7 2 4 Physiology and its Opponents . December, 
italicised, and which the authoress coolly puts into the 
mouth of a doctor. 
We next point out that the esoteric object of this strange 
proposal is doubtless to bring physiological experimentation 
into contempt and hatred. Experimentation on human 
subjects would be useful only if the question were to decide 
as to the practicability of some newly-projeCted operation. 
In other cases they might be perfectly useless. The writer 
before us, like many of her colleagues, conceives of experi- 
mentation from a simple and direCtly medical or veterinary 
point of view. The experimentation on animals, for which 
we contend, has for its point of view pure research in general 
physiology. But, even with the narrower objeCt of direCt 
medical or surgical application, the proposed experimentation 
on criminals would break down. Let us consider the recent 
researches of Pasteur on rabies, which have been of late so 
signally verified. 
He found that the poison of rabies, if introduced into an 
animal of a given species, and transferred from that specimen 
to another of the same species, becomes attenuated, whilst, 
if passed through a series of another kind, it retains its 
virulence. How could he have discovered this capital faCt 
if his experiments had been confined to one only species — 
human subjects ? Again, condemned criminals are few, and 
are not always to be had when wanted. 
To take a very different question, it is desirable to ascer- 
tain the influence of different kinds of water — within the 
limits actually occurring in nature— upon fish. Do they 
thrive better or worse in hard or in soft water, in waters 
holding in solution salts of lime or magnesia, in slightly 
brackish waters, &c. Such investigations are needed from 
a double point of view, both as regards the multiplication of 
food-fishes and to ascertain the influence of such conditions 
upon the formation of varieties, and ultimately, perhaps, of 
new species. Now, if experiments are to be performed on 
man only, how could such and hundreds of other researches 
be performed ? Perhaps it may be argued that such experi- 
ments are not “ vivisection.” Logically they certainly are 
not. Legally, i.e., within the meaning of the disgraceful 
“ Anti-viviseCtion Adi,” they probably are. At least, certain 
physiologists about to engage in such researches have been 
advised by counsel that it would be prudent to obtain (if 
they could) the usual license under the Act. 
But the writer warms to her subject. “ Personally speak- 
ing I believe animal vivisection to be worse than useless ; 
it is misleading and wholly sinful -an abomination in the 
