Author of “Ueber die Aufgaben und die Bedeutung der experimentellen Pathologie” (Inaugural Discourse Univ. Zurich), Leipsig, 1882; “Ueber Symbiose Ungleichartiger Organismen,” Biol. Centrabl., Vol. II., Nos. 10, 11, 13.
Klein, Emanuel, M.D., F.R.S. Assist. Prof. Lab. Brown Instit., Wandsworth Road; Lect. Histol. at Med. Sch. St. Bartholomew’s Hosp.; formerly Prof. Histology Univ. of Vienna.
Author of first section of “Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory;” “Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Structur des Zellkernes und der Lebererscheinungen der Drüsenzellen” in Centralb. f. d. Med. Wiss. No. 17 (1879), p. 289; “Observations on the Glandular Epithelium and Division of Nuclei in the skin of the newt,” Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci., No. LXXV. (1879), pp. 261-404; “On the termination of the nerves in the mammalian cornea,” Ibid., Oct., 1880, p. 459; “The organ of Jacobson in the dog,” Ibid., July, 1882, p. 299; “The Anatomy of the Lymphatic System,” 1883, London; “Atlas of Histology” (jointly with Dr. Noble Smith), London, 1879.
(Chairman) (3,538): What is your own practice with regard to the use of anæsthetics in experiments that are otherwise painful? (Dr. Klein): Except for teaching purposes, for demonstration, I never use anæsthetics where it is not necessary for convenience. If I demonstrate, I use anæsthetics. If I do experiments for my inquiries in pathological research, except for convenience sake, as for instance on dogs and cats, I do not use them. On frogs and the lower animals I never use them. (3,539). When you say that you only use them for convenience sake, do you mean that you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the animals?—No regard at all. (3,540.) You are prepared to establish that as a principle which you approve?—I think that with regard to an experimenter, a man who conducts special research, and performs an experiment, he has no time, so to speak, for thinking what will the animal feel or suffer. His only purpose is to perform the experiment, to learn as much from it as possible, and to do it as quickly as possible. (3,541.) Then for your own purposes you disregard entirely the question of the suffering of the animal in performing a painful experiment.—I do. (3,542.) Why do you regard it then when it is for a demonstration?—Because I know that there is a great deal of feeling against it in this country, and when it is not necessary, one should not perhaps act against the opinion or the belief of certain individuals of the auditorium. One must take regard of the feelings and opinions of those people before whom one does the experiment. (3,543.) Then am I wrong in attributing to you that you separate yourself entirely from the feeling which you observe to prevail in this country in regard to humanity to animals?—I separate myself as an investigator from myself as a teacher. (3,544.) But in regard to your proceedings as an investigator, you are prepared to acknowledge that you hold as entirely indifferent the sufferings of the animal which is subjected to your investigation?—Yes. (3,546.) Do you believe that that is a general practice on the Continent, to disregard altogether the feelings of the animals?—I believe so. (3,547.) But you believe that, generally speaking, there is a very different feeling in England?—Not among the physiologists; I do not think there is. (3553.)—Min. of Ev. R. Com., London, 1876.
Köbner, Heinrich. Prof. in Berlin.
Author of “Uebertragungsversuche von Lepra auf Thiere.”
Experiments to give leprosy to animals.—Virchow’s Archiv., 88 vol., p. 282.
“One monkey, two guinea-pigs, two young white rats, one white mouse, two rabbits, one pigeon, three eels, one mud-fish, and one frog were inoculated in several parts of the body with leprous matter, and also small portions of tissue impregnated with bacilli were engrafted. Leprosy did not break out in any of the animals.”—Note by O. Israel, Centralbl. f. Wiss. Med. No. 5, 1883, p. 79.
Koch, Heinrich Hermann Robert. M.D. Geheimrath. Direct. of the Pathol. Instit. of Sanit. Med. Berlin.
“You saw the dog which was injected with a minimum quantity of tubercle bacilli. The injection was made in the abdominal cavity, and produced an exquisite tubercular peritonitis. Nevertheless, the dog finally recovered entirely, and seemed perfectly well. Then the same dog was used again, and a large number of bacilli were introduced into the abdominal cavity. You will see that the dog is fatally ill. Now, if one attack conferred immunity, it ought to have been impossible to produce this second attack. Hence I do not think it possible to prevent the disease in that way, nor do I think it necessary to try it.”—“Dr. Robert Koch interviewed,” Med. Times, Aug. 26th, 1882, p. 255.