316 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. V., No. 115. 



except where the occurrence of pain forms a neces- 

 sary part of the experiment ; i.e., in certain re- 

 searches on the functions of sensory nerves. But as 

 all the functions of sensory nerves which require for 

 their study the infliction of pain have already been 

 worked out, physiology, as it now stands, does not 

 demand the absence of anaesthetics, save in a very 

 small percentage of operations : therefore, when pain 

 is inflicted during an operation, it is due, as a rule, 

 not to the exigencies of research, but to the in- 

 difference of the operator, — a fact which we think 

 physiologists ought to be more insistent than they 

 are in impressing upon the mind of the public. 



Nevertheless, we feel persuaded that Professor San- 

 derson was perfectly right in not binding himself 

 never to operate without anaesthetics: for by so 

 doing he would have virtually conceded the prin- 

 ciple that the suffering of an animal is too great 

 a price at which to buy an advance of knowl- 

 edge; 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 tbe course of an able speech by 

 Professor Dicey, it is not desirable that the status 

 of a professor in the university should be regarded 

 as beneath that of a gentleman; and, if it is sup- 

 posed that Dr. Sanderson is not to be trusted in 

 the latter capacity, he ought never to have been 

 chosen to fill an Oxford chair. In short, as the rep- 

 resentative of physiology in Oxford, Dr. Sanderson, by 

 the nature and extent of his concession, has drawn a 

 clear distinction between the importance of teaching 

 and of research: he has consented to allow the teach- 

 ing to suffer, if needs be; but he will not consent 

 to yield an inch where the principles of research are 

 concerned. 



The other suggestion which was thrown out by 

 Canon Liddon — namely, that a professor of physi- 

 ology ought to pledge himself to kill every animal 

 before it recovers from its anaesthesia — is, from 

 every point of view, absurd. In the first place, the 

 suggestion can only emanate from the uninformed 

 supposition that the pain of a healing wound is con- 

 siderable. But we know, from the experience of hos- 

 pital practice, that even the most severe wounds are 

 painless while healing, unless the process of healing 

 is complicated by morbid conditions, which now ad- 

 mit of being wholly prevented by antiseptic methods. 

 As a matter of fact, therefore, in our physiological 

 laboratories, as in our surgical wards, there is at the 

 present time but an extremely small amount of suffer- 

 ing to be found in connection with the healing of 

 wounds; and no man of ordinary sense, who had ever 

 seen the inside of either the one or the other, would 

 have cared to make the suggestion which we are con- 

 sidering. But in the next place, even if this were 

 not so, it would have been highly wrong in any pro- 

 fessor of physiology to restrict himself to the per- 

 formance of experiments the objects of which could 

 be secured during the action of an anaesthetic. Cer- 

 tainly more than half the experiments which the 

 physiologist has now to perform have reference to 

 questions of after-effects, and this is especially the 



case in experiments bearing upon the problems of 

 pathology. 



The speech of the bishop of Oxford was bad, both 

 in logic and in taste. It was bad in logic, because, in 

 arguing for the total suppression of physiological re- 

 search in Oxford, he relied upon foreign practice for 

 his evidence of cruelty. This was essentially illogi- 

 cal, because it fails to distinguish between two very 

 different things; namely, the cruelty, if any, which 

 attaches to vivisection per se, and the cruelty which 

 arises from other sources. If the state of public feel- 

 ing in some foreign countries is not so sensitive as 

 it is in our own on the matter of inflicting pain upon 

 the lower animals, it is obviously unfair to search 

 through the continent for instances of cruelty in 

 connection with physiological research, and then to 

 adduce such instances as proof of cruelty necessarily 

 attaching to physiological research at home. We 

 might as well argue against the use of mules in 

 England because these animals are badly treated in 

 Spain. As we have already said, there are now but 

 extremely few cases possible in which the occurrence 

 of pain is necessary for the purposes of an experi- 

 ment; and therefore the proof of pain having been 

 inflicted in any one case constitutes proof, not of the 

 pain-giving character of vivisection in general, but of 

 the carelessness of some operator in particular. The 

 cruelty must belong to the individual, not to the 

 methods; and we are not aware that any charge of 

 cruelty has hitherto been proved against an English 

 physiologist. 



The bishop of Oxford's speech was bad in taste, 

 because he sought, missionary- wise, to tell some an- 

 ecdote of horror, which the good sense of convoca- 

 tion prevented him from narrating, further than that 

 the subject of his story was to have been ' An affec- 

 tionate little dog.' But as he was not able to give 

 any reference to the scene of his tragedy, after a pro- 

 longed battle with his audience upon this somewhat 

 necessary proof of authenticity, he was obliged to 

 give way. His taste was perhaps still more ques- 

 tionable, when, in the presence of Professor Sander- 

 son and other working physiologists, he proceeded to 

 adduce the favorite argument that the pursuit of ex- 

 perimental physiology exercises a baleful influence 

 on the moral nature. That the argument is unsound, 

 both in principle and in fact, we need not wait to 

 show. 



The speech of Professor Freeman was rendered 

 wholly inaudible by a general uproar, which pro- 

 ceeded chiefly from the side which he rose to sup- 

 port. We were told that this was due to the memory 

 of the effect which was produced by his speech on the 

 occasion of the previous vote. 



Upon the whole, we think that the debate was of 

 no little service to the cause of physiology in Oxford ; 

 and, when we consider how largely the majority of 

 votes has grown since the first of the three divisions, 

 we are glad to congratulate the university upon hav- 

 ing shown so emphatically, that, not less than her 

 sister, she is able to withstand the assaults of the 

 two great enemies of learning, — ignorance and fa- 

 naticism. 



