SCIENCE. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1885. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



The April issue of the Zoophilist is very 

 much a Baltimore number, from the space 

 given to Professor Martin, and to the ' martyr- 

 dom ' of Prof. J. Re nd el Harris. Professor 

 Martin's reply to some strictures made upon 

 his work in an earlier issue of the same journal 

 is treated as ' an angry, exaggerated, and ab- 

 surd pamphlet ' by various writers. We have 

 already made, as we believe, suitable mention 

 of the pamphlet in question, but return to the 

 controversy again because the Zoophilist offers 

 so clear an illustration of the unfair and un- 

 generous methods which find favor with the 

 antivivisectionists. Man}- of these persons 

 hold views, such that, however much we may 

 disagree with them, they are entitled to re- 

 spect — and silence. When, however, any 

 person having ' views ' is not only unable to 

 perceive that an opponent may be equally ear- 

 nest and upright, but also uses the press to 

 show him up as a prevaricator, or, more plainly, 

 as a liar, it is time for self-respecting persons 

 to speak out. 



The points in the discussion are briefly these : 

 Professor Martin published some experiments 

 which plvysiologists, and other medical men 

 familiar with experimental work, — i.e., those 

 persons most competent to sit in judgment 

 thereon, — consider a valuable addition to our 

 knowledge of the working of the animal body 

 both in health and disease. In his account of 

 his work — written for these same competent 

 observers, and published where perfect candor 

 and fulness are a matter of professional honor, 

 so to speak — it is expressly stated that these 

 animals were all put under the influence of 

 undoubted anaesthetics or narcotics, except in 

 two instances, where curare was used in order 

 to be certain that the other drugs had not 



No. 122. — 1885. 



injured the organ under investigation. The 

 Zoophilist people claimed, that, as he used 

 artificial respiration in ever} T experiment, he 

 must also have employed curare in those other 

 cases where it is not mentioned, and made 

 other statements concerning the investigations, 

 which show that a knowledge of some of the 

 most elementary principles of physiology is 

 sadly wanting in the editorial rooms of that 

 paper. The effort to fall back upon informa- 

 tion furnished by ' an eminent physiologist ' 

 would inevitably result in making him ridicu- 

 lous, if the mention of his name could be per- 

 mitted. Professor Martin's reply clearly set 

 forth the nature of the operations performed, 

 and especially the necessity of the tracheotomy 

 and artificial respiration, since he wished to 

 rapidly kill every organ except the lungs and 

 the heart. The Zoophilist returns to the at- 

 tack ; but this is a mere reiteration of its for- 

 mer absurdities, with some added excrescences 

 suggested by fresh and perverse misunder- 

 standings of Professor Martin's explanations. 



This may, perhaps, seem a trifling matter, but 

 such it is not. Everywhere else, when diver- 

 gency of views exists, opponents certainly agree 

 to consider each other honest and frank. Such 

 odium as their experimental work may call 

 forth from the unthinking or ignorant mind, 

 and more especially from the feminine type of 

 it, the physiologists can readily endure, but 

 they do fairly claim the right to be looked upon 

 as men of at least as much candor and upright- 

 ness as those who oppose their research and 

 yet expect to be classed among the educated 

 and thoughtful. It is the duty of all workers 

 in the different fields of science to stand to- 

 gether in such things, and to insist upon fair 

 and just treatment from these ignorant critics 

 who have the ear of that portion of the public 

 with whom feeling and sentiment are on an 

 equality with knowledge, and abusive misrepre- 

 sentation passes for argument. 



