NATURE 



557 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1892. 



VIVISECTION AT THE CHURCH CONGRESS. 



THE attitude of the Church towards science at the 

 present day shows a healthy spirit of tolerance. 

 It fully recognizes that research in physical science is the 

 very embodiment of the seeking after truth, and that 

 the proper exercise of faith is consonant with an 

 attitude of expectancy. This year, however, has seen 

 an attempt, led by Bishop Barry, to disturb this har- 

 mony and to create an exception, namely, in the case 

 of scientific research in Biology, whether of normal 

 structure as physiology, or of abnormal, as pathology. 

 At the Church Congress last week the following was 

 referred for open discussion at the instigation of Bishop 

 Barry, who, however, wished, it is stated, to have had 

 a much more sweeping theme presented : — 



" Do the interests of mankind require experiments 

 on living animals, and, if so, up to what point are they 

 justified ? " 



There was here presented to the Congress the twofold 

 aspect of the question — utilitarian and moral — the 

 obvious desire of the Subjects Committee being that 

 they should thus have laid before them on these two 

 points the evidence of the usefulness of scientific experi- 

 ments on living tissues, and the evidence that such 

 research is consonant with morality. 



To all scientific men, even if not biologists, there is no 

 need of evidence that experiments on living tissues are 

 necessary to the progress of physiology and pathology. 

 As Mr. Horsley showed in his speech, this position is a 

 priori established, since the processes of life are chemical 

 and physical in nature, and can only therefore be 

 advanced by experimental observation whether in the 

 laboratory or by the bedside. It seems, by the way, to 

 have escaped the notice of all the speakers that every 

 new clinical fact is as much the outcome of "experi- 

 mental " observation as any note made in a laboratory. 

 We would lay stress on this since not only do some 

 dignitaries in the Church but even a few medical men 

 seem to think that clinical discoveries are the result of 

 inspiration, and not the outcome of trying this or that 

 modification of factors and noting the subsequent 

 effects. However, if the Church Congress wanted facts 

 they were supplied in overwhelming degree, and not 

 only facts on the utilitarian side but also many — some 

 unexpected to judge by the excitement produced — on the 

 moral condition of anti-vivisectionists and their beliefs. 

 Putting aside for a moment the utilitarian side of the 

 question, it is doubtful whether the moral responsibility 

 of anti-vivisectionists has ever been more freely ex- 

 posed to view. After Dr. Wilks had revealed the 

 inconsistency of the agitators and their free use of 

 animals (without anaesthetics) for their own ends, 

 Mr. Horsley probed the consciences of the bishops by 

 pointing out that "it has always been a matter of the 

 utmost surprise to the medical profession that educated 

 men in positions of the gravest moral responsibility like 

 NO. I J 98, VOL. 46] 



bishops should have in this matter descended to receive 

 the information they require from sources of notoriously 

 tainted character, rather than by seeing for themselves in 

 our University laboratories what scientific experiments 

 are in reality." 



It is certainly a very fair question to ask of Bishops 

 Barry and Moorhouse — What right had they to lend their 

 help to any cause, however righteous it may appear to 

 them, unless they have made a bona-fide effort to hear 

 both sides ? Has Bishop Barry visited the Physiological 

 Laboratory at Oxford, or Bishop Moorhouse that and the 

 Pathological Laboratory at Owens College ? And if not, 

 why not ? Most especially ought such care to have been 

 exercised in the case of anti-vivisectionism, since the 

 leaders of that party have attacked not merely individuals, 

 but t*ie whole medical profession as " murderers," 

 "torturers," &c., and have accused them of the grossest 

 cruelty and self-seeking. The bishops referred to have, 

 it is to be feared, forgotten that their office is a very 

 reverend one, not to be lightly used to help any and every 

 alleged reform, and above all not to be used as a 

 means of unfounded denunciation of what Mr. Horsley 

 truly calls an honourable, earnest, and hard-working 

 profession. 



It is difficult to see on what possible ground Bishop 

 Barry can defend his use of the expressions " arrogance,' 

 " physiological insolence," when he applies them, as he 

 has done, to the simple statements of fact which have 

 been formulated into the following resolutions, the first 

 passed at the International Medical Congress of 1881, and 

 the second at the recent meeting of the British Medical 

 Association at Nottingham : 



(i) " That this Congress records its conviction that ex- 

 periments on living animals have proved of the utmost 

 service to medicine in the past and are indispensable to 

 its future progress. That accordingly, while strongly 

 deprecating the infliction of unnecessary pain, it is 

 of opinion, alike in the interests of man and of animals, 

 that it is not desirable to restrict competent persons in the 

 performance of such experiments." 



(2) " That this general meeting of the British Medical 

 Association records its opinion that the results of experi- 

 ments on living animals have been of inestimable service 

 to man and to the lower animals, and that the continu- 

 ance and extension of such investigations is essential to 

 the progress of knowledge, the relief of suffering, and the 

 saving of life." 



We are glad to see that these unanimous resolutions 

 were read to the Church Congress and appreciated 

 by the audience at their proper value and not accord- 

 ing to the estimate of Bishop Barry. Similarly, men of 

 science may not only ask whether Bishop Barry was a 

 moment justified in speaking of physiological research as 

 " cruelty " and " demoralization " while ignorant of the 

 real facts, but they certainly have the right to demand 

 that, should he fail to respond to the challenge offered 

 him by Mr. Horsley, and substantiate his grounds for 

 making these assertions, he should withdraw from the 

 agitation (which has, we suspect, only injured his repu- 

 tation), and make a free and ample apology. 



In the same manner also we would call upon Canon 

 Wilberforce to retreat from the unworthy position into 

 which he has been thrown by the force of feeling uncon- 



B B 



