1 885.1 
Physiology and its Opponents. 
599 
fo 'having L1rtfed 0U hk dU th y n t0 lT 1 , 0giS ? t0 Mr ' Roberts °" 
with thp 1 , thoughtful and acute essay along 
Woman” R f1 n< T a 0ut ^ re . a k of the anonymous “Weak 
side of t’hn Both ’ however > like many other writers on either 
de of the question, commit one oversight Thev seem m 
question th^LTk^f 1 e} fP eBmentation as a purely medical 
question the results of which are or ought to be direrkh, 
pp icable to medicine, or to veterinary practice. This error 
lenders it possible to raise the question whether any D ar 
ticular improvement in medical or in surgical treatment is 
due to such experiments ? But what would, ‘for Tn7ance 
researchhadTot ^Tfi‘7 ° r ° f physics « train of 
diate uti tv In ihfied on acc . ount ° f its d ire«. tame- 
Q ate utility m medicine or even in the arts ? It is now 
everywhere conceded that progress in the arts requires not 
t “eir reaffioTs° W h, knowledge of some few substances and 
11 1 ? ’ f b ? a general abstract knowledge of the 
ole sphere of phenomena concerned. It has been seen 
at theoretical, speculative researches on the derivatives 
BeMnrl " tar led a new and a lucrative industry! 
Behind medical practice stand chemistry and physics 
m! e v ° t P , ed Wlth °ut any direct reference to the art of heading. 
Why, then, should the case be other with physiology ? fust 
as the physician regulates his practice by an insight into the 
chemmal constitution and behaviour of the various substances 
which form the human body, and of the foods, drugs, poisons 
and disease germs which are intentionally or accidentally 
introduced into it, so, and even in a higher degree, he re- 
quires a general knowledge of animal life, as accurate and 
as profound as can be attained, and for this purpose physio- 
logical experimentation is necessary. 
^j 1 ’ dso . n no f es that the Bestiarians “ strongly con 
tend that physiological experiment is morally indefensible 
even if serviceable.” The steps in the controversy he con- 
siders as few and simple. The Bestiarian alleges that man 
has no right” to give animals pain with the view of 
escaping it himself, or as it would be more properly put in 
pursuit of knowledge not otherwise attainable. The physi- 
ologist “ alleging that the right does exist puts it on all fours 
with the light to use animals for food or to make them work 
The Bestiarian replies that, granted the right to kill for food 
and to put to service, the right to give pain does not follow. 
And here sets in the dead lock.” Now with all re sped! for 
Mr. Robertson we can see here no dead lock at all, the 
last contention of the Bestiarian being in our judgment un- 
mitigated nonsense. We cannot drive animals to market, 
