April 5, 1883] : 
NABRORE 
543 
but is also enforced by the unwavering testimony of those best 
qualified to judge,—not only of scientific workers themselves, 
but of the medical profession in all civilised countries. There is 
not the smallest danger that the ninety-nine hundredths of the 
medical profession who are engaged in the daily effort to prevent or 
relieve disease will undervalue practical medicine in comparison 
with the more abstruse branches of experimental physiology 
and pathology; the danger is the other way, With few ex- 
ceptions physicians and surgeons are not themselves experimenters 
in physiology or pathology. Their business is to prevent disease 
and to relieve their patient’s sufferings : but they know the benefits 
which their art hax derived fro u the work of the laboratory, and 
understand the nature and value of experiments. They are thus 
at once the n.ost disinterested and the most competent wit- 
nesses, and their constant and unanimous testimony ought to be 
conclusive, 
The International Medical Congres of 1881, where upwards 
of 3,000 physicians and surgeons assembled in London, among 
whom were the ablest and most respected leaders of the pro- 
fession in the three kmgdoms, in America, and in foreign 
countries, passed, without a dissentient voice, the following 
resolution :— 
‘*That this congress records its conviction that experiments 
on living animals have proved of the utmost service to medicine 
in the past, and are indispensable to its future progress. That, 
accordingly, while strong!y deprecating the infliction of un- 
necessary pain, it is ‘f opinion, alike in the interest of man and 
of animals, that it is not desirable to restrict competent persons 
in the performance of such experiments.” 
§ 4. A moral question, however, arises, from the fact referred 
to in the resolution just quoted, that some of the necessary ex- 
periments of physiology and pathology involve the infliction of 
pain or of death upon certain of the lower animals. 
The better informed opponents of experimental medicine do 
not dispute i’s scientific and practical value, but assert that no 
probable benefit to man or animals justifies the infliction of 
pain. 
No one would succeed in closing the laboratories of the 
chemist, or the observatories of the astronomer, however strong 
his disbelief in the experimental method of inquiry might be, 
however cordially he disliked or dreaded the advance of science, 
or however obstinately he persisted that the useful arts do not 
depend on scientific data.? It is obvious, however, that the 
fact of pain or death being inflicted in the course of experiments 
cannot alter their scientific importance and necessity ; it only 
imposes on us the duty of making a comparison between the 
injury to a sentient creature and the probable benefit to mankind, 
or to others of its own species. This comparison we will attempt 
to make. 
Happily, the amount of pain inflicted in the course of scientific 
experiments need only be small, and the destruction of life in- 
significant. That, from carelessness or want of forethought, 
experiments have been performed which were ‘‘ cruel,” because 
the pain produced was excessive and unnecessary, may be ad- 
mitted. In many countries consideration for the brute creation 
is still little developed, and the vice of cruelty lightly regarded ; 
* It would be invidious to dwell upon the very few exceptions to this 
almost universal testimony. One only deserves special mention. Sir 
William Fergusson was one of the most skilful and successful operators, but 
he had no authoritative claim to give an opinion upon the sources or the 
methods of surgical science, and even he in his evidence before the Royal 
Commission admitted the use of experiments on animals. 
The testimony of the late Professor Claude Bernard has been often 
adduced against that of all other physiologists because he once wrote, 
“Nous venons les mains vides, mais la bouche pleine de promesses légi- 
times.” This phrase occurs in an elaborate exposition of the necessity of 
experiments on living animals not only for knowledge but for use. Bernard 
well understood the bearing of experiments upon medicine, but he furesaw 
future developments of sc.entific treatment, in comparison with which his 
own eminent seryices would appear insignificant. The following quotation 
shows that his evidence on the whole question did not differ from that of 
other competent witnesses : 
“On voit que la pbysiologie, ou médecine scientifique, comprend-& lw fois 
ce qu’on a artificiellement séparé sous les noms de physivlogie normale, de 
physiologie pathologique, et de thérapeutique. Au point de vue pratique, 
c’est certainement la thérapeutique qui intéresse au plus haut degré le mé- 
decin ; or, c’est précisément la thérapeutique que doit le plus de progrés & 
la physiologic expérimentale.”—Lecons de Phystologie Opératoire, p. 20. 
* On the other hand, it is almost as clear that no serious obstacle would 
be put in the way of even painful experiments in the cause of science, if all 
their opponents were convinced of their utility, and were acquainted with 
the methods of science in general, or the facts of medical science in par- 
ticular. This seems to follow from the very moderate opposition to, or tacit 
acquiescence in, the infliction of pain for desirable objects which obviously 
cannot be otherwise attained, such as more delicate food, more docile 
horses, increased wealth and comfort, or the pleasurable excitement of 
chasing and killing animals. 
even in England, until comparatively lately, the torture of 
harmless animals was thought an innocent pastime. Men of 
science have not always risen above the average humanity and 
moral enlightenment of their ave and country. But speaking 
of this country, and of modern times, it may safely be said that 
no charge of wanton, needless, or excessive sacrifice of animals 
can be, or indeed has been, seriously alleged again-t the small 
number of experimental physiologists and pathologists at work 
in the three kingdoms.!_ Science has herself provided the 
means by which pain is reduced to a minimum. The bene- 
ficent discovery of anesthetics is one cause of the great difference 
between the sufferings inflicted by Harvey, Boyle, Hales, Haller, 
Hunter, Magendie and Bell, and the generally painless experi- 
ments of a modern laboratory. These may be classified as 
follows, with reference to tre suffering inflicted :— 
(1) Many physiological experiments are entirely unaccompanied 
by pain, and can therefore be performed, according to con- 
yenience, either upon animals or upon man himself. Such are 
many experiments upon vision, ta-te, smell and touch ; experi- 
ments on the value of different kinds of food, experiments on 
the effect of exercise, temperature, and other conditions on the 
excretions ; many experiments on bodily heat, on the pulse, and 
on respiration. 
(2) In still more numerous cases, observations and experi- 
ments can be made on the tissues and organs after the death of 
an animal: e.g., the relative tenacity of the different textures, 
the mechanical effects of violence upon the bones, the action of 
the heart (which in cold-blooded creatures continues long after 
their death) and the whole of a long and important series of 
experiments on the functions of muscles and nerves, which 
cause no pain, since they are performed on the tissues of a dead 
organism. 
(3) Next, but far less nm number, comes a third class of experi- 
ments which are performed on animals rendered insensible by 
various anesthetic agents, These can be, and were, by the 
practice of physiologists long before legislative sanction was 
added, carried out without any pain or even discomfort to the 
animal, which being killed before awakening, is deprived of life 
in probably the most painless manner po sible, 
(4) There are, however, certain observations, for which it is 
necessary to allow an animal to recover from insensibility, and 
to live for a longer or shorter time. In such cases the severest 
pain, that of the operation, is abolished, and the subsequent 
suffering is sometimes quite insignificant, usually that of a 
healing wound, and occasionally that of inflammation, colic, or 
fever. In many of these experiments the initial pain is so 
trifling that it would be absurd to give an anesthetic ; such are 
acupuncture and inoculation. It would be unreasonable to 
give a rabbit chloroform for such observations as bleeding, vac- 
cination, or pricking with the needle of a subcutaneous syringe, 
for which no human being would take it. 
(5) There remain a small number of experiments in which 
anzsthetics would be impracticable. These are chiefly the 
experimental production of various diseases, such as tubercle, 
glanders, cattle-plague, where the pain is that of the subsequent 
! The following extract is taken from the Report of the Royal Com- 
mission, which was drawn up after a prolonged and patient examination of 
witnesses and documents, and was signed by all the Commission—Lord 
Cardwell (Chairman), Lord Winmarleigh, the Rt. Hon. W. E. Forster, the 
late Sir John Karslake, Professor Huxley, Mr. Erichsen, and Mr, R. H. 
Hutton :-— 
“That the abuse of the practice by inhuman or unskilful persons, in 
short, the infliction upon animals of any unnecessary pain, is justly abhor- 
rent to the moral sense of your Majesty’s subjects generally, nct least so of 
the most distinguished physiologists and the most eminent surgeons and 
physicians.’” i : 
The imputation of cruelty which has always been indignantly repudiated, 
has not been substantiated by a single authentic instance. In their evidence, 
given before the Royal Commission, the Royal Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals state, through their Secretary, that they do not know a 
single case of wanton cruelty. : 
On the cccasion of the present Act (39 and 4o Vict, cap. 77) being passed, 
all teachers of physiology, in a memorial addressed to the House of Com- 
mons, said : 
“We repeat the statement which most of us have made before the Com- 
mission. that within our personal knowledge, the abuses in connection with 
scientific investigation, against which in this Billit is proposed to legislate, 
do not exist, aad never have existed in this country.’’ Signed by the late 
Prof. Sharpey (University College, London); Dr. William Carpenter, C.B. 
(formerly Lecturer on Physiology at_the London Hospital); Professor 
G. Humphry (Cambridge); Professor Rutherford (Edinburgh) ; Dr. Pavy 
(Guy's Hospital); Dr. M. Foster (Trinity College. Cambridge); Dr. Burdon 
Sanderscn (University College, London) ; Dr. Robert McDonnell (Dublin) ; 
Prof. Redfern (Belfast); Prof. Cleland (Galway); Prof. Charles (Cork); 
Prof. McKendrick (now of Glasgow); Dr. Pye-Smith (Guy’s Hospital) ; 
Prof. Yeo (King’s College, London); Mr. Charles Yule (Magdalen Col- 
lege, Oxford); Prof. Gamgee (Owens College, Manchester). 
