WHAT IS VIVISECTION REFORM?
Every reflecting man must recognize that the settlement of the
vivisection question is a problem that must find its solution at some
period in future rather than to-day. But the duty of the hour remains
the same. Admitting the existence of the wrong, what can we do to
promote reform? What should we ask with the hope that popular judgment
will gradually come to approve? How may we be faithful to that ideal
of justice toward our inferior brethren, which underlies all
humanitarian effort, and lack nothing in fidelity to Science to whose
achievements we reverently look for the amelioration of the human
race? There are those who would oppose the slightest use of animals
for any scientific purpose whatever. There are others who would grant
to the vivisector the secrecy and silence, the complete
irresponsibility and unbounded freedom which he demands as his right.
There are those to whom a middle course seems the only one leading to
ultimate reform. What is the most reasonable attitude toward the
laboratory and its claims possible to an honest and clear-minded
investigator who is anxious to protect all living creatures from cruel
acts, and equally concerned in the conservation of every legitimate
privilege which Science can claim?
Such a man stands, let us say, before some great biological
laboratory, richly endowed, slendidly equipped, and in the present
enjoyment of freedom that is without bounds, and in a secrecy that
to-day is as complete as can be imagined. What can he learn with
certainty of what goes on within? If he hears claims of superlative
gains by the experiments there carried on, how is he to weigh and
decide their value? If there is cruelty behind those barred doors, how
is he to prevent its constant recurrence? What, in short, should be
the reasonable attitude of every intelligent man or woman anxious to
know the truth and to promote reform of abuse?
For many years I have insisted upon the necessity for a certain degree
of scepticism regarding every claim put forth by the laboratory,
unsupported by convincing proofs. We may judge the future by the
past. Has there not been evinced a disposition to exaggerate
achievement, to deny secrecy, to mislead regarding the infliction of
pain? No intelligent person, it seems to me, can study the vidence
carefully, year after year, without reaching this attitude of distrust
and doubt in a great number of instances. This by no means indicates
that every claim of utility is false. A great many statements are
accurate. Some claims will be partly true, but magnified by the
enthusiasm of youth far beyond what devotion to a strict veracity
would require. And some claims may be doubted altogether. It may be
doubted whether any reliabce whatever can be placed upon the
assertions or protesting denials of any profession vivisector now
drawing a large income from the vivisection of animals, whose
interests would possibly be affeted by failure to produce startling
results, or by removal of the secrecy that now enshrouds the
laboratory. The defenders of absolute licence have not told us the
truth on every occasion it has been sought from them, and it must be
gained from other sources and by other means.
It would seem, therefore, that the first step toward reform must be
the creation of a public sentiment, eager, not so much to pass
condemnation as to know the facts. That the laboratory, of its own
accord and initiative, will ever open its doors and give to the world
a complete knowledge of what goes on within its sacred precincts, is
more than we can expect. The doors will open only when public opinion
so demands. The laboratory is perfectly aware of this. With ever
yenergy that such consciousness gives, it will fight to keep
everything that it now hides from the light of day. Take, for
example, the question of vivisection in our institutions of learning.
To what extent is experimentation carried on therein merely to
demonstrate what every student knows in advance? It would appear that
certain lines of experiment are now permitted in such institutions
which hardly more than a generation ago were condemned as cruel by the
medical profession of Great Britain. We ought to inquire why it is
that experiments which scarcely thirty years ago were thus condemned,
are less abhorrent to-day. The removal of secrecy is the first and
most important step toward any true reform.
It is the fashion of certain apologists for vivisection without
control to represent their opponents as guided by sentiment alone.
Perhaps it would be well to quote the opinions of one whose work for
science should absolve him from that imputation.
One of the most illustrious philosphers which America has produced was
Dr. William James, professor of psychology in Harvard University. In
that institution, thirty-five years ago, he was assistant-professor of
physiology, and knew exactly what was done. Harvard made him a
professor of philosophy, and then of psychology; Princeton and Oxford
and Harvard conferred upon him their highest honours. He lectured
both at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh. He
wa s a member of various scienfitic societies in France, in Germany,
in Denmark, and England. If any man was entitled by experience and
study to speak with some authority concerning vivisection, it was
William James of Harvard University.
He knew to what extent the practice of vivisection was carried on.
Calling upon me one day in Cambridge, we compared views, and although
he told me of certain experiments he proposed to make the next day, he
was emphatic in his denunciation of the atrocities which over and over
again were repeated in physiological laboratories throughout the
land. The men who raised their voices against all reform were--he
said--neither candid, nor honest, nor sincere.
Somewhat later, with some knowledge of his views, he was asked to hold
an honorary relation to the Vivisection Reform Society. His reply was
so characteristic of the man that it is here given:
"Dear Sir,
"I am made of too unorganized stuff to be a Vice-President of the
Vivisection Reform Society, and, moreover, I make it a principle not
to let my name appear anywhere where I am not doing practical work.
But I am glad to send you, in answer to your request, a statement of
my views, which you are at liberty to publish if you see fit.
"Much of the talk against vivisection is, in my opinion, as idiotic as
the talk in defence of it is uncandid; but your Society (if I rightly
understand its policy) aims not at abolishing vivisection, but at
regulating it ethically. AGAINST ANY REGULATION WHATEVER I understand
the various medical and scientific defenders of vivisection to
protest. Their invariable contention, implied or expressed, is that
it is no one's business what happens to an animal so long as the
individual who is handling it can plead that to increase Science is
his aim.
"This contention seems to me to flatly contradict the best conscience
of our time. The rights of the helpless--even though they be brutes--
must be protected by those who have superior power. The individual
vivisector must be held responsible to some authority which he fears.
The medical and scientific men, who time and time again have raised
their voices in opposition to all legal projects of regulation, KNOW
AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE does the unspeakable possibilities of
callousness, wantonness, and meanness of human nature, and their
unanimity is the best example I know of the power of club opinion to
quell independence of mind. No well-organized sect or corporation of
men can ever be trusted to be truthful or moral when under fire from
the outside. In this case, THE WATCHWORD IS TO DENY EVERY ALLEGED
FACT STOUTLY; to concede no point of principle, and to stand firmly on
the right of the individual experimenter. His being `scientific'
must, in the eye of the law, be a sufficient guarantee that he can do
no wrong."
It may be questioned whether more serious charges against the
laboratory have ever been made than are contained in these statements
by an expert in vivisection. The man of the world wonders at the
unanimity of scienitfic writers of the day in opposing every step
tending to reform. Professor James tells us it is due to "the power
of club opinion to quell independence of mind." That the professional
vivisectors as a body "CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE TRUTHFUL WHEN
ATTACKED," that they combine "to deny every alleged fact stoutly,"
these are the admissions of an expert experimenter, whose record as a
man of science is surely equal if not superior to that of any
vivisector in America.
Professor James believed that some abuses had been rectified. He
says:
"That less wrong is done now than formerly is, I hope, true. There is
probably a somewhat heightened sense of responsibility. There are,
perhaps, fewer lecture-room repetitions of ancient vivisections,
supposed to help out the professors' dulness with their brilliancy,
and to `demonstrate' what not six of the students are near enough to
see, and what all had better take, as in the end they have to, upon
trust. The waste of animal life is very likely lessened, the thought
for animal pain less shamefaced in the laboratories than it was.
These benefits we certainly owe to the antivivisection agitation,
which ,in the absence of producing actualy State regulation, has
gradually induced some sense of public accountability in
physiologists, and made them regulate their several individual selves.
"But how infinitely more wisely and economically would these results
have come if the physiologists as a body had met public opinion half-
way long ago, agreed that the situation was a genuinely ethical one,
and that their corporate responsibility was involved, and had given up
the preposterous claim that every scientist has an unlimited right to
vivisect, for the amount or mode of which no man, not even a
colleague, can call him to account.[1]
"The fear of State rules and inspectors on the part of the
investigators is, I think, well founded; they would probably mean
either stupid interference or become a sham. But the public demand
for regulation rests on a perfectly sound ethical principle, the
denial of which by the scientists speaks ill for either their moral
sense or their political ability. So long as the physiologists
disclaim corporate responsibility, formulate no code of vivisectional
ethics for laboratories to post up and enforce, appoint no censors,
pass no votes of condemnation or exclusion, propose of themselves no
law, so long must the antivivisectionist agitation, with all its
expensiveness, idiocy, bad temper, untruth, and vexatiousness,
continue, as the only possible means of bringing home to the careless
or callous individual experimenter the fact that the sufferings of HIS
animals are somebody else's business as well as his own, and that
there is `a God in Israel' to whom he owes account.
"WILLIAM JAMES.
"Cambridge, Mass.,
"May 5 (1909)."
[1] "Unnecessary and offensive in the highest degree would it be,
... by legislation of any kind, to attempt to dictate or control how,
and by whom, and for what purposes, and under what conditions and upon
what animals in the laboratories, ... experiments should be made. The
decision in these matters SHOULD BE LEFT WHOLLY TO THOSE IN CHARGE OF
THESE INSTITUTIONS."--From a memorial of Dr. Simon Flexner,
Dr. W. T. Councilman, Dr. H. C. Ernst, and other members of the
Association of American Physicians against Senate Bill regulating
vivisection in the District of Columbia, May 4, 1896.
This is a very strong indictment. If he misunderstood the
antivivisectionists, we must remember that Henry Clay in 1851 could
see nothing good in William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition party.
But James knew precisely what the vivisection of animals meant, for he
had taught physiology, and had been engaged in experimentation for
more than a quarter of a century. When he speaks of the power of
"club opinion to quell independence of mind," he explains a situation
which otherwise might remain obscure. When he asserts that certain
groups "cannot be trusted to be truthful or moral," we have the
explanation of a philosopher who was not given to over-statement.
Do we not find in this letter an outline of what Professor James would
suggest as steps toward vivisection reform? In perfunctory inspection
of laboratories or supervision by State inspectors, he has no
confidence; such inspection would probably degenerate into a sham. A
well-known experimentor once said to the rwiter: "Your inspectors of
laboratories must be either well-educated and competent men, or else
officials of the grade of the average policemen. If the belong to the
first class, do you think they will become detectives and spies? If,
on the other hand, they earn the salary of the average policeman, will
they be intelligent enough to discover abuses, and invariably of such
rectitude that a ten-dollar bill will not induce official blindness?"
It would seem that this objection to State inspection cannot be
lightly considered. For the prevention of cruelty it may be right to
permit certain persons always to have the right to enter any
laboratory whatever without previous notice; the fact that they may
come at any time constitutes the safeguard to a limited degree. But
such men must be persons unpaid by the State, of intelligence
sufficient to comprehend all peculiarities of experimentation, and of
a probity that no bribe can disturb. It would be far better to allow
things to go on as they are than to have cruelty protected by public
confidence in a legal supervision that did not sufficiently supervise
and restrian.
It appears to me, as I have said elsewhere, that first of all public
opinion should be aroused, not so much to condemn all experimentation
upon animals, as to know with certainty the facts about it. Of the
vivisection of animals in England and America carried on in secret,
the general public, even of the more intelligent class, has no more
accurate inforumation than two centuries ago it had of the methods of
the Spanish Inquisition in the dungeons of Madrid or Seville. How did
it happen that an institution so execrated and so universally
condemned to-day, managed for centuries almost unchallenged, to exist?
Precisely as the closed laboratory manges to exist among us, becauseof
the secrecy in which it was surrounded, and the general confidence
which it claimed as its due. Reform canot make headway so long as the
dungeon is dark and the laboratory is locked. The strongest line of
defence is the maintenance of ignorance, even though we have the
curious anomaly, existing nowhere else, of Science covering herself
with darkness and hiding behind ignorance. It was one of the ablest
advocates for vivisection that America has produced, who, in an
address before the American Academy of Medicine, condemned the secrecy
of the physiological laboratory as "a grave and profound mistake,"
adding that "if there be necessary secrecy, there is wrong." No more
significant condemntation of present-day methods has ever been
uttered.
An eminent London physician, Dr. Greville Macdonald, wrote not long
ago in favour of that publicity of vivisection, or rather of that
knowledge of its methods which should precede any attempt at
legislation. The question of interference is one that the State must
decide, though the dangers and advantages of vivisection can only be
arrayed in intelligible order by one who understands the subject. "But
the public, HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE, must decide whether or no the
State shall more willingly sanction cruelty in the secret laboratory
than in the highway.... I most reluctantly admit, it is almost
impossible to get evidence upon such points, and for the reason THAT
THE THINGS WHICH WE FEAR ARE PRACTISED IN SECRET PLACES.
Nevertheless, it is just because of this secrecy that the public have
a right to make trouble. But for John Howard's crusade against the
horrors of the prisons, the public had never known the truth, their
infamies had never been remedied; and the public have now as much
right to question the physiologist's repudiations as they had then to
doubt the denials of the gaolers. The evidence is sufficient to
justify, in my own mind, a large measure of sympathy with the
antivivisectionists, though I am not of them."
What lines of procedure in the direction of reform would Dr. Macdonald
advocate? He admits that "to prohibit vivisection altogether would be
to invite its performance in such secrecy as no system of espionage
could unearth. Legislation can seldom do more than compromise,
because it cannot essay the impossible." He admits that "no Act of
Parliament can eradicate the spirit that makes cruelty possible." But
there are some things that may be done, and upon four points
Dr. Macdonald believes legislation is desireable. "The first is that
vivisection ought to be prohibited for the purposes of teaching,
because it is often misleading and always demoralizing. The second is
that the inspection of the physiological laboratories should be
carried out more systematically and always unexpectedly, and that the
inspectors should largely be increased in number. Thirdly, I would
prohibit all dissections, with or without anaesthetics, upon live
horses and dogs. Fourthly, I would make the administration of curare
for purposes of experiments a criminal act."
One method of obtaining information concering the practice in America
is through a Legislative commission. Guided intelligently, such a
Commission should be able to present in its final report a large
accumulation of important facts. It is evident, however, that if such
disclosures are likely to tell against present methods of research,
the appointment of any such Commission will be strenuously opposed by
everyone connected with the laboratories. The strange thing is that
precisely this opposition has been evinced in the State of New York,
as elsewhere shown. The powers that control prefer the present
darkness, and for the time being have been able to secure it. But
this very opposition is so significant that no effort should be
relaxed to bring every phase of the practice of vivisection into the
light of day.
That altogether too much reliance may be placed upon Government
inspection of laboratories seems unquestionable. If one could be sure
that it would always be conducted by intelligent and educated men,
with due appreciation of scientific aims, yet in thorough sympathy
with humane motives and objects, it would undoubtedly be of use. But
no such reliance can be ours. The experience of England should convey
a lesson in this respect.
Suppose, therefore, that in place of demanding the State inspection of
laboratories, or any present interference with the conduct of the
vivisector, we endeavor first of all to learn the facts through the
experimenters themselves. Of course they will not volunteer any
information that may seem to tell against the practice; we must expect
the laboratory to put forward ever obstacle that might hinder the
facts from becoming public if there is anything wrong to hide. But
unless the claim be soberly put forth--and I am not sure that this may
not be the case--that the vivisector has a right to work in complete
secrecy, and to hide his methods from the world, he cannot complain at
being the reporter of his own activities.
Assuming then, that our object be solely the acquisition of knowledge
without interference until necessity be shown, what can be done by
legislation in America to attain the end desired?
1. THE REGISTRATION OF LABORATORIES.--Every place where experiments
upon animals are to be legally made should be licensed by the State.
It has been suggested that such regulation should recognize the
occasional necessity for experiments upon animals relating to the
transmission of diseases at other places than laboratories, as, for
example, on farms. A liberal recognition of all genuine exceptions
might easily be made; the only object of such regulation is to insure
that all experimentation whatever comes upon the record. So long as
this is accomplished, every exceptional case of such investigation
outside a laboratory may easily be permitted without injury to the
principle involved.
2. REGISTRATION OF EXPERIMENTERS.--Every man who desires to perform
experiments upon animals should be required to obtain a licence from
the State granting such privilege for a definite time. This could
work no injury to science in America, for in England it has been a
rule in force for many years. When one remembers that a physician or
surgeon, even though possessed of the greatest skill, cannot practise
unless licensed by the State, it is difficult to see why a practice so
liable to abuse and crulety should be without this simple recognition
of the experimenter's ability, humaneness, and skill.
3. REPORTS OF EXPERIMENTS.--We are sometimes told that if there is any
secrecy in vivisection, it is only that which scientific men
everywhere demand for scientific work. The dissecting-room has its
enforced privacy; the chemist must have his period of uninterrupted
attention, and to the observatory of the astronomer it is not easy to
obtain admittance at any and all times. Suppose Society to grant the
privacy for a time, asking in return from every registered laboratory
and from every experimenter, the completest reports of all experiments
upon animals. What objection can be raised if there is nothing to
conceal? The Savings Bank, the Insurance Company, even the National
Treasury, are all required to give at regular intervals information
concerning the disposition of funds. Let us place the creatures
liable to vivisection and taken into a laboratory on a plane of equal
importance with bags of silver coin taken into a banking-house. From
greta financial institutions we require detailed information and
reports attested by oath concerning the disposition made of money
taken into its treasury. No cashier would dream of objecting to such
reports; they are the tribute which conscious integrity
unhesitataingly pays to secure public confidence and trust. Now, in
the interests of science--which means always truth demonstrated, not
truth concealed--and in the interests of humanity as well, let us ask
for ever material fact pertaining to the creatures entering a
laboratory for vivisection, whether it be the dog, "stolen, to begin
with" (to use the phrase of the London Lancet), or animals more
legitimately acquired, so long as their lives are to be exploited in
the professed interests of mankind.
In every registered laboratory, therefore, the law should require that
a register be kept concerning every animal of the higher species
brought upon the premises for purposes of experimentation. The
species of every such animal, its sex, colour, condition, and apparent
age; from whom it was acquired and the price paid for it; and to whom
for experimentation it was finally delivered--all these facts should
be a part of the permanent record of every laboratory. It ought not
to be difficult to devise a register, which at the outset would
probably meet the suggested requirements.[1]
[1] See Appendix, pp. 340-343.
One advantage of such a register as this would be the assistance it
would render in all attempts to trace animals which are stolen or
lost, and which find their way to the laboratory. Every animal which
may possibly have been a pet should be kept for redemption for two to
three weeks, and no animal should be purchased unless the purchaser is
able to have a record of the address of the seller. Anyone can
distinguish between a homeless vagabond of the street and an animal
which must have been well treated in a good home, and I believe that
experimentation upon a pet animal under any conditions should be
forbidden by law.
The gain arising from such registration is obvious. It would mark the
entrance within the laboratory of every creature intended for
experimentation of any kind. It makes possible to an extent the
tracing of pet animals, lost or stolen, which now find themselves
devoted to vivisection. The inspection of such a register should be
permitted to any person whatever endeavouring to trace a lost or
stolen pet. A summary should be regularly furnished for publication,
attested by oath, precisely as the cashier of a national bank
periodically attests the accuracy of his reports. Such a report is
but a promulgation of facts which ought to be within the reach of the
public. By no stretch of the imagination can one honestly declare
that such knowledge will constitute an impediment to justifiable
research. Yet no one acquainted with this subject can doubt that
every resource of the laboratory will be brought forward to resist to
the uttermost even the giving of so little information as this.
But we must go beyond this. To trace animals to the door of the
laboratory, and there to drop them, leaves the curtain unlifted; they
enter the darkness, and that darkness must be dispelled. It must be
the privilege of the public to know as completely as possible EXACTLY
WHAT IS DONE AFTER THEY PASS THE DOOR. How is this to be
accomplished? How may we know what is done to the animals thus traced
to the door of every laboratory without being charged with impeding
the legitimate researches of science? For reasons stated, inspection
will not accomplish it. As carried out in England, it certainly has
accomplished but little for the protection of animals. The published
reports of experiments made in that country under one or another
"certificate," are practically of no value whatever except to show the
constant increase of such experiments every year. The plummet must
sink to deeper depths. If Society is to grant to the physiological
laboratory that isolation and freedom from interference which it
craves, THEN SOCIETY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK IN RETURN THE COMPLETEST
DISCLOSURE THAT CAN BE GIVEN OF METHODS AND RESULTS.
It has the right. Unfortunately it cannot persuade or compel. That
is the province of Legislation.
Vivisection, we must always remember, is an exceedingly complex
practice. It is a means of demonstrating well-known facts; it is also
a method of original research. How many animals in any given
laboratory are used in each of these phases of experimentation? No one
can tell us. If the laboratory keeps no account, it is unlikely that
the information could be given by anybody else. A strong impression
exists that "original research" for any object of conceivable utility
to mankind is vastly more infrequent than vivisection for the
repetition--painful or otherwise--of facts perfectly well known. We
need to have the question settled with an accuracy upon which as much
reliance may be placed as upon the oath of the cashier of a bank.
"Every laboratory," said Dr. George M. Guld, in an address before the
American Academy of Medicine, "should publish an annual statement
setting forth plainly the number and kind of experiments, the objects
aimed at, and, most definitely, the methods of conducting them." This
wise suggestion, however, bore no fruit. No such "annual statemnet"
has ever been issued by any American laboratory, so far as I am
aware. Even if thus issued it would not go far enough. Such reports
should be attested under oath by each individual experimenter, exactly
as the officers of a bank are required by law to make reports
regarding its financial standing. Every experimenter should therefore
be required to state what he has done during the three preceding
months; to give the number of animals of each species which have been
delivered to him, the object of each experiment, and the cases in
which curare was employed. Especially should a careful distinction be
drawn between original investigations made in private and experiments
made before students or by students themselves, solely for the
illustration of well-known facts. An outline of a report that would
cover these facts will be found in the appendix.
And yet this is hardly enough. It is not sufficient to have the
results of individual experience; we should have a summary of all
experimental work made upon the higher animals in each laboratory
given us by the responsible head of that institution. An outline of a
report that would give us the information desired is not difficult to
devise.[1]
[1] See Appendix.
There is little doubt but that violent objection will be made to any
such reports. But in the opinion of very many persons the truth about
a vivisection laboratory is quite as desirable as the truth about a
country bank. Verification in either case implies the same. It would
mean that the statement was not made carelessly, but with a due
appreciation of the solemnity of an oath. Any gross misstatement on
the part of a bank cashier would almost certainly subject him to a
rigid examination, and to the penalty of dismissal. It should be the
same with a laboratory. If gross missatements should be made with
apparent design to hide something that should have been made known, it
seems to me that those who thus offend should have their licences
suspended or revoked. We cannot forget that Society is here dealing
with a peculiar institution, where secrecy is regarded as a virtue.
If one could imagine a bank or an insurance company, where every
official or employee, from the president down to the scrub-woman, was
seeking in every way to keep its affairs hidden from the general
public, we should in one respect have the counterpart of the
physiological laboratory of to-day.
On the other hand, when the law asks for the truth, whether it be of a
bank or a laboratory, under penalties for concealment that cannot be
easily disregarded, we may be very certain that in the vast majorty of
instances compliance will be accorded to its demands. Instances of
attempted concealment will, of course, occur; the cashier who has
speculated with the funds of the bank will endeavour to conceal his
crime, and the vivisector who has carried his private experiments or
his demonstrations before students to cruel and unwarrantable lengths
will seek by all possible means to prevent revelation of his
transgression. In both cases there will be occasional success. But
as regards vivisection, it cannot be questioned that whenever in
future the law makes a demand for such reports as are here outlined, a
vast amount of information, now carefully concealed from the
possibility of public judgment, will become known. We shall obtain
it, too, withut crossing the threshold of a single laboratory, without
hindering in any way whatever the least important investigation of a
single scientific inquirer.
Ought we not to go beyond this and require reports to state the facts
regarding anaesthetics? Eventually such information should undoubtedly
be required. So far as the immediate present is concerned, it would
seem perhaps the wiser course not to complicate the inquiry in this
way. There are vivisectors who would declare that "anaesthetics are
always used" when ether or chloroform has been given in quantity and
in time absolutely insufficient to secure for the vivisected animal
immunity from pain. Sometimes we shall ask how many animals and of
what species are subjected to mutilations and observations that last
for days and weeks, and how many, if any, have had "nerves torn out by
the roots," as one American physiologist connected with a medical
school tells us he has repeatedly done. Into the thousand and one
phases of experimentation Society must one day make inquiry. But may
it not be best to wait till some knowledge of the leading facts are
secured? A report regarding anaesthesia might be utterly useless,
except to keep hidden the very facts we wish to know. What some of
these facts are may be indicated hereafter, but it would seem best not
to include them in any present demand.
What may we conceive will be the attitude of the laboratory interests
toward any attempt to secure information concerning the practice, not
by State inspection, but by and through reports made by themselves? If
the popular conceoption of physiological investigation were true,
should we not be sure of the hearty approval of all physiologists
regarding any measure so calculated to remove misunderstanding and
distrust? Here would be the wished-for opportunity to demonstrate the
vast importance of the problems pursued, and the wonderful results
attained compared with the small cost of animal life, the humane and
ever-present solicitude of the experimenter, the immunity from
suffering. Here, too, we should have that "organized, systematic, and
absolute frankness" in regard to the practice of vivisection, for
which one of its greatest American defenders once appealed. But, on
the other hand, suppose that the laboratory in England and America
dare not permit the whole truth to be known? Suppose that it would not
willingly permit the general public to know even the number of animals
which are now sacrificed in the demonstration of well-known facts?
Then assuredly the laboratory interests will unite to prevent any
legislation that could tend to destroy the secrecy that now exists, or
to bring the facts of vivisection to the light of day. Which
hypothesis is the true one, some day will reveal. We shall then
discover whether the laboratory will yield to a demand for publicity,
or whether, contending for continued secrecy, faithless to Science, it
will resist every attempt to make known the whole truth, and cling to
the ideals and traditions of the Spanish Inquisition of three hundred
years ago.