THE FUTURE OF VIVISECTION[1]
[1] Address delivered at Washington, D.C., before the International
Humane Congress, December 10, 1913.
Attempts to forecast the future development of Humanity in any
direction have always possessed for some minds a peculiar
fascination. Plato and Bacon had their visions of a State superior to
that in which they lived; Burton foresaw improvements in the
administration of justice, and the condition of the poorer classes,
which waited for two centuries for some measure of realization; even
Defoe had his list of "projects," some of which, laughed at in their
day, are the realities of our time. No great reform in any direction
was ever effected which had not been the unrealized vision of a
dreamer.
And such dreams are the romance of history. For any one to have
imagined two centuries ago, that the African slave-trade and negro
slavery would some day be condemned by every civilized nation, not
because they were pecuniarily unprofitable, but because they
contravened the conscience of Society and its sense of righteousness,
requierd a faith in the ultimate triumph of justice over greed, that
not one man in ten thousand possessed. For Calvin or Torquemada to
have imagined the coming of a time when the burning of an unbeliever
would not be regarded as pleasing to the Deity, demanded a sublimer
vision than either of them possessed. Custom and universal acceptance
would sometimes seem to create impregnable barriers against change.
But with the slow lapse of years, the venerated custom is attacked by
doubt; the superstition is undermined, and the great evil gradually
passes from the sight. No great wrong is so securely entrenched, as
to be absolutely safe from the ultimate condemnation of mankind.
What is to be the future of vivisection, as conducted in America to-
day? Is it to continue, without other limitations against cruelty than
those which are self-imposed, without legal restriction or restraint,
so long as civilization endures, ever widening its scope, ever
increasing the hecatombs of its victims, until uncounted milions shall
have been sacrificed? Is protest against excess to grow weaker, until
the ideal of humaneness in the laboratory shall become a scoff and a
byword? Is approval of any research in the name of Science to become
stronger until it shall cover the vivisection of human beings as well
as the exploitation of animals? Or are we to expect, as the result of
agitation, the legal suppression of all scientific research requiring
animal life, within the limits of the next half-century? It is easier
to ask questions than to answer them. Yet, as one who for over thirty
years, has taken some part in the agitation for reform, you may be
willing to permit a forecast of probabilities, vague, it may be, as
the vision of a sailor peering through the darkness that environs the
ship,--but the best he can do.
No estimate of the future of vivisection in America can be of value
which does not recognize the power of the laboratory at the present
day. Half a century ago, the vivisection of animals was rarely
practised; to-day, in the older states, there are few institutions of
higher learning which do not possess ample facilities for animal
experimentation. Millionaires, many times over, have been induced to
devote some part of their great wealth to the foundation and support
of institutions for exsperimentation upon living things. Farms have
been established where animals destined to sacrifice, are born and
bred. It may safely be estimated that in America, to-day, there are
not less than five hundred times as many experiments every year, as
took place half a century ago.
One must recognize, too, the change which has taken place in the
attitude of a majority of the medical profession towards this reform.
During the past thirty years, thousands of young men have entered the
profession, who have been carefully educated to regard all criticism
of animal experimentation as due to a sentimentalism worthy only of
contempt. I greatly doubt whether even one per cent. of the
physicians in America, under fifty years of age, have ever heard that
half a century ago, the feeling of the medical profession, in the
English-speaking world was almost unanimous in disapproval and
condemnation of methods and of experiments which now pass without
notice, and uncondemned. When men, educated to come into the closest
of relations with their fellow-beings, are thus prejudiced and
uninformed, should we wonder that their views are so widely accepted?
The wonder to me is rather that so large a minority are not to be
convinced that everything in a laboratory must be right.
Another element of the forces that to-day are marshalled against
reform, is the Press. Political journals, which even twenty-five
years ago endeavoured to hold an attitude of impartiality, now present
editorials almost every week in ridicule of any legal regulation of
vivisection, or of any opposition to laboratory freedom. The intimate
knowledge of medical matters sometimes exhibited by the writers, would
seem to indicate a closer relation between the physiological
laboratory of to-day, and the editorial sanctum, than existed forty
years ago. There are journals, so closely related, apparently, to
laboratory interests, that they do not permit correction of editorial
misstatements or mistake to appear in their columns, even when such
blunders are pointed out. The old impartial attitude of the Press
seems--except here and there--to have completely disappeared. Any
forecast of the future must take into account this vast and ever-
increasing influence.
Yet another impediment to the legal repression of any cruelty
pertaining to animal experimentation is one which we all deplore, even
though no remedy appears in sight. It is not the opposition of
enemies, but division among friends that constitutes, in my opinion,
the greatest present obstacle to any reform. It is as though against
some strong fortress, different armies were engaging in an attack,
each with its separate purpose, its own plan of campaign, its own
ultimate aim, and now and then crossing and recrossing in each other's
way, to the infinite delight of the enemy. Some of us make the demand
that ALL such inquiry on the part of Science shall be made a crime;
and some of us take the position of the English-speaking medical
profession of forty years ago, that ABUSES AND CRUELTY ALONE should be
the object of attack. If opposition from the first, had been solely
directed against ABUSES of vivisection, could any reform have been
achieved? It is not certain. When Mr. Rockefeller opened his purse on
the vivisection table, he added immeasurably to the strength of the
forces that resist reform. And yet it is difficult to over-estimate
the loss to any cause of such men as Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, as
Professor William James and Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard
University, or of Dr. Theophilus Parvin of Jefferson Medical
College,--to refer only to the dead. Their criticisms of cruelty were
outspoken, but they could not join in universal condemnation of all
such inquiry into the phenomena of life. Might it not have been
better--even at the cost of a lessened demand--to have kept on the
side of reform that large element in the medical profession which
willingly condemned abuse, but declined to denounce the simplest
demonstration, or the most painless investigation? Of course such an
inquiry will receive different replies. It is ever the easier task to
make condemnation absolute. The thing has been done; the past is
beyond recall. But in looking at the future, we cannot but recognize
the changed attitude of a majority of the medical profession from that
of half a century ago.
The strongest position of the modern physiological laboratory, is its
SECRECY. It occupies in the popular mind almost precisely the place
which was held for centuries by the Inquisition in Spain. There were
men who doubtless objected, then, to the secrecy of the dungeon.
"Trust us absolutely," cried the inquisitor. "Ours is the
responsibility of preventing errors that lead to eternal death. Can
you not leave it to us to decide what shall be done in the torture-
chamber, being assured that NO MORE PAIN WILL BE INFLICTED THAN IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE END IN VIEW?" "Trust us absolutely,"
demands the vivisector of to-day. "Can you dare to question the purity
of our motives, the unselfishness of our aims, the mild and humane
methods of our experimentation? Why should any one wish to disturb the
silence and secrecy in which we carry on our work? Cannot the public
leave it solely to us to determine what pain may be inflicted upon
animals, being certain that no more suffering will be caused than we
deem to be necessary for success?"
The parallelism is complete. It is a call for implicit confidence.
And that confidence has been given by a too credulous public. Three
hundred years ago, when the victims were marched in long procession
from dungeon to burning-place, they were accompanied by an approving
mob, eager to inflict every indignity and to applaud every pang. The
men about the burning-place were not intentionally cruel. They had
simply given the control of their judgment to the inquisitor. Is it
so very different, to-day, in the matter of vivisection? Why should we
hesitate to recognize that at the present time, a large section of the
general public have made the same act of surrender, justifying
whatever the laboratory demands, and defending whatever it defends?
It seems to me probable, therefore, that for many years to come, the
laboratory for vivisection, IF ONLY IT CAN MAINTAIN ITS SECRECY, will
continue as serenely indifferent to criticsm, as completely master of
the confidence of modern society, as supreme in power and position as
was the Spanish Inquisition of three centuries ago. New laboratories
will be founded upon ill-gotten wealth; new inquisitors, with salaries
greater than those of Washington or Lincoln will take the places of
those that retire; new theories, now unimagined, will demand their
tribute of victims to help prove or disprove some useless hypothesis;
even new methods of torment may be invented, and new excuses for their
necessity put forth. Nor is this all. If the laboratory of the
present day shall continue to maintain its hold upon the intelligence
of modern society; if it can keep unimpaired that confidence in its
benevolent purpose, that belief in accomplishment, that faith in
utility which now so largely obtains; and if, moreover, it can secure
for the charity hospital that absolute power and secrecy which it has
gained for itself in animal experimentation, then, within the lifetime
of men now living, human beings will take their place as "material"
for investigation of human ailments. Upon the living bodies of
Amerian soldiers, upon lunatics in asylums and babes in institutions
and patients in charity hospitals, experiments of this character have
already taken place. Is utility to Science to be considered the
standard by which human actions are to be judged? Then, even within
the present century, experimentation upon human beings may be openly
acknowledged as a defensible method of investigation.
Now all this is not a cry of despair, a confession of defeat. It is
meant only to be rational recognition of existing conditions, and
especially of the forces that now prevent reform. Perhaps if the
armies were united, a different forecast could be made; but that union
is beyond hope. The enthusiasm that would expect to eliminate a great
evil on other terms, and within the space of time occupied by a single
generation does not seem to me to be justified by the records of
history. Of the ultimate triumph of the reform of vivisection, there
can be no more question than of the result of the agitation against
human slavery, against the torment of criminals, against the burning
of the heretic or the witch. In what way may we anticipate its
coming?
We may be certain that a period will yet arrive, when among the more
intelligent classes of society, doubts concerning the practical
utility of all that is done in the name of Science will take the place
of present-day credulity. It is too soon to expect a general spirit
of inquiry to arise; the closed laboratory has not been so long in
existence but that a request for more time to demonstrate possibility
of accomplishment may seem not unreasonable. But some time in the
future, long after we have all passed away, the intellectual world may
be moved by the spirit of doubt and unrest; it will ask from the
laboratory a statement of account; it will demand that the books be
balanced; and that against the cost of agony and death, there be made
known whatever gains in way of discoveries of clearly demonstrated
value to humanity, can be proven to exist.
Like the servant in the parable, the modern laboratory has been given
its ten talents. It enjoys a secrecy which is profound, all that
wealth can procure, and unrestricted opportunity for ever phase of
research. There is no limitation to the torments which it may
inflict, without impediment or fear of public criticism, if present
secrecy can be maintained. The conscience of modern society--so far
as vivisection is concerned,--would seem to have "journeyed into a far
country." But some day it may return to its own, and ask for an
accounting of its trust.
And fifty years hence, if pressed for the proof of great achievement,
of grand discoveries, what evidence will then be produced by the
vivisection laboratory? How much of wealth will have been devoted to
fruitless explorations in desert regions? What vast fortunes will have
been paid out to professional explorers, whose work will have been in
vain? What proofs will the laboratory then be able to adduce of
"priceless discoveries" made within its walls, proofs resting not upon
the heated enthusiasm of the experimenter, but demonstrated by
statistical evidence of a decreased mortaility from the scourges of
disease? THAT is the test of utility, which may one day be applied not
merely to Mr. Rockefeller's creation, but to every laboratory in
England and America. Then, perhaps, it may not suffice to set forth
discoveries, as useless to mankind, as would be the demosntration of
gold and silver in the moon. Before the tribunal of an intelligent
public opinion,--not of our day, but of some distant epoch, the
justification of secret vivisection will assuredly be demanded. Will
it be given? Against the vast cost in money, cost in depravation of
the instinct of compassion, cost in the lessened sensitiveness of
young men and young women to the infliction of torment, cost in the
seeming necessity of defending and justifying cruelty, cost in the
temptation to exaggerate facts, cost in the countless hecatombs of
victims, non-existent to-day, yet doomed to perish in pain of which no
record and no use can be found,--against all this, what profit will be
adduced? Something? Undoubtedly. BUT SUFFICIENT TO BALANCE THE COST?
When that accounting is made, will the enlightened conscience of
humanity then grant condonation, because of great achievement, of all
that will have been done in the name of research, and of demonstration
of well-known facts? I cannot imagine it.
What can we venture to forecast regarding the future of medical school
vivisections, made for the one purpose of fixing facts in memory? No
one qualified by any experience in teaching can doubt the value of
certain demonstrations. So far as they are performed upon animals
made absolutely unconscious to any senstation of pain, it is difficult
to suggest a condemnation that does not equally apply to the killing
of animals for food or raiment. But the medical school laboratory
seems to shrink from the public scrutiny. If there were no need for
secrecy, is it likely that every attempt to penetrate the seclusion of
the laboratory would be so strenuously opposed? OF WHAT IS THE
LABORATORY AFRAID? If the present methods of demonstration or teaching
of physiology are such as would meet general approval so far as their
painlessness is concerned, why fear to make them known? On the other
hand, if animals are subjected to prolonged and extreme torment for the
illustration of well-known and accepted facts; if students not only
witness, but are sometimes required to perform for themselves
experiments as agonizing and as useless as any that ever disgraced the
torture-chambers of Magendie, we can well understand why immunity from
criticism can only be secured by concealment and secrecy. Opposition
to publicity or to investigation by the Government is quite
conceivable, if there be something which must be hidden out of sight.
In the long-run, the policy of concealment must fail, and the whole
truth be known. Then, indeed, we may hope for the beginning of
reform. That fifty or a hundred years hence, all utilization of
animals, whether for food or raiment or scientific ends will have
absolutely ceased in England and America I am not able to believe.
But I am very sure that before this century closes, the subjection of
animals to pain for the demonstration of well-known facts will have
come to an end; that agonizing experiments will have ceased; that
every laboratory wherein animals are ever used for experimental
purposes will be open to inspection "from cellar to garret," as
Professor Bigelow of Harvard Medical School said they should be; and
that except as a shield for crime, the secrecy which now enshrouds the
practice will for ever have disappeared.
We are living to-day in a period of unrest and change, such as the
world has never known before. A new social consciousness has awakened
throughout the civilized world, a feeling that for those who are to
come after us, life should be happier and better than it is. Humanity
is advancing toward its ideals by leaps and bounds, where once it
slowly crept. Every social problem, from the prevention of cruelty,
the suppression of vice, the rescue of the submerged, to the abolition
of poverty itself, is to-day more in the thought of humanity than ever
before in the history of the world. We are but just beginning to
learn our duties to human beings of other races; may we not be assured
that the more sensitive conscience of the future will define with
authority, our duties to the humbler sharers of this mysterious gift
of life? Already, Science has told us, that far in the past, we had
the same origin; and surely, when some higher ideal than utility to
ourselves, shall dominate human conduct, there will be a new
conception of JUSTICE toward every sentient being. It may mean
extinction of species; but it will notmean their torment. You and I
cannot hope for life long enough to see the realization of that
dream. And yet, sometimes I have wondered whether it be so far
distant as I have feared. But a little while ago, who of us could
have imagined that in our day, the Government of the United States
would listen to the cries of little birds, starving on their nests in
the swamps of Florida, and prohibit the importation of the egret
plumes? How much of hopefulness for the final triumph of th
eprinciples of humaneness lies in the passage of such a law!
I fancy that one day, all noxious animals, and especially those which
prery upon other creatures, will largely, if not entirely, disappear.
It is calculated that ever grown lion in South Africa kills for food,
every year, between 200 and 300 harmless animals, and each one of
which is as much entitled as the lion to the happiness of existence.
In great museums to-day, we see the remains of creatures, like the
sabre-toothed tiger, that lived probably, over a million years ago.
In a century or two, hence, the skeletons of the panther, the tiger,
the leopard and the lion, will be found in the same halls of science,
with those of other extinct species, that could exist only at the
expense of others' lives.
Some day the question of vivisection will be merged in the larger
problem, the adjustment of man's relations to animals on the basis of
JUSTICE. We who are assembled here to-day, certainly are not
forgetful of other cruelties than those which pertain to animal
experimentation. In the awful torment endured for days by animals
caught in steel traps in order that their death may contribute to the
adornment of women and the luxury of men; in the killing of seals,
accompanied by the starvation of their young; in the great variety of
blood-sports; in the slaughter of animals, destined for human food, in
all these, as well as in the cruelties that have pertained to
physiological inquiries, we see exemplified man's present indifference
to the highest ethical ideals. We do not oppose one phase of cruelty;
WE OPPOSE THEM ALL. And we may be assured, that when the day dawns in
which humanity shall seek to govern conduct by the ideal of universal
justice, then in some more blessed age than ours, the evils of
vivisection not only, but all phases of cruelty and injustice will for
ever cease.