, or
on the Continent of Europe, IT HAS BEEN BAD EXPERIMENTATION. THE PAIN
INFLICTED HAS SPOILED THEIR WORK. One may not be inclined to dispute
this opinion, and yet be quite certain that some very eminent
vivisectors in Europe and America would question its accuracy so far
as their own work is concerned.
It is interesting to compare these assertions with the testimony given
by another physiologist--Dr. Pembrey, the lecturer on physiology at
Guy's Hospital in London. He tells the Commission that "a common-
sense view should be taken of the question," and then makes a definite
admission that by no means bears out the contention of the
physiologist of University College. "I ADMIT," said Dr. Pembrey, "THAT
I HAVE DONE PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS, and I am not ashamed of admitting
it." He goes yet further, declaring that if you caused an animal to
suffer extreme agony, the pain itself might be so severe as to render
the creature unconscious. It is probable that the physiologist could
not have foreseen the results of his candid admissions. When the
Commission made their final report, they expressed unanimously the
opinion that "to grant a licence to any person holding such views as
those formerly expressed by Dr. Klein and as those entertained by
Dr. Pembrey is calculated to create serious misgiving in the mind of
the public."
Closely allied to this question is the problem of anaesthesia. Fifty
years ago ether and chloroform were administered to animals very much
as they were given to human beings undergoing operations in surgery.
An animal returning to consciousness gave abundant evidence of its
sensibility to suffering by its struggles and cries. The experimenter
might try to believe that the pain was slight, but he never disputed
its existence. To-day, all this is changed. As much or as little of
the anaesthetic may be given as the vivisector desires, and yet he may
declare that "ANAESTHETICS WERE USED," no matter how slight the degree
of sensibility thus induced. It is a known fact that a dog is very
susceptible to the action of chloroform, so that during its
administration death frequently occurs. Sir Thornley Stoker, the
President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, and for many
years a teacher of science, testified before the Commission that a
dog's heart is very weak and irregular, and susceptible to the
poisonous influence of chloroform. Over and over again he expresses
the doubts that arise concerning the administration of chloroform. "I
fear that, particularly in the case of dogs, ANAESTHESIA IS NOT ALWAYS
PUSHED TO A SUFFICIENT EXTENT, as these animals often die from the
effects of the anaesthetic if given to a full extent.... I am never
sure, if I give a dog chloroform, that I will not kill it.... THE
ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE if the dog lives as long as is
necessary for some of these experiments." Even for one hour he
believes it would be generally impossible to keep a dog alive under
full anaesthesia. On the other hand, Dr. Starling declared that
"there is no difficulty in keeping an animal alive as long as you
like," and Sir Victor Horsley affirmed that one could keep a dog
under chloroform "FOR A WEEK, if you only take the trouble."[1]
[1] See Minutes of Evidence, November 13, 1907, Q. 15,649.
The discrepancy here would seem insurmountable. May it not be more in
appearance than in reality? One man tells me that arsenic is a poison,
very liable to cause death. Another affirms that he has taken it for
days in succession, and has experienced no unpleasant results. Both
statements can be true, for they need not refer to the same amount.
In the modern laboratory there is little danger that the animals will
succumb to the effects of anaesthetic. Assuredly we may question the
completeness of that insensibility which Sir Victor Horsley apparently
declares may be maintained for a week.
The use of the substance known as CURARE, either alone or in
connection with anaesthetics or narcotics, was naturally a subject of
passing inquiry. So slight is the knowledge afforded by certain
physiologists that it would almost seem that they were united in a
"conspiracy of silence" regarding it; in neither of the last two
editions of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is there more than a casual
reference to the poison, and no reference to its origin. "What is it?"
asked one of the Commissioners. "Is it an herb?" A brief account of
the poison, in view of an ignorance so widespread, is not out of
place.
Curare is the arrow-poison of certain tribes of South American
Indians. It was first brought to the knowledge of Europeans by Sir
Walter Raleigh on his return from a voyage to Guiana in 1595, over
three centuries ago. Its actual composition, even at the present
time, is unknown; it is probable that different tribes of savages have
their special methods of preparing it. Some travellers claim that it
consists only of a decoction of poisonous plants; others believe that
with such substances are mixed the fangs of snakes, and certain
species of poisonous ants, the whole compound being boiled down to the
consistency of tar.
The action of the poison thus made is exceedingly rapid. Numerous
experiments by different observers have demonstrated that it swiftly
destroys the functions of the motor nerves of the body, leaving the
sensory nerves unaffected to any extent. Claude Be'rnard, who made
many experiments with curare, came to the same conclusion; it
abolishes the power of motion, but has no effect upon the nerves of
sensation. An American physiologist, Dr. Isaac Ott, tells us that it
is able to render animals immovable "by a paralysis of motor nerves
,LEAVING SENSORY NERVES INTACT." Be'rnard asserts as a result of
numerous experiments that in an animal poisoned with curare, "its
intelligence, sensibility and will-power are not affected, but they
lose the power of moving;" and that death, apparently so calm, "is
accompanied by sufferings the most atrocious that the human
imagination can conceive." Although it may seem to be a corpse without
movement, and with every appearance of death, "sensibility and
intelligence exist ... it hears and comprehends whatever goes on, and
feels whatever painful impressions we may inflict." It is only within
late years, and since the employment of curare has been denounced,
that anyone has suggested any doubt of these physiological
conclusions.
It has been found by physiologists that if the throat of a dog be
severed and the windpipe exposed and artificial respiration kept up,
all the functions of life may be greatly prolonged; and if curare be
used, the creature does not die, although it feels. Supposing that
morphia or chloroform be administered at the same time--is the animal,
notwithstanding, conscious of pain? Professor Starling admitted in his
evidence that if the anaesthetic passed off, the curarized animal
would be unable to move or to show any sign of suffering; there would
be no possibility of a dog whining or moaning; "it could not, under
curare," he frankly admits. Dr. Thane, one of the Government
inspectors of laboratories, gave interesting evidence on this point,
in reply to questions of one of the Commissioners.
"What is the object of giving curare when you are going to give an
anaesthetic?"
"The object of giving curare is to stop all reflex movements...."
"It would stop all struggling, would it not?"
"IT WOULD STOP ALL STRUGGLING."
"That is to say, it would put an end to the usual signs of the animal
not being properly under anaesthesia?"
"That is so."
"And in that case the experimenter has to depend solely, not upon the
attendant, but upon the accuracy of his apparatus? He cannot tell from
looking at the animal, which is perfectly still, whether it is
suffering or not?"
"If his apparatus breaks down, the animal will die of suffocation; it
will not get air."
"Yes, it may die; but so long as it is alive, HE could not say, YOU
could not say, I could not say--if I were present--that the animal was
properly under anaesthesia, IF THERE WERE NO SIGNS BY WHICH YOU CAN
TELL?"
"We could say the animal is respiring air which is charged with
anaesthetic in sufficient quantity to keep it anaesthetized before we
gave it curare."
"That is all you could say?"
"That is all we could say."[1]
[1] Evidence taken November 21, 1906.
And this pious opinion Dr. Thane reiterates to other questioners. It
fails to satisfy except where faith is strong. "The curious thing to
me," said Dr. George Wilson, "is that you or anyone else can say
positively that an animal which cannot, by moving, give any indication
that it is not completely anaesthetized during all this time that it
is under a terribly severe operation does not suffer.... I cannot
understand such a positive statement." And after Dr. Starling had
admitted the impossibility of a dog, under curare, making any cry,
Dr. Wilson rejoins: "THEN HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT IT SUFFERS NO PAIN?
You may hope and believe, but how can you tell that during a prolonged
and terrible experiment, the animal suffers no pain?" The only reply
that the experimenter could give was a reiteration of faith in the
working of the apparatus.
And here, for the present, the problem must be left. Its only answer
is a guess. Yet it should be capable of a definite solution. Every
year, in our great cities, it becomes necessary to put homeless dogs
out of existence in some merciful way. It should be possible, by use
of chloroform, to determine which theory is true. If, under proper
circumstances, a dozen animals were made absolutely unconscious by the
use of chloroform, as insensible as human being are made before a
capital operation, so that the corneal reflex is abolished, could this
degree of unconsciousness be maintained "as long as any experimenter
desired"? Would it even be possible as a rule to keep them alive a
week, yet completely anaesthetized? Or, on the contrary, would such
animals be peculiarly liable to sudden death from the effects of the
chloroform? One cannot doubt the possibility of laboratory anaesthesia
being maintained indefinitely; but how is it with complex and full
surgical anaesthesia? Until such appeal to science shall have been
made in the presence of those who doubt, and are able to judge, the
question cannot be regarded as settled. There are those who will
believe that the older investigators were right; that the perfect
insensibility to pain is not invariably attained in these cases; and
that both in English and American laboratories the most hideous
torments are sometimes inflicted upon man's most faithful servant and
friend. Even Dr. Thane, the Government inspector, admitted that in
making reports the inspector "never could determine which experiments
were painless and which were painful."
The evidence given by experimenters was frequently very curious, and
sometimes suggestive. Professor Starling, for example, testified that
dogs exhibited no fright or fear at entering a vivisection chamber;
there are no signs "that they have ANY IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO
SUFFER," said the physiologist; "that is a great consolation in
dealing with animals, as compared with dealing with a man."[1]
"GOING TO SUFFER" is a somewhat significant admission. He is asked
whether the experimentation of to-day is more or less humanely
conducted than it was before the Act of 1876; and instead of replying
he tells the Commissioners that "there was very little work carried
out before the Act; THERE WERE ONLY ONE OR TWO PHYSIOLOGISTS." Upon
such ignorance of history comment is hardly necessary. We have heard
much concerning a "wonderful discovery" of a Dr. Crile, the giving of
morphia before a surgical operation, in order to quiet the
apprehensions of the patients and so to prevent the occurrence of
shock. Yet as long ago as 1906, Dr. Thane, a member of the Royal
College of Surgeons, testified, upon the authority of a distinguished
scientist, that such use of morphia before administration of
anaesthetics "is often done in surgical operations." The attention of
Sir Victor Horsley was called to the experiments of a Dr. Watson in
America. Had he heard of them?
[1] Minutes of Evidence, Q. 3,885.
"Yes, I know of those experiments," was the reply.
"Were they, in your opinion, valuable experiments?"
"I cannot, at the moment, call to mind whether they revealed any new
conditions. I should have to look them up again."
"Were they justifiable, in your opinion?"
"CERTAINLY," was Sir Victor Horsley's terse reply.
Yet, when the account of these experiments was first published, the
British Medical Journal, in its editorial columns, thus commented upon
them:
"The present pamphlet calls for our strongest reprobation as a record
of the most wanton and stupidest cruelty we have ever seen chronicled
under the guise of scientific experiments.... Apart from the utterly
useless nature of the observations, so far as regards human pathology,
there is a callous indifference shown in the description of the
suffering of the poor brutes which is positively revolting.... WE
TRUST THAT NO ONE, IN THE PROFESSION OR OUT OF IT, will be tempted by
the fancy that these or such-like experiments are scientific or
justifiable."
It will be seen that concerning Watson's most cruel vivisections Sir
Victor Horsley was not in agreement with the British Medical Journal,
the official organ of the Association of which, before the Commission,
he appeared as the representative!
The final report of the Royal Commission occupies a volume. The long
period over which the inquiry extended, the generally apparent desire
to permit every phase of opinion to have a hearing, all tended toward
views which, if not unanimous, at any rate indicated a desire to be
fair. Taken as a whole, the evidence and the final decisions of the
Commission constitute an important contribution to the literature of
animal experimentation which has appeared during the present century.
The conclusions of the Commission are almost, yet not quite,
unanimous. All of the eight members signed the final report, three of
them, however, making their assent subject to a qualifying memorandum
that in certain respects indicated a considerable divergence of
opinion. The following are the conclusions of the Commission, the
words in italics and parentheses being the qualifying additions of one
of their number, Dr. George Wilson.
"Altogether, apart from the moral and ethical questions involved in
the employment of experiments on living animals for scientific
purposes, we are, after full consideration, inclined to think--
"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time have been proved
by experiments upon living animals, and alleged to have been
beneficial in preventing and curing disease, have, upon further
investigation, been found to be fallacious or useless. (INDEED, THE
FALLACIES AND FAILURES ARE, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN
SUCCESSFUL RESULTS.)
"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge has been
acquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of
disease, and that (SOME) methods for the prevention, cure, and
treatment of certain diseases (OTHER THAN BACTERIAL), have resulted
from experimental investigations upon living animals.
"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that,
without experiments made upon animals, mankind would by now have been
in possession of such knowledge.
"4. That in so far as disease has been successfully prevented, or its
mortality reduced, suffering has been diminished in man and the lower
animals.
"5. That there is ground for believing that similar methods of
investigation, if pursued in the future, will be attended with similar
results." (FAILURES PLENTIFUL ENOUGH STILL, BUT SUCCESSFUL RESULTS
FEWER AND FEWER AS THE FIELD OF LEGITIMATE RESEARCH MUST BECOME
GRADUALLY MORE AND MORE RESTRICTED.)
Other conclusions appear to be as follows:
"We strongly hold that limits should be placed to animal suffering in
the search for physiological or pathological knowledge."
How far interference with experimentation should extend appears to
have been a matter of divergent views. Five of the Commissioners took
the following position:
"An Inspector should have the power to order the painless destruction
of any animal which, having been the subject of any experiment, shows
signs of obvious suffering or considerable pain, even though the
object of the experiment may not have been obtained; and
"That in all cases in which, in the opinion of the experimenter, the
animal is suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, it shall be
his duty to cause painless death, even though the object of the
experiment has not been attained."
Three of the Commissioners--Sir William J. Collins, M.D., Dr. George
Wilson, and Colonel Lockwood--do not agree with this clause. They
cannot approve of a rule which leaves to the discretion of the
vivisector the right of keeping alive for an indefinite period, a
suffering creature. They recommend that all observations, "likely to
cause pain and suffering shall be conducted under adequate
anaesthetics, skilfully and humanely administered, or if the nature of
the investigation render this impracticable, then, that on the
supervention of real or obvious suffering the animal shall be
forthwith painlessly killed."
The Commission recommended that, in certain cases, immediate or
special records or reports of results should be furnished by the
experimenter. The three members just named agree with this, but would
have such reports the rule, and not the exception. With this view I
am personally in emphatic accord. Every experiment should have its
complete record, available for publication if so desired.
That part of the final report which in certain respects is more
valuable than all the rest, is the reservation memorandum of
Dr. George Wilson, one of the Commissioners. He is not an anti-
vivisectionist, for he agrees with the unanimous conclusion of his
associates that "experiments upon animals, adequately safeguarded by
laws faithfully administered, are morally justifiable." Regarding the
practice as now carried on, he maintains the only scientific position,
that which more inclines to doubt than to credulity. The assurances
of witnesses, that in certain experimental operations no pain was
inflicted, Dr. Wilson accepts "as opinions to which the greatest
weight should be attached, and not as statements of absolute fact, so
far as specific instances are concerned." That insensibility to pain
is invariably maintained is by no means sure; "however confident
the operator may be that he has abolished all pain, VIVISECTIONAL
ANAESTHESIA, WITH ALL ITS VARIETIES OF AGENTS AND METHODS OF
INDUCTION, CAN NEVER BE DIVESTED OF AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY."
What are we to say of the results, either to science or the art of
healing, which modern vivisection has contributed? It is regarding
this point that Dr. Wilson has brought together a mass of evidence of
unquestionable value, in a field of inquiry peculiarly his own. For
more than thirty years he had been a writer upon topics pertaining to
the Public Health. One by one, in his memorandum, Dr. Wilson has
examined the claims of vivisection regarding the chief forms of
disease which have occupied the attention of experimenters--cancer,
which still maintains its advance in fatality; tuberculosis, which
began to decline in England more than forty years ago, before it was
associated with experimentation; hydrophobia, diphtheria, tetanus,
typhoid fever, snake-poison, sleeping-sickness, and certain animal
ailments of an infectious character. What is his conclusion regarding
all the claims of vastly increased potency of modern medicine over
these powers of darkness and death? That experiments have been utterly
valueless? No; some useful knowledge has been acquired, in certain
directions. "But I still contend, and have endeavored to prove, that
the useful results which have been claimed, or may still be claimed,
HAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY OVER-ESTIMATED." And the final conclusion of this
keen observer and lifelong student of medicine is this: "That
experiments on animals, no matter with what prospective gain to
humanity, are repellant to the ethical sense; and that those who
persistently advocate them as beneficial to human or animal life MUST
JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS BY RESULTS.... Even admitting that experiments on
animals have contributed to the relief of human suffering, such
measure of relief is infinitesimal compared with the pain which has
been inflicted to secure it."
What changes to the existing law of England regarding animal
experimentation, or in the administration of the Act, did this
Commission recommend?
FIRST. AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS. "The inspectors
should be sufficiently numerous and should have at their command ample
time to afford to the public reasonable assurance that the law is
faithfully administered."
SECOND. RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF CURARE. "We are all agreed, that
if its use is to be permitted at all, an inspector, or some person
nominated by the Secretary of State, should be present from the
commencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the
animal is throughout the whole experiment and UNTIL ITS DEATH IN A
STATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."
This is a most remarkable recommendation. Can it imply anything else
than distrust of the experimenter?
THIRD. "STRICTER PROVISIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF PITHING." The
operation must be complete; performed only under an adequate
anaesthetic; and by a licensed person when made on a warm-blooded
animal.
FOURTH. "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS REGULATING THE PAINLESS DESTRUCTION
OF ANIMALS which show signs of suffering after the experiment."
To this recommendation and its suggested amendment by three of the
Commissioners, reference has already been made.
FIFTH. "A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF SELECTING and in the constitution of
the Advisory body to the Secretary of State."
SIXTH. "SPECIAL RECORDS BY EXPERIMENTERS IN CERTAIN CASES." On this
point we have seen that three of the Commissioners went yet farther,
and believed that in ALL cases of painful experiment--and, possibly,
in all cases whatsoever, such reports should be made.
It is now upwards of thirty-five years since the Act regulating the
practice of vivisection in England came into effect. During all that
period, in the United States, the law has never ceased to be an object
of misrepresentation and attack. Before Legislatures and Senate
Committees, on the platform and in the press, by men of good
reputation but associated with laboratory interests, the English law
has been denounced as a hindrance to scientific progress and a warning
against similar legislation in the United States. And yet nothing can
be more evident that all these attacks were based upon ignorance and
misstatement. We find a Royal Commission in England, composed almost
entirely of scientific men, everyone of them favourable to animal
experimentation, devoting years to an inquiry concerning not
vivisection only, but the working of the law by which it is
regulated. And the conclusions reached are in every respect opposed
to the statements made by the laboratory interests here. THEY FULLY
ENDORSE THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE REGULATION, WHICH EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA
IS SO STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED. But this is not all. Every recommendation
made for modification of the Act is in the direction of animal
protection, and toward an increased stringency of the regulations
relating to animal experimentation. In not a single instance was
there recommendation that the regulations should be less stringent;
not an instance in which it was suggested that privileges of the
vivisector should be enlarged. That this should be the result of an
inquiry in this twentieth century, extending over five years, is
remarkable indeed. Perhaps there is no reason for surprise that all
these conclusions of the Royal Commission were never made known to the
American public by the periodicals of the day. Is it possible for
anyone to believe that such conclusions would ever have been attained
if the denunciations of State regulation of vivisection, proceeding
from the American laboratory, had been grounded in truth?