94 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 82. 



mentioned work on ' Physiological Cruelty,' 

 "It is generally admitted that we may 

 chase and kill an animal, often necessarily 

 with much pain, not because its life and 

 liberty interfere with ours, but because its 

 death will render our life more complete, 

 perhaps in the most trivial detail. We 

 kill them (without antesthetics) not only 

 that we may have food and clothing, but 

 that the food may be varied and attractive 

 and the clothing rich and beautiful. We 

 subject them to painful mutilations in order 

 to make them more manageable for service, 

 to improve the flavor of their flesh, and 

 even to please our whimsical fancies. We 

 imprison them in cages and zoological gar- 

 dens, to improve our knowledge of natural 

 history, or merely to amuse ourselves by 

 looking at them. It is abundantly clear 

 that in all our customary dealings with 

 animals we apply to them without scruple 

 the law of sacrifice, and interpret it with a 

 wide latitude in our own favor. * * * So 

 far, the general principle of dealing with 

 animals which is in a vague way accepted 

 by most humane persons * * * seems to be 

 that we may kill, inconvenience or pain 

 them, for any benefit, convenience or pleas- 

 ure to ourselves, but that the pain must be 

 within moderate limits (of course unde- 

 fined) , and that it must form no element in 

 our pleasure." Now, the point to be spe- 

 cially emphasized in this connection is that 

 physiologists, in experimenting with living 

 organisms, cause an amount of suflering 

 utterly insignificant compared with that 

 which animals are called upon to endure in 

 other ways, and that the suffering thus 

 caused is inflicted with a motive and with 

 an expectation of benefit quite adequate to 

 justify the infliction of a much greater 

 amount of pain that even the most serious 

 operations in the laboratory can be sup- 

 posed to produce. 



In this respect the physiologist stands, it 

 seems to me, on higher moral ground than 



that occupied by most persons whose occu- 

 pation leads them to sacrifice animal life. 

 Compare, for instance, the occupation of a 

 sportsman with that of a physiologist. It 

 is diflicult to imagine how an animal such 

 as a deer or a rabbit can be made to endure 

 greater physical agony than in being hunted 

 to death by hounds. It is hard to conceive 

 of animal suflering more entirely out of 

 proportion to the object sought and gained 

 by it than that produced by the average 

 sportsman whenever he fires a charge of 

 shot into a flock of birds, since, for every 

 bird actually killed, several more will prob- 

 ably be wounded, and, escaping with 

 broken wings, fall an easy prey to their 

 enemies or perish from starvation. Yet we 

 inflict this suflering, not because we need 

 the animal for food, not because its exist- 

 ence interferes in any way with our own, 

 not because we expect to derive any per- 

 manent benefit from its destruction, but 

 simply, as the word ' sport ' implies, be- 

 cause we are in search of amusement, and 

 the sufierings of the animal are incidentally 

 associated with our enjoyment of the mo- 

 ment. It must not be supposed that I de- 

 sire to bring the charge of cruelty against 

 sportsmen, for, of course, the fact that the 

 animal suflers pain forms no part of the 

 pleasure of the hunter ; nor do I overlook 

 the great benefit which the sportsman de- 

 rives incidentally from his pursuit in the 

 acquirement of health, strength and skill. 

 I merely wish to point out, first, that, as 

 far as the charge of cruelty is concerned, 

 the physiologist may claim the same ex- 

 emption which is accorded to the sports- 

 man, for, so far from enjoying the suflerings 

 of the animals on which he experiments, it 

 is his constant object to reduce those sufier- 

 ings to a minimum ; and secondly, that, 

 with regard to a justification for the inflic- 

 tion of pain, the advantage is on the side 

 of the physiologist, for the desire to enlarge 

 the bounds of human knowledge and to fix 



