NATURE 



45: 



THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1885 



THE DEB A TE ON VIVISECTION A T OXFORD 



T N our last issue we gave a brief notice of the proceed- 

 ings in an overflowing Convocation at Oxford, which 

 resulted in a majority of 412 votes to 244 in favour of the 

 decree promulgated by the Hebdomadal Council. This 

 decree had only an indirect bearing upon the question of 

 vivisection ; but as it was made an occasion for a fresh, 

 and, let us hope, a final trial of strength between the 

 scientific and anti-scientific forces of the University, it is 

 desirable to furnish our readers with a somewhat more 

 full account of what took place than we had time to print 

 last week. Seeing that the debate had clearly been 

 organised with no small amount of care on the side of the 

 anti-vivisectionists, and that the ablest as well as the 

 most authoritative speakers in Oxford who could support 

 their cause were put forward, we may regard the argu- 

 ments which were adduced as a fair example of the best 

 that can be said against vivisection by cultured thought 

 and cultured speech. We will therefore confine our 

 remarks to what was said on this side of the question. 



Regarded as a piece of oratory, the speech of Canon 

 Liddon was, in our opinion, perfect ; and the effect of 

 what we may term an artistic eloquence was enhanced by 

 the appearance and costume of the speaker, as well as by 

 the appropriateness of his surroundings in the densely 

 crowded Sheldonian Theatre. But when we look from 

 the manner to the matter of his speech, we are unable to 

 bestow such unqualified praise, although we confess that 

 even here we were agreeably surprised by the judicious 

 moderation of its tone. His views, briefly stated, were 

 that so long as we hold it morally lawful to kill animals 

 for food, or otherwise to use them for our own purposes, 

 so long must we in consistency hold that, under certain 

 circumstances, it is morally lawful to inflict pain upon 

 animals for the benefit of man : the special case of vivi- 

 section does not differ in principle from other cases where 

 pain is thus inflicted ; but it ought to be qualified by 

 three conditions — it should be resorted to as rarely as 

 possible, it should be guarded against the instinct of 

 cruelty, and it should be so used as not to demoralise 

 spectators. With all this every physiologist would of 

 course agree. The Canon, however, proceeded to talk 

 what in the strictest meaning of the word must be termed 

 nonsense, when he affirmed that physiology might be 

 " divorced " from vivisection. That this statement has 

 gained currency among the anti-vivisectionists does not 

 alter its essentially unreasonable character. It is per- 

 fectly true that in many departments of physiological 

 research vivisection is not required ; but it is no less true 

 that in many other departments vivisection is an uncon- 

 ditional necessity. This fact, one would think, admits of 

 being rendered obvious to any impartial mind, howsoever 

 ignorant of physiological science. For if this science 

 consists in the study of vital processes going on in the 

 living organism, does it not obviously follow that some of 

 them can only be studied while actually taking place ? 

 I low, for example, would it be possible to gain any know- 

 ledge of the electrical and other changes which occur in 

 a gland during the process of secretion, except by esti- 

 VOL. xxxi.— No. 803 



mating these changes during the act of secretion ? The 

 gratuitous information which physiologists receive from 

 technically ignorant sources touching the nature and the 

 value of their own methods, can only suggest the pre- 

 sumption of inexperienced youth when venturing to 

 instruct a maternal grand-parent in the practical aspects 

 of oology. 



It appears that Prof. Burdon-Sanderson had pledged 

 himself not to exhibit vivisections to his class for the 

 purposes of teaching, and for this concession to the un- 

 reasoning prejudice of his opponents he received a warm 

 expression of gratitude from Canon Liddon. Probably 

 enough, under the circumstances in which he is placed, 

 the concession is a prudent one ; but that it merited the 

 eulogium which was bestowed upon it by Canon Liddon 

 on moral grounds, no man of common sense could very 

 well suppose. Demonstrations on the living subject, if 

 performed in a class-room at Oxford, would of course be 

 always performed on animals under the influence of 

 anaesthetics ; and therefore the " demoralising " effects 

 upon the minds of young men, which Canon Liddon 

 takes to have been averted by Prof. Sanderson's conces- 

 sion, can only be understood to consist in disregarding the 

 mawkish sentimentality w-hich cannot stand the sight of 

 a painless dissection. This kind of " morality " may be 

 regarded as tolerable in a girl : in a man it is not toler- 

 able, and deserves the same kind of pitying contempt as 

 is accorded to personal cowardice, with which it is most 

 nearly allied. 



Canon Liddon, however, regretted that Prof. Sanderson 

 had not further pledged himself to restrict his experi- 

 ments for the purposes of research to animals kept under 

 the influence of anaesthetics during the operations, and 

 killed before recovering from their anaesthesia. We have 

 no doubt that Prof. Sanderson might have complied with 

 the first of these suggestions without any serious detriment 

 to his future researches. For, as a matter of fact, the 

 cases in which anaesthetics interfere with the progress of 

 an experiment are, comparatively speaking, very rare 

 indeed, except where the occurrence of pain forms a 

 necessary part of the experiment — i.e. in certain researches 

 on the functions of sensory nerves. But as all the func- 

 tions of sensory nerves which require for their study the 

 infliction of pain have already been worked out, physio- 

 logy as it now stands does not demand the absence of 

 anaesthetics, save in a very small per centage of opera- 

 tions. Therefore, when pain is inflicted during an opera- 

 tion, it is due, as a rule, not to the exigencies of research, 

 but to the indifference of the operator — a fact which we 

 think physiologists ought to be more insistant than they 

 are in impressing upon the mind of the public. Never- 

 theless, we feel persuaded that Prof. Sanderson was 

 perfectly right in not binding himself never to operate 

 without anaesthetics ; for by so doing he would have vir- 

 tually conceded the principle that the suffering of an 

 animal is too great a price at which to buy an advance of 

 knowledge ; and this, among other things, would have 

 been to place a moral stigma upon some of the most 

 valuable researches of the past. Besides, as was pointed 

 out in the course of an able speech by Prof. Dicey, it is 

 not desirable that the status of a Professor in the Uni- 

 versity should be regarded as beneath that of a gentle- 

 man ; and if it is supposed that Dr. Sanderson is not to 



