800 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 831 



of your letter is taken from the printed rules 

 for retirement as formally adopted by the 

 trustees and published in the Fourth Annual 

 Eeport. There is a misprint, as you point 

 out, in which Rule I. stands instead of Rule II. 



The extract printed by President Jordan 

 "was taken from the minutes of the annual 

 meeting and contained simply additional in- 

 structions of the trustees to the executive com- 

 mittee for their guidance in administering the 

 rules as adopted. These general instructions 

 to the committee directed them that in the 

 administration of Rule II. in its revised form 

 the executive committee was given such dis- 

 cretion as would enable the committee to vote 

 retiring allowances in the cases of those who 

 have shovm marked fitness for research, of 

 those whose twenty-five years of service in- 

 clude noteworthy presidential or other admin- 

 istrative work in a (College or university, and 

 of those who had made definite preparation for 

 early retirement under the old rule. 



I may add that in the past year the com- 

 mittee has had very few applications upon the 

 first mentioned ground. Whenever such ap- 

 plications have been made, the committee has 

 sought to ascertain through the scientific asso- 

 ciates of the applicant a fair estimate of his 

 research ability. No applications have as 

 yet been approved by the committee upon the 

 second ground mentioned. A retiring allow- 

 ance asked upon the third ground has been 

 voted by the committee in each case in which 

 the applicant had actually announced his pros- 

 pective retirement to the college authorities 

 or had really modified his plans to take ad- 

 vantage of retirement within the next few 

 years. I think this answers fully your 

 enquiry. 



Very truly yours, 



Henry S. Pritchett 



Professor J. McKeen Cattell, 

 Garrison-on-Hudson, 

 New York 



QUOTATIONS 



MEDICAL RESEARCH 



In his speech, which we reported yesterday, 

 t the inaugural meeting of the Oxford 



Branch of the Research Defence Society, Lord 

 Cromer remarked with much truth and point 

 that the mere name of the society in whose 

 behalf he was appealing " carried with it to 

 some extent an implied reproach on the 

 state of public opinion in this country." 

 Medical research needs, or ought to need, no 

 defence. On the other hand, for the senti- 

 ment which would impede its progress by dis- 

 countenancing all experiments on living ani- 

 mals no defence is logically possible, unless 

 those who entertain it are prepared to main- 

 tain that no possible advantage to mankind 

 can justify experiments on animals which may 

 cause them pain and often result in their 

 death. It is this thesis which really needs 

 defence, and not the pursuit of medical re- 

 search even by means of vivisection. Dr. 

 Osier went straight to the point when he said : 

 " The question was this — Were they justified 

 in using animals to gain a knowledge of the 

 cause and cure of disease? A majority of 

 thoughtful people maintained that they had 

 the right, and they must employ vivisection, 

 taking care that the animals suffered a mini- 

 mum of pain." There are doubtless many 

 people who will dispute all these propositions 

 and deny, first, that we are justified in using 

 animals to gain a luiowledge of the cause and 

 cure of disease; secondly, that a majority of 

 thoughtful people recognize the existence of 

 any such right; and, thirdly, that the prac- 

 tise of vivisection is necessary to the exercise 

 of that right. Some of them, indeed, would 

 probably go so far as to deny that the pursuit 

 of medical research by means of vivisection 

 has materially increased our knowledge of the 

 cause and cure of disease. 



We would speak with due respect of those 

 who entertain these opinions, but we can not 

 pretend to agree with them. Those who hold 

 that we are not justified in using animals to 

 gain a knowledge of the cause and cure of 

 disease must hold, if they are logical and con- 

 sistent, either that we are not justified in kill- 

 ing animals at all, or that in killing them we 

 must inflict no pain that can be avoided. In 

 the former alternative they must abstain from 



