CHAPTER XIX

CONCLUSION

In the preceding pages, the attempt has been made to throw light here

and there, upon a great and perplexing problem. It has been seen that

concerning the past history of experimentation upon living beings,

much ignorance still exists; that too implicit and unquestioning trust

in the statements of those favourable to unlimited experimentation

has, unfortunately, not always conduced to the attainment of truth;

that misstatements tinged with inaccuracy have too frequently found

acceptance; and that growing out of the unrestricted use of animals in

scientific inquiry, the extension of the method, by the use of human

material, in certain hospitals has become an accepted procedure.

It is, indeed, an ethical problem, that confronts society, to-day. It

would be no less a problem, if every claim of utility made in behalf

of human and animal experimentation were proven beyond the possibility

of a doubt. Even then, the ethical question would persist. The

ultimate decision regarding it remains the personal duty of every man.

Attention has been called, in the preceding pages, to many statements,

which a close examination would seem to prove to be misleading and

inaccurate. But every discerning reader should recognize that

inaccuracy or untruth does not imply the moral obliquity that pertains

to intentional falsehood. An experimenter, for example, makes an

assertion regarding the absolute painlessness of his vivisections.

Such statement may be demonstrated, let us say, to be exceedingly

doubtful, if not quite untrue. That is as far as legitimate criticism

can easily go. It is quite impossible to demonstrate a conscious

intent to deceive. To interpret motives, to impute falsehood is to go

beyond facts into regions where facts are not to be found, except in

exceedingly exceptional cases. One of thet Royal Commissioners

expressed this position very clearly. "While I feel bound," wrote

Dr. George Wilson, "to accept the assurances of all the expert

witnesses who appeared before us, as assurances of their honest

conviction that vivisectional or cutting experiments can be, and are

carried out without the infliction of pain from the moment the first

wound is made, ... I can only accept them AS OPINIONS, to which the

greatest weight should be attached, AND NOT AS STATEMENTS OF ABSOLUTE

FACT so far as specific instances are concerned." This is exactly the

attitude for any critic of vivisection to take. A distinguished

physician, testifying before the Commissioners, declared that it was

entirely possible to keep a dog in a state of anaesthesia for a week,

if necessary. Experimentation in this direction, in all probability

would prove the assertion to be untrue, but although such

demonstration would be proof of inaccuracy and carelessness, it could

not justify, in any way, the charge of dishonourable motives. In no

instance, therefore, in the illustrations of inaccuracy given in the

preceding pages, is there any imputation of perverse and intentional

inveracity.

I have made sufficiently clear, I hope, my disagreement with the views

of the extreme antivivisection party concerning all phases of

biological experimentation. The weakest point in the antivivisection

position has always seemed to me the condemnation of every kind of

experimentation on animals, however painless. Yet how is it possible

to expect public agreement with this position in every case? A few

weeks ago, it was announced in the public press, that in one of the

departments of Columbia University in New York, a series of

experiments were being made to determine, if possible, the comparative

food value of two articles in general use. If, for instance, a

certain number of mice were fed from day to day upon pure butter, and

an equal number upon the artificial product known as "oleo-margarine,"

would there be any perceptible difference in growth and general

condition, and, if so, in favour of which group? This is an experiment

upon animals; but it is one against which it would be difficult to

bring forward any objection which the general public would very

eagerly endorse. Distinctions must be made, between that which is

cruel and that which is humane. "AGAINST PERFECTLY PAINLESS

EXPERIMENT," said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, "carried out for

purely experimental and great objects by men who themselves regret the

necessity or expediency, and who only act under a strict sense of

duty, no reasonable mind can raise an objection."

On the other hand, let me reiterate acknowledgment of the vast

indebtedness which the cause of humaneness owes to the opponents of

all vivisection. Always and everywhere, the extremist helps in the

progress of reform. But for a few hated and despised abolitionists,

negro slavery might still be a recognized American institution; it was

not Henry Clay or Daniel Webster who did most to hasten its downfall.

That antivivisectionists have made mistakes, perhaps their most ardent

advocate would be willing to concede. On the other hand, how great

has been their service! But for extremists such as Frances Power Cobb

of England and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps-Ward of America and a host of

others whose hearts were aflame with indignation at cruelty and at the

seeming duplicity which denied its existence, the whole question would

have sunk into the abeyance in which in France or Germany, it to-day

exists. They kept it alive. And what have not the antivivisectionists

suffered by detraction, by ridicule, by misrepresentation and personal

abuse! The most eloquent woman to whom I have ever listened, English

only by adoption, faced without flinching some of the most skilled

vivisectors and controversialists of Great Britain, who endeavoured in

vain to weaken the force of her testimony; and the examination of Miss

Lind-ap-Hageby by certain of the vivisecting members of the Royal

Commission seems to me a more brilliant instance of the presentation

of ideals under adverse circumstances than is afforded by any similar

examination of man or woman in modern times. Personal disagreement

with universal condemnation of all vital experimentation has been

sufficiently stated; but one view of the antivivisectionists applies

equally to the prohibition of painful experiments. "I believe," said

Miss Lind, "that the abolution of vivisection will be accompanied by

great changes and great developments in the whole science of medicine;

that new methods of healing will come in, and higher methods, as we

know that the coarser medication and the coarser drugging are going

out of fashion."[1] The same view was expressed by Dr. Kenealy,

another witness, regarding the prohibition of all animal

experimentation. "I think it would give the finest possible impulse to

medical science; that we are surrounded by all these problems of

disease and degeneration and suffering in human kind; and that if we

were to devote our attention to man, and to all the valuable human

material surrounding us, instead of wasting valuable time and talent

on dogs and guinea-pigs, we should make rapid and immense advance in

the relief of human suffering."[2] Somewhat the same sentiment has

been expressed by others not opposed to animal experimentation. "It

may be admitted," said Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, whose scientific

zeal, no one can question, "that whether painful experimentation be

useful or useless, it has had one indifferent effect; it has diverted

the minds of men too strongly from methods of research that not only

lie open to the curious mind, but which lie temptingly open." And

speaking of medical treatment for disease, he says: "Treatment at this

time is a perfect Babel.... Two men scarcely ever write the same

prescription for the same disease or the same symptom. I have watched

the art of prescribing for fifty years, and I am quite sure that

divergence of treatment is at this moment far greater than it ever was

in the course of that long period. The multiplication of remedies,

begotten of experiment, is the chief reason of so much disagreement...

... The modern student has before him a new duty. The experiment of

experiment that lies before him therapeutically, is to learn what

diseases will recover by mere attention to external conditions without

any medicines, and what will not."[3]

[1] Evidence before Royal Commission, Q. 7,627

[2] Ibid., Q. 6,776

[3] "Biological Experimentation," by Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson,

F.R.S. Pp. 73, 109.

The unpleasant accompaniment of all criticism is misunderstanding. A

protest, a remonstrance of any kind can gain a hearing only after it

has been repeated again and again, and even then it is quite as liable

as otherwise to be wholly misconstrued. It has been with very great

regret that for many years, I have found myself in disagreement with

so large a number of medical writers, who have left behind them the

conservatism of earlier opinions in the English-speaking world, to

follow the newer lights of Continental freedom and irresponsibility.

The regret is the more poignant, because, speaking from the vantage of

seventy years, I believe that the highest realization of human hopes

for the welfare of our race, must come through medical science. It

is, however, to preventive medicine that the world must learn to look,

not to the conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums. There are

ailments, which every year in England and America are responsible for

thousands of preventable deaths. That fifty years hence, these

scourges of humanity will be curable by the administration of any

remedy, to be hereafter discovered by experimentation on animals,--in

the Rockefeller Institute, for instance,--I have not the slightest

faith. It is not through the torment of living creatures, not through

the limitless sacrifice of laboratory victims, not through the

utilization of babes as "material" for research, that medical science

will yet achieve for humanity its greatest boon,--the prevention of

disease. I venture with confidence, to make that forecast of the

future, leaving recognition of its truth to those who shall come after

us, when all now living shall have passed away.

APPENDIXES

SECOND EDITION

--------

APPENDIX I

"ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND MEDICAL

PROGRESS"--A REVIEW

By a curious coincidence, two books relating to vivisection were

published in America at almost the same time. One, under the above

title, was a collection of essays and contributions to various

periodicals from the pen of Dr. William W. Keen, which have appeared

during the past thirty years. The other was the first edition of the

present work.

The volume to which the reader's attention is called is chiefly an

exposition of the author's views on the scientific value of biological

experimentation. With some of his conclusions, there will be little

or no dispute among members of the medical profession. But in

defending the moethods of physiological experiment, has he been

scrupulously accurate and uniformly fair? Is there to be discerned any

tendency to exaggeration, to over-statement or to suppression of vital

facts? Eager as he is to charge inaccuracy upon others, has he been

always accurate himself? Has any authority cited been "garbled," so

that quotation conveys an impression inconsistent with the general

tenor of a writer's views? What cruelties of past experimentation has

this author emphatically condemned? What experimenters upon human kind

has he held up to the reprobation of the public? In the entire volume,

can one find a single instance wherein a cruel experiment has been

censured, or a cruel experimenter been condemned by name? Except in a

volume, it would be impossible to indicate all points to which

attention should be given; it must suffice here, to direct attention

only to a few.

I.

A personal criticism of the writer by Dr. Keen makes necessary a

record of the facts. Referring to a certain experiment of a German

vivisector, Goltz, Dr. Keen says:

"In 1901 Professor Bowditch called Dr. Leffingwell's attention to the

fact that no such operation was ever done. In Dr. Leffingwell's

collected essays, entitled "The Vivisection Question," on p. 169 of

the second revised edition (1907), there is, in a footnote a

correction admitting that no such operation was ever done(!), but on

p. 67 of the same edition, A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION still

remains uncorrected, six years after Bowditch's letter had been

received and the misstatement acknowledged."[1]

[1] Keen's "Animal Experimentation," p. 271.

Truth and untruth are sadly intermingled in this paragraph. Let us

attempt to disentangle them.

On March 7, 1901, while the collection of essays, known as "The

Vivisection Question" was in the printer's hands and on the eve of

publication, a note was received from Professor Bowditch of Harvard

Medical School, courteously asking the authority for one particular

procedure in the long account of the Goltz experiment--the ablation of

the breast. In reply to Professor Bowditch, the name of Dr. Edward

Berdoe of London was given as the authority upon which the author of

"The Vivisection Question" had confidently relied. A letter was at

once sent to Dr. Berdoe--a well-known English physician--telling him

that one procedure mentioned in the description of the Goltz

experiment had been questioned, and asking him for an immediate and

careful study of the case. Dr. Berdoe's investigation made it evident

that a mistake had been made by the translator upon whose accuracy he

had relied; and in the next edition of "The Vivisection Question" at

p. 169--(the only page to which Dr. Bowditch had invited attention)--

an acknowledgment was inserted. That it had even the briefest

reference elsewhere, was not recalled by the author of the book, for

he had not seen it for years.

Nor was this all. To the London Zoophilist and to the Journal of

Zoophily in this country, a communication was at once sent. In the

latter periodical, the following letter appeared in its issue for

July, 1901:

To the Editor of the Journal of Zoophily

MADAM,--A German vivisector, Dr. Goltz of Strasburg, reporting certain

experiments he had made upon a dog, declared that it was "marvellous

and astonishing" to find maternal instinct manifested after various

severe mutilations. One of these operations was reported to have been

excision of the breasts, so that it could no longer nurse its young,

and to this phase of the experiment I have referred in some of my

writings.

Recently, Dr. Bowditch of Harvard University has called my attention

to this particular mutlation, questioning its occurrence; and on

referring the matter ot Dr. Berdoe of London, who was my authority, he

finds, after a most painstaking and careful examination at the College

of Surgeons, that a mistake in comprehending a phrase was actually

made by the translator, upon whose accuracy and acquaintance with the

German language dependence seemed secure.

All the details of this Goltz experiment are too horrible to quote;

this is not a case where a single experiment has been magnified into a

great cruelty; the truth itself is bad enough.[1] It is a fact,

however, that one particular mutilation ascribed to Goltz--the

ablation of the breasts--did not in this instance occur.

It has always seemed to me of the utmost importance that in all

criticism of vivisection our facts should be absolutely reliable, and

that whenever inaccuracies occur, they should be corrected. All that

we want is the truth, without concealment of abuse on the one hand, or

misstatement on the other. In this case, I am especially glad to make

correction. For many years I have been acquainted with the writings

of Dr. Berdoe, and I have never found therein the slightest

overstatement or exaggeration of any kind. In the twenty-one years I

have written in advocacy of some measure of reform in regard to

vivisection, this, too, IS THE FIRST INSTANCE IN WHICH AN INACCURACY

OF ANY STATEMENT OF MINE REGARDING ANY EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN POINTED

OUT.

ALBERT LEFFINGWELL.

BROOKLYN,

May 31, 1901.

[1] No advocate of unrestricted experimentation, so far as known, has

ever dared to print the full details of this Goltz experiment.

In the only essay to which Professor Bowditch has called attention,

the statement had been corrected; the fact that an allusion of five or

six words in an earlier essay gave an erroneous suggestion, was quite

overlooked. But Dr. Keen will have it that there was a "REVISED"

edition, and that in this "A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION" was

given.

There are here two misstatements. There is not the slightest reason

for calling it a "revised" edition. Was there a "description given"?

Let us quote the entire passage, written nearly a quarter of a century

ago, in order to see what Dr. Keen ventured to call a "description of

this same operation."

"We are almost at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Civilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve,

new dangers to confront, new hopes to realize. It is useless to deny

the increasing ascendancy of that spirit, which in regard to the

problems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but

continues its search for solution; it is equally useless to shut our

eyes to the influence of this spirit upon those beliefs which for many

ages have anchored human conduct to ethical ideals. Regret would be

futile; and here, perhaps is no occasion for regret. To the new

spirit, which perhaps is to dominate the future, this longing for

truth, not for what she gives us in the profit that the ledgers

reckon, but for what she is herself--this high ambition to solve the

mysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries

that shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely

more glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final

record History is so soon to end.

"But all real progress in civilization depends upon man's ethical

ideals.... What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to

assume in coming years? What are the ideals held up before American

students in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to

fire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and

similar success? Is it Richet, `bending over palpitating entrails,

surrounded by groaning creatures,' not, as he tells us, with any

thought of benefit to mankind, but simply `to seek out a new fact, to

verify a disputed point?' Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, `con

multo amore e patience moltissima,'--with much patience and pleasure--

the agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Sequard, ending a

long life devoted to the torment of living things with the investion

of a nostrum that earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of

Strasburg, noting with wonder that mother love and yearning solicitude

could be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off,

and whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for

cataract and plunging the needle to the bottom of the patient's eye,

that by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of

irritating the retina? ... Surely, in these names, and such as these,

there can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that

unselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the

amelioration of the world."

In this passage, there is an allusion of JUST SIX WORDS to one phase

of experimentation which was subsequently found to be inaccurate, and

corrected, as Dr. Keen has shown. But was it in accord with truth to

refer to this passing reference as "A DESCRIPTION of the same

operation"? No reader of Dr. Keen's pages would be likely to

investigate the statement. Was it fair to permit his readers to

understand that a DESCRIPTION EXISTED, WHERE THERE WAS NONE?

There is yet another point to be noted. Referring to the experiments

of Goltz, the impression seems to be given that not only was ablation

of the breast mistakenly ascribed to the Strasburg vivisector, but

that such a vivisection was imaginary: "NO SUCH OPERATION WAS EVER

DONE." This is also untrue. Experiments of the kind have been done by

other vivisectors, and they are recorded in their own reports. For

example, de Sinety of Paris tells us in his "Manuel Pratique de

Gynecologie" (Paris, 1879, p. 778), that upon female guinea-pigs, he

had practised "l'ablation de ces glands pendant la lactation."[1]

Another French vivisector, Dr. Paul Bert, states that he had not only

performed "l'ablation des mamelles chez une femelle de cochon d'Inde,"

but that he had succeeded in performing the operation on a female

goat. The poor creature recovered from the vivisection, and later,

gave birth to a kid, which was placed with the mother. What would

happen to a new-born animal placed at the side of a mother whose

breasts had been cut off?

"Le petit, animal, voulant teter, et trouvant pas de mamelles, a donne

de violent coups de te^te dans le re'gion mammaire...."[2]

[1] In a reference to de Sinety's vivisections at page 171, in the

present volume, there is a slight mistake. Although de Sinety, as

shown above, had practised the ablation of the mammary glands during

lactation, it would seem that mutilation rather than complete ablation

preceded his experiments on the innervation of the mammary nerve. The

sentence should read "cut into the breasts," and not "removed the

breasts." He tells us that he made a considerable number of

experiments of the kind upon female guinea-pigs. In one of them, for

example, he laid bare the nerve and isolated it with a thread,--"le

nerf mammaire d'un co^te est mis a` nu, et isole," and that when the

electric current was used, extreme pain,--"un douleur tre`s vivre" was

excited, notwithstanding which the excitation was continued for ten

minutes. (Gazette Me'd. de Paris, for 1879, p. 593).

[2] Comptes Rendus de la Soc. de Biologie, Paris, 1883, p. 778.

There is no need of completing the description. It was an experiment

absolutely useless and without justification. We may confess that we

read of such useless cruelties of experiment only with infinite

disgust.

No matter how careful a writer may be, it is very rare that he

escapes, from unfriendly readers, the imputation of inaccuracy.

Against writers of history--men like Froude, Macaulay, or Carlyle--the

same charge has been made. But a critic whose microscopic eye

discerns inaccuracy in others should be very careful to make no

similar errors himself. The mistake upon which he has dwelt, was due

to reliance upon the translation of another man. It may be of

interest to point out that in his own writings Dr. Keen has made a

precisely similar mistake; and that although it was pointed out and

its untruth confessed many years ago, yet the false imputation appears

again in the pages of his book, without correction or intimation of

its utter untruth, on the page where it firs tis given to the reader

of to-day.

In a pamphlet published during the closing years of the last century

by the American Humane Association, there appeared a strong

condemnation of experiments made by a Dr. Sanarelli, apparently upon

hospital patients, temporarily under his care. In an Italian

periodical, the young scientist described his researches with

remarkable frankness. He tells of the various symptoms of yellow

fever, which by his serum he had caused his victims to suffer--the

congestions, the haemorrhage, the delirium, the fatty degeneration,

the collapse; and all these, he adds, "I have seen unrolled before my

eyes, THANKS TO THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF THE YELLOW-FEVER POISON MADE

IN MY LABORATORY."

So terrible a confession of human vivisection, it was eemed best by

some English translator to suppress; and in various medical journals,

both in England and America, the sentence here italicized did not

appear. Finding it quoted only by the pamphlet that condemned human

vivisection, Dr. Keen, without consulting the original, made the

dishonouring imputation that perhaps it had been "DELIBERATELY ADDED"

by some one of his opponents, and this, too, notwithstanding he had

referred to the original authority where the words were to be

found. "Unfortunately," he explained at a later period, "I am not an

Italian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original

article"; he had placed dependence for his statement upon a

"friend."[1] Who could have been this "friend" who pretended that he

had read the article of Sanarelli in the original, and deceived him

into making a charge of forgery, for the truth of which there was not

a particle of foundation? But the thing of which his readers have a

right to complain is not that his "friend" deceived him, for that may

happen to anyone. It is this: that the imputation of forgery, the

untruth of which was admitted long ago, still remains in the essay

where it first appeared, and without there being the slightest

disclaimer of the false insinuation. Let the reader turn to p. 125 of

the work under review. There is the suggestion that Sanarelli's

allusion to the poisons fabricated in his laboratory may have been

"DELIBERATELY ADDED"--an imputation of forgery. WHERE ON THIS PAGE,

IN THE TEXT OR BY FOOTNOTE, HAS THE AUTHOR WITHDRAWN THAT INSINUATION?

IT CANNOT BE FOUND.

[1] "Animal Experimentation," pp. 143-144.

II.

One of the most serious offences against literacy accuracy which this

writer has apparently committed appears in the garbling of the

opinions of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University, on the subject

of vivisection. The case is of especial interest not only because the

facts are so clear, but because they bring into relief certain methods

of controversy, which by some seem to be regarded as entirely

justifiable.

A sketch of the life of Dr. Bigelow, with extended quotations from his

writings, will be found in the ninth chapter of the work now in the

reader's hands. The opinions there expressed regarding vivisection

are by no means extreme. No past writer on this subject has left

behind him more abundant evidence of his position in this

controversy. It was not animal experimentation that he condemned, but

the cruelty that sometimes accompanies it, and to which, if

vivisection be unregulated by law, it is so often liable.

How may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his

grave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that

although for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow

really knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had

chanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions

indicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes. It might be

asserted, indeed, that "in his later life," the great advocate of

reform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new

attitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a

painless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the

paragraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse.

Is not this exactly what the author of "Animal Experimentation" has

done in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests?

He tells his readers that "the opponents of research" quote the

Harvard professor's earliest utterances "based on the suffering he saw

at Alfort," but that they carefully omit this expression of his later

opinions:

"The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to

be criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which no one

objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment

which does not cause pain--either because the experiment itself is

painless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or

because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering--has done great

damage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of

vivisection at a great disadvantage.... A painless experiment on an

animal is unobjectionable."

This is all true enough. But can anyone call this paragraph a fair

statement of Dr. Bigelow's "later views" on animal experimentation? It

is merely a wise caution. Compare this brief quotation with the ninth

chaper of the book in the reader's hands. Will anyone, after reading

that chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A

FAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS?

The reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow,

something appears to have been omitted before the final sentence. On

turning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated

from the foregoing quotation.

"IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN

CHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION."[1]

[1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372.

Precisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author

of "Animal Experimentation," the reader will discover another most

significant passage which was suppressed by the author of "Animal

Experimentation":

"The extreme vivisector claims the liberty to inflict at his

discretion, PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN upon any number of dogs,

horses, rabbits, guinea-pigs and other animals. The interest or

honest enthusiasm he may happen to feel in some subject of physiology,

however important, justifies in his mind THE EXHIBITION OF THIS

EXCESSIVE PAIN TO CLASSES, AND ITS REPETITION BY MEDICAL STUDENTS,

PRACTICALLY AT THEIR OPTION. THIS IS AN ABUSE. Inasmuch as the

reform of any abuse needs remedial measures, such measures have been

inaugurated by permanently organized societies, which, even though

they may not have been always and wholly right and temperate in their

action, HAVE ERRED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION."

What was the reason for these suppressions? Why this garbling of

Bigelow's "later views"? Do we find it impossible to comprehend why

his comparison of physiological experiments with the painless

procedures of chemistry should have been cut from the contecxt, or why

the references to "PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN" and the

"exhibition of excessive pain to classes" should have been omitted?

How could a writer, sincerely desirous of presenting his readers with

a fair expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions, have cut out every

reference to the abuses of vivisection? How could he have omitted to

quote such passages as the following, which appear in essays written

during the last year of his life:

"In short, although vivisection, like slavery, may embrace within its

practice what is unobjectionable, what is useful, what is humane, and

even what is commendable, it may also cover, like slavery, what is

nothing less than hideous. I use this word in no sensational sense,

and appeal to those who are familiar with some of the work, in

laboratories and out of them, to endorse it as appropriate in this

connection." (368)[1]

"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain it

inflicts." (368)

"No society, however extreme in its views or action, can legitimately

object to painless experimentation, provided it is really painless.

BUT ANAESTHESIA SHOULD BE REAL, AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR FORMAL."

(374)

"Vivisection will always be the better for vigilant supervision."

(368)

"There is little in the literature of what is called the horrors of

vivisection, which is not well grounded on truth. For a description

of the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature." (363)

The necessity for brevity of quotation, no one can dispute. But the

ethics of controversy are clear. One or two detached sentences should

never be given as a fair representation of an opponent's views, if the

general tenor of his writings would convey a contrary impression.

Thus to suppress and eliminate, what is it but to garble? In any young

writer, would not such offences against veracity invite the severest

condemnation?

[1] Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Anaesthesia. Figures following quotations

indicate the pages. Italics not in original.

III.

Another illustration of the unreliability of the volume under review

may be found in its references to the Report of the Royal Commission

on Vivisection. We are told, in the first place--and the untrue

statement is thrice repeated with slightly different phraseology--that

"on the Commission, the antivivisectionists were represented, and

joined in this unanimous report."[2] It would be difficult to make an

affirmation more notoriously untrue. In 1906, when the Commission was

first named, it was a matter of common knowledge that NO

ANTIVIVISECTIONIST WAS REPRESENTED THEREON. This shoudl be evident to

anyong, one reading the following paragraph of the Commission's

report:

"After full consideration, we are led to the conclusion that

experiments upon animals, ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY LAW FAITHFULLY

ADMINISTERED, ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY

LEGISLATION."[1]

[2] Keen, "Animal Experimentation," p. 294. For repetitions of the

erroneous statement, see pp. xviii and 241.

[1] Report of Commission, p. 57, par. 97.

How could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any

antivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation? Possibly the

words here italicized explain why this paragraph was not quoted by the

author of "Animal Experimentation." It referred to the conditions of

permissible experimentation which, as yet, do not exist in any

American state.

Of this important report, but a single brief paragraph of two

sentences appears to have attracted the attention of Dr. Keen. It

impresses him so strongly that he parades it no less than three times

in various parts of his book:

"We desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations

of operations inflicted on animals which are freely circulated by

post, advertisement, or otherwise, are IN MANY CASES calculated to

mislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in

question were not under an anaesthetic. To represent that animals

subjected to experiments IN THIS COUNTRY are WANTONLY TORTURED would,

in our opinion, be absolutely false." (Italics not in original.)

"This clear statement," adds the author of "Animal Experimentation" to

one of his three quotations, "should end this calumny" (p. 241.) To

what "CALUMNY" can he allude? The Commissioners are referring only to

experimentation in England, where unauthorized painful experimentation

is contrary to law--certainly not to America, where no Government

supervision of any kind is to be found. Even in England, the words

"IN MANY CASES" limit the application of condemnation. Would the

author have its readers believe that painful or unjustifiable

experiments are never performed? ON THE VERY PAGE OF THE REPORT TO

WHICH HE REFERS US, in a paragraph immediately following that just

quoted, there is reference to a London physiologist of distinction,

who had testified that "he had performed PAINFUL experiments upon

animals both in Germany and in this country." The Commission

unanimously condemned his position as "untenable, and in our opinion,

ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE." Would the author of "Animal

Experimentation" regard this protest against certain experiments made

by the men named in that paragraph, as a "calumny"?

The unfairness of giving out to the world merely two sentences as

representative of the conclusions of an important Commission will

become evident to anyone who reads other of the unanimous conclusions

of this report. Take the following: "WE STRONGLY HOLD THAT LIMITS

SHOULD BE PLACED TO ANIMAL SUFFERING in the search for physiological

or pathological knowledge, though some have contended that such

considerations should be wholly subordinated to the claims of

scientific research, or the pursuit of some material good for man."[1]

Does this conclusion bear out the contention that animal suffering in

the laboratory is a MYTH? Or take the recommendations of the

Commission concerning CURARE, a drug which is used in every

laboratory, but which, curiously enough, finds no mention in the index

of Dr. Keen's book. The Report says: "Some of us are of the opinion

that the use of CURARE should be altogether prohibited; but 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."[2] Why was this recommendation made,

if the use of CURARE is never associated with painful experimentation?

Or read yet further: "We are of the opinion that ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS

AGAINST PAIN MIGHT BE PROVIDED, without interfering with legitimate

research." These recommendations are incorporated in the final report

of the Commissioners, not one of whom was an Antivivisectionist. Why

were they not quoted by Dr. Keen.

[1] Report, p. 57, par. 96.

[2] Ibid., p. 61, par. 114.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, together with the

evidence produced before it, constitutes the most important document

relating to the subject which has appeared in a quarter of a century.

It is greatly to be regretted that the author of "Animal

Experimentation" should have given his readers no idea whatsoever of

this report, except a warning of two sentences, that could have been

meant for England alone. By omission of all its other conclusions,

especially those relating to painful experiments, has the author been

fair to his readers? Do such significant omissions illustrate an

impartial reliability that commands our admiration? Does it denote an

accuracy that should inspire our trust?

IV.

What judgment does the author pass upon scientific experimentation

upon human beings? In his volume on animal vivisection, he has

reprinted various articles on the subject written by himself during a

controversy which raged quite fiercely at the beginning of the present

century; of course in his book we find nothing of the points made

against his arguments by his various opponents of that day. The

subject is an important one, and some day will have a volume devoted

to its discussion.

In the eighteenth chapter of the present work, a careful distinction

is drawn between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem

to be entirely proper, and those other phases which ought to be

condemned:

"It is of course to be expected, that certain experimenters upon human

beings will endeavour to confound both phases of inquiry in the public

estimation; yet there is no difficulty in drawing clear distinctions

between them.

I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being,

conscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely

for the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and,

if practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and

right.... So long as the amelioration of the patient is the one

purpose kept in view, it is legitimate treatment.

II. Human vivisection is something different. It has been defined

as the practice of submitting to experimentation human beings, usually

inmates of public institutions, by methods liable to involve pain,

distress, injury to health or even danger to life, without any full,

intelligent personal consent, for no object relating to their

individual benefit, but for the prosecution of some scientific

inquiry.... THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE

PERSONAL WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE

EXPERIMENT IS MADE."[1]

[1] Pp. 289-290.

All distinctions of this kind the author of "Animal Experimentation"

apparently sweeps aside. A writer suggested that upon natives of

India who, when bitten by poisonous serpents, almost invariably die,

there would be no objection to trying "every variety of antidote that

can be discovered." This humane suggestion the author of "Animal

Experimentation" holds up as "FLAT-FOOTED ADVOCACY OF HUMAN

VIVISECTION!" The absurdity of such pronouncement must be evident to

everyone of common sense. We should think very little of any surgeon

confronted with the case of a native suffering from a snake-bit, who,

finding ordinary remedies of no avail, refused to try "EVERY VARIETY

OF ANTIDOTE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED." This is not the "human

vivisection" to which objection is made; for such experimentation is

for the personal benefit of the man himself.

Take, for illustration, the experiments made by the author of "Animal

Experimentation" and other investigators some years since, upon

soldiers in an Army hospital. The author of the pamphlet which first

brought these experiments on soldiers before the public, states

distinctly that "just so far as the experiments were made upon

suffering men IN THE HOPE OF GIVING RELIEF FROM PAIN, and at the same

time contributing to medical knowledge, THERE CAN BE NOTHING TO

CRITICIZE IN ANY WAY."[2] Surely the experimenters should ask no

clearer exculpation from all blame, so far as relates to permissible

experimentation on man. The critic, however, suggested that in some

cases, the enthusiastic experimenters went beyond this, and quotes

from the original article the following descriptions of their work:

"We finally entered upon A DELIBERATE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTS with the

intention of ascertaining in what respect ... the two drugs in

question were antagonistic.... The experiments which we shall now

relate were most of them made upon soldiers, who were suffering from

painful neuralgic diseases, or from some cause of entailing pain. In

some cases, however, CONVALESCENT MEN WERE THE SUBJECTS OF OUR

OBSERVATIONS, but in no instance were they allowed to know what agents

we used.... SOME WERE MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH, suspected of

malingering. The patient was kept recumbent some time before and

during the observation."

[2] Taber, "Illustrations of Human Vivisection," Chicago, 1906,

pp. 13-14.

It is unnecessary to give the full description of these experiments.

We are informed of "series of experiments," of "two other sets of

experiments," of the "effect on the eye" or "the effect of the two

drugs upon the cerebral functions"; the material was abundant. The

reviewer of this experimentation says:

"How these experiments will be palliated and excused it is easy to

foretell. We shall undoubtedly be told that all this happened some

years ago; that the American soldiers, thus used as material suffered

no permanent injury from the experiments to which they were subjected;

that the investigators were purely disinterested; that the scientific

questions involved were of great interest and that results might

possibly have been obtained which would have proved of great service

to medical science. But even if we grant all this, and accord to

these gentlemen the purest of personal motives, can we say that in

such defence they touch the chief point at issue in this matter of

human vivisection? Here were a number of human beings who, for a brief

period, on account of misfortune, were temporarily in their power.

WHAT MORAL RIGHT had these medical gentlemen thus to experiment upon

the eye, the pulse, the brain of a single soldier of the Republic?

... Even granting the utility, who confers upon anyone the moral right

to test poisons on his fellow-men?

In his recent work, the author of "Animal Experimentation" refers to

these investigations of earlier years, and insists that most of the

patients thus operated on "were sorely in need of relief." What, he

asks, would his critics have had them do? "Sit idly by, and let these

poor fellows suffer torments, because if we tried various drugs we

were `experimenting' on human beings?" Is not this a little

disingenuous, in view of the very careful distinctions made by his

critic concerning the experiments performed for the relief of

suffering men? Assuredly, there was no objection to these; it was

regarding the "deliberate course of experiments," the "series of

experiments" made upon "MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH" that criticism was

suggested. Were all these experiments upon soldiers in the Army

hospital made for the relief of their pains? If so, they undoubtedly

deserve our warmest approval. Were any of a purely scientific

character, having no regard to the necessities of the individual upon

whom they were made? If so, we may leave the question of condemnation

or approval to the reader's judgment.

V.

What is the attitude of the author toward cruelty in animal

experimentation, or to the secrecy of the laboratory? So far as one

can see, there is no admission anywhere that vivisection ever

transcends the limits of what is entirely permissible. Except as

regards human beings, the word "cruelty" is not found in the index of

his work. At one place he tells his readers that "whenever an

operation would be painful, an anaesthetic is ALWAYS given";[1] on

another page, we read that in modern researches, "ether or other

anaesthetics are ALMOST always given."[2] two statements that are

slightly incompatible. We are informed that certain American

societies have passed resolutions favorable to the "UNRESTRICTED

performance" of vivisections by proper persons;[3] but the writer

neglects to inform his readers that unrestricted and unregulated

experimentation of the kind is not only contrary to the law in

England, but that it is condemned there by the leaders of the medical

profession. We find it apparently implied--but without positive

statement--that there is little or no secrecy in animal

experimentation, and that anyone may find admittance to a laboratory

at any time.[4] So far as England is concerned, this is untrue; and we

do not believe that in America a stranger would be welcomed at any

physiological laboratory when experimentation by students was going

on, although of course there are times when there would be no trouble

in obtaining admittance. It would apparently seem that in the opinion

of Dr. Keen, animal experimentation is always practised without

cruelty or abuse.

[1] "Animal Experimentation," p. 232.

[2] Ibid., p. 245.

[3] Ibid., p. xviii.

[4] Ibid., pp. viii-ix.

A considerable part of the volume under review is devoted to the

history of medical progress. Were it not for the unfortunate tendency

everywhere to magnify or exaggerate, this part of the book would have

had distinct value. Of the advances made by modern surgery, for

example, there can be no doubt; it is probable also, that without to

some researches upon living animals, the results would not have been

attained. This by no means justifies everything that has been done.

The members of the Royal Commission--all of them favourable to

vivisection--state the case with scientific restrain. After giving

the question full consideration they decide:

"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time to have been

proved by experiments upon living animals and alleged to have been

beneficial in preventing or curing disease, HAVE, ON FURTHER

INVESTIGATION AND EXPERIENCE, BEEN FOUND TO BE FALLACIOUS OR USELESS.

"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge HAS BEEN

ACQUIRED in regard to physiological processes and the causation of

disease, and that useful methods for the prevention, cure and

treatment of certain diseases 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, at the present time,

have been in possession of such knowledge."[1]

[1] Final Report of Royal Commision, p. 47.

It is open, of course, to an antivivisectionist to deny the right of

science to profit by the exploitation of animals, but this is not the

position of a large number who seek only to prevent the cruelty which

has often accompanied it.

The greatest defect of the volume, aside from the points to which

allusion has been made, is the exaggerated advocacy that characterizes

the work throughout. One can hardly find a dozen pages in which a

careful reader would not discover some inaccuracy or over-statement.

If the author had only been content to demonstrate utility within the

limits that scientific accuracy prescribes; if everywhere he had been

ready to concede--what thirty years ago he so frankly admitted--that

vivisection was a "MANY-SIDED QUESTION;"[1] if he had admitted

anywhere that in the past excesses have taken place, and that the

practice has sometimes been carried to unjustifiable extremes which

should be condemned; if he had contented himself with pointing out the

mistakes of the critics of animal experimentation, without impugning

their character, or sneering at their efforts to lessen the infliction

of pain; if everywhere he had made fair distinctions between the anti-

vivisectionists who oppose and condemn all exploitation of animal

life, and restrictionists like Dr. Bigelow, Dr. Wilson, Dr. William

James, and a host of others who share their views; if, in short, the

constant aim of the author had seemed to be, not to secure a polemical

success, but reliability as an authority that time would confirm--it

is certain that his book would have attained some degree of deserved

and lasting repute. For such a result, no reasonable expectation can

now be entertained. The unreliability of the volume as an authority

will become more and more evident as time goes on, and in the judgment

of the world it will gradually find its rightful place.

[1] See first page of "Animal Experimentation."

In bringing to a close this inadequate review of the book something

yet remains to be said. It should be unnecessary to repeat that in

pointing out literary defects and mistakes, we do not touch the honour

of the writer in any way. How can one measure the weight of a life-

long prejudice, or determine its influence upon conduct or opinion?

"Tout comprende est tout pardonner." Within a few weeks, the author of

"Animal Experimentation," if living, will enter upon his eightieth

year. The errors of judgment, the inaccuracies of statement, the

tendency to exaggerate utility--these and all other literary defects

of the volume before us must be recognized and deplored, but they

should be ascribed only to causes which do not affect the honour of

the man. We may be confident that after he has passed away, the world

will quickly forget the too zealous defender of unrestricted

vivisection, and remember, finally, only the wise teacher, the skilled

surgeon, the trusted friend.

APPENDIX II

In the acquirement of knowledge concerning vivisection, and for the

prevention of abuses, it is essential that in every institution where

experiments are performed a register of all animals received be

carefully and accurately kept. Each one should have a serial number,

under which all particulars should be entered. The book used for this

purpose should have printed in the first column of each double page

the required details concerning which a record is to be kept; the

blanks should be written in ink by someone responsible for its

accuracy. Some such form as the following outline might perhaps be

used for such register:

REGISTER OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION IN THE

CARNEGIE LABORATORY DURING THE YEAR 1920.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Serial number .. .. .. | 801 | 802 | 803 |

| Date .. .. .. .. | Feb. 1, 1920 | Feb. 1, 1920|Feb 2, 1920|

|-----------------------------|--------------|-------------|-----------|

| Species .. .. .. .. | Dog | Dog | --- |

| Variety .. .. .. .. | Mongrel | Spaniel | --- |

| Apparent age .. .. .. | Two years | Very old | --- |

| Sex .. .. .. .. .. | Male | Female | --- |

| Colour .. .. .. .. | Yellow | White | --- |

| Condition .. .. .. | Good | Poor | --- |

| From whom received .. .. | Bradson | Burns | --- |

| Address .. .. .. .. | 45, Canal St.| 22, Mill St.| --- |

| Amount paid him .. .. | 75 cents | 50 cents | --- |

| How acquired by him .. | Found | Founds | --- |

| Kept by us for redemption | 15 days | 15 days | --- |

| Delivered to .. .. .. | Dr. Sharp | Dr. Ball | --- |

| Redeemed or died .. .. | --- | --- | --- |

| | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From such a register as the foregoing, it would not be difficult to

compile a report at the end of each quarter-year, somewhat after the

following form:

REPORT OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) RECEIVED FOR EXPERIMENTATION AT THE

CARNEGIE INSTITUTE, DURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | | | Other | |

| | Dogs.| Cats.|Monkeys.|Mammals.| Total.|

|-------------------------|------|------|--------|--------|-------|

| | | | | | |

| On hand, January 1 .. | 20 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 40 |

| Acquired .. .. | 91 | 142 | 11 | 132 | 376 |

| |------|------|--------|--------|-------|

| Total .. .. | 111 | 146 | 13 | 146 | 416 |

| |======|======|========|========|=======|

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| Redeemed by owners .. | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |

| Died before use .. | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |

| Used for experiment .. | 84 | 76 | 10 | 98 | 268 |

| On hand at date .. | 14 | 70 | 2 | 48 | 134 |

| | | | | | |

| |------|------|--------|--------|-------|

| | | | | | |

| Total | 111 | 146 | 13 | 146 | 416 |

| | | | | | |

-------------------------------------------------------------------

(Signed) A. B.,

REGISTRAR OF LABORATORY.

STATE OF NEW YORK.

CITY OF NEW YORK. SS.

On this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally

came A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the

foregoing report signed by him is a full, true, and complete statement

of all the animals of the species named therein, which were either on

hand on the first day of the quarter, or which have been received at

the Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute for experimental purposes,

and the disposition thereof, for the quarter-year ending March 31,

1920.

...................

NOTARY PUBLIC.

It is necessary not only to know what animals are received at any

laboratory; we must be able to follow them to the end. Each

individual instructor, professor or assistant-professor, or other

person who performs experiments of any kind should be required to

state what he has done. The following is an outline of a report which

might be made to the Director in charge of the laboratory.

--------------------

A REPORT OF ALL MAMMALIAN ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTATION, EITHER BY

MYSELF OR UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION IN ........... LABORATORY,

DURING QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1920.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | | Mon- |Guinea-| Other | |

| | Dogs.| Cats.| keys.| Pigs. |Animals.| Total.|

|-----------------------|------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|

| | | | | | | |

| I. Number of animals | | | | | | |

| used solely for | | | | | | |

| original research | | | | | | |

| II. Number of animals | | | | | | |

| used for demonstra- | | | | | | |

| tion before students, | | | | | | |

|of physiological facts | | | | | | |

|III. Number of animals | | | | | | |

| experimented upon by | | | | | | |

| students .. .. | | | | | | |

| |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|

| Total .. .. | | | | | | |

| |------|------|------|-------|--------|-------|

|IV.Number of above ani-| | | | | | |

| mals, in experimen-| | | | | | |

| tation upon which | | | | | | |

| CURARE was used | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Signed) ........................

ASSISTANT IN PHYSIOLOGY.

STATE OF NEW YORK.

CITY OF NEW YORK. SS.

On this 31st day of March, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally

came A. B., known to me, and he, being duly sworn, declared that the

foregoing report was signed by him, and that it is a true, full and

complete statement of all mammalian animals used by him or under his

personal supervision for experimental purposes in the ...........

Laboratory during the quarter ending March 31, 1920.

......................

NOTARY PUBLIC.

Suggested form of report, to be made quarterly by the responsible head

of each Institution wherein animal experimentation is authorized.

--------------------

A REPORT OF THE DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS (MAMMALS) USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL

PURPOSES IN ALL LABORATORIES OF CARNEGIE INSTITUTE DURING QUARTER

ENDING MARCH 31, 1920.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | | Mon-| Other | |

| Animals. | Dogs.| Cats.|keys.|Animals.| Total.|

|---------------------------------|------|------|-----|--------|-------|

| I. Number used for original | | | | | |

| research only, by: | | | | | |

| Dr. X. .. .. .. | | | | | |

| Dr. Y. .. .. .. | | | | | |

| II. Number used for demonstra- | | | | | |

| tions before students, by: | | | | | |

| Dr. A. .. .. .. | | | | | |

| Dr. B. .. .. .. | | | | | |

|III. Number used by students for | | | | | |

| observation of physiolog- | | | | | |

| ical phenomena, etc. .. | | | | | |

| |------|------|-----|--------|-------|

| Total .. .. .. | | | | | |

| |------|------|-----|--------|-------|

| Number of above animals to | | | | | |

| which curare was given, in | | | | | |

| course of experimentation .. | | | | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Signed) .....................

DIRECTOR OF LABORATORY.

STATE OF NEW YORK.

CITY OF NEW YORK. SS.

On this 1st day of April, 1920, before me, the subscriber, personally

came C. D., known to me, who, being duly sworn, declared that the

foregoing report signed by him, is a full, true and complete statement

of the disposition of all animals experimented upon in the

laboratories of the Carnegie Institute, during the quarter-year ending

March 31, 1920, to the best of his knowledge and belief.

.....................

NOTARY PUBLIC.

APPENDIX III

It is exceedingly probably that no young physician or medical student

could testify to cruelties witnessed in any physiological laboratory,

if they involved his instructors or fellow-students, without injuring

and perhaps ruining altogether his professional career. Only in later

years, when success and independence have been attained, can he

venture to speak freely of what he has seen. Some men have thus

spoken. The testimony of two is here given:

Rev. Frederic Rowland Marvin, M.D., Albany, N.Y.:

"Though now a Minister of the Gospel, I was educated to the profession

of medicine, and was graduated from the College of Physicians and

Surgeons (Medical Department of Columbia College) New York, in 1870.

In the class-room I SAW VIVISECTIONS SO UNQUALIFIEDLY CRUEL THAT EVEN

NOW THEY REMAIN IN MY MEMORY AS A NIGHTMARE."

(From letter to The American Humane Association.)

"All medical students in America know that similar outrages are

perpetrated in our medical colleges every winter. I have witnessed

vivisections SO CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY THAT I AM ASHAMED TO REMEMBER

THAT THEY WERE UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MY ALMA MATER."

(From sermon preached at Portland, Oregon.)

Dr. Henry M. Field, Professor Emerituss of Therapeutics, Dartmouth

Medical School, Dartmouth College, writes:

"I well remember my experience as a student of medicine at the College

of Physicians and Surgeons, New York.... I well remember the poor

dogs, brought out from their dungeon, perhaps famished and tortured

with thirst, should the experiment require such condition; their

appealing eyes and trembling limbs, I shall never forget.... Indeed,

SOME FORM OF TORTURE AND ATROCITY WAS EXPECTED AT EVERY LECTURE, AND

SURE TO BE APPLAUDED.... The student who found entertainment in the

unnecessary torture of animals, learned something besides physiology;

his humane nature was perverted...."

(From letter to the Vivisection Reform Society,

dated April 28, 1905.)

APPENDIX IV

A LETTER OF DR. JOHN BASCOM,

LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.

To the Editor of the "Springfield Republican."

SIR,--In the complexity of our many social problems, it does not quite

do to extemporize an opinion. In a recent issue the Republican came

very near falling into this fault. Taking as its text a striking

example of locating a clot of blood in the brain, and referring the

knowledge by which this was done to vivisection, it spoke lightly of

the limitation which many have sought to put upon this practise. It

is noot the assertion of the opponents of vivisection, that itis

always useless, but that it has been carried much beyond the demands

of any desirable and humane purpose. Even the example given is not so

striking if we remember that it has long been known that each half of

the body is governed not by the adjacent, but by the opposite, lobe of

the brain.

Considering the uncertainty, and the costly nature, of the knowledge

gained by vivisection, and the great abuse the practice has suffered,

its opponents demand that animals should not be subjected to this

suffering except in view of some definite and important question to be

answered; that the pain involved in such an investigation should be

reduced to its lowest possible terms; that experiments once

satisfactorily made should not be indefinitely repeated; and that

vivisection should not be left in the hands of every tyro acquiring

the rudiments of knowledge. These claims are almost as much a demand

of accuracy in knowledge as of humanity in temper. The pain involved

in vivisection often creates such an abnormal state as to weaken or

invalidate the conclusions drawn in connection with it. The careless

student may easily confirm, as he thinks by observation, opinions not

well grounded.

Vivisection has been objected to not theoretically or sentimentally

simply, but on account of the monstrous abuses that have been

associated with it. In Europe men of distinguishing ability have

seemed to revel in this form of inquiry and to have prosecuted it

without the slightest reference to the cruel and revolting features

associated with it. They have made of it a school of Nero in which

brutality became a passion of the mind.

One of the most deadly sins of men has been cruelty, cruelty to

animals, to children, to women, to men. The basest of these forms is

in some respects cruelty to animals, since animals are so thoroughly

committed into our hands. It is not easy to devise a more hardening

process than careless vivisection; and the claim that it is done in

the name of knowledge is, unless it is profoundly and deeply true, an

aggravation of the offence. Inhumanity is the worst possible temper

for the medical profession to entertain, and the worst possible

suspicion to attach to them. If the physicians cannot approach all

suffering with an intense desire to relieve it, he is not true to his

calling. It is with more or less fear that the defenceless human

subject is committed to them lest they should make of him an

experiment.

JOHN BASCOM.

Williamstown,

December 15, 1902.

APPENDIX V

Among American physicians, probably the most distinguished medical

writer of to-day is Dr. George M. Gould, author of several medical

works, and formerly editor of various medical journals. His

opposition to antivivisection ideals has always been pronounced; but

it has not prevented recognition of the abuses of the unlimited

practice of animal experimentation. Some extracts from an address

delivered by Dr. Gould before the American Academy of Medicine are

here presented. The reader should understand that they are extracts

only, and that they represent but one aspect of the speaker's views.

Perhaps they are the more valuable in that they are the utterances of

the most pronounced American critic of antivivisection of the present

time.

THE LIMITATIONS AND ERRORS OF THE VIVISECTIONISTS

The first that strikes one is an exaggeration of the importance and

extent of the vivisection method. As valuable an aid as it is, it is

not the only, and perhaps it is not the chief, method of ascertaining

medical truth. It has without doubt often been used when other

methods would have been productive of more certain results. This has

arisen from what a large and broad culture of the human mind perceives

to flow from a recent and rather silly hypertrophy of the scientific

method, and a limitation of that method to altogether too material or

physical aspects of the problem....

Almost every point over which the controversy has raged most fiercely

has been in relation to one or all of the three or four questions:

1. What is a vivisection experiment?

2. By whom should it be performed?

3. For what purpose should it be performed?

4. By what methods should it be carried out?

In reference to all of these questions, scientific men should unite

and establish a common set of principles or answers. In my judgment

their failure to do so at all, and besides this, their frequent

exaggeration of logical limits and just calims, has been one of the

unfortunate causes of useless and wasteful wrangling.....

(2) I believe scientific men have made a grave mistake in opposing the

limitations of vivisection (not mortisection) experimentation to those

fitted by education and position to properly choose and properly

execute such experimentations. No harm can come, and I believe much

good would come, from our perfect readiness to accede to, nay, to

advocate, the antivivisectionist desire to limit all experimentations

to chartered institutions or to such private investigators as might be

selected by a properly chosen authority.... At present the greatest

harm is done true science by men who conduct experiments without

preliminary knowledge to choose, without judgement to carry out,

withoutout true scientific training or method, and only in the

interest of vanity. It takes a deal of true science and patience to

neutralize with good and to wash out of the memory the sickening,

goading sense of shame that follows the knowledge that in the name of

science a man could, from a height of 25 feet, drops 125 dogs upon the

nates (the spine forming a perpendicular line to this point) and for

from forty-one to one hundred days observe the results until slow

death ended the animals' misery. While we have such things to answer

for, our withers are surely not unwrung, and in the interests of

science, if not from other motives, we have a right to decide who

shall be privileged to do them.

I have adduced this single American experiment, but purposely refrain

from even mentioning the horrors of European laboratories. This is

not because I would avoid putting blame where it belongs, but because

such things are peculiarly prone to arouse violent language and

passion, clouding the intellect and making almost impossible a

desirable judicial attitude of mind. The Teutonic race is to be

congratulated that it is guilty of at least but few examples of the

atrocities that have stained the history of Latin vivisection, and

before which, as before the records of Roman conquest and slavery, or

of the "Holy Inquisition," one shudders at the possibilities of mental

action in beings that bore the human form and feature....

To jeer at and deride "sentimentality" while pretending to be working

for the good of humanity is hypocritic and flagrant self-

contradiction. This attitude of mind on the part of a few men does

more to arouse the indignation of opponents than any cruelty itself.

Scientific men should root out of their ranks such poor

representatives. They are enemies in the scientific household.

Dr. Klein, a physiologist, before the Royal Commission, testified that

he had no regard at all for the sufferings of the animals he used, and

never used anaesthetics, except for didactic purposes, unless

necessary for his own convenience, and that he had no time for

thinking what the animal would feel or suffer. It may be denied, but

I am certain a few American experimenters feel the same way, and act

in accordance with their feelings. But they are not by any means the

majority, and they must not only be silenced, but their useless and

unscientific work should be stopped. They are a disgrace both to

science humanity....

And this brings me to what I can but conceive as a grave and profound

mistake on the part of the experimentalists--their secrecy. A truly

scientific man is necessarily a humane man, and there will be nothing

to conceal from the public gaze of anything that goes on in his

laboratory.

It is a mistake to think our work cannot bear the criticism of such

enlightened public sentiment as exists here and now; if there is

necessary secrecy, there is wrong. People generally are not such poor

judges as all that.... I would go even further. Every laboratory

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. At present the public somewhat

ludicrously but sincerely enough grossly exaggerates the amount and

the character of this work, and by our foolish secrecy we feed the

flame of their passionate error. As organized, systematic, and

absolute frankness, besides self-benefit, would at once, as it were,

take the wind out of our opponents' saiils. Do not let us have

"reform forced upon us from without" in this contention, but by going

more than half-way to meet them, by the sincerest publicity, show that

as wel as scientists and lovers of men we are also lovers of animals.

Faith, hope, and love--these three. To faith in knowledge, to hope of

lessening human evil, we add love--love of men, and of the beautiful

living mechanisms of animal bodies placed in our care.

As it appears to me, this most unfortunate controversy, filled with

bitterness, misrepresentation, and exaggeration, is utterly

unnecessary. Both of the sharp-divided, hate-filled parties are at

heat, if they but knew it, agreed upon essentials and furiously

warring over non-essentials and errors. I frankly confess that one

side is about as much at fault as the other, and that the whole

wretched business is a sad commentary upon the poverty of common

charity and good sense....

APPENDIX VI

THE REGULATION OF EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN BEINGS

A Bill for the regulation of the practice of experimentation upon

human beings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere has been drawn,

and will shortly be introduced in the Senate of the United States. An

outline of the proposed Bill is here given, but in some respects it

may be enlarged or modified before its final introduction. It is

believed that a law may be framed which shall prohibit only those acts

which are contrary to justice, and which should be forbidden by common

consent.

---------------------------

A Bill for the Regulation of Scientific Experimentation upon

Human Beings in the District of Columbia and in the Territories and

Dependencies of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. That hereafter no person shall make upon any human being

any scientific, medical or surgical experiment or operation, EXCEPT

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON EXPERIMENTED UPON, unless the

intelligent, personal consent of such latter person shall previously

have been obtained. Every such consent, to be valid, must be in

writing and must be preceded by a full and correct written statement

setting forth to the person whose consent is sought whatever painful,

injurious or dangerous consequences are obviously liable to result

from the proposed experimentation, and such statement shall be signed

both by the experimenter and the person to be experimented upon.

SECTION 2. That experiments or operation of this nature shall be

undertaken only by one of the responsible head-physicians or surgeons

of some hospital or public instiution or by his special written

authorization; provided only that nothing herein contained shall apply

to scientific investigations incapable of causing injury, made by

direction of authorities in charge of any institution of learning,

upon students, with their consent, for the purpose of testing

acuteness of mental action, or for the purpose of investigating other

mental or physical phenomena.

SECTION 3. That no scientific, medical or surgical experiment of any

kind, liable to cause pain or distress or injury to health or danger

to life, shall be permissible under any circumstances upon any

new-born babe, or upon any infirm or aged or feeble-minded person, or

upon anyone whose mental faculties are impaired, either temporarily or

permanently, or upon any woman during pregnancy or within a year after

her confinement, or upon any child under fifteen years of age, unless

it be undertaken for the sole benefit of the person to be experimented

upon; and the consent of any such person to any such experiment or

operation shall not constitute such legal consent as is required by

this act, but shall be null and void.

SECTION 4. That the responsible head of any hospital or public

institution, in which any experiment or operation of any kinds

mentioned in Section 1 of this Act shall have been made, shall on or

before the first day of February in each year make a written report,

attested by oath, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia of

all such experiments and operations that shall have been made in such

hospital or public institution during the calendar year next

preceding, which report shall contain copies of the statements and of

the consents required by said Section 1, together with detailed

accounts of such experiments and operations and the results thereof;

and such reports shall be printed annually.

SECTION 5. That any person who authorizes, performs or assists in

performing an experiment or operation in violation of any provision of

this Act shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one

thousand dollars ($1,000) and shall thereafter be incapable of legally

engaging in the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia or in

any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, and of

holding any official position of any kind under the Government of the

United States

SECTION 6. That all sections of this Act shall be applicable to the

District of Columbia and to all other territory under the jurisdiction

or military control of the United States.

APPENDIX VII

SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS

A few years ago, Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, M.D., a Fellow of the

Royal Society and a distinguished sanitarian, was asked to express his

opinion regarding experiments upon animals. He was a member of the

medical profession; for some years he had been a lecturer on

physiology in a medical school; he had been a practical experimenter,

and his discoveries of new agents and methods for the prouction of

anaesthesia had given him a high place in the scientific world. His

reply to a series of questions was embodied in a volume entitled:

"Biological Experimentation; its Function and Limits." Certain

extracts from this work,--in some cases slightly abbreviated,--are

here given. They are of special value, as the views of an eminent

physician, a scientific discoverer, and a practical physiologist.

---------------------

If in creation there was no pain, if no pain could be extorted except

by a physiologist, a physiologist inflicting pain, even for the cure

of disease would be an accepted criminal by the general voice of

mankind. But Nature is a laboratory of pain on the most gigantic

scale; she stands at nothing in the way of infliction, spares nothing

that is sentient. She inflicts pain for her own purposes, and she

keeps it going.... If man inflicted such painful diseases as Nature

inflicts, he would be a monster. Man rebels against these

inflictions. Shall he add to pain by his rebellion?

---------------------

In Science, there is no one method that can be considered

indispensable. Attributes are indispensable; observation, industry,

accuracy are indispensable; methods are not. Methods may be

convenient, they may be useful, they may be expedient, but nothing

more. Celsus tells us that Erasistratus and the school he founded

laid open the bodies of criminals in order to study by direct

observation, the action of the intestinal organs during existence.

The act at that date of civilization probably shocked no one; it was

no doubt in accord with the spirit of the time. In a day not very

remote from our own, a criminal sentenced to death for some trivial

crime, was given over to William Cheselden, surgeon to George the

First, for experiment. The criminal was deaf and the experiment

intended was that of making a puncture through the drum of the ear, in

order to discover if an opening through the drum would enable the deaf

to hear. At the last moment, Cheselden, a man of fine feeling, and

brilliant as an operating surgeon, declined the experiment, on which

the criminal, whose life had been conditionally spared, was set free.

For his generosity of mind, for shrinking from an experiment on

another human being, Cheselden lost caste at Court, and was considered

pitiable by those who lived on courtly favours.

The argument is taking now the same direction against experiments by

man conducted on the lower animals for the purposes of discovery; and

when from the history of the past we gather what has been achieved by

such experiments, there is but one answer--namely: that such

experiments, although they may achieve what was expected of them, were

not indispensable. They may have expedited discovery; they may have

led to discovery; but they were not indispensable.

---------------------

In the discovery of anaesthesia, general and local, painful experiment

on animals has played no indispensable part whatever.

The lower animals have been permitted to share, more than equally with

man, in the blessing of anaesthetic discovery, for by it, many of them

have been saved the agonies of painful death, but they have (not) been

subjected to painful experiment in the course of discovery.... The

instauration of general anaesthesia came from experiments made on man

alone. There is no suspicion of any experiment on a lower animal in

connection with it.... On the contrary, there is a most notable fact

in relation to experiments under chloroform made on lower animals,

which suggests that if they had ever been relied on,--chloroform would

never have been introduced into practice. Flourens, the eminent

French physiologist, tried the effect of chloroform on inferior

animals, and in consequence of its powerful and fatal influence on

them, put it aside as an anaesthetic.

---------------------

There are methods of producing local insensibility to pain which have

been tried, and which deserve notice.

In 1862, I made an attempt to carry out local anaesthesia by

exhaustion of blood from a part. I noticed that when three round

cupping-glasses were applied to the body very close to each other, the

clear triangular space left free within the rim of the mouths of the

glasses was rendered white, brawny-like and insensible, when the

suction of the glasses was complete. This was obviously due to the

local abstraction of blood from the part; and I thought, consequently,

that if I could exhaust the blood from the extremity of a limb, the

exhausted part might be operated upon without pain.... I tried the

process on myself, and finding it succeed, the operation of removing

the nail of the greta toe, was tried on a patient, quite painlessly,

the patient looking on and feeling nothing. But the proceeding was

too long and cumbersome to admit of introduction into practice

generally, though it indicated an important principle which may in

some future day be utilized. In this research, no experiment on a

lower animal was resorted to; I was myself the victim in all

preliminary experiments.

---------------------

The most numerous and extensive efforts for local anaesthesia have

been those in which extreme cold has been employed to produce the

benumbing effect. The earliest applications of cold originated

between two and three hundred years ago in the fencing schools of

Naples. A Neapolitan professor of training placed crushed ice in a

flash of thin glass, and then applied the chilled glass to the skin,

and held it there until the skin was frozen, in order that the

cautery could be employed, or other small operations performed without

the infliction of pain. The proceeding must have been most

successful, and why it became lost is one of the mysteries of

scientific research. It did remain lost until our own time.... I

invented for the same purpose the ether spray process, in which a

benumbing cold was produced by projecting a volatile liquid like ether

or amylene, or a stream of compressed gas ... on the part to be

anaesthetized. These methods have been so widely adopted that I need

not enter into any description of them. I have merely to say that

they were made without any aid of experiments of a painful kind on the

lower animals.... The earliest experiment with ether spray was made

on my own arm.

---------------------

It is fortunate for me that I have been an eye-witness of the progress

made in this department from its practical instauration. I recall the

days when operations were performed without the aid either of general

or local methods for abolishing pain. I have myself introduced new

methods of anaesthesia, generally and locally; I have brought to trial

a large number of new anaesthetics. By the invention of the lethal

chamber I have had the delightful privilege of removing the taste and

pain of death from probably a million of those friends of man, the

faithful dogs. I write this not boastfully but truthfully.... Painful

experiments have played no indispensible part in the discovery of

anaesthesia.

---------------------

It is a curious fact that every method of research which is most

enduring, most intellectual and most free from moral evil is farthest

away from any and every thing that shocks the conscience or raises a

doubt as to necessity, in sensitive minds. If mathematics had to be

cultivated through experiments on living animals, it would never have

succeeded in unfolding the magnificent mysteries of the universe. The

same applies to the work of the science of chemistry, of botany, and

of physics generally. In my opinion, every man who studies natural

things by experiments on living subjects of any species, feels the

truth of what I am saying. I know in my own case, that my mind during

such experiments has always been in a different state according to the

line of experiment. When the experiment has been conducted on dead or

inanimate matter, the return obtained from the labour demanded has

always been not only satisfacdtory, but pleasant to the mind. On the

contrary, when the experiment has been conducted on living or animate

matter, the labour, whether affirmative or negative in its results has

never, at any point of it been pleasant. The results may, and often

have excited curiousity; they may have been important, and they may

have opened the way to new inquiry, but they have never been free of

anxiety nor of a sense that whatever came from them, THERE WAS

SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT RIGHT. I do not believe I am more sentimental

than any of my colleagues; yet I never proceeded to any experiment on

a living animal, though to the best of my ability doing everything

possible to save all pain, without feeling--what I think is the proper

expression,--COMPUNCTION.

---------------------

In the hands of the teacher, it (vivisection) may be rankly abused; of

scientific pursuits, it is the one most liable to error; it suggests

no end to itself, but seems to grow by what it feeds on, becoming by

repetition and contest more and more extended and multiplied; it is of

all pursuits the most disliked by the educated community; it brings

its best and most self-sacrificing professors into scorn; and for all

such reasons, even if it be occasionally useful, is calculated to lead

to what would be esignated intellectual and moral evil. At the same

time, let it be understood that I do not include in the criticisms

experiments which being devoid of pain, may cause the death even for

the service of man. Above all, I could not for a moment object to

experiment by a truly competent man for the purpose of inquiry into

some great theory that has been leisurely formed, and can be proved or

disproved by no other means, as for example, whether an important

surgical operation can or cannot be performed for the saving of human

suffering or human life.

---------------------

There are some simple and painless experiments which may be

demonstrated to any set of pupils, although living animals are the

subjects of them. The demonstration of the circulation through the

web of the frog; the demonstration of the different natural

temperatures of the bodies of animals, including man; the influence of

various anaesthetic vapours; the collection of the breath of various

animals for the purpose of analysis,--these are all free from

objection.... In a word, all experiments which are painless and

harmless, are, as I assume the most humane would admit, free from any

charge of error. But when we come to consider the application of

experiment of a severe kind as a means of education of pupils who are

making a study of physiological problems, there is a reason for

hesitation. In my student days, such an experiment was never dreamed

of. The professor of physiology would relate the facts derived from

experiment, on which some important theories were founded; he would,

for instance, explain what experiments were made by Harvey in order to

describe the circulation of the blood, but he would not attempt to

repeat those experiments in the lecture-room. He would describe, in

his remarks on the functions of the nervous system, the researches of

Sir Charles Bell, ... but he would never think of repeating Bell's

experiment of division of the nerves in the column, alleging forcibly

Bell's own objection to its repetition. It was the same on every

point. He would relate the theory; relate the pros and cons; relate

possibly his own independent inquiries, or what he had seen

experimentally performed by other independent investigators; but with

that explanation, he would be content.

---------------------

When I was teaching physiology as I did teach it in a medical school

for many years, I abstained for a long period from the direct

experimental method. I found no difficulty, and my classes worked

satisfactorily. The students had the credit of becoming good

physiologists, and I am sure there was nothing shirked. In the latter

part of my time, I followed occasionally the plan of making a few

experiments in the way of demonstration; and although these were

rendered painless, the innovation was not the success that was

expected.... Intellectually, I do not think my classes were assisted,

in the main, by the experimental demonstration. I am sure it limited

my sphere of usefulness, by leading me, in the limited time at my

command, to omit some parts of physiology of a simpler, less

controversial, and more useful kind. I am bound to say that, morally,

I do not recall the effect as producing all that could be wished.... I

gave up experiments in my classes, not from any sentiment, but BECAUSE

I GOT ON BETTER WITHOUT THEM. I did not omit the facts derived from

experiment, I did not omit the report of my own experimental

endeavours; but I omitted repeating, for the mere sake of

demonstrating, what seemed to have been proved.... Were I again to

deliver a course of physiological lectures to qualified hearers, I

should make the experimental demonstrations on living animals as few

and far between as was compatible with duty. They would be

exceptional of exceptional, and painless from beginning to end.

---------------------

I recommend, as the best method of obtaining the great aims of

medicine,--sanitation and the prevention of disease,--first, to make

medicine the grand master and teacher of universal cleanliness, and to

make everyone of the community a disciple and follower of the same

law. The minister of medical art should be prepared to devote his

life to this simple duty. He needs no higher calling, no nobler

vocation, and a world that knew its own interests should sustain him

in the task. At present, the rage is for experimentation, although it

seems least wanted, for which rage THE SELFISH AND IGNORANT WORLD IS

MOST TO BE BLAMED. The world now, as in the days of Naaman the leper,

wants to be healed and protected by elaborate processes, when th

esimplest and surest remedy is in its own hands.

From a long experience as a teacher of physiology and of public

health, I am convinced that a school or university of preventive

medicine would fill an important want. It would tend to make every

man and woman a sanitarian, and would help to bring the principles of

health into every home. It would be of direct and practical utility;

it would instil an exalted comprehension of natural laws, of the

advantages of following those laws, and of the danger and folly of

setting them at ignorant defiance.... The end would be the

accomplishment of the great aim, the development of the health of the

people; the art of preventive medicine without inflicting pain on any

living thing.

APPENDIX VIII

Since the preceding pages were in type, the United States Department

of Agriculture has adopted new regulations governing the inspection of

meat. The rules ordered to be applicable to meat derived from animals

affected by cancer or malignant disease, are as follows (italics not

in original):

Regulation II. Disposal of Diseased Carcasses, etc.

SECTION 7.--ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART OF A CARCASS AFFECTED WITH

CARCINOMA OR SARCOMA shall be condemned. In case the carcinoma or

sarcoma involves any internal organ TO A MARKED EXTENT, or affects the

muscles, skeleton, or body lymph glands even primarily, the carcass

shall be condemned. In case of metastasis to any other organ or part

of a carcass, or if metastasis has not occurred, but there are present

secondary changes in the muscles ... the carcass shall be condemned.

SECTION 9.--All slight, well-limited abrasions on the tongue and inner

surface of the lips and mouth, when without lymph-gland involvement,

SHALL BE CAREFULLY EXCISED, leaving only sound, normal tissue WHICH

MAY BE PASSED.

ANY ORGAN OR PART of a carcass which ... is affected by a TUMOUR, an

abscess, or a suppurating sore shall be condemned; and when the

lesions are of such character or extent as to affect the whole

carcass, the whole carcass shall be condemned.

It will be seen that the criticism suggested (pp. 269-270) concerning

the regulations in force for many years past is not annulled or

obviated by the new rules. That which formerly was vague is now more

clearly and distinctly set forth. The new regulation most carefully

condemns for food purposes "ANY INDIVIDUAL ORGAN OR PART" of a carcass

affected with carcinoma or sarcoma (cancer), and such condemnation

applies to the carcass, if the malignant disease has involved other

parts "to a marked extent." The fact that an animal is suffering from

cancer does not of itself compel its rejection for human food. The

entire rule would seem to have been drawn so as to permit meat

affected by cancer to pass inspection as "sound, healthful, wholesome,

and fit for human food," provided the inspector in charge can declare

that in his judgment the malignant disease had not affected the meat

"to a marked extent."

In view of the mystery that still surrounds the causation of cancer,

this regulation of the Department of Agriculture should be entirely

changed. Its basis is regard for financial considerations rather than

the public welfare. No part or portion of any animal found to be

affected by malignant disease should ever be permitted to be sold for

human food. The regulation should read:

Section 7.--Any animal or carcass of any animal found upon inspection

to be affected, however slightly, with malignant disease (carcinoma or

sarcoma) shall be wholly condemned as unfit for human food.

APPENDIX IX

England and Wales: Deaths of Females from Cancer at Different

Age-Periods, and the Ratio to Population, during Twelve Years of this

Century.

--------------------------------------------------------------

|Year.|Under 35.|35-44.|45-64.|65 and|Total.|Rate per Million|

| | | | | over.| | Population |

|-----|---------|------|------|------|------|----------------|

| 1901| 695 | 1,811| 8,263| 5,827|16,596| 985 |

| 1902| 701 | 1,872| 8,229| 5,972|16,774| 986 |

| 1903| 702 | 1,896| 8,490| 6,202|17,290| 1,006 |

| 1904| 703 | 1,934| 8,511| 6,448|17,596| 1,010 |

| 1905| 719 | 1,904| 8,683| 6,445|17,751| 1,011 |

| 1906| 740 | 1,921| 8,945| 6,805|18,411| 1,038 |

| 1907| 731 | 1,956| 8,841| 7,018|18,546| 1,035 |

| 1908| 658 | 1,943| 9,026| 7,189|18,816| 1,036 |

| 1909| 701 | 1,952| 9,466| 7,671|19,790| 1,082 |

| 1910| 780 | 2,030| 9,376| 7,578|19,764| 1,070 |

| 1911| 730 | 2,080| 9,485| 8,018|20,313| 1,088 |

| 1912| 695 | 2,009| 9,926| 8,505|21,135| 1,117 |

--------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing table strikingly illustrates the increasing prevalence

of cancer in England during the present century. Among women it will

be seen that the rate of mortality has increased from 985 to 1,117 per

million living within almost a single decade. The slow and yet

regular recurrence year after year of a slightly increased mortality

from cancer at each period of life after the thirty-fifth year is

peculiarly ominous. The connection between increase of cancer and the

permitted utilization for food purposes of animals suffering from

cancerous ailments is a problem that awaits solution.

APPENDIX X

In the spring of 1915, the Society for the Prevention of Abuse in

Animal Experimentation decided to ascertain whether certain of the

principal facts connected with vivisection would be freely given if

courteously asked. Accordingly, to the directors of laboratories in

over a hundred institutions of higher learning in America, the

following letter was sent by Mr. F. P. Bellamy, the counsel for the

Society:

Brooklyn, N.Y.

DEAR SIR,--One of the criticisms urged against the practice of animal

experimentation in America at the present time is the laack of any

reliable information concerning its extent. Believing that the remedy

of this defect lies within the power of the laboratories, I venture to

ask whether you would be willing to fill out the accompanying blank

form, returning it to me as soon as practicable? If so, I should be

glad if you would state whether the figures are based upon a register

giving exact numbers or whether they are simply the best estimate you

are able to give. If impossible to supply the details asked, can you

not give the total number of each species of animals?

I may add that this Society is not opposed to vivisection when the

practice is properly safeguarded against any cruelty.

I enclose an addressed and stamped envelope for your reply; and

thanking you for whatever information you can afford, I am,

Yours faithfully,

FREDERICK P. BELLAMY.

A few details concerning the result of this experimental inquiry may

be of interest.

The Department of Physiology of the University of Minnesota reported

that the material used for the demonstration of physiological and

pathological phenomena before students consisted of 88 dogs, 74 cats,

and 420 other animals, making a total of 582 for the year 1914.

The Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Medico-Chirurgical

College of Philadelphia reported using "about" 124 rabbits and guinea-

pigs, chiefly for research purposes. No report, however, was received

from the Department of Physiology.

The North-Western University Medical School of Chicago sent a

courteous reply, stating that it would be hardly possible to make any

report "as to the number of animals used in experimental work in our

laboratories." Research work was carried on "in at least four

laboratories of the Medical School, and in the work dogs, rabbits, and

guinea-pigs particularly are used.... As the work of research varies

materially from time to time in the several laboratories, we have no

way of making even an approximate estimate which would be of value" of

the number of animals used. Probably this is the case with most other

large laboratories in this country.

The Eclectic Medical University reported the use of but six small

animals in its research work. The director says:

"Our laboratories lead the world in cancer research, yet we have never

used an animal for this purpose. We are the second laboratory in the

world in research of pellagra, and have used only four animals.... We

have achieved the above results because we believe in clinical and not

in experimental research."

From some thirteen institutions, chiefly belonging to the South or

West, vague or imperfect reports were received. Some of them

disclaimed the use of living animals in teacher, or the use of animals

higher in the scale than turtles or frogs.

Two institutions refused to give any information whatever. An

official connected with Rush Medical College of Chicago wrote:

"The statement that your society is not opposed to vivisection may

deceive the uninitiated. Either vivisection is a good thing and hence

should not be interfered with, or it is a nefarious business and

should be stopped.... You and your society are either honestly

misinformed, suffer from delusions, or are lying bigots. In my

opinion, mainly the latter. You are my enemy, and the enemy of every

man of intelligence interested in the well fare (sic) of mankind and

animals. I will give no information to wilfull (sic) falsifiers, the

insane, or those too lazy or stupid to inform themselves of facts."

Some further study of a primary spelling-book might be recommended to

this representative of an institution of learning.

The institutions making no reply of any kind numbered eighty-eight, or

about 83 per cent. of those addressed.

The inquiry resulted in confirming previous impressions. It was not

believed that information concerning the number of animals used would

be generally given. The experiment of courteous inquiry, however, was

deemed worthy of a trial. The result would seem to demonstrate that

even the simplest facts concerning the practice of animal

experimentation in the United States cannot be obtained except through

inquiry instituted by the authority of the State.

AN ETHICAL PROBLEM

OR

SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION

UPON MAN AND ANIMALS

---------------

PRESS NOTICES

"Dr. Leffingwell has probably done more than any other one man for the

education of the public to a right attitude on the vivisection

question."--Dallas News.

"The author has studied this question for forty years. He shows by

the material gathered in this volume and the interesting conclusions

reached, the careful consideration of long years of study."--Detroit

News Tribune.

"The author's moderation in discussing this burning question will

appeal to a much wider circle of scientific readers than a policy that

demands complete annihilation of all animal experimentation."--The

Open Door, New York.

"The volume deals with vivisection, and the author holds that it is to

preventive medicine that the world must learn to look, not to the

conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums.... He enters deeply

into the question, and shows the result of long and careful research

work."--Norwich Bulletin

"In an elaborate discussion of the vexed question of vivisection,

Dr. Leffingwell tries to take a mediating position. He is strong in

showing that there has been a vast amount of needless and useless

suffering to animals caused by vivisection.... Some of his quotations

are amazing in showing the indifference and even cold-blooded cruelty

of some surgeons."--New York Watchman.

"One of the most thorough books on vivisection yet published is by

Dr. Albert Leffingwell, entitled `An Ethical Problem.' It is not the

book of an extremist or a crank. Dr. Leffingwell admits the necessity

of vivisection in certain circumstances and for certain purposes. His

endeavour is not so much to get rid of vivisection as to prove that

the problem connected with it is an ethical one; that the practice

should be regulated and guided by public authority. His book is

thorough, ingenious, and, for the most part, very temperate in

expression."--The New York Evening Mail.

"Readers of Dr. Leffingwell's earlier books will expect to find this

one written in the same quiet tone, with the same care and accuracy,

and they will not be disappointed. The book begins with a history of

vivisection in which the reader's chief suprise will be in finding

that medical opinion a generation ago was much more humane than now.

The humane protests of the last generation seem incredible to-day,

when the profession almost to a man stands for the secvret and

unlimited exploitation of animals."--S. N. Cleghorn, in Journal of

Zoophily.

"This book is devoted to a study and discussion of medical

experimentation upon both man and animals. The writer is forced in

his literary style, and has long commanded special attention on this

particular subject. In a skilful and scholarly manner he treats of

the historical development of the agitation in favour of restricted

and regulated experimentation. The book should be read by every

person interested in the discussion, whether in favour of restriction

or not.... All who desire to be placed in touch with the latest word

in regard to this important humanitarian question should secure a copy

of Dr. Leffingwell's scholarly book."--National Humane Review.

"Dr. Leffingwell analyzes the results of vivisection in America in a

masterly way. Many methods of experimentation he finds not only

extremely cruel, but valueless. For instance, the raising of the

blood-pressure of a dog by scorching its paws, one after the other, so

that the blood-pressure might be maintained for twenty minutes. `Of

what possible value was such an experiment?' he asks. `Does anyone

believe than in a human being, blood-pressure will ever be maintained

by slowly scorching the hands and feet of the patient?' ... The matter

is clearly presented, and is interesting to the layman as well as to

the student of physiology."--Hartford Post.

"The ethical problem of which Dr. Leffingwell writes in his

interesting and instructive book, is that which arises from the

prevailing practice of experimentation for scientific purposes upon

animals and human beings.... The book discusses what vivisection is,

and what have been the mistakes and abuses done in its name, as well

as the present unhappy conditions which surround the practice. The

author demonstrates that much of all this vivisection work is not only

unnecessary, but absolutely valueless to science. The book is to be

commended to all who would know something of what vivisection is, what

it does, and what is being done and should still be done to prevent

its present useless cruelty."--The Christian Register.

"Perhaps no other man in America has so good a right to speak on

vivisection, from the standpoint of an expert, as Dr. Leffingwell. To

our mind, he has here gathered in a forceful way the last sane word to

be said on this sensitive question. In these nineteen chapters he has

discussed almost every phase of the problem. Dr. Leffingwell has

occupied a difficult position, standing as he does midway between the

contending parties.... He discovers the law of cruelty, and applies it

mercilessly. He also discovers the law of sacrifice, and would apply

it humanely. In short, this book may well be taken as an

encyclopaedia on vivisection, looked at from the standpoint of the

moralist and the physician. There are illminating appendices giving

technical information, and the chapters are characterized by vigorous

England, and a lively sense of a physician's obligations."

--Chicago Unity

"If nothing else in the book were to be remembered, it would be

valuable that all earnest people should consider the careful analysis

of the various positions which have been taken in regard to this

position, and the critical definition with which Dr. Leffingwell has

striven to replace the varied and unsatisfactory definitions which

have been given for the term `vivisection.' ... The stand taken by

Dr. Leffingwell represents the best-founded position of those

interested in protecting animals from needless pain. He contends that

vivisection should be restricted rather than abolished. There should

be no effort made to prevent those experiments which involve no

suffering for animals, and all animal experimentation should be

brought under the direct supervision and control of the State. `The

practice, whether in public or private, should be restricted by law to

certain definite objects, and surrounded by every possible safeguard

against license and abuse.' That this is not an aim impossible of

attainment has been attested by so famous a scientist as Herbert

Spencer, and by a large number of prominent American and English

physicians and scientists."--Boston Transcript.

"It is greatly to be regretted that the general public is not more

intelligent on the subject of vivisection. It is charged that to-day,

in American physiological laboratories and in medical schools as well,

helpless animals are subjected to torture.... The testimony to this

seems irrefutable; and one is more disposed to give it credence when

he knows of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in other

countries, and learns that the practice of vivisection is unregulated

here....

"It is fortunate that there is available such a book as that just

issued by Dr. Albert Leffingwell, a veteran advocate of legal

regulation, not prohibition, of vivisection. Persons who would be

conversant with a question that ought to receive much more general

consideration than it does should read `An Ethical Problem.'

"One of the most shocking facts with respect to unlimited

vivisection--and that is the kind we have in this country--is that

man's two most intelligent dumb friends, the dog and the horse, have

been subjected to countless hours of inexpressible agony, and often

not for the sake of investigation, but simply that students might

become proficient in operating on living flesh, or witness the cruel

demonstration of physiological facts already well establish.... The

material presented in the book quoted makes the reader feel that in

some respects scientific men have retrograded till they stand about on

a level with the Iroquois Indian of two centuries ago."

--Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

"The volume is exceedingly precise and well written, fortifying itself

with abundant particulars. It touches the hideous cruelties and

devilish atrocities which are done upon various animals, and behind

well-closed doors. One reads it with intense pain and a disgust which

combines nausea with indignation toward the ruthless experimenters

who, disclaiming the hindering use of anaesthetics, exhibit all the

phenomena of nervous torment. Monsters of research would sneer aside

all critics of such infernal `physiological' laboratories....

"The book is a protest against the careful and subterranean silence

and concealment which seem to conspire to resist all legal

inspection. To evade or baulk investigation while causing pain in

order to exploit it, to jeer at the humane shudder of the layman, to

utilize feeble-minded paupers and friendless young children, to

sophisticate a too credulous public with an austere formula as to the

sacred secrecy of the laboratory--all this is an attempted HYPNOSIS of

critics who really want to be fair, but who as citizens insists upon

the right to know what is doing.

"The title of the book--`An Ethical Problem'--is indeed justified by

its array of evidence and argument. Particularly is it shown that on

this question America is still in the dark ages. Reform demands a

frank exactitude as to the practices which, if Dr. Leffingwell is

substantially accurate, are a disgrace to humanity. State control

cannot always be avoided by ridiculing the `sentimentality' of those

who insist upon strict regulation. Painless vivisection for

investigation may have its legitimate place; but to illustrate what is

already well ascertained by exhibiting animals in agony is both

superfluous and debasing, repellant to every mind not seared by a

morbid curiousity."--Hamilton College Record

"`An Ethical Problem,' by Albert Leffingwell, M.D., is by far the most

judicial and unimpassioned contribution to the study of the question

that it has been our privilege to read. Dr. Leffingwell has long been

known both in this country and Europe, as a writer upon this theme.

No one, so far as we know, has brought to it at once so calm and

balanced a judgment as he, or a more exact knowledge of the whole

field in which biological investigation plays so large a part. This

latest publication from his pen is the result of years of study, of

unremitting toil in the great libraries of this country and abroad

where every facility was at hand to obtain data and to verify facts.

It is a book written without bitterness ... which seeks to carry

conviction, not by the force of unverified quotations, or the

repetitions of utterances often made in the heat of controversy, but

by arguments based upon demonstrable fact, and supported by

authorities to which you are referred, chapter and verse....

"The time must come when physiologists as a body--as Professor James

declares they should have done long ere this--will meet public opinion

half-way, `and admitting that the situation is a genuinely ethical one

... give 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.' When that time comes,

and we believe it is not far distant, some legal regulation of animal

experimentation will be had. For this end, the book we have reviewed

has been written; and when at last such regulation is attained, none

will have a larger share in the gratitude of all who will rejoice in

it, than the author whose notable book we have been considering."

--Dr. F. H. Rowley, in Our Dumb Animals.

---------------------

"Dr. Leffingwell's `Ethical Problem' is vivisection, TO WHICH HE IS

IMPLACABLY OPPOSED, and which he describes as antivivisectionists

generally do."--The Syracuse Post-Standard.

"Probably the best-considered treatise on the subject now in print.

The author does not take the position that experimentation upon

animals is always wrong. He maintains, however, in the most

convincing way, that such experiments should be permitted only by

genuine scientists.... Anyone interested in this vital question will

find much that is stimulating, suggestive, and convincing in

Dr. Leffingwell's book."--Universalist Leader.