An ethical problem; or, Sidelights upon scientific experimentation on man and animals

by Albert Leffingwell

APPENDIX I

"ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION AND MEDICAL PROGRESS"—A REVIEW

By a curious coincidence, two books relating to vivisection were published in America at almost the same time. One, under the above title, was a collection of essays and contributions to various periodicals from the pen of Dr. William W. Keen, which have appeared during the past thirty years. The other was the first edition of the present work.

The volume to which the reader's attention is called is chiefly an exposition of the author's views on the scientific value of biological experimentation. With some of his conclusions, there will be little or no dispute among members of the medical profession. But in defending the moethods of physiological experiment, has he been scrupulously accurate and uniformly fair? Is there to be discerned any tendency to exaggeration, to over-statement or to suppression of vital facts? Eager as he is to charge inaccuracy upon others, has he been always accurate himself? Has any authority cited been "garbled," so that quotation conveys an impression inconsistent with the general tenor of a writer's views? What cruelties of past experimentation has this author emphatically condemned? What experimenters upon human kind has he held up to the reprobation of the public? In the entire volume, can one find a single instance wherein a cruel experiment has been censured, or a cruel experimenter been condemned by name? Except in a volume, it would be impossible to indicate all points to which attention should be given; it must suffice here, to direct attention only to a few.

I.

A personal criticism of the writer by Dr. Keen makes necessary a record of the facts. Referring to a certain experiment of a German vivisector, Goltz, Dr. Keen says:

"In 1901 Professor Bowditch called Dr. Leffingwell's attention to the fact that no such operation was ever done. In Dr. Leffingwell's collected essays, entitled "The Vivisection Question," on p. 169 of the second revised edition (1907), there is, in a footnote a correction admitting that no such operation was ever done(!), but on p. 67 of the same edition, A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION still remains uncorrected, six years after Bowditch's letter had been received and the misstatement acknowledged."[1]

[1] Keen's "Animal Experimentation," p. 271.

Truth and untruth are sadly intermingled in this paragraph. Let us attempt to disentangle them.

On March 7, 1901, while the collection of essays, known as "The Vivisection Question" was in the printer's hands and on the eve of publication, a note was received from Professor Bowditch of Harvard Medical School, courteously asking the authority for one particular procedure in the long account of the Goltz experiment—the ablation of the breast. In reply to Professor Bowditch, the name of Dr. Edward Berdoe of London was given as the authority upon which the author of "The Vivisection Question" had confidently relied. A letter was at once sent to Dr. Berdoe—a well-known English physician—telling him that one procedure mentioned in the description of the Goltz experiment had been questioned, and asking him for an immediate and careful study of the case. Dr. Berdoe's investigation made it evident that a mistake had been made by the translator upon whose accuracy he had relied; and in the next edition of "The Vivisection Question" at p. 169—(the only page to which Dr. Bowditch had invited attention)— an acknowledgment was inserted. That it had even the briefest reference elsewhere, was not recalled by the author of the book, for he had not seen it for years.

Nor was this all. To the London Zoophilist and to the Journal of
Zoophily in this country, a communication was at once sent. In the
latter periodical, the following letter appeared in its issue for
July, 1901:

To the Editor of the Journal of Zoophily

MADAM,—A German vivisector, Dr. Goltz of Strasburg, reporting certain experiments he had made upon a dog, declared that it was "marvellous and astonishing" to find maternal instinct manifested after various severe mutilations. One of these operations was reported to have been excision of the breasts, so that it could no longer nurse its young, and to this phase of the experiment I have referred in some of my writings.

Recently, Dr. Bowditch of Harvard University has called my attention to this particular mutlation, questioning its occurrence; and on referring the matter ot Dr. Berdoe of London, who was my authority, he finds, after a most painstaking and careful examination at the College of Surgeons, that a mistake in comprehending a phrase was actually made by the translator, upon whose accuracy and acquaintance with the German language dependence seemed secure.

All the details of this Goltz experiment are too horrible to quote; this is not a case where a single experiment has been magnified into a great cruelty; the truth itself is bad enough.[1] It is a fact, however, that one particular mutilation ascribed to Goltz—the ablation of the breasts—did not in this instance occur.

It has always seemed to me of the utmost importance that in all criticism of vivisection our facts should be absolutely reliable, and that whenever inaccuracies occur, they should be corrected. All that we want is the truth, without concealment of abuse on the one hand, or misstatement on the other. In this case, I am especially glad to make correction. For many years I have been acquainted with the writings of Dr. Berdoe, and I have never found therein the slightest overstatement or exaggeration of any kind. In the twenty-one years I have written in advocacy of some measure of reform in regard to vivisection, this, too, IS THE FIRST INSTANCE IN WHICH AN INACCURACY OF ANY STATEMENT OF MINE REGARDING ANY EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ALBERT LEFFINGWELL.

BROOKLYN,
May 31, 1901.

[1] No advocate of unrestricted experimentation, so far as known, has ever dared to print the full details of this Goltz experiment.

In the only essay to which Professor Bowditch has called attention, the statement had been corrected; the fact that an allusion of five or six words in an earlier essay gave an erroneous suggestion, was quite overlooked. But Dr. Keen will have it that there was a "REVISED" edition, and that in this "A DESCRIPTION OF THIS SAME OPERATION" was given.

There are here two misstatements. There is not the slightest reason for calling it a "revised" edition. Was there a "description given"? Let us quote the entire passage, written nearly a quarter of a century ago, in order to see what Dr. Keen ventured to call a "description of this same operation."

"We are almost at the beginning of the twentieth century. Civilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve, new dangers to confront, new hopes to realize. It is useless to deny the increasing ascendancy of that spirit, which in regard to the problems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but continues its search for solution; it is equally useless to shut our eyes to the influence of this spirit upon those beliefs which for many ages have anchored human conduct to ethical ideals. Regret would be futile; and here, perhaps is no occasion for regret. To the new spirit, which perhaps is to dominate the future, this longing for truth, not for what she gives us in the profit that the ledgers reckon, but for what she is herself—this high ambition to solve the mysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries that shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely more glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final record History is so soon to end.

"But all real progress in civilization depends upon man's ethical ideals…. What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to assume in coming years? What are the ideals held up before American students in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to fire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and similar success? Is it Richet, `bending over palpitating entrails, surrounded by groaning creatures,' not, as he tells us, with any thought of benefit to mankind, but simply `to seek out a new fact, to verify a disputed point?' Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, `con multo amore e patience moltissima,'—with much patience and pleasure— the agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Sequard, ending a long life devoted to the torment of living things with the investion of a nostrum that earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of Strasburg, noting with wonder that mother love and yearning solicitude could be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off, and whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for cataract and plunging the needle to the bottom of the patient's eye, that by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of irritating the retina? … Surely, in these names, and such as these, there can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that unselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the amelioration of the world."

In this passage, there is an allusion of JUST SIX WORDS to one phase of experimentation which was subsequently found to be inaccurate, and corrected, as Dr. Keen has shown. But was it in accord with truth to refer to this passing reference as "A DESCRIPTION of the same operation"? No reader of Dr. Keen's pages would be likely to investigate the statement. Was it fair to permit his readers to understand that a DESCRIPTION EXISTED, WHERE THERE WAS NONE?

There is yet another point to be noted. Referring to the experiments of Goltz, the impression seems to be given that not only was ablation of the breast mistakenly ascribed to the Strasburg vivisector, but that such a vivisection was imaginary: "NO SUCH OPERATION WAS EVER DONE." This is also untrue. Experiments of the kind have been done by other vivisectors, and they are recorded in their own reports. For example, de Sinety of Paris tells us in his "Manuel Pratique de Gynecologie" (Paris, 1879, p. 778), that upon female guinea-pigs, he had practised "l'ablation de ces glands pendant la lactation."[1] Another French vivisector, Dr. Paul Bert, states that he had not only performed "l'ablation des mamelles chez une femelle de cochon d'Inde," but that he had succeeded in performing the operation on a female goat. The poor creature recovered from the vivisection, and later, gave birth to a kid, which was placed with the mother. What would happen to a new-born animal placed at the side of a mother whose breasts had been cut off?

"Le petit, animal, voulant teter, et trouvant pas de mamelles, a donne de violent coups de te^te dans le re'gion mammaire…."[2]

[1] In a reference to de Sinety's vivisections at page 171, in the present volume, there is a slight mistake. Although de Sinety, as shown above, had practised the ablation of the mammary glands during lactation, it would seem that mutilation rather than complete ablation preceded his experiments on the innervation of the mammary nerve. The sentence should read "cut into the breasts," and not "removed the breasts." He tells us that he made a considerable number of experiments of the kind upon female guinea-pigs. In one of them, for example, he laid bare the nerve and isolated it with a thread,—"le nerf mammaire d'un co^te est mis a` nu, et isole," and that when the electric current was used, extreme pain,—"un douleur tre`s vivre" was excited, notwithstanding which the excitation was continued for ten minutes. (Gazette Me'd. de Paris, for 1879, p. 593). [2] Comptes Rendus de la Soc. de Biologie, Paris, 1883, p. 778.

There is no need of completing the description. It was an experiment absolutely useless and without justification. We may confess that we read of such useless cruelties of experiment only with infinite disgust.

No matter how careful a writer may be, it is very rare that he escapes, from unfriendly readers, the imputation of inaccuracy. Against writers of history—men like Froude, Macaulay, or Carlyle—the same charge has been made. But a critic whose microscopic eye discerns inaccuracy in others should be very careful to make no similar errors himself. The mistake upon which he has dwelt, was due to reliance upon the translation of another man. It may be of interest to point out that in his own writings Dr. Keen has made a precisely similar mistake; and that although it was pointed out and its untruth confessed many years ago, yet the false imputation appears again in the pages of his book, without correction or intimation of its utter untruth, on the page where it firs tis given to the reader of to-day.

In a pamphlet published during the closing years of the last century by the American Humane Association, there appeared a strong condemnation of experiments made by a Dr. Sanarelli, apparently upon hospital patients, temporarily under his care. In an Italian periodical, the young scientist described his researches with remarkable frankness. He tells of the various symptoms of yellow fever, which by his serum he had caused his victims to suffer—the congestions, the haemorrhage, the delirium, the fatty degeneration, the collapse; and all these, he adds, "I have seen unrolled before my eyes, THANKS TO THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF THE YELLOW-FEVER POISON MADE IN MY LABORATORY."

So terrible a confession of human vivisection, it was eemed best by some English translator to suppress; and in various medical journals, both in England and America, the sentence here italicized did not appear. Finding it quoted only by the pamphlet that condemned human vivisection, Dr. Keen, without consulting the original, made the dishonouring imputation that perhaps it had been "DELIBERATELY ADDED" by some one of his opponents, and this, too, notwithstanding he had referred to the original authority where the words were to be found. "Unfortunately," he explained at a later period, "I am not an Italian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original article"; he had placed dependence for his statement upon a "friend."[1] Who could have been this "friend" who pretended that he had read the article of Sanarelli in the original, and deceived him into making a charge of forgery, for the truth of which there was not a particle of foundation? But the thing of which his readers have a right to complain is not that his "friend" deceived him, for that may happen to anyone. It is this: that the imputation of forgery, the untruth of which was admitted long ago, still remains in the essay where it first appeared, and without there being the slightest disclaimer of the false insinuation. Let the reader turn to p. 125 of the work under review. There is the suggestion that Sanarelli's allusion to the poisons fabricated in his laboratory may have been "DELIBERATELY ADDED"—an imputation of forgery. WHERE ON THIS PAGE, IN THE TEXT OR BY FOOTNOTE, HAS THE AUTHOR WITHDRAWN THAT INSINUATION? IT CANNOT BE FOUND.

[1] "Animal Experimentation," pp. 143-144.

II.

One of the most serious offences against literacy accuracy which this writer has apparently committed appears in the garbling of the opinions of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University, on the subject of vivisection. The case is of especial interest not only because the facts are so clear, but because they bring into relief certain methods of controversy, which by some seem to be regarded as entirely justifiable.

A sketch of the life of Dr. Bigelow, with extended quotations from his writings, will be found in the ninth chapter of the work now in the reader's hands. The opinions there expressed regarding vivisection are by no means extreme. No past writer on this subject has left behind him more abundant evidence of his position in this controversy. It was not animal experimentation that he condemned, but the cruelty that sometimes accompanies it, and to which, if vivisection be unregulated by law, it is so often liable.

How may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his grave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that although for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow really knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had chanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions indicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes. It might be asserted, indeed, that "in his later life," the great advocate of reform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new attitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a painless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the paragraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse.

Is not this exactly what the author of "Animal Experimentation" has done in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests? He tells his readers that "the opponents of research" quote the Harvard professor's earliest utterances "based on the suffering he saw at Alfort," but that they carefully omit this expression of his later opinions:

"The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to be criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which no one objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment which does not cause pain—either because the experiment itself is painless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering—has done great damage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of vivisection at a great disadvantage…. A painless experiment on an animal is unobjectionable."

This is all true enough. But can anyone call this paragraph a fair statement of Dr. Bigelow's "later views" on animal experimentation? It is merely a wise caution. Compare this brief quotation with the ninth chaper of the book in the reader's hands. Will anyone, after reading that chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A FAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS?

The reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow, something appears to have been omitted before the final sentence. On turning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated from the foregoing quotation.

"IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN CHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION."[1]

[1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372.

Precisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author of "Animal Experimentation," the reader will discover another most significant passage which was suppressed by the author of "Animal Experimentation":

"The extreme vivisector claims the liberty to inflict at his discretion, PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN upon any number of dogs, horses, rabbits, guinea-pigs and other animals. The interest or honest enthusiasm he may happen to feel in some subject of physiology, however important, justifies in his mind THE EXHIBITION OF THIS EXCESSIVE PAIN TO CLASSES, AND ITS REPETITION BY MEDICAL STUDENTS, PRACTICALLY AT THEIR OPTION. THIS IS AN ABUSE. Inasmuch as the reform of any abuse needs remedial measures, such measures have been inaugurated by permanently organized societies, which, even though they may not have been always and wholly right and temperate in their action, HAVE ERRED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION."

What was the reason for these suppressions? Why this garbling of Bigelow's "later views"? Do we find it impossible to comprehend why his comparison of physiological experiments with the painless procedures of chemistry should have been cut from the contecxt, or why the references to "PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN" and the "exhibition of excessive pain to classes" should have been omitted? How could a writer, sincerely desirous of presenting his readers with a fair expression of Dr. Bigelow's opinions, have cut out every reference to the abuses of vivisection? How could he have omitted to quote such passages as the following, which appear in essays written during the last year of his life:

"In short, although vivisection, like slavery, may embrace within its practice what is unobjectionable, what is useful, what is humane, and even what is commendable, it may also cover, like slavery, what is nothing less than hideous. I use this word in no sensational sense, and appeal to those who are familiar with some of the work, in laboratories and out of them, to endorse it as appropriate in this connection." (368)[1]

"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain it inflicts." (368)

"No society, however extreme in its views or action, can legitimately object to painless experimentation, provided it is really painless. BUT ANAESTHESIA SHOULD BE REAL, AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR FORMAL." (374)

"Vivisection will always be the better for vigilant supervision." (368)

"There is little in the literature of what is called the horrors of vivisection, which is not well grounded on truth. For a description of the pain inflicted, I refer to that literature." (363)

The necessity for brevity of quotation, no one can dispute. But the ethics of controversy are clear. One or two detached sentences should never be given as a fair representation of an opponent's views, if the general tenor of his writings would convey a contrary impression. Thus to suppress and eliminate, what is it but to garble? In any young writer, would not such offences against veracity invite the severest condemnation?

[1] Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., Anaesthesia. Figures following quotations indicate the pages. Italics not in original.

III.

Another illustration of the unreliability of the volume under review may be found in its references to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection. We are told, in the first place—and the untrue statement is thrice repeated with slightly different phraseology—that "on the Commission, the antivivisectionists were represented, and joined in this unanimous report."[2] It would be difficult to make an affirmation more notoriously untrue. In 1906, when the Commission was first named, it was a matter of common knowledge that NO ANTIVIVISECTIONIST WAS REPRESENTED THEREON. This shoudl be evident to anyong, one reading the following paragraph of the Commission's report:

"After full consideration, we are led to the conclusion that
experiments upon animals, ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY LAW FAITHFULLY
ADMINISTERED, ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED BY
LEGISLATION."[1]

[2] Keen, "Animal Experimentation," p. 294. For repetitions of the erroneous statement, see pp. xviii and 241. [1] Report of Commission, p. 57, par. 97.

How could Dr. Keen have dreamed for a moment that any antivivisectionist would have signed such a recantation? Possibly the words here italicized explain why this paragraph was not quoted by the author of "Animal Experimentation." It referred to the conditions of permissible experimentation which, as yet, do not exist in any American state.

Of this important report, but a single brief paragraph of two sentences appears to have attracted the attention of Dr. Keen. It impresses him so strongly that he parades it no less than three times in various parts of his book:

"We desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustrations of operations inflicted on animals which are freely circulated by post, advertisement, or otherwise, are IN MANY CASES calculated to mislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in question were not under an anaesthetic. To represent that animals subjected to experiments IN THIS COUNTRY are WANTONLY TORTURED would, in our opinion, be absolutely false." (Italics not in original.)

"This clear statement," adds the author of "Animal Experimentation" to one of his three quotations, "should end this calumny" (p. 241.) To what "CALUMNY" can he allude? The Commissioners are referring only to experimentation in England, where unauthorized painful experimentation is contrary to law—certainly not to America, where no Government supervision of any kind is to be found. Even in England, the words "IN MANY CASES" limit the application of condemnation. Would the author have its readers believe that painful or unjustifiable experiments are never performed? ON THE VERY PAGE OF THE REPORT TO WHICH HE REFERS US, in a paragraph immediately following that just quoted, there is reference to a London physiologist of distinction, who had testified that "he had performed PAINFUL experiments upon animals both in Germany and in this country." The Commission unanimously condemned his position as "untenable, and in our opinion, ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE." Would the author of "Animal Experimentation" regard this protest against certain experiments made by the men named in that paragraph, as a "calumny"?

The unfairness of giving out to the world merely two sentences as representative of the conclusions of an important Commission will become evident to anyone who reads other of the unanimous conclusions of this report. Take the following: "WE STRONGLY HOLD THAT LIMITS SHOULD BE PLACED TO ANIMAL SUFFERING in the search for physiological or pathological knowledge, though some have contended that such considerations should be wholly subordinated to the claims of scientific research, or the pursuit of some material good for man."[1] Does this conclusion bear out the contention that animal suffering in the laboratory is a MYTH? Or take the recommendations of the Commission concerning CURARE, a drug which is used in every laboratory, but which, curiously enough, finds no mention in the index of Dr. Keen's book. The Report says: "Some of us are of the opinion that the use of CURARE should be altogether prohibited; but we are all agreed that if its use is to be permitted at all, an Inspector or some person nominated by the Secretary of State should be present from the commencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the animal is, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EXPERIMENT AND UNTIL ITS DEATH, IN A STATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."[2] Why was this recommendation made, if the use of CURARE is never associated with painful experimentation? Or read yet further: "We are of the opinion that ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST PAIN MIGHT BE PROVIDED, without interfering with legitimate research." These recommendations are incorporated in the final report of the Commissioners, not one of whom was an Antivivisectionist. Why were they not quoted by Dr. Keen.

[1] Report, p. 57, par. 96. [2] Ibid., p. 61, par. 114.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, together with the evidence produced before it, constitutes the most important document relating to the subject which has appeared in a quarter of a century. It is greatly to be regretted that the author of "Animal Experimentation" should have given his readers no idea whatsoever of this report, except a warning of two sentences, that could have been meant for England alone. By omission of all its other conclusions, especially those relating to painful experiments, has the author been fair to his readers? Do such significant omissions illustrate an impartial reliability that commands our admiration? Does it denote an accuracy that should inspire our trust?

IV.

What judgment does the author pass upon scientific experimentation upon human beings? In his volume on animal vivisection, he has reprinted various articles on the subject written by himself during a controversy which raged quite fiercely at the beginning of the present century; of course in his book we find nothing of the points made against his arguments by his various opponents of that day. The subject is an important one, and some day will have a volume devoted to its discussion.

In the eighteenth chapter of the present work, a careful distinction is drawn between those phases of experimentation upon man which seem to be entirely proper, and those other phases which ought to be condemned:

"It is of course to be expected, that certain experimenters upon human beings will endeavour to confound both phases of inquiry in the public estimation; yet there is no difficulty in drawing clear distinctions between them. I. Any intelligently devised experiment upon an adult human being, conscientiously performed by a responsible physician or surgeon solely for the personal benefit of the individual upon whom it is made, and, if practicable, with his consent, would seem to be legitimate and right…. So long as the amelioration of the patient is the one purpose kept in view, it is legitimate treatment. II. Human vivisection is something different. It has been defined as the practice of submitting to experimentation human beings, usually inmates of public institutions, by methods liable to involve pain, distress, injury to health or even danger to life, without any full, intelligent personal consent, for no object relating to their individual benefit, but for the prosecution of some scientific inquiry…. THE OBJECT IS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, AND NOT THE PERSONAL WELFARE OR AMELIORATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL UPON WHOM THE EXPERIMENT IS MADE."[1]

[1] Pp. 289-290.

All distinctions of this kind the author of "Animal Experimentation" apparently sweeps aside. A writer suggested that upon natives of India who, when bitten by poisonous serpents, almost invariably die, there would be no objection to trying "every variety of antidote that can be discovered." This humane suggestion the author of "Animal Experimentation" holds up as "FLAT-FOOTED ADVOCACY OF HUMAN VIVISECTION!" The absurdity of such pronouncement must be evident to everyone of common sense. We should think very little of any surgeon confronted with the case of a native suffering from a snake-bit, who, finding ordinary remedies of no avail, refused to try "EVERY VARIETY OF ANTIDOTE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED." This is not the "human vivisection" to which objection is made; for such experimentation is for the personal benefit of the man himself.

Take, for illustration, the experiments made by the author of "Animal Experimentation" and other investigators some years since, upon soldiers in an Army hospital. The author of the pamphlet which first brought these experiments on soldiers before the public, states distinctly that "just so far as the experiments were made upon suffering men IN THE HOPE OF GIVING RELIEF FROM PAIN, and at the same time contributing to medical knowledge, THERE CAN BE NOTHING TO CRITICIZE IN ANY WAY."[2] Surely the experimenters should ask no clearer exculpation from all blame, so far as relates to permissible experimentation on man. The critic, however, suggested that in some cases, the enthusiastic experimenters went beyond this, and quotes from the original article the following descriptions of their work:

"We finally entered upon A DELIBERATE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTS with the intention of ascertaining in what respect … the two drugs in question were antagonistic…. The experiments which we shall now relate were most of them made upon soldiers, who were suffering from painful neuralgic diseases, or from some cause of entailing pain. In some cases, however, CONVALESCENT MEN WERE THE SUBJECTS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS, but in no instance were they allowed to know what agents we used…. SOME WERE MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH, suspected of malingering. The patient was kept recumbent some time before and during the observation."

[2] Taber, "Illustrations of Human Vivisection," Chicago, 1906, pp. 13-14.

It is unnecessary to give the full description of these experiments. We are informed of "series of experiments," of "two other sets of experiments," of the "effect on the eye" or "the effect of the two drugs upon the cerebral functions"; the material was abundant. The reviewer of this experimentation says:

"How these experiments will be palliated and excused it is easy to foretell. We shall undoubtedly be told that all this happened some years ago; that the American soldiers, thus used as material suffered no permanent injury from the experiments to which they were subjected; that the investigators were purely disinterested; that the scientific questions involved were of great interest and that results might possibly have been obtained which would have proved of great service to medical science. But even if we grant all this, and accord to these gentlemen the purest of personal motives, can we say that in such defence they touch the chief point at issue in this matter of human vivisection? Here were a number of human beings who, for a brief period, on account of misfortune, were temporarily in their power. WHAT MORAL RIGHT had these medical gentlemen thus to experiment upon the eye, the pulse, the brain of a single soldier of the Republic? … Even granting the utility, who confers upon anyone the moral right to test poisons on his fellow-men?

In his recent work, the author of "Animal Experimentation" refers to these investigations of earlier years, and insists that most of the patients thus operated on "were sorely in need of relief." What, he asks, would his critics have had them do? "Sit idly by, and let these poor fellows suffer torments, because if we tried various drugs we were `experimenting' on human beings?" Is not this a little disingenuous, in view of the very careful distinctions made by his critic concerning the experiments performed for the relief of suffering men? Assuredly, there was no objection to these; it was regarding the "deliberate course of experiments," the "series of experiments" made upon "MEN IN VERY FAIR HEALTH" that criticism was suggested. Were all these experiments upon soldiers in the Army hospital made for the relief of their pains? If so, they undoubtedly deserve our warmest approval. Were any of a purely scientific character, having no regard to the necessities of the individual upon whom they were made? If so, we may leave the question of condemnation or approval to the reader's judgment.

V.

What is the attitude of the author toward cruelty in animal experimentation, or to the secrecy of the laboratory? So far as one can see, there is no admission anywhere that vivisection ever transcends the limits of what is entirely permissible. Except as regards human beings, the word "cruelty" is not found in the index of his work. At one place he tells his readers that "whenever an operation would be painful, an anaesthetic is ALWAYS given";[1] on another page, we read that in modern researches, "ether or other anaesthetics are ALMOST always given."[2] two statements that are slightly incompatible. We are informed that certain American societies have passed resolutions favorable to the "UNRESTRICTED performance" of vivisections by proper persons;[3] but the writer neglects to inform his readers that unrestricted and unregulated experimentation of the kind is not only contrary to the law in England, but that it is condemned there by the leaders of the medical profession. We find it apparently implied—but without positive statement—that there is little or no secrecy in animal experimentation, and that anyone may find admittance to a laboratory at any time.[4] So far as England is concerned, this is untrue; and we do not believe that in America a stranger would be welcomed at any physiological laboratory when experimentation by students was going on, although of course there are times when there would be no trouble in obtaining admittance. It would apparently seem that in the opinion of Dr. Keen, animal experimentation is always practised without cruelty or abuse.

[1] "Animal Experimentation," p. 232. [2] Ibid., p. 245. [3] Ibid., p. xviii. [4] Ibid., pp. viii-ix.

A considerable part of the volume under review is devoted to the history of medical progress. Were it not for the unfortunate tendency everywhere to magnify or exaggerate, this part of the book would have had distinct value. Of the advances made by modern surgery, for example, there can be no doubt; it is probable also, that without to some researches upon living animals, the results would not have been attained. This by no means justifies everything that has been done. The members of the Royal Commission—all of them favourable to vivisection—state the case with scientific restrain. After giving the question full consideration they decide:

"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time to have been proved by experiments upon living animals and alleged to have been beneficial in preventing or curing disease, HAVE, ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND EXPERIENCE, BEEN FOUND TO BE FALLACIOUS OR USELESS.

"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge HAS BEEN ACQUIRED in regard to physiological processes and the causation of disease, and that useful methods for the prevention, cure and treatment of certain diseases have resulted from experimental investigations upon living animals.

"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that without experiments made upon animals, mankind would, at the present time, have been in possession of such knowledge."[1]

[1] Final Report of Royal Commision, p. 47.

It is open, of course, to an antivivisectionist to deny the right of science to profit by the exploitation of animals, but this is not the position of a large number who seek only to prevent the cruelty which has often accompanied it.

The greatest defect of the volume, aside from the points to which allusion has been made, is the exaggerated advocacy that characterizes the work throughout. One can hardly find a dozen pages in which a careful reader would not discover some inaccuracy or over-statement. If the author had only been content to demonstrate utility within the limits that scientific accuracy prescribes; if everywhere he had been ready to concede—what thirty years ago he so frankly admitted—that vivisection was a "MANY-SIDED QUESTION;"[1] if he had admitted anywhere that in the past excesses have taken place, and that the practice has sometimes been carried to unjustifiable extremes which should be condemned; if he had contented himself with pointing out the mistakes of the critics of animal experimentation, without impugning their character, or sneering at their efforts to lessen the infliction of pain; if everywhere he had made fair distinctions between the anti- vivisectionists who oppose and condemn all exploitation of animal life, and restrictionists like Dr. Bigelow, Dr. Wilson, Dr. William James, and a host of others who share their views; if, in short, the constant aim of the author had seemed to be, not to secure a polemical success, but reliability as an authority that time would confirm—it is certain that his book would have attained some degree of deserved and lasting repute. For such a result, no reasonable expectation can now be entertained. The unreliability of the volume as an authority will become more and more evident as time goes on, and in the judgment of the world it will gradually find its rightful place.

[1] See first page of "Animal Experimentation."

In bringing to a close this inadequate review of the book something yet remains to be said. It should be unnecessary to repeat that in pointing out literary defects and mistakes, we do not touch the honour of the writer in any way. How can one measure the weight of a life- long prejudice, or determine its influence upon conduct or opinion? "Tout comprende est tout pardonner." Within a few weeks, the author of "Animal Experimentation," if living, will enter upon his eightieth year. The errors of judgment, the inaccuracies of statement, the tendency to exaggerate utility—these and all other literary defects of the volume before us must be recognized and deplored, but they should be ascribed only to causes which do not affect the honour of the man. We may be confident that after he has passed away, the world will quickly forget the too zealous defender of unrestricted vivisection, and remember, finally, only the wise teacher, the skilled surgeon, the trusted friend.