436 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



LEGISLATION AGAINST MEDICAL 

 DISCOVERT* 

 Dear Sir: I observe that a new 

 bill on the subject of vivisection has 

 been introduced into the Senate, Bill 

 No. 34. This bill is a slight improve- 

 ment on its predecessor, but it is still 

 very objectionable. I beg leave to state 

 very briefly the objection to all such 

 legislation. 



1. To interfere with or retard the 

 progress of medical discovery is an in- 

 human thing. Within fifteen years 

 medical research has made rapid prog- 

 ress, almost exclusively through the 

 use of the lower animals, and what 

 such research has done for the diagno- 

 sis and treatment of diphtheria it can 

 probably do in time for tuberculosis, 

 erysipelis, cerebro-spinal meningitis 

 and cancer, to name only four horrible 

 scourges of mankind which are known 

 to be of germ origin. 



2. The human race makes use of 

 animals without the smallest compunc- 

 tions as articles of food and as laborers. 

 It kills them, confines them, gelds them 

 and interferes in all manner of ways 

 with their natural lives. The liberty we 

 take with the animal creation in using 

 utterly insignificant numbers of them 

 for scientific researches is infinitesimal 

 compared with the other liberties we 

 take with animals, and it is that use 

 of animals from which the human race 

 has most to hope. 



3. The few medical investigators can 

 not, probably, be supervised or in- 

 spected or controlled by any of the or- 

 dinary processes of Government super- 

 vision. Neither can they properly be 

 licensed, because there is no competent 

 supervising or licensing body. The Gov- 

 ernment may properly license a 



*An open letter from President Eliot of Har- 

 vard University to the Chairman of the Senate 

 Committee on the District of Columbia. 



plumber, because it can provide the 

 proper examination boards for plumb- 

 ers; it can properly license young men 

 to practice medicine, because it can 

 provide the proper examination boards 

 for that profession, and these boards 

 can testify to the fitness of candidates; 

 but the Government cannot provide 

 any board of officials competent to tes- 

 tify to the fitness of the medical in- 

 vestigator. 



4. The advocates of anti-vivisection 

 laws consider themselves more humane 

 and merciful than the opponents of 

 such laws. To my thinking these un- 

 thinking advocates are really cruel to 

 their own race. How many cats or 

 guinea pigs would you or I sacrifice to 

 save the life of our child or to win a 

 chance of saving the life of our child? 

 The diphtheria-antitoxin has already 

 saved the lives of many thousands of 

 human beings, yet it is produced 

 through a moderate amount of in- 

 convenience and suffering inflicted on 

 horses and through the sacrifice of a 

 moderate number of guinea pigs. Who 

 are the merciful people — the few phy- 

 sicians who superintend the making 

 of the antitoxin and make sure of its 

 quality, or the people who cry out 

 against the infliction of any suffering 

 on animals on behalf of mankind? 



It is, of course, possible to legislate 

 against an improper use of vivisection. 

 For instance, it should not be allowed 

 in secondary schools or before college 

 classes for purposes of demonstration 

 only; but any attempt to interfere with 

 the necessary processes of medical in- 

 vestigation is, in my judgment, in the 

 highest degree inexpedient, and is fun- 

 damentally inhuman. 



Yours very truly, 



C. W. Eliot. 

 Hon. James McMillan. 



