io8 
Correspondence. 
[February, 
a line of your own, into which I cannot follow you. I am not 
considering this question from a purely medical, selfish point of 
view. I am willing and anxious that all biologists — scientists, if 
I may use the word — should have the power of carrying on ex- 
periments, likely to prove useful to science and mankind, without 
the restrictions now imposed on them. Competency or fit- 
ness for scientific research should be a sine qua non with all 
who engage in such experiments. Who is to vouch for this ? 
There cannot be much difficulty on this point, with the number 
of learned societies we have. All the young workers soon get 
known to the leaders in Science in all its departments. 
I do not see much humiliation in the certificate, provided it 
covers the conditions I ask for, viz., that the licensed experimenter 
may carry on any or all experiments he may think necessary, 
without the present harassing restrictions. The certificate will 
be a guarantee that the worker has a definite object in view, and 
that he understands the manner and methods of research. 
You object to my expressions about “ torturing a living animal 
under pretence of research.” If you read Simon’s Address you 
will see he alludes to the class (imaginary or not) who, with no 
relation to scientific research, carry on animal experiments. If 
there are such a class, then I say let the Add stand in force 
against them. I asked my audience to discriminate between the 
qualified and unqualified, and pointed out the injustice of applying 
the Add equally to both. I have nothing to retract on this point. 
I do not consider it any hardship to limit experimentation to the 
class of scientific workers who are anxious to undertake this kind 
of work — chemist, physicist, surgeon, or physician. In my lec- 
ture I clearly point out what I desired for them. Pasteur would 
not suffer from my conditions if he lived in England. 
In grasping at the impossible you may lose the possible. In 
the present temper of English society I feel that a repeal of the 
Vivisection Add in toto , in favour of free and open vivisection, is 
an impossibility. 
The “ Lancet ” programme is within the range of practical 
politics. The disunion in the camp need not any longer continue 
if you will substitute it for your own, and use your powerful pen 
in advocacy thereof. 
Medical men, biologists, naturalists will derive equal benefit 
from the Add if it is administered in the spirit and manner I sug- 
gest, so that there need be no division of interest. 
I regret that my method of educating the public has met with 
your disapproval. . I have the satisfaddion of knowing that our 
scientific men here, outside my own profession, approve of the 
manner in which I treated this subject. 
I distributed 250 copies of Professor Humphrey’s Address to 
my audience, so that if I did any harm his able expose will have 
neutralised it. — I am, &c., 
T. M. Dolan. 
Horton House, Halifax, January 4, 1882. 
