{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37158/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37158","id":"gutenberg_37158","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37158","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Vivisection"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive/American\nLibraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROS AND CONS OF VIVISECTION\n\n\n_All rights reserved_\n\n[Illustration: \"LA MORT.\"\n\n_By Bartholome in Pere Lachaise, Paris._\n\n_Frontispiece._]\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROS AND CONS OF VIVISECTION\n\nBY\n\nDR CHARLES RICHET\n\nPROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY IN THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE\n\nPARIS\n\n\nWITH A PREFACE BY\n\nW. D. HALLIBURTON, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.\n\nPROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON\n\nLONDON\n\nDUCKWORTH & CO.\n\n3 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN\n\n1908\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nTo scientific readers, Professor Charles Richet needs no introduction, but\nto the public at large it may be necessary to mention that he is one of the\nbest known of French physiologists. He has occupied for a good many years\nthe Chair of Physiology in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, and he has\ncontributed greatly to the progress of the science to which he has devoted\nhis life; some of his discoveries are alluded to with all modesty in the\npages which follow. He is, moreover, a man of great erudition, and has been\nwisely selected to be the editor of a monumental work, _Le dictionnaire de\nphysiologie_, which is issuing from the press to-day.\n\nProfessor Richet has given particular attention to the study of the\npsychological side of physiology, and his views on pain will be read as\ncoming from one who is specially fitted to deal with this and other mental\nphenomena.\n\nI therefore consider it a great honour that Professor Richet should have\nasked me to write a preface to his most interesting and convincing book on\nthe Pros and Cons of Vivisection, and it is a great pleasure to me to\ncommend its thoughtful perusal to all who are interested in the subject.\n\nProfessor Richet is not only one who speaks with authority, but he is one\nof the gentlest and kindliest of men. The science which he teaches is the\nscience of life. To understand the meaning of vital processes it is\nnecessary to study the living organism, and to obtain this knowledge it is\nsometimes necessary to perform experiments on living animals. When he\ndefends a practice which many regard as cruel, detestable, and immoral,\nmainly because of the unscrupulous misrepresentations put forward by the\nprofessional Anti-vivisectionists, he does so because he is convinced that\nnone of the epithets just mentioned correctly describe the experiments\nwhich are carried out in physiological laboratories at the present time.\nThese experiments are undertaken only by properly qualified persons having\na due sense of their responsibilities. Every regard is paid to the comfort\nof the animals employed; and the ultimate aim of this work is the progress\nof knowledge, and the consequent relief to suffering which is so often only\nthe result of ignorance. The benefits which accrue are felt not only by\nhuman beings, but also (as in veterinary practice) by the animals\nthemselves. No attempt is made here to defend experiments which have not\nthese objects in view, or which (as has happened in the past) pay no\nconsideration to the pain an animal experiences.\n\nI feel quite sure that if the British public were convinced that the\nexperiments in our laboratories were all conducted in accordance with our\npresent law, the Anti-vivisection crusade would flicker out. It is the\nobject of those who are active propagandists on the other side to keep\ntheir agitation going, by omitting to mention the painlessness of the\noperations performed, or by suggesting (either directly or by innuendo)\nthat anaesthesia is a sham. My own experience, which is a wide one, has been\nthat physiologists not only obey the law literally, but are most\npunctilious in its due observance. A certain number of trivial\nirregularities have been reported to the Home Office by the inspectors\nappointed under the Vivisection Act, but there has been no case of omitting\nthe use of anaesthetics. The majority of these offences have been for using\nanaesthetics unnecessarily. A certificate in certain cases is granted for\nthe omission of an anaesthetic: this is given when the operation is a\ntrifling one, and has never been granted for any operation more serious\nthan the prick of a hypodermic needle. Nevertheless, the operator has\nsometimes employed an anaesthetic even for this, and has in consequence been\nreported to the Home Office for infringing the terms of his certificate.\n\nPawloff has truly said that the ideal experiment is one performed without\nanaesthesia and without pain. In many cases this ideal can be realised, but\nin other cases it is unattainable. Physiologists have, therefore, had to\nselect which of the two disturbing factors shall be absent, and they have\nunhesitatingly chosen the latter. Pain must be absent (1) on grounds of\nhumanity, (2) because it is a far greater disturber of the normal functions\nthan anaesthesia is, and (3) because the struggles of an animal in pain will\nnullify the accuracy of the experiment, and endanger the safety of the\ndelicate apparatus which it may be necessary to employ.\n\nExactly the same arguments apply to the employment of the antiseptic or\naseptic methods of surgery, in experiments in which the animal is kept\nalive after an operation to study its effects. The healing process is then\npainless, and there is absence of those febrile and inflammatory conditions\nwhich would otherwise complicate the issue.\n\nIt is therefore for two reasons that an experimenter uses both anaesthetics\nand antiseptics, (1) to save the animal suffering, and (2) to ensure the\nsuccess of the experiment.\n\nThe barbarities which are recorded by Anti-vivisectionist agitators do not\nexist; the repetition of their stories in spite of repeated contradictions\nis partly due to wilful misrepresentation and exaggeration, and partly the\nresult of ignorance of the meaning of the technical terms employed by\nphysiological writers.\n\nAt the Royal Commission which is now considering the question of\nVivisection, the cases of alleged cruelty have been one by one sifted to\nthe bottom, and in no single case has a charge of cruelty been sustained.\nAny one who cares to wade through the four bluebooks of evidence which have\nbeen printed will discover for himself that this is so. In fact, one\nprominent Anti-vivisection journal (the _Verulam Review_, April-June 1907,\np. 186), in reference to the evidence given by one of the witnesses before\nthe Commission, had to confess, \"Almost every one of Mrs Cook's horrifying\ncases seems, when examined, to melt away.\"\n\nAn Anti-vivisectionist publication which has obtained some notoriety (\"The\nShambles of Science\") figured in a recent lawsuit. When the particular\ncharge which was the subject of the action was investigated by a prolonged\ninquiry before the Lord Chief-Justice, a British jury showed their sense of\nthe enormity of the slander by awarding the physiologist impugned the very\nsubstantial damages of L2000. An undertaking was subsequently given by the\npublisher of this \"hysterical work\" (to quote the words of the Lord\nChief-Justice) that it should be withdrawn from publication. Yet the book\nhas been since re-issued by the authors, with the chapter that formed the\nsubject of the trial omitted, but otherwise with very little alteration.\nThe libellous statements scattered through its other chapters can still be\nread by the lovers of sensation, and the authors doubtless hope that their\nreaders will never take the trouble to read also the evidence before the\nRoyal Commission in which all the allegations of cruelty have been shown to\nbe groundless.\n\nThe subject of curare, another bugbear of the Anti-vivisection lecturer, is\nso adequately dealt with by Professor Richet that I will spare the reader\nany further discussion on that question here. I have taken the liberty of\nadding, in a footnote on p. 36, a statement in respect to the usages of\nEnglish physiologists in relation to that drug.\n\nThe experiments of the pharmacologist in the investigation of the action of\ndrugs can be and are carried out under anaesthesia in the same way as those\nof the physiologist. But the experiments of the pathologist, which consist\nin conveying germs and other disease products to animals, come under a\ndifferent heading. One does not deny that if the animal takes the disease,\nsuffering is produced. This is fully admitted by Professor Richet, and I\nthink that any common-sense reader will be convinced by the arguments put\nforward that the practice is fully justifiable. It is difficult, as\nProfessor Richet points out, to gauge the amount of pain an animal such as\na rat, guinea-pig, or rabbit (the animals usually employed for the purpose)\nreally feels when given a disease experimentally, and whether this is\ngreater or less than the suffering it will endure when another disease or a\nviolent death carries it off in the usual course of nature. It is, however,\nundeniable that the suffering of these animals is much less than those of\nhuman beings. A man, when he is ill, suffers a certain amount of discomfort\nand physical bodily pain; but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the\nmental worry and anxiety he endures--all that, at any rate, is absent from\nthe suffering rabbit. The pathologist sees beyond the pain which he\ninflicts to the pain which he prevents. The death of a few lower animals\nmay be, and has in the past been the means of preventing pain and disease\nboth to the animals themselves and to human beings also, who may be counted\nby thousands or even millions.\n\nIf there is one piece of evidence more than another which was given before\nthe Royal Commission that deserves rescue from the oblivion of a bluebook,\nit is that given by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton. His is one of the\nkeenest legal intellects of modern times, and he at any rate cannot be\naccused of having any axe of his own to grind. I regret that exigencies of\nspace prevent me from making more than one or two references to it.\n\nHe begins by taking the case of a ship infected with plague, and infested\nalso with rats, the carriers of plague. The ship enters port. Would it be\npreferable to kill the rats, and so prevent them and the disease from\nentering the port and causing untold disaster there, or staying one's hand\nbecause the slaughter of the rats would be a painful proceeding? The\ncaptain who gives orders for the destruction of the rats inflicts pain and\ndeath on them in order to prevent greater pain and more widespread death\nelsewhere. The captain who says, \"Spare the rats,\" is guilty of the\ncriminal act of causing the death of many innocent human beings. So it is\nwith the Anti-vivisectionists: they see only the pain inflicted, and do not\nheed the pain prevented. On this score they are in a sense logical when\nthey call Lord Lister a brute, although he of all men living at the present\ntime has been the means of preventing the greatest amount of suffering.\nThey see only the pain which he deliberately inflicted on a few rats and\nrabbits; they cannot see, or refuse to see the measureless amount of misery\nhe has prevented.\n\nIn another place the Lord Justice points out that the pain inflicted in all\nthe laboratories of the country put together during a year is infinitesimal\ncompared to that which is inflicted every day in the slaughter of animals\nfor food; to that which ignorant farm labourers inflict without\nanaesthetics, in spaying animals by thousands in order that beef and mutton\nmay be tenderer or have a more pleasant flavour to the consumer; to that\ninflicted by sportsmen when their victims, imperfectly shot, die a\nlingering death; to that which women thoughtlessly allow in order that they\nmay have ospreys in their hats and furs upon their backs.\n\nSo far as the satisfaction of appetite, the pandering to the so-called\nsportsman's instincts, or the gratification of vanity are concerned, these\nthings may go on. The average Anti-vivisectionist disregards them, or at\nleast makes no effort to prevent them. The only kind of pain which stirs\nhis feelings, and meets with his opprobrium, and enables him to indulge in\nhis favourite epithets, is _the one justifiable bit of pain in the whole\nworld_--a pain inflicted with the noblest of all objects, and by the most\nhumane of all men (for so the medical profession admittedly is), the\nobject, namely, of preventing future pain, which otherwise would encompass\nthe world of life.\n\nProfessor Richet has wisely not made his book too long. He has been content\nto select a few typical and striking examples of the benefits which\nexperimentation on animals has conferred upon humanity, instead of\nattempting even to enumerate them all. He might for instance have dwelt\nupon the extinction of rinderpest in South Africa: here, at the expense of\na few experimental animals, Koch has prevented a scourge which formerly\nexterminated hundreds of thousands of cattle annually, and might still be\nexercising this fell influence on to all eternity if the opponents of\nscientific knowledge had their way. He might have taken the case of snake\nbite, and the discovery made by his great fellow-countryman Calmette of the\nmeans of combating this deadly poison, which has hitherto killed our Indian\nfellow-subjects by its tens of thousands a year.\n\nOn coming to one of the most recent of beneficent discoveries, he might\nhave dwelt upon the case of Mediterranean fever, and the way which it has\nbeen practically stamped out at Malta and Gibraltar, because the method of\nits spread has been discovered and the disease prevented at the expense of\na few goats and other animals.\n\nBut those who are wilfully deaf to such arguments will not, I fear, be\nconvinced, even if examples are multiplied indefinitely. In spite of the\nlove for animals which our opponents profess, the life of cattle,\nparticularly if they are so far away as South Africa, does not appeal to\nthem. The happiness of the teeming millions of India does not come home to\nthem. Even the comfort of our brave soldiers and sailors in the\nMediterranean stations is of little account: they have never visited the\nhospitals at Malta or Gibraltar, and seen, as they could have seen a year\nor two ago, the poor fellows dying off like flies from a mysterious disease\nthat nothing could be done for, because the manner in which the fatal germ\nentered their bodies was unknown. Now, by the simple prohibition of the use\nof goat's milk, a prohibition due to animal experimentation and to that\nalone, the disease has been exterminated.\n\nAnti-vivisectionists do not come in contact with disease all day and every\nday as medical men do; they therefore do not realise how widespread it is,\nand what terrible forms it may take. Their notions are vague; they talk\nabout suffering without any intimate knowledge of the question. They bestow\ntheir sympathies upon the few victims of the vivisector's knife or syringe;\nthey have none left for the larger number of victims which would have\nsuffered if the few had not been sacrificed. Can it be wondered at that\nmedical men, whose experience is so different to theirs, feel otherwise?\nThe doctor's life is not one in which these are just a few painful partings\nwith dear ones, but he is steeped in such experiences from morning till\nnight. His sympathies aim at the relief and cure of all this evil; and the\ndeath of a few guinea-pigs or rabbits is a necessary incident which he has\nthe courage to permit because of the greater good that is the ultimate\nresult.\n\nThere are, however, some of the examples which ought to stir better\nfeelings even in the Anti-vivisectionist camp, namely, cases of diseases\nwhich are common or used to be common in our very midst, and which we need\nnot go to India or Malta to look for. One of these is diphtheria, and the\nstatements and statistics in relation to the almost miraculous change which\nhas come over our ideas on this affection are incontrovertible, and are\nfully set forth in the following pages. The disease no longer inspires the\nterror it used to do, for it is one which can be cured, and easily cured,\nby the method of serum therapy. It has not, it is true, been stamped out,\nfor up till the present success has not attended efforts of prevention.\nPrevention is better than cure, but cure is better than suffering and\ndeath. Just now, medical science can cure the disease, and if medical\nprogress continues at its present rapid rate of growth, who can doubt that\nin the near future this disease, like typhus and typhoid, will be stamped\nout?\n\nTyphoid fever is an example of a disease which has only died out in this\ncountry quite recently. When I was a student the hospital wards were full\nof it; but to-day most medical students in London pass through their entire\ncurriculum of five years or more without ever seeing a case. What has been\naccomplished for London can also be carried out in other large cities, and\nthe extinction of the disease is entirely due to improved sanitary\nmeasures, and the destruction of the bacillus which causes the malady. We\noften quite legitimately complain of the extravagances of our Government\ndepartments and our County Councils, and of their apathy in questions\naffecting the health of the country. We are still awaiting, for instance,\nproper legislative measures to ensure the purity of milk. But this at least\nwe can thank them for--proper methods of disinfection and a purer\nwater-supply have led to the almost complete extinction of what was a\ncommon and painful and fatal disease. But how does Vivisection come in\nhere? County councillors are not Vivisectors. No, they are not, but their\naction is the undoubted result of public opinion; and that healthy public\nopinion is the outcome of medical opinion, which was preached to deaf ears\nfor many years, and at last succeeded in impressing itself upon the public\nat large; and this medical knowledge was the offspring of the only certain\nguide in such matters, pathological experiment. It was not until the germ\nof typhoid fever was recognised and isolated, not until the conditions of\nits growth and the means of its destruction were experimentally verified\nupon the lower animals, that any sound knowledge was obtained. Bacteriology\nis at the bottom of hygiene; it is by hygienic precautions that certain\ndiseases are prevented; and the basis of bacteriology is experiment on\nanimals.\n\nI will allow myself only one more point, and that relates to the general\nquestion of serum therapy. Some people object to the whole conception of\nserum treatment, on the ground that serum and allied substances are 'messy'\nthings. It was by this very expressive phrase that Lord Justice Fletcher\nMoulton summarised and paraphrased the Anti-vivisectionist attitude on the\nserum method of treatment. Miss Lind af Hageby on one occasion\ncharacterised it as 'medieval,' a word which is quite meaningless in this\nconnection, but prettier, I admit, than \"Behring's filth product,\" which is\nthe elegant name coined for antidiphtheritic serum by one of her friends.\n\nFilth or dirt has been well defined as matter in the wrong place. Blood on\na carpet, for example, is certainly messy and dirty; it ought not to be\nthere. But blood or serum (the fluid part of the blood) in the heart, or in\nthe arteries and veins, is in its rightful place, and it does its duty of\nnutrition and so forth when it comes into more immediate contact with the\ntissues in the small tubes we call the capillaries. One of these duties is\nto exert a protective influence upon the whole body, by destroying the\ngerms of disease which get in, despite all precautions. We are all of us\nexposed, so long as spitting in public places is not prohibited, to the\ngerms of consumption, but we do not all die of that disease. This is\nbecause the white corpuscles of our blood are in good trim, and able\nsuccessfully to devour the bacteria that enter our interior. It is those\npeople who are run down, and in whom the white corpuscles are 'below par,'\nthat catch the disease. In assisting the white corpuscles to perform this\nimportant function, the co-operation of certain substances dissolved in the\nfluid portion of the blood is also necessary. The most recently discovered\nof these auxiliary substances are called _opsonins_. The word opsonin is\nderived from a Greek root which means \"to prepare the feast.\" The opsonin\neither adds something to the bacterium which makes it tasty to the white\ncorpuscle, or removes (or neutralises) something which previously made it\ndistasteful. White corpuscles will not as a rule ingest and devour bacteria\nfrom a pure culture, but they do so eagerly immediately the bacteria are\nbathed in serum; and the serum which is most efficacious in acting as a\nsort of sauce is that which has been obtained from an animal which has been\npreviously infected with the same kind of bacteria, and which has recovered\nfrom the ailment such bacteria have set up.\n\nThis is not mere fancy: the whole sequence of events can be easily followed\non a glass slide kept at body temperature and examined with a microscope.\n\nIt is well known that if the yeast plant (which is very similar in many\ndetails to bacteria) is grown in a solution of sugar, the sugar is broken\nup and disappears, and two new substances formed from the sugar take its\nplace. These are alcohol and carbonic acid gas. If bacteria grow in the\nblood, they do not produce alcohol, but they do produce other poisons in a\nway analogous to that by which yeast produces alcohol. These poisons are\ncalled _toxins_. There are substances in the fluid part of the blood which\nare called antitoxins, because they neutralise the toxins produced by the\nbacteria. Their presence constitutes a means of defence against the harmful\neffects the toxins would otherwise produce. The marvellous part of the\ndefence is that, although we all have a certain amount of antitoxin in our\nblood, the amount increases in proportion to the amount of toxin. It is a\nfamiliar fact that rough manual labour increases the hardness of the hands;\nfriction stimulates the epidermis or outer skin, so that it grows in\nthickness. The body affords numerous similar instances of how it is capable\nof rising to the occasion and increasing its defences. Just in the same\nway, the presence of a toxin stimulates the living cells to produce more\nand more antitoxin, and the blood remains rich in the antitoxin for a\nconsiderable time afterwards. This explains why a person who has had an\ninfectious disease does not take it readily a second time; he is immune for\na certain number of years, because his blood is so rich in the antidote.\n\nNow, the principle of serum treatment depends on those ascertained and\ndefinitely proved facts. In the modern treatment of tuberculosis, for\nexample, the aim of the physician is to increase nature's method of cure:\ngood food and pure air do much to increase the healthiness of the blood and\nfortify its natural power, of destroying the germs; sometimes this alone\nsuffices. At other times it is not sufficient, particularly if the disease\nhas advanced and the number of bacteria is too great for the enfeebled\nwhite corpuscles to deal with. Then the physician goes a step farther, and\nadministers the appropriate opsonin by injecting it under the skin, again\nsimply increasing the resistance of his patient by a perfectly natural\nmethod.\n\nIn the case of diphtheria, the antitoxin appears to be more efficacious\nthan an opsonin. A horse is inoculated with diphtheria, and when he has\nrecovered, his blood is collected. This blood is then rich in antitoxin,\nthe natural antidote that has enabled the horse to get well again. The\nblood is allowed to clot, and the clot is removed; the fluid residue is\ncalled serum, and the serum contains the antidote. If now another horse has\ndiphtheria, and you want to cure him quickly, what more natural than inject\nthe serum of the horse who has just recovered? it will save the second\nhorse the trouble and the time of making the antitoxin for himself, and it\nhas been proved over and over again that the second horse does recover with\namazing celerity.\n\nThe pathologists then advanced a step, and asked, Why should this antidote\nbe used solely for animals when they have diphtheria? Why should not the\nhorse's serum be beneficial to human beings when they are attacked with the\nsame disease? The diphtheria poison is much more harmful to a man, and\nkills him more quickly than it does a horse; it is therefore imperative to\nuse the antidote early. The crucial experiment was made; entire success\nfollowed it, and now, as Professor Richet says, it is the only treatment\nemployed, and any medical man who refuses to use it is little short of a\ncriminal.\n\nI have entered into this brief and, I trust, simple explanation of serum\ntreatment, because so many people want to understand it and are unable to\ncomprehend the technical terms which scientific men, writing for scientific\nreaders, almost exclusively employ. I am even hopeful that some of the more\nreasonable opponents of animal experimentation may be convinced that by\ncarrying out the new methods of serum therapy, we are not going against\nnature but helping her. It is just these 'messy things' that nature uses\nfor curing infectious diseases, and the introduction of an opsonin or an\nantitoxin is not putting matter in its wrong place, but in its right place;\nand therefore the use of the terms filth and dirt in this relationship\nshould be confined either to the foul-mouthed or to the ignorant.\n\nW. D. HALLIBURTON.\n\n_July 1908._\n\n\nP.S.--The proof sheets of Professor Richet's book have passed through my\nhands during their issue from the press. Beyond a few verbal amendments,\nand a footnote here and there which I have added and initialled, no\nalterations have been made in the original.\n\nI am also responsible for the insertion of Appendix C, regarding the aims\nand objects of the Research Defence Society. These additions and minor\nalterations have all met with Professor Richet's approval.\n\nI may mention that the book has not yet been published in French, and is\npresented to the public for the first time in English dress. The English\nlady who collaborated with Professor Richet in its production has worked\nwith and studied under him for some years, and it was largely owing to her\npersuasion that he consented to express his views publicly. She desires for\nthe present to remain anonymous.\n\nW. D. H.\n\n_October 1908._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPAGE\n\nPREFACE BY PROFESSOR HALLIBURTON                                       v\n\n\nINTRODUCTION                                                           1\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NECESSARY LIMITS OF VIVISECTION                                    7\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nPAIN AND DEATH                                                        18\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nCONCERNING ANAESTHESIA IN VIVISECTION                                  31\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nCONCERNING EXPERIMENTATION OTHER THAN VIVISECTION                     40\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nSERVICES RENDERED TO SCIENCE AND HUMANITY BY EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY  59\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nMORALITY AND VIVISECTION                                              72\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nARE LAWS REGULATING VIVISECTION NECESSARY?                            91\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nVIVISECTION AND THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE                                 97\n\n\nPOST SCRIPTUM                                                        114\n\nAPPENDIX A.--DIPHTHERIA STATISTICS                                   121\n\nAPPENDIX B.--BIBLIOGRAPHY                                            124\n\nAPPENDIX C.--THE RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY                            130\n\n\nILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\"LA MORT.\" By BARTHOLOME, in Pere Lachaise, Paris,        _Frontispiece_\n\nPASTEUR IN HIS LABORATORY,                  _facing page_       44\n\n\"L'ENFANT.\" In Musee du Luxembourg, Paris,       \"              53\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe object of this book is to set forth, as impartially as possible, the\nreasons which militate for and against vivisection. It is, however, a\nphysiologist who is speaking, therefore no one will be surprised that he\nshould defend a practice which is at the basis of the science he teaches.\n\nMay he be permitted, at the same time, to express the high moral esteem\nwhich he feels for all those who, nobly enamoured of a very high ideal,\ndeny to men the right of inflicting suffering, or even death, upon animals?\nThere is not a more generous thought than this. Without doubt it is our\nduty to have sympathy for, and to abstain from indifference and cruelty in\nour dealings with all living creatures: might does not constitute right.\nMan is stronger than the animal; but this superiority of power, this might,\ndoes not constitute a right to act contrary to moral obligation.\n\nMorality does not consist solely of duties towards human beings; it is more\ngeneral: it extends to every being capable of suffering. The physiologist\nis not an ignoramus, neither is he a barbarian; and he has right well\nunderstood this duty. Physiologists have concluded that experimentation\nupon living animals is necessary, and it is the many reasons which have led\nthem to this opinion which I propose to set forth. But it will, I hope, be\nquite understood that my defence of vivisection implies no contempt, no\nraillery, no unfriendly sentiment towards those who oppose it. My opponents\nare not always courteous or loyal in their polemics; but that is of no\nimportance; and I shall reply only to such objections as are potent, able,\nand rational. In other words, I shall take from among the arguments of\nanti-vivisectionists those only which can be called legitimate, those which\ndeserve to be studied methodically and profoundly by every man of good\nfaith. I shall deliberately put on one side both abuse and nonsense.\n\nI should here mention an anonymous leaflet which has received a\nconsiderable amount of publicity in England (\"How Scientific Cruelty is\ndefended,\" London, 1907, 4 pp.). In this leaflet, a reply is given to an\narticle which I once published on Vivisection. Certainly, after a lapse of\ntwenty-six years, I might claim the right to abjure some of the notions of\nmy youth. Taken as a whole, however, my ideas concerning vivisection have\nchanged but little, and I still consider it to be necessary. I of course\nrecognise that the number of physiological laboratories, which I estimated\nat thirty in my article, is for present-day purposes too low. During the\nlast twenty-six years their number has very considerably increased. But a\nlaboratory of physiology does not necessarily mean a laboratory of\nvivisection. There is the whole range of physiological chemistry, the study\nof ferments and psychological physiology, not one of which makes any\ndemands on vivisection. Many eminent physiologists--for example, my former\nmaster, M. Marey--have performed very little vivisection. Even in those\nlaboratories where vivisection is performed, it is not practised every day,\nand especially not upon dogs! Far from it! In Paris, for example, where\nevery dog experimented upon is a stray animal handed over by the\nprefecture of police, there are only about six hundred dogs per annum thus\navailable for experimentation. Now the laboratories in Paris represent,\nfrom the point of view of activity, at least half of all the laboratories\nin France put together.\n\nIt is alleged that Schiff stated to Mrs Anna Kingsford that he had\nexperimented on more than 14,000 dogs, that is to say, an average of one\ndog a day for fifty years! This is obviously an exaggeration, though it is\ndifficult to trace now who was responsible for it.\n\nFinally, the remaining objections of the anonymous author in question\namount only to this: The author believes that physiologists work for money\nand renown, and not at all for the sake of humanity (!!). Also, that young\nmen are made cruel by the sight of cruel experiments. But the author simply\nforgets this fact, that there is not at this present moment one single\n_honourable_ physiologist who would consent to perform long and distressing\nexperiments on an animal not under anaesthetics. I hold no brief for those\nwho do otherwise, and I disapprove energetically of the use of _curare_.\nThe conclusions of my anonymous critic therefore fall to the ground.\n\nI confess I do not understand the statement that experimentation on rabbits\nand other animals is of no use to humanity; and my critic unfortunately\nfrom his point of view has selected Claude Bernard's experiments as an\nexample of uselessness. Does he not know that Claude Bernard discovered the\npresence of sugar in the blood, of glycogen in the liver, of diabetes\nproduced through nervous action, of the action of oxygen and of carbonic\noxide on the red blood corpuscles, the action of the pancreatic juice on\nfat, the part played by the pneumogastric nerve in the innervation of the\nheart? These discoveries not only rejuvenated physiology, but exercise a\npermanent influence over the whole of medicine, and over the entire realm\nof therapeutics! I refuse to accept the antiquated conception of an\nempirical medicine which does not aim at discovering the truth; which\nthinks solely of clumsy practical application; and which regards as useful\nonly that which leads immediately and directly to the cure of a given\nillness. All truth is useful; all ignorance is baneful; and the sole limit\nto man's power lies in the extent of his knowledge. We must forego\ndiscussion with those who cannot understand this fundamental notion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NECESSARY LIMITS OF VIVISECTION\n\n\nFirst of all I declare, without fear of being contradicted by any\nphysiologist, that the past has witnessed much excess, almost guilty\nexcess, and that at the present time excess might still be pointed out. I\nquite believe that, even to-day, here and there in the laboratories of\nphysiology, young men may be found who are no doubt enamoured of science,\nbut who have not sufficiently reflected on the nature of pain, and\nconsequently, through lack of sympathy, are callous and indifferent about\ninflicting useless, or almost useless, tortures on innocent animals. On\nthis point I might mention numerous facts which are extremely painful to\nrelate, but which nevertheless we must have the courage to acknowledge and\ndenounce.\n\nTo quote only one instance, a most abominable one, I will mention the\nfollowing, which is old, dating back about forty years. In the veterinary\nschools, surgical studies, at that time, were not made on the dead carcase,\nbut on the living animal; so that the wretched victim, generally a horse,\nserved as a subject, while yet alive, for all the operations which the\nveterinary surgeon is called upon to perform. The detestable argument given\nat that time to qualify this barbarism was that the veterinary surgeon\nshould be familiar with the reactions of a living animal, and that, as a\nguarantee of being able to perform an operation on a diseased horse, he\nshould have already practised the same operation several times, not on the\ndead body, but on a horse full of life and vigour, able to defend himself,\nand obliged therefore to be held down motionless by special processes. But\nthis is scarcely a sufficient justification. But happily such things no\nlonger exist; public opinion, stimulated no doubt by the writings of\nanti-vivisectionists, has altered the customs of veterinary\nexperimentalists so well that in no veterinary school to-day are surgical\nexercises now performed on other than the dead body.\n\nThus, as far as surgery is concerned, unquestionably all vivisection\nshould rigorously be proscribed. I will discuss later the point as to\nwhether this interdiction should be moral--that is, recommended as a\nprecept of humanity, or enforced by law under penalty of imprisonment or\nfine. For the moment it will suffice to establish the point that no living\nanimal should serve for surgical exercises.\n\nI will go even further, and on this point my opinion will perhaps clash\nwith that of some of my friends and colleagues: I maintain that no\nexperimental physiological demonstrations which involve suffering should\never be performed. Much abuse has taken place in experimentation for\ninstruction, which is a very different thing from experimentation for\ninvestigation. Important as it may be to demonstrate physiological facts to\nstudents, I do not consider that this importance is greater than the\nsuffering of an animal. And here again I will take an example, that of the\ndistinction between the motor nerves and the sensory nerves.\n\nMagendie, in 1811, following up an idea somewhat hesitatingly put forth by\nCharles Bell a few years previously, demonstrated that the anterior nerve\nroots, starting from the spinal cord, give movement to the muscles, whilst\nthe posterior roots are exclusively devoted to sensibility; so that there\nare anterior motor nerves and posterior sensory nerves. In order to\ndemonstrate this, it is evidently necessary to operate on a living and\nsensitive animal.\n\nThe discovery was confirmed by several physiologists between 1830 and 1850;\nand I do not think we have the right to repeat this cruel experiment for\nthe sake of the instruction of students. It is not only cruel, but also\nuseless, for it consists in laying bare the anterior and posterior\nnerve-fibres of the spinal cord, with the sole object of allowing students\nto see that the excitation of the anterior nerve-fibres provokes movement\nand not pain, whilst the excitation of posterior nerve-fibres provokes pain\nand not movement. Now, in order to make students clearly understand this\ndistinction between the motor and sensory nerves, I require only a\nblackboard and a piece of chalk; and I claim that, with a piece of chalk\nand a blackboard, I am able to explain very clearly all the details of this\nphenomenon. Not only does the chalk suffice for comprehension as well as\nvivisection, but it is better; because the experiment is so delicate, so\ndifficult, and, in order to be understood, it must be observed so narrowly,\nso closely, that out of the whole class scarcely two or three students are\nable to follow the experiment. The rest of the class have before them only\nthe frightful spectacle of the reactions of a mutilated, suffering animal\nunder excitations which are made in the very depths of a wound on organs\nwhich they do not see.\n\nThis experiment is rendered more particularly cruel by the fact that\nanaesthetics cannot be used, precisely because the point in question is the\nsensibility or non-sensibility of the animal, and consequently by its very\nnature the operation cannot be made on the insensible animal.[1]\n\nAnd now, at once entering further into the difficulty of the problem of\nvivisection, we may ask ourselves if we have the right to allow\ndemonstrations of experimental physiology on living animals that have been\nrendered insensible by chloroform.\n\nAlthough, further on, I intend coming back to this important question of\nanaesthetics, I will say at once I do not understand what repugnance there\ncan be to operating upon an anaesthetised animal. Once he is insensible he\ncannot suffer; why hesitate, therefore, to perform prolonged experiments\nupon that insensible being? It appears to me just as inhuman to boil milk\nas to excite the pneumogastric nerve of a dog rendered incapable of\nsuffering. The milk does not suffer; the dog does not suffer; in both cases\nit is living matter, but insensible living matter. Consequently, as far as\nphysiological demonstrations are concerned, every individual capable of\nreflection should recognise that there is nothing wrong in experimenting\nupon animals that cannot suffer.\n\nI shall, however, make two restrictions. The first is that professors\nshould energetically call the attention of the pupils to the fact that the\nanimal is insensible, and that no one has the right to make the experiment\nupon a sensitive animal; that we, physiologists, more than all other men,\nare under the obligation of dealing humanely with animals. The professor of\nphysiology should take advantage of the occasion to develop in his hearers\nthe best and noblest sentiments, those of pity and of generosity. In a\nword, he should excuse himself, so to speak, for performing vivisection,\nand prove that such is only legitimate when it entails no suffering.\n\nThe second restriction is that the animal thus chloroformed or anaesthetised\nshould never be permitted to awaken. If he shows the slightest sign of\nsensibility, he should be given chloroform until anaesthesia is complete,\nand, finally, he ought to be killed after the experiment, without allowing\nhim to regain consciousness.\n\nAfter all, death under these conditions is a painless end. We ourselves,\nwho will disappear after a long, and certainly painful, agony, in those\nweary moments of pain which will precede our end, shall envy that absence\nof suffering, that rapid end of all pain, which is the death of an animal\nunder an anaesthetic.\n\nLet us, therefore, banish every painful experiment the object of which is\npurely didactic. Moreover, I fail to see what experiments in painful\nvivisection are necessary for the teaching of physiology. Studies on reflex\nmovement can be made perfectly well on a decapitated animal; and in that\ncase it is well understood that there can be no question of pain; for it\nwould be absurd to suppose that the spinal cord possesses the power of\nreceiving the notion of pain. Such a supposition would mean the negation of\nthe best-established facts of physiology.\n\nExperiments on the heart (notably of the frog and the tortoise) are\nperformed very much better on a decapitated animal than on an animal which\nis intact; and experiments can even be made on the heart separated from the\norganism. It would be downright puerile to lack the courage to watch the\nbeating of the living heart of a dead tortoise! As for the mammalia, all\nexperiments on the heart and on the respiration necessary in a course of\nlectures on physiology are admirably carried out on an animal rendered\ncompletely insensible.[2]\n\nWe have not, however, quite finished with the difficulties of physiological\ninstruction: there are certain poisons for which chloroform cannot be used.\n\nAs the essential property of chloroform is to deaden the nervous cells, the\neffects of some poisons cannot be studied in an animal profoundly\nchloroformed. We can watch very well indeed the effects of carbonic oxide,\nwhich poisons the blood, but many other poisons no longer produce their\ncharacteristic symptoms; nevertheless, it is of the highest importance to\nshow medical students the effects of certain formidable toxic substances.\n\nPermit me to quote myself. However little I may be a partisan of painful\nexperimental demonstrations, I make one exception for an experiment which I\nconsider it essential to present, in all its horror, before the young men\nwho attend my lectures. I refer to absinthe. If two or three drops of\nessence of absinthe are injected into the veins of a dog, he is at once\nseized by a violent attack of epilepsy with hallucinations, convulsions,\nand foaming at the mouth. It is truly a terrible sight, one which fills\nwith disgust and horror all who have witnessed this experiment. But it is\nprecisely for the sake of arousing this disgust, this horror, that I\nperform the experiment. The unfortunate dog will, during ten minutes, have\nhad an attack of intoxication and absinthian epilepsy; but at the end of an\nhour he will have recovered completely. At the same time, the two hundred\nstudents who have witnessed this hideous spectacle will retain, profoundly\nengraved on their minds, the memory of that epileptic fury, a memory which\nwill remain with them to the end of their days. They will then be able, by\ntheir propaganda against absinthe, to exercise around them a salutary\ninfluence, to prevent perhaps ten, fifteen, one hundred human personalities\nfrom destroying themselves by the use of this abominable poison. After all,\nit is better to give a dog ten minutes of absinthism than to allow twenty\nhuman families to be plunged, by absinthism, into degradation and misery.\n\nFinally, as far as surgical exercises are concerned, _they should never be\nmade on a living animal_; as regards demonstrations of experimental\nphysiology intended for instruction, _they should be made only on\ndecapitated or anaesthetised animals_; and as for intoxications,[3] save on\nvery rare and altogether exceptional occasions, _they should not be made\nthe object of experimental demonstrations_.\n\nIt seems to me that these formal declarations might be accepted by every\nphysiologist as well as by every anti-vivisectionist.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The usages in English laboratories in relation to this experiment are\nin accord with Professor Richet's views.--(W. D. H.)\n\n[2] It may not be known to many readers, that it is possible to keep alive\nfor hours and even days the heart entirely removed from the body of a dead\nmammal. On such a heart the action of drugs can be admirably studied and\ndemonstrated. I once had in my own laboratory a rabbit's heart that\ncontinued to beat for nearly five days after the remainder of the rabbit\nhad served for the dinner of my laboratory attendant.--(W. D. H.)\n\n[3] The word intoxication here and elsewhere is used in its literal sense,\nviz., poisoning. It is not limited, as in popular parlance, to the\npoisonous effects of alcohol.--(W. D. H.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nPAIN AND DEATH\n\n\nWe have not yet touched at the root of the problem, for physiology is not\nmere demonstration. The real point at issue is the search for new truths.\nThe demonstration of an acquired truth, however important this may be, must\nnot be confused with the research for an unknown truth. Now, physiologists\nclaim that they have not only the right--but that it is their duty--to\ninflict some suffering on animals, if by so doing they diminish human\nsuffering. I am going to put this proposition to the test.\n\n1. It is universally recognised, except perhaps by the Brahmans, that we\nhave the right to kill dangerous or offensive animals. I do not believe\nthere is a man foolish enough not to kill a mosquito which is stinging him.\nNo one would hesitate to crush a viper which is on the point of biting\nhim, or the caterpillar which is eating the leaves of his fruit trees. If\nan invasion of locusts threatens our harvest, we have the right to stamp\nout these legions of enemies. To refuse man the right to defend himself\nagainst his animal foes is such a ridiculous proposition that it is useless\neven to attempt to combat it.\n\nNot only have we the right to wage war against offensive animals, such as\nrats, mice, caterpillars, locusts, bugs, mosquitoes, serpents, wolves,\ntigers, hyaenas, and all ferocious and mischievous animals, but we have\nalso the right to kill such animals as are necessary for our nourishment. I\nam quite aware of the fact that certain religions proscribe the use of\nmeat. I am also aware that an exclusively vegetable alimentation might be\nsubstituted for our customary mixed diet, which is both animal and\nvegetable. But, though a vegetable alimentation is possible, our western\ncivilisation is bound up with the principle of a mixed diet in the ordinary\nconditions of life. If, indeed, alimentation should be exclusively\nvegetable, it would be useless to hunt, to fish, to rear poultry, to breed\ncattle for the market; and it would be necessary to confine our nutriment\nexclusively to wheat, corn, maize, rice, herbs, and fruits. Undoubtedly\nman, thus nourished, could live, and indeed live very well; but\nvegetarianism would be such a radical reform in our customs that in an\narticle bearing solely upon vivisection I cannot handle such a vast\nproblem.\n\nI recognise that those anti-vivisectionists who are at the same time strict\nvegetarians are consistent; they live entirely on fruit and vegetables,\nmake no use of animal flesh, for they contest the right of man to kill an\nanimal for his nourishment. It is difficult to reply to such vegetarian,[4]\nfor, after all, animal alimentation is not indispensable to human life. But\nwe must take things as they actually exist. The bulk of my readers and the\nmajority of anti-vivisectionists are not vegetarians; and it is only an\ninnocent pastime to build up new civilisations in the fantastic realms of\nUtopia.\n\nWe are not, then, addressing ourselves to vegetarians, but to those\nanti-vivisectionists who feel no compunction in drinking broth or milk or\neating the wing of a chicken, who do not shrink with horror from the sight\nof a cutlet, and who are capable of eating meat twice a day throughout the\nwhole term of their existence. These people know full well that it was\nnecessary to kill the animal which serves them for food: the ox was beaten\nto death; the sheep had its throat cut open; the pig was bled to death; the\ncod and the sardine were suffocated. I pass over the tortures which special\npreparations and elegant sports inflict on the animal for the mere savour\nof our meals: geese stuffed by force for months whilst nailed down to\nboards; pheasants, partridges, hares, slaughtered in the hunt; fish thrown\ninto boats, gasping and finally dying after long, agonising struggles. All\nthese and other tortures are inflicted by man on the animal in order to\nsatisfy his pleasure and his appetite.\n\nPerhaps these anti-vivisectionists have never visited a slaughter-house\nwhen the moment for killing the sheep has arrived. There, bound and\nstretched out on an immense table, are to be seen five hundred unfortunate\nsheep, with their throats thrust forth. The butcher passes in front and,\nwith a stroke of his knife, slashes open the neck and throat of the poor\nwretches; the blood spouts out, convulsions rend the body, and only at the\nend of one minute or one and a half minutes does death supervene. This is\ndeath in all its savage horror inflicted by man on the animal. There are\nanti-vivisectionists who accept this. Therefore, they recognise implicitly\nman's right to kill animals, since they profit by such slaughter for their\nalimentation; they add, however, that though man has a right to kill, he\nhas no right to cause suffering. Is there no suffering in the\nslaughter-house? Are anaesthetics ever dreamt of there?\n\n2. Now it is impossible to point out the boundary line which separates the\nbeing that suffers from the being that does not suffer; and I defy any one\nto establish any line of demarcation whatsoever between a being capable of\npain and a being incapable of pain.\n\nPlants certainly do not suffer. Already, however, there are certain\ndifficulties in the way of determining the exact boundary line between the\nanimal and the plant. When we expose an infusion of hay to the air, for\ninstance, various microbes develop therein. A learned and minute analysis\nallows us to distinguish both bacteria and infusoria among the innumerable\nmicro-organisms which swarm in the infusion. Now we know that bacteria are\nplants and infusoria are animals. If, therefore, all animal life were\neliminated from experimentation, we should have no right to boil an\ninfusion of hay, because we know that it contains infusoria which are\nanimals.\n\nThese infusoria are so closely related to bacteria that they may be\nconfused with the latter, as indeed has been the case up to the last few\nyears. A number of inferior beings were formerly called zoophytes, that is\nto say, animal plants; and it is sheer nonsense to suppose that they are\nconscious of pain. Sponges, corals, sea-anemones, star-fishes, sea-urchins,\npossess a nervous system which is so little developed, and reactions which\nare so indistinct, that we can scarcely suppose they possess an intelligent\nconsciousness, and, consequently, sensibility to pain. Moreover, I do not\nsee how their reactions would differ if they possessed the notion of pain.\nWhen we touch the tentacles of a star-fish, we notice, near the tentacles\ntouched, a sort of agitation set up among the neighbouring tentacles, but\nthis agitation does not extend to the tentacles of the others' arms; so\nthat a general consciousness does not appear to exist, unless it be in a\nprodigiously rudimentary state, among inferior beings. In certain classes\nof the mollusca there is no head. Thus oysters and mussels, named on that\naccount _acephala_, have in all probability no consciousness. I would have\nno scruple, therefore, either in eating living oysters, or in experimenting\nupon living oysters and mussels, since it seems to me evident that the\nnotion of pain does not exist in them.\n\nIt is not the same thing with insects; it is here that the first signs of\npain begin to appear. Nevertheless, we must be careful to avoid confusing\npain with signs of pain. When we take a worm and cut it into three\nsegments, each of these segments will struggle and writhe in a perfect\nfrenzy. It would, therefore, be necessary to admit that pain existed in\neach of these three segments--in other words, that each fragment possesses\na central seat of pain, which is absurd; it is much more rational to\nsuppose that the perturbed movements of the animal are the result of a\nstrong nervous excitation, and that the injury is accompanied by defensive\nreflex movements but provokes no painful perception.\n\nAmong the superior animals however, and especially among the vertebrata,\npain exists. There can be no doubt about this, although it is impossible to\nknow exactly in what consists the consciousness of pain in an animal; the\nmost profound obscurity still reigns, and will perhaps always reign, over\ntheir consciousness and sensations. It would be ridiculous to deny that a\ndog suffers when his paw is crushed. Certainly, I fully believe that all\npain is much less clearly perceived by the dog than by man. But, after all,\nit is a phenomenon of the same order and identical, save in intensity.\n\nNow pain, taken in its profoundest sense, consists of two essential\nelements: a shock to the conscious self, the _ego_, in the first place;\nand, in the second place, the prolongation of the shock. If the self is\nnot distinctly conscious, if it does not go so far as to assert itself by\nthe separation of that self from the external world, we cannot say that\npain is possible. The _ego_ never asserts itself with so much force as\nunder a very painful impression. So that among beings whose reactions are\nmechanical, automatic, governed by other forces than by the assertion of\nthe self and a freely deliberate will, pain becomes so indistinct, so\nconfused, that it probably does not exist in the strict psychological sense\nat all. The greatest philosopher of modern times, Descartes, imagined a\nsystem of machine-animals; this idea has been turned into ridicule by the\nignorant, but nevertheless we are almost forced to return to it when we\ndive to the bottom of reflex movements. Now, if we are able to admit that\nthere is a vague consciousness of the selfhood among superior animals, such\nas the mammalia and birds, this consciousness, as far as concerns the\ninferior vertebrata, is most certainly extremely hazy, if, indeed, it\nexists at all. I have difficulty in conceiving that a frog is able to\nponder over its _ego_, assert its existence in presence of the external\nworld, and say or think, I SUFFER. No being suffers unless he is able to\nthink that he suffers, and meditate on his suffering. To suffer means to\nhave consciousness; and as far as it is permissible for a man to picture to\nhimself the sensations of a frog, I should say that the frog has no\nconsciousness of suffering.\n\nEven as regards the more highly developed vertebrata, such as birds,\nrabbits, and guinea-pigs, suffering is probably of a very obscure nature.\nIt is not enough to say that an animal suffers because we see him animated\nby the contortions and reactions of defence. The new-born infant, which has\nneither intelligence nor memory nor consciousness, is probably incapable of\nreal conscious suffering, nevertheless it screams and cries when it is\nhungry or when it is pricked. But these screams and tears do not suffice to\nallow us to affirm that the child is suffering real pain. It is a nervous\nexcitation which is translated by the reactions of defence; it is not the\nconscious assertion of an _ego_ which has been painfully perturbed.\n\nFurther, for pain to exist the impression must be durable and not\nfugitive. The assertion of the _ego_ is not enough. It must be prolonged. A\npain, however intense we may suppose it to be, which traverses the organism\nfor a second and which leaves no painful echo behind it, is no real pain. I\nwill allow any one to inflict the most excruciating tortures on me if he\ncan assure me that, at the end of one second, I shall have lost all\nrecollection of the suffering and that no trace of the torture will remain.\nThe extraction of a tooth lasts perhaps only half a second, but you\nremember it all your life. In any case, for several minutes the pain\ncontinues to be atrocious. Therefore we may certainly consider that pain is\na phenomenon of memory. Pain is an empty word for every being that has no\nmemory.\n\nFrom these facts we may evolve the general conclusion that, under penalty\nof falling into vulgar anthromorphism, we cannot apply to the pain of\nanimals the data which have been gathered on human pain.[5] With man, the\ndeveloped intelligence and vivacious memory enable pain to acquire an\nextreme intensity. But with animals, in proportion as the intelligence\nlessens and the memory becomes more rudimentary, so does pain diminish,\nand, without having the right to be very affirmative, as we are in profound\ndarkness concerning the consciousness of animals, it appears to me that, as\nwe descend the scale of the animal kingdom, pain rapidly becomes very hazy,\nscarcely perceived, and as indistinct as the consciousness of the _ego_.\n\nWe have, therefore, the right to perform vivisection on beings which,\nbecause they possess no _selfhood_, do not suffer. Now, this absence of\nmemory, consciousness, and intelligence extends assuredly over the whole of\nthe vegetable kingdom, almost certainly over all the groups of the\ninvertebrata, and also probably over all the inferior vertebrata.\n\nFinally, there remain only the mammalia and birds which are capable of real\npain. Although this pain may be obscure and indistinct, it is certain; and\nwe must take it into consideration or fall into barbarism; therefore we\nshall restrict the problem of vivisection to the vivisection of superior\nanimals, who, alone, are capable of suffering.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] The true vegetarian is an extremely rare person. The usual so-called\nvegetarian ought more properly to be called a non-meat eater, for he does\nnot scruple to consume milk (intended by nature for the calf) and milk\nproducts (cream, cheese, and butter) and eggs, nor to wear garments made of\nwool and leather.--(W. D. H.)\n\n[5] In the little leaflet already referred to, quotation is made of a\nsentence from Professor Pritchard, which says that the various animals have\na skin of different thickness, but that sensibility is the same among all,\nincluding man. It seems to me that Professor Pritchard has scarcely looked\ninto the questions of general psychology.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nCONCERNING ANAESTHESIA IN VIVISECTION\n\n\nA few words are first of all necessary to indicate precisely what\nanaesthesia is.\n\nBy definition, an anaesthetic is a substance which, without paralysing the\nactivity of the heart and the respiration, abolishes sensibility. Indeed,\nwhenever general sensibility is abolished, there is, at the same time,\nabolition of consciousness, of intelligence, and of memory. Another\ncharacteristic of an anaesthetic is that its action is of a transient\nnature. At the end of a certain time, it disappears; and then intelligence,\nconsciousness, and memory return gradually with sensibility.\n\nIt is well known that the admirable discovery of general anaesthesia,\nallowing operations to be performed on man without the accompaniment of\npain, was due to chance. It was an American dentist, Horace Wells, and his\ncolleague, Morton (and others also perhaps), who discovered by chance that\nprotoxide of nitrogen (commonly called laughing gas) has the power, when\ninhaled, of annulling all sensibility to pain for a certain length of\ntime--sufficiently long for a surgical operation (1840). Then they\ndiscovered the effects of ether (1842). Since then, many other anaesthetics\nhave been introduced, notably chloroform, prepared by Soubeiran in 1832,\nbut the anaesthetic properties of which were only discovered in 1847 by\nFlourens and Simpson; so that physiologists and surgeons are now quite\nfamiliar with the mode of action of anaesthetics.\n\nAnaesthetics, in appropriate doses, poison the nervous cells, which are the\nseat of intelligence and sensibility, but leave unimpaired the functions of\nthe cardiac nervous system and of the nervous system governing the\nrespiration. An individual under chloroform breathes regularly; his heart\nbeats rhythmically, but all intelligence has disappeared; he has no longer\nany will or memory or reflex actions, and the most painful operations can\nbe performed on him without provoking the smallest phenomenon of\nsensibility.\n\nFurther, we have no hesitation in asserting that the anaesthetised animal\nbehaves like the anaesthetised man; that is to say, chloroform given to an\nanimal abolishes all sensibility to pain. Vivisection, therefore, on an\nanaesthetised animal, does not provoke any pain. Physiologists are so\nconvinced of this that, however humane they may be, they have no scruple in\nperforming lengthy vivisections on an animal which is thoroughly\nanaesthetised.\n\nIf chloroform, for some reason or other, cannot be employed, many other\nanaesthetics, such as chloral and morphia, may be used. Chloral, in certain\ndoses, produces complete anaesthesia, and it is easier to administer than\nchloroform. Formerly, chloral was injected, by a small puncture, into the\nveins of rabbits and dogs. I pointed out another method which allows one to\navoid even the puncture; it is sufficient to make a rectal injection of the\nsolution of chloral. In two or three minutes, the dog, the rabbit, or the\nguinea-pig, is seized with a kind of inebriety; he staggers, falls to the\nground, and in about ten minutes he is completely anaesthetised. Large doses\nof morphia can be injected into animals without causing immediate death.\nAn animal under a moderate dose of morphia does not absolutely lose all\nsensibility to pain; but the slight pain which he then feels is very\ntransient. If the animal is submitted to strong excitation, he wakens for a\nfew seconds, but soon falls back again into profound slumber. Morphia in\nmoderate doses is not such a perfect anaesthetic as chloral or chloroform;\nit is therefore usual under such circumstances to administer also volatile\nanaesthetics like chloroform, and quite small quantities of the latter will\nthen produce perfect anaesthesia. If, however, morphia is given in lethal\ndoses, as is sometimes done for comparatively short experiments, it is an\nabsolutely complete anaesthetic in itself, just as it is when a man takes a\nfatal dose of morphia, or of its parent substance, opium.\n\nNevertheless, chloroform, chloral, and ether have a very serious\ndisadvantage for the physiologist. They abolish sensibility, but, at the\nsame time, they abolish the majority of the reflex actions in which\nvoluntary muscles are concerned. Now, in many experiments, it is\nindispensable to be able to study such reflex movements, that is to say,\nthe fundamental reactions of the nervous system. Thus, physiologists, more\npreoccupied, it must be said, with assuring the immobility than the\ninsensibility of the animal, have had recourse to another substance,\n_curare_, the properties of which were investigated by Claude Bernard.\n\nCurare is a poison which the natives on the banks of the Amazon prepare\nfrom a bind-weed of the strychnia family. They boil the plant with several\ningredients, finally obtaining a sort of blackish resin, or gummy juice,\nwhich they place in little gourds, which can be procured also in Europe.\nThis juice is used by South American Indians for their arrows, and\nphysiologists use it to ensure the immobility of the animal on which they\nare experimenting. Curare dissolves in water, and a solution of a few\ncentigrams injected under the skin of a dog, a cat, a rabbit, will bring\nabout the death of the animal in a few minutes. But death is not due to the\narrest of the heart's action, it is due entirely to paralysis of the\nrespiration. Therefore the curarised animal can continue to live for\nseveral hours if _artificial_ breathing be substituted for the natural\nbreathing which is paralysed. For several hours the animal is completely\nmotionless; the heart beats with force and regularity, provided that the\ninsufflation of air into the lungs introduces into the blood the quantity\nof oxygen necessary for the life of the tissues. Now, under these\nconditions, as Claude Bernard has so well demonstrated, we have no proof\nthat sensibility is abolished also. There is immobility; there is no true\nanaesthesia. Take two animals, one chloroformed, the other curarised; both\nare equally inert; but the chloroformed animal is insensible, whilst the\ncurarised animal retains sensibility.\n\nIt is impossible, therefore, to say that curare replaces anaesthetics,\nbecause _curare is not an anaesthetic_.[6]\n\nNow, in 1894 I was able to discover a substance which has all the\nanaesthetic properties of chloroform, and which nevertheless does not\nabolish reflex actions, so that physiologists are able to use it for\nexperiments which, formerly, necessitated the use of curare. This substance\nis called _chloralose_; it is obtained by mixing anhydrous chloral with\nglucose. It is not necessary for me to describe here in detail its chemical\nor physiological properties; I will only say that in very small doses\n(about twenty-five centigrams) it is an excellent hypnotic for man, and\nthat in larger doses, injected into the vein of a dog or a rabbit, it\nbrings about complete anaesthesia without affecting either the breathing,\nthe heart, or the reflex actions.\n\nSince this discovery, many physiologists--and I regret not to be able to\nsay so of every physiologist--have given up curare and use nothing but\nchloralose, which is a perfect anaesthetic, and which allows the reflex\nactions to be studied although anaesthesia is perfect.\n\nIt may be objected that a tiny puncture has to be made in the vein to\nintroduce the chloralose into the circulation; but this puncture is really\nsuch a trifle that it would be sheer childishness to pay any attention to\nit. What doctor would hesitate to make a puncture in the skin of his\npatient for the injection of a solution of morphia? However, if\nsentimentality be pushed to such a degree as to shrink from touching the\nvein of a dog in order to put him to sleep, even this tiny puncture can be\navoided by mixing the chloralose with the food of the animal to be\nexperimented upon. In half an hour or three-quarters of an hour after the\nmixture is given he is in a state of perfect anaesthesia.\n\nFor these reasons, vivisection with anaesthesia seems to me to be quite\nlegitimate. As soon as it is recognised that man has the right to kill the\nanimal, he has the right to kill him as he pleases, provided he spares him\nall suffering.\n\nLet us also reflect a little on this point: an animal has to die just as\nmuch as we ourselves. Now, natural death would certainly be for him a long\nand cruel agony, lasting several hours, several days, perhaps several\nweeks. Well, then, we replace hideous old age, the agony of prolonged\ntortures due to disease, by a dreamless sleep, which at once plunges the\nanimal into nothingness, without his passing through the intermediary stage\nof necessary suffering. Is this what is called being inhuman? For my part,\nI shall regret on my death-bed that no physiologist will be found whose\nconscience will permit him, or, if so, who would have sufficient courage to\nhelp me to pass away under the influence of chloroform, ether, chloralose,\nmorphia, or chloral, thus saving me from the throes of the final struggle,\nand bestowing upon me a peaceful death and an easy termination of all\nsuffering.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[6] In England, the Vivisection Act expressly states that curare is not to\nbe regarded as an anaesthetic, and this proviso has been loyally accepted by\nEnglish physiologists. On those rare occasions when curare is used, and the\noccasions are very rare indeed, and year by year they become rarer, a\nvolatile anaesthetic such as chloroform or A.C.E. (alcohol, chloroform,\nether) mixture is administered at the same time in sufficient amount to\nrender anaesthesia absolute. One should add that since Claude Bernard's work\non curare, physiologists have seen reason for doubting whether it leaves\nsensibility intact, as Bernard thought. But as there is doubt on the\nquestion, and the available evidence in favour of its lulling sensations is\nsmall, it is still considered advisable to retain Bernard's views, and act\nas though it is not an anaesthetic at all.--(W. D. H.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nCONCERNING EXPERIMENTATION OTHER THAN VIVISECTION\n\n\nWe must, however, give to the word \"Vivisection\" its largest acceptation.\nIt is not only a question of cutting nerves, of stimulating the glands, or\nof exciting the muscles. There are experiments of much longer duration in\nwhich there is no mutilation properly speaking, but _intoxication_,[7]\nproduced by the injection of poisons and disease germs.\n\nIt is, indeed, evident that pain can be provoked in other ways than by a\nsharp-edged instrument, which can always be done under anaesthesia. But may\ninoculation be performed? May prolonged _intoxication_ be caused? To treat\nthe question in all its fulness, we will put the problem in the following\nmanner.\n\nIn order to study a disease, have we the right to give that disease to an\nanimal?\n\nFor my part, there can be no doubt on the point, and I affirm that such is\nour right.\n\nAs a matter of fact, and as every unbiassed person is forced to recognise,\nit is only by experimentation that these diseases can be studied\nthoroughly. Clinical observation, bearing exclusively upon man, can only\ngive incomplete results, much poorer, though its documents are\nmultitudinous, than the results furnished by experimentation, which can be\ninfinitely varied at will. If we were limited to the Hippocratic method of\nobservation, which consists in studying the symptoms and the progress of a\nmorbid affliction, we should be reduced to poor enough resources; and if\nmeditation on the aphorisms of Hippocrates constituted the whole extent of\nour medical science, medical science would be a sad vacuum. Fortunately,\nhowever, such is not the case. Marvellous progress has been realised, which\nallows us to entertain quite other ideas than those of the Father of\nMedicine on the nature of diseases, and consequently on their treatment and\ntheir prevention. Those very persons who rise up in arms against\nphysiological experimentation would not, I imagine, desire to be handed\nover to the care of a Hippocratic doctor if they were ill, to a doctor who\ntook no notice of any modern discoveries under the pretext that they were\nacquired by experimentation _in anima vili_.\n\nIf, however, we wish to discuss the problem thoroughly, it will not do to\nremain on indefinite ground. Let us arrive at precise facts. I will mention\nonly three discoveries, the importance of which is considerable, and which\nhave been established solely by experimentation.\n\nFirst of all, there is _antisepsis_. For centuries and centuries surgeons\noperated without understanding why it was that death struck down so\nunmercifully those operated upon. In vain did surgeons display great skill;\nin vain did the operation succeed: the patient died. Erysipelas, lock-jaw,\nabscess-formation and gangrene reigned supreme. Every confinement exposed\nthe mother to death; the slightest wounds were followed by the most serious\nafter-effects; in certain amputations, for instance, the mortality was 70\nper cent. No one dared to touch either the peritoneum or the joints,\nbecause every operation on the peritoneum or on the articulations was sure\nto prove fatal. But Lister and Pasteur came! These two men, simultaneously\nand concurrently, demonstrated that all disease following on an operation\nwas the result of infection by parasites. By preventing the wounds from\nbeing contaminated by parasites, infection was prevented; for the wounds\nthemselves are innocent, as long as they are not infected.\n\nThis is the astounding and simple truth which Lister and Pasteur\nestablished. And let no one pretend it is so simple that the data could\nhave been furnished by clinical observation alone, for such an assertion\nwould be contradicted by the facts.\n\nThousands and thousands of surgeons, right up to 1868, had understood\nnothing of infection. In order to understand this big word \"infection,\"\nwhich sums up in itself the whole of surgery and the whole of medicine, it\nwas necessary to inject pus into animals, gather the microbes which then\ndeveloped in the blood of these animals, isolate the microbes, cultivate\nthem, inject them afresh, and produce an experimental disease. It was in\nthis manner only that we were able to understand the mechanism of\nantisepsis, and, consequently, apply it to the treatment of operations and\nwounds. Three or four volumes could be written on this subject alone, but\nall I can attempt here is a summary of the main points. I say without\nhesitation that as long as clinical medicine confined itself only to the\nobservation of patients, it was able to understand nothing, to analyse\nnothing, to foresee nothing. It was necessary to experiment, to sacrifice a\nfew hundred mice, rats, and rabbits, in order to demonstrate that\nerysipelas is an inoculable disease, that puerperal infection is of the\nsame nature as purulent infection, that all these diseases are due to\nmicro-organisms, and that certain substances, called antiseptics, can stop\nthe development of these fatal germs.\n\nIt appears quite natural to-day (and it seems to simple minds, ignorant of\nthe past and powerless to imagine the past, that these notions have been\ncurrent from all eternity) to know that instruments, water, and linen\nheated to 120 deg. contain no living germs. But this discovery is not so very\nold. It was Pasteur who, between 1863 and 1873, established it by some\nmemorable experiments at the cost of a little disease given to rats and\nguinea-pigs.\n\n[Illustration: PASTEUR IN HIS LABORATORY.\n\n_facing p. 44._]\n\nNow--and I appeal to the good sense of my readers--would it be better to\nefface the suffering of those rats, those guinea-pigs, those rabbits, and\nreturn to the olden times when the mortality in lying-in hospitals was\noften 40 per cent. (it is to-day, 0.02 per cent.!)? Must we condemn Lister\nand Pasteur as great criminals because they dared to inoculate microbes\ninto a few rabbits and bring about in those unfortunate animals--they would\nhave died a long time ago even without that--experimental ailments in order\nto ward off malignant diseases from thousands and thousands of human\nbeings?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe second discovery which I shall mention is that of the infectiousness of\ntuberculosis. Thousands and thousands of doctors had had tuberculous\npatients under their care. Three thousand years ago, Hippocrates described\ntuberculosis with as much precision as could be done to-day. Illustrious\nphysicians in every land had tried to analyse the nature of this terrible\ndisease and to unravel its cause; nevertheless, they were unable, from\nclinical observation alone, to prove what is to-day quite commonplace\nknowledge, viz., that tuberculosis is infectious. In 1864, a French doctor,\nVillemin, conceived the simple and ingenious idea of inoculating rabbits\nwith the tuberculous matter found in the lungs of consumptive patients.\nThese rabbits became tuberculous; they died in a few weeks with tuberculous\ngranulations in lungs and liver. It was thus demonstrated that tuberculosis\nwas infectious. Later on, in 1878, Koch discovered that the active agent of\nthis infection is a special microbe. But, however important may be the\ndiscovery of the microbe of tuberculosis (the tubercle-bacillus of Koch),\nthe essential dominating fact is that tuberculosis is infectious.\n\nAs soon as this great fact became known, a profound revolution occurred in\nsocial hygiene, in the treatment and in the prevention of this terrible\nevil. We know now the consumptive man carries in his lungs and sputum the\ngerm capable of developing the same evil in others; consequently we know\nhow to preserve ourselves against tuberculosis. We must purify or destroy\nthe habitations wherein consumptives have lived, burn or carbolise all the\nsputum, make spitting in public places a punishable offence, take sanitary\nmeasures against unhealthy meat, defend our children against contaminated\nmilk--in a word, we are armed against a disease, the sole and unique cause\nof which, as experimentation alone has taught us, is infection.\n\nFormerly it was believed that diseases were due to a sort of divine anger,\nor, what amounts pretty much to the same thing, to certain imperceptible\nepidemic exhalations stretching over whole populations, or attacking\nisolated individuals, striking like an exterminating angel, as his fancy\nchose, such or such an unhappy victim. A sort of will or caprice, governed\nonly by chance, was exercised in relation to this disease, and man was\npowerless, because he was unarmed against chance. He did not even think of\nit. He resigned himself to being ill, and waited for the disease, without\ndoing anything to fight against it, benumbed under a kind of Oriental\nfatalism. The doctor shook his head, bore testimony to the evil, and\nconfined himself to prescribing inefficacious treatments which were only,\naccording to a celebrated saying, a long meditation on death.\n\nBut the times have changed; there is no longer any fatality in\ntuberculosis; there is imprudence, there is error, there is vice, and,\nspecially, social vice. We may almost say that, if there are still\nconsumptives in our midst, it is because of our defective social\ninstitutions. We leave innumerable populations steeped in misery, seven or\neight individuals living in the same infected hovel. In the slums of our\nlarge cities, swarms of infants are to be found morally and materially\nperverted by misery. Therefore, if consumption still exists, it is our own\nfault; it is no longer as it was in olden times, when we knew not, because\n_now_ we know. The plague can be battled with; and if it still has so much\npower left, it is because we have not the courage to apply to public and\nindividual hygiene the treatment science has definitely shown us should be\napplied. To foresee is to know; and now that we know, we must not forget\nthat it is to experimenters, and to experimenters alone, that we are\nindebted for this great benefit.\n\nMoreover, however imperfect our defence against tuberculosis may still be,\nit is by no means _nil_; great progress has been made; the mortality has\ndecreased in a considerable proportion. During the last twenty-five years,\nit has decreased by about 25 per cent., and notably in England, where the\nlaws of public hygiene, energetically upheld by the good sense of the\npeople, are strictly applied, the mortality has diminished by 50 per cent.\nThis is only a beginning, and the near future will bring about the complete\nextermination of the disease.\n\nNow, honestly, I ask if the rabbits which Villemin sacrificed weigh more in\nthe scales of universal progress, and even in public morality, than the\nthree millions of individuals who, by progress in hygiene, have been\npreserved from an early and painful death. I estimate at a high price the\nlife and the sufferings of fifty rabbits, but, at the risk of appearing a\nbarbarian, I prefer, to these fifty rabbits, the three millions of young\npeople who have been saved by Villemin's discovery, and the millions which\nit will still save.\n\nAll the more so, inasmuch as experimental studies on tuberculosis have not\nonly preserved men; they have also preserved animals. Thanks to Koch, there\nis now a very simple way of recognising if an animal is or is not\ntuberculous. Koch was able to extract from tubercle bacilli, a substance\nwhich he has called _tuberculin_. At first he thought tuberculin cured the\ndisease; but this was an error. Subsequent experiments showed that\ntuberculin exercised quite a different action to that of healing. It has\nthe property, when injected in small doses into a tuberculous animal, of\nprovoking an intense fever, whilst it produces no reaction whatsoever in a\nnormal animal. If, therefore, tuberculin is injected into every animal in\nthe cattle shed, we can feel sure--and this is impossible otherwise--that\nsuch or such animals are tuberculous or healthy. All cows that show a rise\nin temperature after an injection of tuberculin are tuberculous; the\nothers, on the contrary, are in good health.\n\nThus the sanitary inspection of stables and cattle-sheds can be carried out\nthoroughly; and we are now able to protect not only men but also animals\nfrom the disease of tuberculosis.\n\nSuch results could only have been obtained at the cost of many and\nmethodical experiments. Whatever may be the genius of anti-vivisectionists,\nthey would never have been able to imagine anything similar had they been\nleft to their own intellectual powers. It is not in the study that we are\nable to discover this long series of unforeseen, extraordinary, almost\nmiraculous facts which laboratory experimentation has been able to find\nout. Man, said Pascal, tires of conceiving sooner than Nature tires of\nproviding; and experimentation is man's method of interrogating Nature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe third discovery which I shall take as an example demonstrating the\nvalue of experimentation, is the history of _Serotherapy_. And I may be\npermitted to dwell somewhat on this subject as I had the good fortune, in\n1888, of making the decisive experiment which was the beginning of\nserotherapy.\n\nWhilst inoculating some rabbits and dogs with a microbe taken from pus\n(_Staphylococcus pyosepticus_), I developed a certain disease both in the\nrabbits and in the dogs. But the dogs did not die, whilst all the rabbits\ndied from the results of the inoculation. I thought then that, the cause of\nthat resistance being due to the difference of blood, I might be able to\nmake the rabbit refractory to the infection by injecting it with the blood\nof a dog in normal health. The experiment succeeded. The rabbits which had\nreceived the blood of the dog, when they were afterwards infected with the\nstaphylococcus, became very ill but did not die. Later on, I took, not the\nblood of a dog in normal health, but the blood of a dog that had received\nthe infection of the staphylococcus and had recovered from that infection,\nand I injected this blood into the rabbits. _Now the rabbits that received\nthe blood of the infected, healed dog had acquired complete immunity to\nthis form of microbe infection_: the principle of serotherapy was\ndiscovered (5th Nov. 1888).\n\n[Illustration: \"L'ENFANT.\"\n\n_In Musee du Luxembourg, Paris._\n\n_facing p. 53._]\n\nSince then, serotherapy has been applied, by Behring in Germany and by Roux\nin France, to diphtheria (1892). These two savants showed that the blood of\nanimals, and especially of horses, that had been infected with diphtheria\nand cured, could, when injected into patients attacked by diphtheria,\ndiminish, in an extraordinary proportion, the duration and intensity of the\ndisease. There is no other treatment for diphtheria to-day. A doctor is\nguilty, and even criminal, if he does not use it, for the therapeutic\nresults of this treatment are marvellous.\n\nI do not speak of clinical observation only. All those who have seen the\neffects of one of these injections of serum on children down with\ndiphtheria are veritably stupefied at the resurrection which they witness\nonly a few minutes after the injection. The unfortunate child with his\npurple face and convulsed limbs, scarcely breathing, comes back to fresh\nlife as soon as he has received the beneficent injection of serum. The\nfacts are so decisively clear that even if we have only seen them once we\ncan never again forget them. But I shall simply call the attention of my\nreaders to the following statistics, the result of more than 500,000\nobservations made in England, in the United States, in France, in Russia,\nin Germany, in Italy, in Austria, in fact everywhere: the death-rate in\ndiphtheria before 1892 (for the serotherapic method took four years to\nbecome known and practised) was 45 per cent. After 1892, this death-rate\nfell to 12 per cent.[8] Consequently, out of every hundred patients\nsuffering from diphtheria, thirty are saved by the serotherapic treatment.\n\nLet us stop for a moment to consider these figures, which seem mere\nabstractions to those who have not reflected. At the present time, about\n300,000 children per annum in France are attacked by diphtheria; that makes\n4,500,000 from 1892 to 1907. The proportion of 30 per cent. is therefore\n1,350,000. The number of children who have been saved in France alone by\nserotherapy in fifteen years is therefore 1,350,000. Let us put it in round\nnumbers at one million only; this would be sufficient to justify the death\nof the twenty-five dogs and the one hundred rabbits which I sacrificed, and\nof the two hundred horses which Behring and Roux used for the preparation\nof the anti-diphtheria serum. A million families in mourning, a million\nhopes mowed down in the bud! Only fanatics would dare to say this weighs\nfor nought in the balance.\n\nMoreover--and why should I not say it aloud?--this so-called humanity of\nanti-vivisectionists seems to me the antithesis of humanity. To satisfy a\nconception which they have forged out of a certain hazy ideal, they make\nquick shrift of human life and suffering. A hundred weeping mothers, a\nhundred unfortunate children with gaping throats, suffocating, gasping, the\ndeath-rattle at hand--that is what these sensitive souls declare is nothing\nbeside one rabbit which has had to receive a little blood of a dog into its\nabdomen! These philanthropists are creatures of a fixed idea! Let humanity\nsuffer, weep and die! What does that matter, provided that their fixed\nidea, driven right up to the hilt of delirium, triumphs! After all, if they\npersist in believing that the faint and uncertain suffering of a sick\nrabbit is not worth the certain and excruciating suffering of a thousand\nhuman creatures, I can say but one thing: I pity them from the very bottom\nof my heart.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese examples--antisepsis, tuberculosis, and serotherapy--will suffice\nperhaps to justify experimental pathology. There is now another\nexperimental science which I am going to try to justify also. This is\n_Therapeutics_.\n\nWe are only able to learn the action of medicaments by studying the action\nof poisons, for all medicaments in strong doses are poisonous. Now, to\nunderstand a poison thoroughly, we must experiment with it on the animal.\nSimpson administered chloroform to men only after Flourens had determined\nits anaesthesic properties on animals. Liebreich, after he discovered\nchloral, studied its physiological properties on animals, and only after\nlong and learned studies was he able to give it a place in human\ntherapeutics. At the present day, chloral is one of the most extensively\nused medicines, one which has relieved innumerable patients. When I carried\nout my research on chloralose, before studying its effects on myself, I\nbegan by giving it to cats and fowls. I was ignorant of the degree of toxic\npower of this new, still unknown substance, and, at the risk of appearing\nvery pusillanimous, I did not wish to begin on myself; I preferred trying\nit on a fowl. Not that I estimate my life very highly, but after all,\nhowever low an estimate I may place on my own life, I think it is worth\nmore than that of a fowl. Many other medicines have been thus experimented\nwith on animals before it was possible to ascertain their effects on man.\nKocher discovered cocaine, Knorr antipyrine; and these two admirable\nmedicines did not find their way into therapeutics until their mode of\naction and their toxic power had been ascertained on animals.\n\nIn a word, the whole of present-day therapeutics has for foundation, not\nonly ancient clinical observation, which it would be supremely foolish to\ndisdain, but also the experiments of modern times, which it would be\nequally foolish to proscribe.\n\nPerhaps certain people imagine that there are no therapeutics, and that we\ncan replace by auto-suggestion, prayer, or hypnotisation, everything which\ndoctors generally use to cure or allay disease. It is difficult to reply to\nsuch objections, because those who make them have never opened a work of\nscience nor seen a patient. They see things as they wish to see them. They\nimagine that the exterior world is constructed according to their interior\nvision, and they do not deign to come into contact with reality. They\nbelieve that enthusiasm can supply the place of instruction, and that a\ncertain doubtful generosity can replace profound and patient study. They\nmaintain perhaps that chloral does not make one sleep, that salicylate of\nsoda does not alleviate rheumatic pains, that bromide of potassium does not\ncheck attacks of epilepsy. Perhaps they will even continue to say so for a\nlong time to come. Let them talk; progress will be made without them.\n\n    _Les chiens aboient et la caravane passe._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[7] See footnote, p. 17.\n\n[8] These statistics can be found in all technical works; and I refer those\nwho may be curious to study them in detail to the special memoirs and\nexcellent treatises on pathology which have been published in England,\nFrance, and Germany.\n\nSee also appendix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nSERVICES RENDERED TO SCIENCE AND HUMANITY BY EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY\n\n\nI now come to a favourite theme of anti-vivisectionists, viz., that\nexperimental physiology has produced nothing, and that the differences of\nopinion among _savants_ are so considerable that this alone proves the\nimpossibility of vivisection ever establishing anything permanent.\n\nHere again it is difficult to reply because of the very ignorance of the\nhonourable gentlemen who criticise us. Most certainly there still remain\nmany disputed and disputable points in physiology, and nothing is easier\nthan to find therein striking and abundant contradictions. If we wished to\namuse ourselves, we might write five or six big volumes on the subject; but\nlet us leave this tedious and useless labour to the anti-vivisectionists to\naccomplish to their hearts' content. I prefer to tell them, what they do\nnot wish to know perhaps, that contradiction is the very essence of\nscience. As our demonstrations appeal not to faith but to reason; as we\nadmit free discussion, free investigation from every side; any proposition\nmust have multitudinous and positive proofs in its favour before it can be\nadopted without hesitation. Even our opinions were never prescribed by\nfaith or violence; we take pleasure in provoking discussion and\ncontradiction. With our adversaries' leave be it said that a dogmatic,\nirreproachable book, where there was no place for hesitation or doubt,\nwould be the very negation of science. Even the treatises of geometry and\nmechanics, although non-experimental, rational sciences, sometimes\ncontradict themselves. It has been rightly said that the history of science\nis the history of human errors--errors which, little by little, draw nearer\nand nearer to supreme truth without ever attaining it. We must understand\nthis, or we shall be rebelling against the conception of scientific truth.\n\nNow, in treatises on physiology, we find a number of well-demonstrated\ntruths, and a still larger number of truths only half demonstrated, and,\nconsequently, contested. Our successors will also certainly find in our\nbooks of to-day an enormous number of errors.\n\nWhat conclusion is to be drawn from this fact? Have those who reproach the\nscience of physiology with being only a tissue of contradictions and errors\never opened a book on physiology (for example, the text-book of Schaefer,\nin two large, compact, closely written volumes of 1000 pages each)? They\nwould there find thousands of positive, incontestable facts on all the\nquestions which concern physiology.\n\nLet us take, each in its turn, the great functions of life, and we shall\nsee that they have become known only by experimentation.\n\n1. _The Circulation of the Blood_, suspected by Michel Servet, Realdo\nColombo, and Andreas Cesalpin, was really established by Harvey in 1628.\n\nYet Harvey was only able to demonstrate it by experiments performed on the\nliving bodies of frogs and deer. Since Harvey's time, the laws of the\ncirculation have been established with admirable precision. Hales\ndemonstrated the pressure of blood in the vessels. Chauveau and Marey\nintroduced into the heart of a horse an apparatus which enabled the\npressure of the blood in the heart, in the arteries, and in the veins, to\nbe measured. Weber found that the pneumogastric nerve stopped the heart's\naction. Ludwig applied the graphic method to the circulation. Delicate\ninstruments have been constructed which give diagrams of the pulsations and\nmeasure the pressure of the blood in the arteries and in the heart of man.\nClaude Bernard discovered the nerves which regulate the movements of the\nvessel walls. In short, the whole history of the circulation is due solely\nto vivisections, and it would be ridiculous to speak of our uncertainties\nin this respect; for the essential mechanical or nervous laws of the\ncirculation are as well known now as those of the combinations of nitrogen\nwith oxygen.\n\n2. _The Respiration_ remained profoundly unknown, as to its inmost nature,\nright up to Lavoisier's time. Lavoisier placed some guinea-pigs in a box\nfilled with ice, measured the quantity of heat thrown off, the quantity of\noxygen consumed, the quantity of carbonic acid produced; and he was thus\nable to deduce a fundamental law of life, viz., that life is essentially\ncombustion. He made experiments on himself also; but however great one's\nrespect for the life of a guinea-pig may be, must it be considered wrong\nthat Lavoisier should have experimented on the guinea-pig before\nexperimenting on himself?\n\nAs for the laws which regulate this consumption of oxygen and this\nproduction of carbonic acid, to discover these it was necessary to put into\ncages animals of every species and of every size. And there is, perhaps,\nnot a single physiologist who has not made this experiment, at the risk of\nannoying the cats and dogs thus exposed--without, as far as that goes,\ndoing them any harm--to varied temperatures or to different diets.\nMoreover, in order to study the respiratory exchanges, physiologists\nexperiment on man as well; is, therefore, the extraordinary scruple against\nexperimenting on animals to be imposed upon them also?\n\nTo take an excellent example of the services which experimental physiology\ncan render not to science only--which would, indeed, be quite sufficient\nto justify them--but to humanity, I will cite the experiments of Paul Bert\nwith relation to elevated atmospheric pressures. There are certain workmen\nwho are obliged to work under water, at a depth of 20 to 30 yards, for the\nconstruction of piers and bridges, or the exploration of sunken vessels.\nNow, it had long been observed that some of these men died suddenly on\nreturning to the surface. Experimental physiology was able to discover the\ncause of that sudden death. When a man (or an animal), after having been\nsubjected to several times the normal atmospheric pressure, is suddenly\nreleased from this pressure, the nitrogen dissolved in the blood is\ndisengaged suddenly: this produces gaseous embolism, that is to say,\nbubbles of gas are formed, which block the blood-vessels and prevent the\nblood circulating in the capillaries. Knowing this, the death of men\nworking at a pressure of four atmospheres could then be avoided by\nreleasing them slowly, that is by bringing them slowly back to the normal\natmospheric pressure. Is it barbarous to attach more importance to the\ndeath of these men than to the death of the few dogs and mice that served\nto establish this law?\n\nI was able to demonstrate that, if the temperature of the air is very high,\nas in the hottest days of summer, dogs that are muzzled die rapidly of\nhyperpyrexia (_i.e._ high fever), for they are no longer able to cool\nthemselves by panting. It is true that this experiment cost the lives of a\nfew dogs, but has it not saved many others by pointing out that dogs should\nnot be muzzled under certain conditions? It goes without saying I am not\nspeaking of the theoretical consequences of this experiment.\n\nArtificial respiration, which can restore to life the apparently drowned,\nis one, of the conquests of experimental physiology; for we have been able\nto determine the best method and the essential conditions (for artificial\nbreathing) by experiments of a very precise nature. Is it nothing to know\nhow to restore to life the apparently drowned?\n\n3. _The Process of Digestion_ has also been learned solely by experiment.\nIn the history of science there are two or three cases of individuals in\nwhom a wound or an operation has produced a gastric fistula, that is to say\nan abdominal opening through which the stomach can be reached and food\nintroduced. Had we remained satisfied with these accidental observations,\nwe should have obtained but mediocre results. Physiologists therefore have\nmade experimental gastric fistulae. Dogs thus operated on, after an illness\nof a few days, recover thoroughly. Some physiologists have kept dogs for\nseveral years in this condition: gay, caressing, docile, they did not\nappear to complain of their lot. They were better nourished, more petted\nand loved than the many starving dogs which roam about the country. They\nwere not a whit more unhappy than was Alexis St Martin (observed in 1831 by\nDr Beaumont) and Marcellin (whom I observed in 1878, at the beginning of my\ncareer). Quite recently an eminent Russian physiologist, Pawloff, has, by\nmaking gastric fistulae in animals, been able to discover a number of\nimportant facts, absolutely necessary to be known for the treatment of\ndiseases of the stomach, and even for the establishment of a normal\nalimentation.\n\nThe problem of alimentation is, indeed, one of the most essential, perhaps\nthe most essential, in the history of humanity. I suppose that\nanti-vivisectionists are aware of the fact that, even in Europe, large\npopulations exist who are insufficiently nourished. Under these conditions,\nis it not desirable to know exactly the quantities of carbon, nitrogen,\nsalt, lime, and phosphorus which are necessary for animals, and\nconsequently for man? Should not anti-vivisectionists, interested in\nvegetarianism, before venturing to institute a vegetable diet for man, try\nit first of all upon carnivorous animals, so as to know how a mixed\nalimentation can be modified by a vegetable alimentation, and to what\nextent those modifications are compatible with health?\n\n4. _The Nervous System_ is not so well known, so far as its functions are\nconcerned, as the circulatory system or the digestive system. Nevertheless,\npositive discoveries are extremely numerous: the action of the nerves on\nthe glands and on the muscles; the part played by the different portions\nof the brain; nervous degenerations; the laws governing reflex actions--all\nthis constitutes a formidable body of well-established facts. I do not\npretend that everything is known. Alas! No! There are still innumerable\ntruths to be discovered, and serious errors are doubtless most learnedly\ntaught, with many contradictions, much uncertainty, much confusion--all of\nwhich simply proves that physiology is not a science whose last chapter has\nyet been written, that the last word of this science has not yet been\npronounced. Nevertheless, blind indeed would the man be who would venture\nto conclude that physiology was not a science; or to assert that physiology\nis a science of little importance; that the role of the physiologist, from\nthe point of view of the alleviation of human miseries, is null; and that\nknowledge of physiological facts is useless. Will it be claimed that the\ndoctor has no need of a knowledge of physiology? I will reply by a\ncomparison I am accustomed to make before my medical students when I wish\nto make them understand the necessity of a sound physiological education.\n\nLet us suppose that a watchmaker claimed to be able to cure disordered\nwatches, but at the same time declared himself unable to tell by what\nsprings and by what mysterious mechanism a healthy watch should mark the\nhour; that watchmaker would inspire me with a very small amount of\nconfidence, and I would not go to him; for, until the contrary is proved to\nme, I believe that an indispensable condition for repairing a watch when\nout of order is to know how a watch should work when in good repair.\n\nPhysiology exists only because there have been physiologists. By that I do\nnot mean to say that all the truths of physiology are due exclusively to\nvivisection. I only claim that physiology without vivisection would be\nstrangely clumsy, limited to a few empirical facts, and that, if\nvivisection be proscribed, we must resolutely give up classing physiology\namong the sciences. We may study the stars and the earth, electricity and\nheat, geography and history, and are we to be forbidden to study the\nfunctions of living matter? Such a proposal is obviously absurd, for of all\nthe sciences accessible to man, physiology is that which is nearest to\nhim.\n\nIt is only the ignorant who dare assert that experimentation on animals\ncannot be applied to man. There are of course differences which\nphysiologists train themselves to perceive; for example, certain poisons\nare almost innocuous to some animals, and are very fatal to man. The\nalkaloid of belladonna, atropine, is a thousand times more toxic for a man\nthan for a goat. It is difficult to kill a goat with morphia, whilst a drop\nof laudanum kills a new-born babe. Carbonic oxide is absolutely harmless\nfor the invertebrata which have no blood. Crayfish and snails live with\nimpunity in pure oxide of carbon. And I could cite a number of other facts\nwhich are described in detail in every treatise of physiology or\npharmacology.\n\nBut what does it matter to us if we know it?--and we can nearly always know\nit. There are functional differences between men and animals; and\nphysiologists know these perfectly well by their training; but there are,\nabove all things, much more striking resemblances. It would be, for\ninstance, ridiculous to suppose that oxygen did not dissolve in our blood\nin about the same way in which it dissolves in the blood of a cat or a\nrabbit; that the pneumogastric nerve, which stops the heart of the cat and\nthe rabbit, will not stop the heart of man; that the arterial pressure,\nwhich is 16 c.m. of mercury in the horse, the dog, and the cat, is 1 c.m.\nor 1.60 c.m. in man; that the transformation of albuminous matters into\nurea takes place differently in the dog and in man. On the contrary,\neverything goes to prove the general laws are the same, and that the\nphysiology of man, whilst not rigorously identical in every respect with\nthe physiology of the animal, is nevertheless sufficiently analogous to\nenable a _general physiology_ to comprise in its vast laws the functions of\nevery living being, man, mammal, vertebrata, invertebrata, and even every\nliving cell.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nMORALITY AND VIVISECTION\n\n\nIf we took the assertions of anti-vivisectionists literally, we should\narrive at the strange conclusion, that the victims of vivisection are\nimmensely numerous, and that vivisection is one of the calamities of the\ncentury. As a matter of fact, the number of victims due to physiology is\nvery low. Let us try to count them up.\n\nThere are only about twenty laboratories in France where experiments on\nanimals are made. Let us allow that there are twenty in England, twenty in\nItaly, forty in Germany, and fifty in other countries, making a total of\n150 laboratories. If we suppose that a dog, a cat, and a rabbit are\nsacrificed every day in each of these laboratories, we should certainly\nexaggerate.\n\nLet us suppose, nevertheless, that it is so; and let us even admit five\nvictims a day, with 300 working days in the year, which is also an evident\nexaggeration: this will make about 200,000 victims a year. This number,\nwhich seems very considerable, is in reality very small, if we put it\nagainst the enormous number of living beings. Probably about two thousand\nmillions of mammals die every year, so that the proportion of animals that\nsuffer a little (and very little) through the act of man in his search for\nknowledge is one in 10,000, in other words, a negligible quantity.\n\nIn the immense earthly universe are thousands and thousands of pains, of\nfierce, incessant struggles between living animals. Every rock in the\nocean, every tree in the forest, shelters ferocious combats, and is the\nconstant scene of painful death-agonies. Darwin has admirably shown that\nlife is a struggle for life, that the weak are crushed by the strong, and\nthat the voice of living nature is a cry of distress rather than a hymn of\njoy. Therefore, in this universal concert of animal pain and of human pain,\nthe slight pain of animals experimented upon is a little thing, and from\nan absolute point of view we have the right to disregard it.\n\nThink well over it all for a moment. By giving an experimental disease to a\nrabbit, for example, I scarcely change its lot. If I had left it to itself,\nin one, two, or perhaps three years it would have been attacked by another\ndisease, probably more cruel than the tuberculosis with which I infected\nit. The lot of dogs which die of old age is scarcely enviable. How many\npoor old dogs have I seen, impotent from rheumatism, completely blind, no\nlonger able to crawl about, covered with disgusting ulcers, seeming to beg\nfor the finishing stroke which would put an end to their misery! And old,\nworn-out horses! What a spectacle! This residuum of existence of old\nanimals is truly pitiable, and, taking everything into consideration, it is\nnot an enormous dose of happiness we have left them in not sacrificing them\nwhen they were young.\n\nBut I shall not dwell upon this argument, for it might also be applied to\nhuman beings. The Greeks said: \"Happy are they who die young, for they are\nbeloved of the gods.\" Perhaps some day human ethics will allow us to spare\nour dear ones the cruel and useless sufferings of old age! I know not. But\nwhat I do know is that it is not inhuman to sacrifice an old horse or an\nold dog in order to save it from going through all the tortures which old\nage and disease hold in reserve for him.\n\nIn any case, the sufferings produced by physiologists who inoculate\ndiseases into animals weigh very little in comparison with natural\nsuffering, not only because the suffering of animals is always more or less\nimmersed in the nihilism of semi-consciousness, but also because these\nexperimental sufferings are less than natural sufferings, and extend over a\nvery small number of victims.\n\n_But the question does not lie there._ The point is not whether the\nsuffering of animals be a large or small quantity in nature from an\nabsolute standpoint; the question is a higher one: we must ask ourselves if\nthe fact of inflicting pain is compatible with human morality.\n\nTolstoi says somewhere that the sciences are nothing, that art is nothing,\nthat the true science is that of good and evil, of justice and injustice.\nEverything sinks into insignificance in presence of this great duty, or\nrather life has no other object. We should be entirely engrossed in doing\ngood; justice should be our sole preoccupation.\n\nIf, then, from an absolute point of view the suffering of frogs and rabbits\ndoes not count, it counts a lot from the point of view of human morality.\nIf a bad child should martyrise a toad, it is not the toad which would\ninterest me: poor creature of diffused consciousness, ignorant even of its\nown pain, such a tiny pain, too, in comparison with the immense pains which\nthe beings of this great universe are suffering at this moment! No; the\ntoad would scarcely exist for me. The child would interest me greatly; and\nall my pity would be turned upon that cruel child. My efforts would tend\nmuch less towards preventing the toad from suffering than towards\npreventing that human being from becoming a barbarian.\n\nIf the anti-vivisectionists were true moralists and not fanatics they would\nsay: \"To provoke suffering to produce disease, to inflict tortures, is an\nexecrable moral lesson. Whilst the first duty of man is to be good, you\ninstruct young men to be wicked. The doctor, who ought to be compassionate\nfor human suffering, should not serve his apprenticeship in that noble\nprofession by showing himself devoid of pity for the suffering of innocent\nvictims. A civilisation which allows itself to inflict death and torture on\nliving beings can be only a barbarous civilisation.\"\n\nI recognise the force of that argument. And whilst not a single one of the\npreceding assertions of the anti-vivisectionists had succeeded in moving\nme, I confess that this objection of human morality is a most powerful one.\nI am nevertheless going to try to show that it is not admissible.\n\nAnd first of all, because there is in this world much suffering, human\nsuffering, which it is more important to allay than that of the victims of\nvivisection. If our sole care were that of morality, what battles would we\nnot have to fight! There are thousands of people in India who die of\nhunger; and throughout Asia whole populations perish of disease which a\nlittle hygiene could prevent. The hunger-evil is rife in Russia; most of\nthe peasants in Sicily also never know what it is to satisfy their hunger.\nThe misery of children is lamentable everywhere: in our large cities,\nParis, Berlin, London, it is not exceptional, alas! to come across people\ndying of hunger. The terribly high rate of mortality among children less\nthan a year old is due to hunger and to hunger alone. In Europe two million\nchildren, under one year of age, die every year solely because their\nparents are plunged in misery, because the mother, instead of nursing her\nchild, is forced to work, to earn her living at manual labour, which dries\nup her milk. _These two million children who die of hunger are the disgrace\nof our civilisation._ And yet we continue to live in luxury, we look on\ncalmly and indifferently at the agony of our human brothers, an agony which\nwe could easily alleviate. For my part, willingly shall I allow myself to\nbe melted with pity at the sight of tuberculous rabbits when I see those\npersons who champion these same rabbits, develop within themselves some\npity for human suffering, a pity grown so deep, so powerful, that they\ndevote their entire fortune towards rescuing their brethren from death\nthrough hunger.\n\nThere is not only famine and want. There are many other social scourges;\nand these scourges are much more serious than vivisection can ever become.\nThere is alcoholism, prostitution, war. And I have no need to say that\nalcoholism is an evil, that prostitution is an evil, that war is an evil.\nWhen human morality has been developed to such a pitch that man will no\nlonger be able to look on these great social miseries without horror, it\nwill be time enough perhaps to ask if it be permissible to seek for truth\nat the expense of a little animal suffering. But until then I have the\nright to stigmatise as hypocrisy all that immense pity which certain people\nprofess for dogs, side by side with their immense heedlessness, which they\ndo not fear to display, towards the fate of so many unfortunate human\nbeings.\n\nIf anti-vivisectionists were animated by a great desire for morality, they\nwould endeavour to reform our social condition, which is abominable and\nfull of horrors; they would strive to impart into youth other notions than\nthat of smug satisfaction with the present social conditions. As long as we\nhave not faced the profound evils which gnaw at the root of our social\nsystem, as long as we take a delight in the egotistical satisfaction of our\ncapitalist and martial society, it is not permissible, if we would not be\naccused of scandalous hypocrisy, to affect pretensions to morality.\n\nEven from the very exclusive and rather paltry point of view of animals'\nrights, are there not among anti-vivisectionists those of social position\nwho make no scruple in amusing themselves by fishing and hunting? In this\ncase they kill, they martyrise, not to conquer new truths, but for their\namusement and recreation.\n\nThe hunter who fires at a hare sends after the wounded animal a savage dog,\ntrained to fierceness for this pursuit, and he looks on at the chase with\ndelight. The angler who has hooked a fish feels a pleasurable emotion when\nhe holds in the palm of his hand the struggling, writhing being. Elegant\nsportsmen aim at pigeons to give proofs of their dexterity. A large number\nof victims do not die on the spot, but, with wounded wing, or chest\npierced with lead, creep away to die in agony in the neighbouring woods.\nQuite a large gathering of fashionable young women and distinguished young\nmen follow on horseback the tortures of a wretched stag pursued by a\nfurious pack of hounds. And, finally, the entire population of a large city\n(Seville or Madrid, San Sebastian or Valencia), men and women, old and\nyoung, go crazy with delight at the hideous spectacle of a noble bull\ndisembowelling horses, tormented by the picadors, and finally succumbing,\nexhausted, done to death by his cowardly enemies. There are sights for you!\nthere are amusements for you if you like, which reflect scant honour on\nhuman ethics; and well do I understand generous-hearted men and women\nforming societies to combat war, alcoholism, prostitution, distributing\ntheir wealth among the starving populations, also turning their energies\nagainst hunting, angling, pigeon-shooting, and bullfights. It is a noble\nprogramme of life which they have drawn up for themselves, and such people\nmerit our highest admiration.\n\nSocieties for the prevention of cruelty to animals are admirable and\nirreproachable when they defend animals against human savagery: for\nexample, when they prevent carters from lashing into ribbons the skin of\nthe miserable horses under their charge; or when they put down the practice\nof harnessing a horse to a cart too heavily loaded; or when they interdict\ncock-fighting and bull-baiting. I will even point out to these same\nsocieties, so enamoured of animals' rights, a new kind of protection of\nquite a special nature.\n\nThere exist a number of species of animals which, hunted and hemmed in by\nman, are on the point of extinction. How many, alas! have for ever\ndisappeared; and no human power will ever be able to bring back to life an\nanimal species once extinct.\n\nIt is a great pity; for these charming forms, the joy of the eyes, provided\nwith curious and delicate instincts, have been annihilated for ever. I will\ngive some examples to show to what an extent it is necessary for man to\nprotect the animal against man himself. Man has the taste for devastation;\nand when he is excited, either by the fury of the hunt or the bait of gain,\nhe does not hesitate to make many victims without asking himself if these\nfurious ravages will not find their consummation in the destruction of an\nentire race of animals.\n\nAlready in the Polar regions, some fine species of animals have\ndisappeared. The great auk (extinct since 1844) exists no longer. One\nspecies of walrus has also disappeared.\n\nThe seal is on the road to extinction; fishermen have indulged in such\norgies of destruction that international measures have had to be taken to\nprevent the total destruction of the species. And indeed be it not\nforgotten that if the Governments of England and of the United States have\nmade regulations restricting the massacre of seals, it is not by any means\nin order to stem the tide of destruction of an animal species interesting\nin itself, but solely because such destruction would put an end to a source\nof very considerable commercial profit.\n\nA hundred years ago, whales were so abundant that 30,000 fishermen earned\ntheir living by whale-hunting. Now, our means of warfare against the\ncetacea have become so effective that whales can no longer defend\nthemselves, and their number is decreasing every day to such an extent that\nwe can almost foretell the moment when the whale will have ceased to exist.\n\nIn America, vast regions were overrun by immense herds of bisons. They have\nbeen massacred with such mad and blind ardour that if the Government had\nnot finally taken some tardy and insufficient measures of precaution, the\nbison would be extinct too.\n\nAurochs, elks, chamois, bears have almost disappeared, whereas a century\nago they were widely diffused in Europe. In proportion as man takes\npossession of the earth to cultivate it, he kills off every wild species\nand replaces them by domestic species where race loses its value. If this\ngoes on, a time will come, unfortunately, when all-powerful man, having\ngiven himself up to the thoughtless destruction of everything not of\nimmediate use to him, will have wiped off the face of the earth all save\ndomestic animals. There will be hens, ducks, geese, turkeys, and\nguinea-fowls, sheep, oxen, donkeys, horses, cows. Perhaps for the pleasure\nof hunting, a few deer and a few hares will be preserved; but all wild\nspecies which cannot be reproduced in captivity will have disappeared, will\nno longer be there to delight our gaze. In France, the small birds are\ndestroyed in rank fury, and every measure taken to protect them is\ninefficacious, thanks to the rage for destruction among the inhabitants.\nAsia and Africa once upon a time--when almost unknown and unexplored by\nEuropeans--sheltered many a noble animal species to-day well-nigh extinct,\nand which, if strict measures of precaution be not speedily taken, will\nsoon have disappeared for ever. The large monkeys, the ostrich, the\ngiraffe, and especially the elephant, shun the haunts of man, for man is\ntheir ruthless enemy. It looks as though a hundred years hence, not one\nwill be left.\n\nIt is not without sadness we think of that future civilisation, a brilliant\none perhaps from several points of view, but monotonous and tame, as it\nwill no longer possess this marvellous variety of different animal species\nwhich is as one of the smiles of nature. A pitiable uniformity will replace\nthe varied forms which natural selection has taken thousands of years to\nbring forth; and then perhaps some tardy poet, in contemplation before the\nvast sheepfolds and poultry farms, where man will cultivate the species of\nuse to him, will regret those far-off days when birds of all kinds sang in\nthe forests, blending their gambols with those of the graceful animals\nwhich human civilisation will have annihilated.\n\nThere, I fancy, is a fertile subject for meditation, and interesting\ninitiative for all those who have at heart the rights of animals, and, if I\nmay express myself thus, the future of animality.\n\nBut the sight of a vivisection, the preparation of a laboratory experiment\ncannot be compared with the stupid and mischievous pleasures of angling and\nhunting. It is not a question of amusing oneself, of killing time, of\ndiversion, of finding in the sight of blood or pain a recreation for\nboredom. It is quite another motive which animates the _savant_. He has\never before his mind the thought that his efforts are going to bring a\nlittle alleviation to the great sum of human suffering. If he inoculates a\nrabbit with tuberculosis, he cannot help thinking of all the wretched\nconsumptives who are at that moment in the throes of death. He knows well\nthat each time he discovers even only a particle of truth, that little bit\nof new truth is going to bring in its train some consequence which will\nbear fruit in the healing of suffering mankind.\n\nIt is with no light-heartedness that the physiologist causes the blood to\nflow, inoculates disease, injects poisons. I know the thought which\nanimates my friends and my colleagues when they make their experiments: it\nis never without the most profound pity that we dare to take a healthy,\ngay, confiding animal, and give him chloroform, or inject a poison into\nhim. This respect for pain, far from decreasing with age, on the contrary\ngoes on increasing. Just as the doctor as he grows older becomes more and\nmore sensitive to the sight of human suffering, so the physiologist who has\nperformed many experiments understands more and more thoroughly the\nseriousness of pain. He feels all the weight of it: he has a greater\nresponsibility. His morality has become higher and higher, his sensibility\nhas increased. Often he repeats to himself this line of Virgil's:--\n\n    \"_Non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco._\"\n\n    (Knowing misfortune, I teach the succour of the wretched.)\n\nIt would, therefore, be altogether unjust to reproach the experimenter with\nbarbarism or inhumanity; for more than any one else does he possess the\nsentiment of the immense misfortunes of humanity, and if he resigns himself\nto experimentation, it is because he sees behind his experiment an\nalleviation of the sufferings of both man and beast.\n\nIt is related that, in one of the great battles of the last century, a\ngeneral, in order to protect the retreat of his army, was obliged to send a\nsquadron of cavalry to make a hopeless charge upon the enemy's infantry.\nThis meant sending those brave fellows to certain death. Yet he did not\nhesitate; and with tears in his eyes he gave the order to charge,\nconvinced, as every general should be, that it is sometimes necessary to\nsacrifice a few human lives for the salvation of the army, for the\nsalvation of the country.\n\nWell, then! We consider ourselves as soldiers waging battle against the\nblind, malefic forces of nature. On certain days, so as to triumph over\ndisease and ignorance, we must sacrifice a few victims. Then we do not\nhesitate, and it is our duty not to hesitate.\n\nIt even seems to me that those men who pass their lives in nauseous rooms,\namidst poison and virus, receiving no other recompense for long labours\nthan the satisfaction of duty accomplished, merit the esteem and respect of\nevery one. They seek neither wealth nor honours. It is not in the\nlaboratories of physiology that a man grows rich. It is not in the\nlaboratories of physiology that man wins high social positions. But what\nmatter! He has used his life to alleviate the sufferings of others. He has\nhad ever before him another ideal than that of the anti-vivisectionists,\nthe ideal of human suffering, which is much more to be respected than\nanimal suffering in spite of all empty words and phrases.\n\nTherefore, when we speak of vivisection or of experimentation before young\nmen, we must not be taxed with immorality; because work, the search for\ntruth, pity for the misfortunes of man, pity also for the unfortunate\nanimals--these I think are subjects which should ennoble the minds of the\nyoung men who listen to us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nARE LAWS REGULATING VIVISECTION NECESSARY?\n\n\nWe will now briefly consider an interesting and highly practical side of\nthe question. In certain countries, as in England, there are laws\nregulating vivisection. In other countries, as in France, Germany, and\nItaly, there is nothing analogous; consequently public opinion on this\npoint is uncertain.\n\nIn the beginning of this book, I acknowledged that, in spite of the\nexaggeration of their complaints, anti-vivisectionists had rendered real\nservice to general morality by calling attention to the excesses committed\nby a few vivisectionists in the past. No one recognises this benefit more\nthan I, and I willingly grant that their preaching has, on the whole, had a\nhappy result. Is it however, expedient to go further, and to prohibit or\nsimply to regulate vivisection?\n\nFor reasons given above, it seems to me that prohibition would be absurd\nand injurious, as well in the land of Harvey and Hunter as in the lands of\nBernard and Pasteur, of Galvani and Spallanzani, of Johannes Mueller and\nHelmholtz. Prohibition would mean closing the book of science, stemming all\nprogress, condemning humanity eternally to the same miseries, to writhe,\npowerless, in the same old track. Fortunately, no one thinks seriously of\nsuppressing physiological experimentation; and, therefore, we have no need\nto dwell on this point.\n\nBut regulation is quite a different thing from prohibition. Now, I showed\nthat certain practices should be condemned. Should they, however, be\ncondemned by law? Why should the law be substituted for the exigencies of\nscience? Here is a physiologist, fully conscious of the magnitude of his\ntask, to whom the government or a university has confided the direction of\na laboratory, who finds himself face to face with a problem needing to be\nsolved. It is impossible to limit his efforts and to lay down principles\nfrom which he could not turn aside. Just as he is referred to for the\npurchase of his instruments and the nomination of his staff, so must he be\nleft full latitude in the arrangement of his experiments. Nothing is so\npernicious in matters of science as official regulation; it takes away all\ninitiative, and does not allow the genius of the inventor to have full\nplay.\n\nAs a matter of fact, even in England, the only country where up to the\npresent the conditions of vivisection have been regulated by law, no one\nhas ventured to confine the initiative of the experimenter within narrow\nregulations. And it is fortunate that no one has ventured to define the\nlimits of experimental investigation, for most excellent work is due to\ncontemporary English Physiologists--Schaefer, Horsley, Sherrington, Langley,\nBayliss, Starling, Stirling, etc. They have been able to pursue their\nresearches freely, to the very great advantage of our science.\n\nOne should not, then, think of prohibiting such or such a proceeding in\nvivisection. It may even be dangerous to absolutely prohibit vivisections\nwithout anaesthesia. I make no mystery of my opinion on this point, since I\nhave distinctly declared further back that no sensitive animal should ever\nbe operated upon. I regard as a moral error all vivisection made on an\nanimal capable of suffering. But I would leave the physiologist to be the\njudge in the matter. I do not believe the law should take his place; for\nperhaps cases will occur where anaesthesia is impossible, and he cannot be\nplaced under the hard alternative of not making an experiment which his\nconscience as a _savant_ judges to be useful, or of disobeying the law.\n\nMoreover, how are the many possible conditions of an experiment to be\nprecisely laid down? Is the law to indicate the kind of anaesthetic to be\nused, and the degree of anaesthesia to be attained? Is it to prohibit all\nexperiments on toxic actions? Many insoluble difficulties would be\nencountered, the sole result of which would be to paralyse the _savant_ in\nhis researches or to cause him to break the laws of his country.\n\nAnd yet I recognise that regulation is indispensable, but it ought not to\nbear on the nature of the experiment; it should deal solely with the\nperson experimenting.\n\nI believe the right of practising vivisection should not be accorded to\nevery citizen, to every medical student; it should not be permissible for\nany chance person to take a dog, to fasten him down on the operating table,\nand to experiment on the brain, the glands, the muscles of that unfortunate\nanimal, for that chance person is, in all probability, a clumsy and\nignorant man. Vivisection may not be undertaken in a light-hearted fashion.\nAfter all, science would lose nothing if such an experiment were not made,\nand I see no advantage in encouraging attempts of this sort which are\ncondemned beforehand to be fruitless.\n\nBut in a laboratory of physiology, under the direction of the professor and\nhis assistants, under their moral responsibility, vivisection should not be\nprohibited; the number of vivisections should not be limited, and no\nrestrictions ought to be imposed.\n\nAs I have no intention of formulating or drawing up regulations or enacting\nlaws, I shall not indicate the penalties to which those who violate the\nlaw should be liable. I shall content myself with enunciating this double\nprinciple: entire liberty in vivisection for professors of physiology and\ntheir assistants; prohibition of vivisection for all others.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nVIVISECTION AND THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE\n\n\nLet us now leave the opinions of anti-vivisectionists, and carry the\nproblem on to higher ground. Let us see what are the rights of man in\nNature, and what is the purpose of human life.\n\nAmidst all the unsettled and contradictory theories accumulated by\nphilosophers, thinkers and founders of religion, there remains scarcely any\nfixed and immutable theory save that of one dominating principle: The\nrespect and love of our brothers in humanity. All else is contestable and\ncontested. Though we are unable to demonstrate it formally, there is one\nuniversal moral law (the great Categorical Imperative of Kant) which\ncommands us to be just and beneficent to our fellow-creatures. All the most\nsubtle sophisms will never be able to persuade me that I ought not, above\nall things, to feel solicitude for the lives and happiness of men.\n\nI willingly admit that beside man there is the animal, _our inferior\nbrother_ as it has been ingeniously called, so that we have also our duties\ntowards these inferior brothers. But _this must never be to the detriment\nof our real brothers_. It seems to me insane to consider the life of a cat\nof more account than that of a man; the pain of a dog than that of a child.\nAll the more so because living matter, if I may use that expression,\npossesses varying degrees of perfection; from the sea-weed up to man there\nare successive stages of living forms which constitute an uninterrupted\nchain ending in its final phase, which is man.\n\nMan, by his power of thought, and consequently of suffering, by the\nconception which he is able to make of the non-self, by his faculties of\nabstraction and the notion of good and evil, is vastly superior to every\nother living being. So that, for respecting, defending and loving men, I\nhave not only the reason that man is my brother, but also that this brother\nis superior to every other living thing.\n\nThat is why a moral code must be essentially human, having for its highest\nobject the happiness of other men. Every other code of morals, having in\nview a different purpose supporting itself on metaphysical lucubrations or\nhaunted by puerile anxieties, such as the adoration of beasts, appears to\nme to bear the stamp of fetishism. An unknown power has caused us to be\nborn; we are entirely ignorant of our destinies, we know not why we were\nborn, why we die, why, following in the wake of countless generations, we\ntransmit the vital spark to countless succeeding generations. We know\nnothing of all that; but it matters little from the point of view of our\nduty. Duty is independent of all theory. No mere religion is necessary to\nconstitute a moral code.\n\n_Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto_, or rather our moral code, will\nbe the religion of humanity. It does not seem to me possible to conceive of\nany other.\n\nAnd when we say humanity, we take that word in its largest acceptation. It\nis not a question of compatriots, nor of Europeans, nor even of humanity of\nto-day. It is also a question of the humanity of the future. We have our\nduties towards the man of to-day; but we have also our duties towards the\nman who will live in the centuries to come. We should prepare the way for a\nhappier and better humanity. Our task is not limited to the present hour;\nit extends to all those human beings who will come after us. Inasmuch as we\nof to-day, at every moment of our lives, benefit from the accumulated\nservices of our ancestors, so the men to come will profit by the benefits\nwhich we are endeavouring to prepare for them.\n\nAssuredly, Humanity will not be eternal, and Science seems to prove that a\ntime will come when the sun's heat will be insufficient to develop life on\nthe surface of our puny planet. A time will come when the earth will have\ncooled down and become like our pale satellite, the moon, a dead star,\nwhere the debris of extinct multitudinous civilisations will disappear\nunder the ice. But what matter! We have not to trouble ourselves about\nthose far-off times. We have to think of the man of the coming centuries,\nand, at the same time, it goes without saying, of the man of to-day.\n\nTo lessen their misery, to make their existence less lamentable, to develop\nwithin them the sentiments of justice and brotherhood, to secure their\nmoral welfare and their material welfare, that is our strict and sole duty.\nI recognise no other.\n\nNow, there is but one way open to attain this noble goal: Science. We are\nplunged in an ocean of gloom. All is dark, unknown, disturbing. We have not\nyet understood anything of the blind forces surrounding us on all sides. We\nare but feeble beings cast into the midst of sovereign powers which\noverwhelm and bear us down. Now, to avoid being completely and definitely\ncrushed out of existence, it is necessary to penetrate into the nature of\nthese forces. Alas! we shall never penetrate into them, for it is madness\nto think that a particle of the whole can ever fully cognise the whole; but\nwe may at least demonstrate some facts, fathom some phenomena, perhaps\ntrace a few of the features of certain laws. That is enough to make us\ninstantly the masters of matter and not its slaves.\n\nEvery new truth at once brings about an amelioration in human conditions.\nIt may be said that our _happiness is made up of truth_. Let us suppose\nwhat is improbable, that is to say, that we have come to know all the laws\nof Nature, should we not immediately become all-powerful? Should we not be\nthe sovereign masters of disease and pain, perhaps of old age and death?\n\nSuch, indeed, appears to be the conviction of the human societies which\nassign a preponderating role to Science. They have understood that there is\nno better future in store for the human being than that which Science will\nbring about for him.\n\nTo be able to appreciate the extent to which the man of to-day is\nmaterially and morally happier than the man of past ages, we have only to\ncompare the present state of our civilisation with the state of past\ncivilisations. We may say that an English labourer of to-day has a much\neasier existence than had an Italian prince of the fourteenth century.\nEverywhere, the progress achieved by Science has entered into the life of\neach individual. We find it in the book we read, in the electricity which\ngives us light, in the train or the steamer which carries us to the\nuttermost corners of the earth in little time and at little cost. It is the\nsame thing also with medicaments, which are certainly able to lessen the\npain of disease.\n\nMoral progress has kept pace with material progress. At the same time that\nmatter has been overcome, our customs have become gentler; individual\nliberty is a sacred thing; each citizen takes part in the decisions of his\ngovernment; there is no longer either slavery or torture or tyranny of\nconscience. In a word, the man of to-day is happier and more powerful than\nthe man of bygone days.\n\nThis happiness has not been acquired through any providential \"miracles.\"\nNo God came down from His Heaven to alleviate human misfortunes. It is man,\nand man alone, who, by his genius and his labours, has been able to make\nhimself master of the forces which, even yesterday, held him in bondage.\nAnd we cannot be too grateful to our fathers for their immense and fruitful\nlabours, by which they succeeded in constructing the society in the midst\nof which we live. It is still wretched enough, this society of ours,\nafflicted with crimes and horrors, the infamy of which we understand full\nwell; but however wretched it may be, it is a thousand times less wretched\nthan was society of yore.\n\nTherefore, this formal conclusion may at once be deduced; we must do for\nour descendants what our fathers did for us. We would be without excuse if\nwe rested content to benefit from the works of our predecessors without\nourselves also creating something, without leaving, by means of our\npersonal labours, a better lot to our descendants. The man who has not\nunderstood this supreme duty is truly unworthy of being a man.\n\nVerily, every individual, when he has arrived at the end of his life,\nshould examine his conscience and ask himself if in the humble sphere of\nhis action, he has not, even he also, contributed a stone to the human\nedifice, if he has not done his share in promoting and increasing the\nforces of humanity.\n\nSince matters stand thus, since the development of Science is the\nfundamental condition of the happiness of man, we must resolutely put\nScience at the basis of every civilisation. Alas! it has not been so up to\nthe present; and if we study the development of human societies, we see\nthat they are above all things attracted to war. Science has had only the\nleavings. But the time has come when man should no longer believe that the\nprinciple of morality is man's struggle against man. That was the history\nof bye-gone times. The history of to-day, and especially the history of\nto-morrow, is the struggle of man against matter, the subjection of natural\nforces to our intelligence. And there is no other way to subjugate these\nforces than by learning to know them.\n\nThen Science will be put in the foreground. And without making any\nclassification which distinguishes between the sciences, which are all\nuseful, beautiful, and noble, for all contain a portion of truth, we shall\nbe permitted to say that the Science of life is one of the most useful, the\nmost noble, and the most beautiful.\n\nNow, the Science of life is Physiology, taking physiology in its widest\nsense, that is to say, the study of normal beings and of diseased beings.\nIt is proved by innumerable facts, facts which only bad faith and ignorance\ncan call into question, that our physiological knowledge is due, in a very\nlarge measure, to experimentation. If in thought we suppressed the\nscientific results which experimentation has conquered, we should have but\nan inferior science, within the reach of the Brahmans may be, but unworthy\nof our present scientific standing. We should know nothing of the\ncirculation of the blood, nor the function of the blood corpuscles, nor the\nformation of sugar, nor the innervation of the glands, nor the\ncontagiousness of disease, nor the power of poisons; we should be reduced\nto the notions of Hippocrates, we should be less advanced than Galileo, the\nfirst ingenious experimenter who indicated, less by his writings than by\nhis experiments, that the basis of physiology, and consequently of the\nwhole of pathology, is experimentation on animals.\n\nThose most sincere persons who wish to banish experimentation from Science\nare consequently, I do not fear to say it, standing in the position of\ndirect contradiction to true morality. To refuse man the right to study\nliving nature, is as though we declared that living nature ought not to be\nknown. Alas! anti-vivisectionists will not listen. In vain do we tell them\nthat we, physiologists, preserve man from disease; that we have alleviated\nthe ills of our human brothers. They stop up their ears; they shut their\neyes; they have no pity for the sufferings of human beings. It seems as\nthough the tears of their brethren were profoundly indifferent to them. Is\nthis a high morality? Is this a realisation of their duty as men? They\ncover with opprobrium the names of Harvey and Jenner, Bernard and Pasteur,\nSpallanzani and Helmholtz. What base ingratitude! It is these great men who\nhave turned aside many excruciating sufferings from humanity; it is these\ngrand men who have bestowed a better lot on so many human beings. When,\ntherefore, they dare to calumniate the masters who have scattered over us\nso much beneficence, anti-vivisectionists seem to me to be not only the\nmost ungrateful but even the cruellest of men.\n\nFortunately the conquering march of Science will not be hindered. We shall\nnever return to those sinister times when our great Vesalius had to forfeit\nhis life for having dared to dissect a human corpse. We shall continue to\nmake Science advance towards its great aim, the good of man.\n\nAnd this is the moment which has been chosen for striving to arrest the\nmarch of Science: when epidemic disease, such as the plague and cholera, is\nchecked; tuberculosis half-conquered; diptheria rendered inoffensive;\noperations become almost harmless; cancer on the eve of being understood\nand subjugated! And are we to stop there? Are we not to seek to fathom the\nmany problems still waiting to be solved, and on which depend the lives of\nso many human beings, and so much human happiness? Do you believe that\nScience has come to an end? Certainly we already know a great deal; but\nwhat we know is as nothing compared to what we do not know.\n\nAn immense domain of unknown truths lies open to our activity. And we are\nable to forsee what inexpressible benefits these new truths will scatter\nover suffering humanity. Consequently, everyone, every man enamoured of\ngoodness and justice, should be filled with respect for Science, and set\nall his hopes on her.\n\nAt the same time, however great may be my adoration for Science, it must\nnot be at the expense of human personalities, or, let us say it distinctly,\nat the expense of animal personalities, which although uncertain and\nindistinct, still merit a share, and a large share, of justice and of pity.\n\nAs for human personalities, without the slightest doubt, we have not the\nright to sacrifice an innocent creature for Science. Every human being\nought to be treated with respect, and we have not the right to kill and\nmartyrise a human being even if his death and his martyrdom might serve the\ncause of Science.\n\nAs for animal personalities, the question becomes much more doubtful. For\ninferior beings with indistinct consciousness, and, without a doubt\npowerless to perceive pain, no scruple should hold us back. But if it\nconcerns beings nearer to ourselves, such as monkeys, cats, dogs, horses,\nall certainly capable of feeling pain, we must be chary of inflicting pain,\nand experiment only after having totally abolished in them all sensation of\npain. But under penalty of falling into fetishism, we must not fear to use\nthe life of these beings in order to prolong the life of man. Every time we\npropose to make an experiment, it is as though we put this question to\nourselves: is this dog worth more than a man? or than a hundred men? or\nthan the whole of humanity to come? Thus put, the problem bears only one\nsolution: Avoid giving pain to the animal on condition that it is not at\nthe cost of innumerable human pains. Moreover, it is the same here as in\nevery question we may wish to investigate: Each of the two adversaries set\nout from a just principle, incontestably just. But each one pushes the just\nprinciple so far that he ends by transforming it into a colossal absurdity.\n\nIn the present case, the anti-vivisectionists say: pain is an evil, even\nthe obscure pain of the lowest animal is an evil. Now, we should do no\nevil; therefore we should not at any price inflict any pain whatsoever,\nhowever light it may be, on even the lowest animal. That is their\nsyllogism. It cannot be replied to, for it is perfectly correct.\n\nWe on our side say: The suffering of man is a sacred thing. Science casts\naside suffering from man. Therefore we ought to sacrifice inferior beings\nto the cause of Science, that is to say to the happiness of man. There\nagain lies an irreproachable syllogism.\n\nBut these two syllogisms, if driven up to their ultimate conclusions, would\nlead to nonsense on the one hand and cruelty on the other. If we were to\nlisten only to the friends of animals, we should not have the right to\nbleed a horse in order to save the lives of 400 children; and this\ncontention would be both foolish and cruel.\n\nIf we were to listen only to the friends of man, we should have the right,\nsimply as dictated by our might and fancy, to cause suffering to dogs,\ncats, monkeys, all innocent and sensitive animals, under pretext that these\ntortures are capable of alleviating human pain. That also would be folly\nand cruelty.\n\nFortunately, wisdom avoids both extremes; it fears the brutality of hard\nand fast syllogisms, which are absurd even by their very severity. Yes,\nthere are the rights of man; yes, there are the rights of animals; and all\nour efforts should consist in holding an even balance between these two\nsometimes antagonistic rights. Do not let us push our reasonings to their\nlogical but absurd extremes. Pre-occupation for the welfare of future\nhumanity and of Science does not authorise us to be wicked and unjust\ntowards the men of to-day, even towards one single man. So that,\nnotwithstanding my worship of Science, I would not sacrifice human lives to\nher. And, notwithstanding all my respect for animal pain, I would look upon\nthe man as supremely ridiculous, even guilty, who would not innoculate a\nmicrobe into a rabbit to achieve a great discovery for humanity. Wisdom,\ntherefore, consists precisely in this: to know where to stop in pushing a\nreasoning to extremes. This is what physiologists have sought and are\nseeking to do.\n\nIn any case, and as a last conclusion, Science ought not to be sacrificed.\nNow, the death-knell of science will have sounded when _savants_ are\nprevented from pursuing their investigations on living beings. We who, in\nfull confidence, hope for a happier and better humanity, will never resign\nourselves to closing our laboratories, to burning our books. On the\ncontrary, we are determined, every one of us, to continue our hard labours\nfor the great good of the men of to-day and of the generations to come.\n\nAnd when we speak of Science, we do not mean only the material benefits she\nscatters abroad; we think also of her power as a moral force. Material and\nmoral conquests walk hand in hand. Science is the basis of the moral law.\nThe universal consciousness of humanity grows greater by the acquisition of\nnew truths. Each individual, by the very fact that he loves truth, has come\nto understand the moral ideal which should be ever before his eyes.\n\nAnd then, in a just measure, full of pity for all suffering, but placing\nthe suffering of man at a higher price than the suffering of the animal, we\nshall strive to make the respect of animal suffering accord with the search\nfor the splendid and indispensable and divine TRUTH.\n\n\n\n\nPOST SCRIPTUM\n\n\nIn the various works, notices, discourses, etc., which have been published\nupon Vivisection, generally against Vivisection, I find various erroneous\nassertions which it is important should be pointed out. I will do so\nbriefly.\n\nThere is, however, one assertion which appears fairly just to me. This is\nthat in treatises on physiology, sufficient mention is not made of\nVivisection, of its limits and of its abuses. At the beginning of a\ntreatise on physiology, the author should distinctly declare there is\nalways cruelty in vivisection conducted without chloroform or chloralose;\nthe author should indicate that these anaesthetics ought to be administered\nunder such or such conditions. Before initiating medical students into the\nstudy of life, it is also well to teach them to have respect for animal\nsuffering. I would that it might be thoroughly understood that it is a\nmatter of absolute necessity to operate upon the animal; and that when the\nphysiologist resigns himself to this necessity he ought to perform the\noperation with sufficient humanity to prevent the animal from suffering. I\nwillingly recognise that the absence of this first moral precept is a great\ngap in most treatises on physiology.\n\nThis, however, is about all I can concede to anti-vivisectionists; for\ntruly they indulge in such queer, extraordinary assertions that we are\ncompletely disconcerted. Some of these fanatics pretend, for example, that\nphysiologists should practise vivisection upon themselves. To torture a dog\nis as criminal as to torture a child, according to them; and animal\nsuffering is as much to be respected as human suffering! Truly such a\nparadox cannot be taken seriously; if it were admitted, evidently the\nquestion is settled. But it cannot be admitted, and the whole of our\nargument rests upon this principle, which appears quite evident, that\nliving beings occupy different positions in the hierarchy of nature.\n\nLet us take a besieged city reduced to famine: will anyone pretend that the\nsoldiers must be sacrificed before the horses, the mules, etc. Yet the case\nis exactly the same. It is in order to avoid the death of human beings\nthat mice and guinea-pigs are put to death.\n\nTo deny the difference in rank of living beings is to deny evidence. A frog\nis a nobler animal than a sea-urchin; a dog is a nobler animal than a frog;\nfor there are degrees in the intelligence, and consequently, in the\ncapacity to suffer, and in the _quality_ of suffering among the four animal\ngroups: the sea-urchin, the frog, the dog, and man.\n\nAnti-vivisectionists do not admit reflex movements (which, moreover, they\ndo not understand); and they bewail the dogs that Goltz and Ewald subjected\nto cerebral mutilations which took away all intellectual spontaneity and\nprevented them from eating spontaneously. But in those very dogs, precisely\nbecause there is no spontaneity, so there is no longer any consciousness of\npain. They are, therefore, of all the beings in creation those which\ndeserve the least commiseration; for they are protected against pain by\nthat very ablation of the brain, the seat of pain.\n\nWe are told that it is through cowardice, through the fear of disease, that\nvivisection is practised. But fear of disease is not cowardice. I am\nneither poltroon nor coward, but I would be very sorry to be attacked by\ntuberculosis or cancer. I do not blush to confess that it would be very\ndisagreeable for me to be hanged, though hanging is much less painful than\ntuberculosis or cancer. If it were necessary to have a hanged victim, I\nwould much prefer that a rabbit were taken in preference to myself; and I\nwould certainly not put my own neck in the cord to save a dog from torture.\n\nThe state of mind of anti-vivisectionists appears to me rather singular,\nsince they are not at all afraid of disease as far as man is concerned, but\nthey have great fear of it for animals. If pain is but an empty word,\naccording to the celebrated phrase of Zeno, why not apply that fine maxim\nto the animal?\n\nSir James Thornton (_The Principal Claims on behalf of Vivisection_,\nLondon, 1907), has endeavoured to compile a list of the contradictions to\nbe found in the treatises of physiology. He could have added considerably\nto the length of this chapter, for the contradictions are innumerable;\nwhich only proves, not that vivisection is useless, but that it is\ndifficult. What would chemists say if it were maintained that chemical\nanalysis was absurd because of the contradictions between chemists? They\nwould, and rightly so, continue to make analyses; for they know that\nanalysis is a necessary, though an imperfect, instrument. In the same\nmanner, we shall continue to practise vivisection, though we know right\nwell that vivisection is an imperfect, though a necessary, instrument.\n\nIn the course of a recent debate on vivisection, a voice was heard to call\nout that Lister was a brute. That \"crowns\" everything, and one would think\nthat nothing more inept could be imagined.\n\nAlas! something more inept still has been said, and I hand over this\nprodigious and audacious assertion to the judgment of every man of heart\nand common sense. It refers to bacteriology. The author, after having said\nthat microbes are not the cause of disease, takes refuge behind the opinion\nof Lawson Tait (quoted by Mona Caird, _The Inquisition of Science_, p.\n20).\n\n\"Such experiments never have succeeded, never can: and they have, as in the\ncases of Koch, Pasteur, and Lister, not only hindered true progress, but\nthey have covered our profession with ridicule.\"\n\nThat is something which may well confound us, is it not? and I believe\nthose great benefactors of humanity, Koch, Pasteur and Lister, may indeed\nmurmur: \"Forgive them; for they know not what they say.\"\n\nTo sum up: the objections of anti-vivisectionists are irrefutable if we\nadmit, (1) that man has not the right to kill an animal either in\nself-defence or for nourishment; (2) that the suffering of an animal is as\nworthy of respect as the suffering of a man; and (3) that the misery of one\nindividual is as sacred as the misery of a thousand individuals. No logical\nreply can be made to these three assertions, which, according to my\nreasoning, constitute an offence against the most elementary common sense.\nBut I doubt very much if we shall ever arrive at demonstrating that it is\nbetter to allow one hundred children to die from diphtheria rather than\ndraw a little blood from a horse; or that we should practise vivisection\non man so as to alleviate the diseases of dogs.\n\nConcerning the polemics of anti-vivisectionists as to the uselessness of\nphysiology, and the contradictions of physiologists, they are nothing but a\ntissue of error and ignorance.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\n\nWe give herewith a table showing the absolute and relative mortality due to\ndiphtheria in Paris from 1872 to 1905, out of a population of 2,500,000\ninhabitants:--\n\n             ABSOLUTE.    PER 100,000 INHABITANTS.\n\n  1872         1135               61\n  1873         1164               62\n  1874         1008               52\n  1875         1328               68\n  1876         1572               79\n  1877         2393              117\n  1878         1995               95\n  1879         1783               83\n  1880         2048               94\n  1881         2211               99\n  1882         2244              100\n  1883         1781               79\n  1884         1928               86\n  1885         1655               74\n  1886         1512               67\n  1887         1585               70\n  1888         1729               74\n  1889         1706               72\n  1890         1668               70\n  1891         1361               56\n  1892         1403               58\n  1893         1266               52\n  1894         1009               41\n  1895          435               17\n  1896          444               17\n  1897          298               12\n  1898          259               10\n  1899          339               13\n  1900          294               11\n  1901          736               28\n  1902          709               26\n  1903          399               15\n  1904          260               10\n  1905          204                7\n\nLet us divide this mortality due to diphtheria into three groups (in Paris\nper 100,000 inhabitants):--\n\n     A. Before the discovery of serotherapy, from 1872 to\n     1888.\n\n     B. During the period of experimentation with\n     serotherapy, from 1889 to 1894.\n\n     C. After the generalisation of serotherapy, from 1895\n     to 1905.\n\nWe have then the following averages:--\n\n                          ABSOLUTE.   PER 100,000\n  INHABITANTS.\n\n  Before serotherapy       1657           80\n  Intermediary period      1402           58\n  After serotherapy         398           15\n\nAnd should these figures not seem sufficiently eloquent, let us set them\nforth in another form:--\n\n                                                   ABSOLUTE MORTALITY.\n\n  Before the discovery of serotherapy, 1888                  1729\n  1st year of serotherapy,             1889                  1706\n  2nd     \"       \"                    1890                  1668\n  3rd     \"       \"                    1891                  1361\n  4th     \"       \"                    1892                  1463\n  5th     \"       \"                    1893                  1266\n  6th     \"       \"                    1894                  1009\n\nAt this moment the practice of serotherapy, thanks to Roux, became general\nin Paris.\n\n       1st year, 1895--435.\n       2nd   \"   1896--444.\n\nDuring the next six years there were still hesitations and uncertainties as\nto the best method to be employed.\n\nThe mortality during these six years, 1897-1902--439.\n\nThen the practice was definitely established.\n\nThe mortality for the three years, 1903-1905--288.\n\nThese figures are so eloquent, so striking, so precise, that it is not\npossible to misunderstand them. They cannot be ignored; and when once they\nhave been set forth, ignorance is no longer permissible, and it is for that\nreason we have here given them.\n\nIn Berlin and in Vienna, it is the same thing. From 1894 the mortality due\nto diphtheria has diminished to the extent of 150 per cent.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nAdams (C.). HUNTER AND THE STAG. _A reply to Prof. Owen._ (8vo, London,\n1881.)\n\nAdler (H.). ZUR FRAGE DER V. (_Wien med. Woch._, 1879, 1161, 1211, 1241.)\n\nAnstie (F. E.) THE VIVISECTION CONTROVERSY. (_Practitioner_, 1874, 38 and\n321.)\n\nApinus (S. J.). DISS. EX JURE NATURAE: AN LICEAT BRUTORUM CORPORA MUTILARE\nET SPECIATIM OB ES RECHT SEY DASS MAN DEN HUNDEN DIE OHREN ABSCHNEIDE,\nVARIIS OBSERVATIONIBUS AUCTA. (Altorphii Noricorum, 1722.)\n\nBasch ZUR V. FRAGE. (_Wien med. Blaetter_, 1879, 2, 73.)\n\nBeck (J. M.). THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF VIVISECTION. (_Medical News_, 1890, pp.\n280-282.)\n\nBedtnitz (A.). DIE V. GAUKLER. (Wien, 8vo, 1883.)\n\nBerdoe (E.). THE FUTILITY OF EXPERIMENTS WITH DRUGS ON ANIMALS. (8vo,\nLondon, 1889.)\n\n---- THE HEALING ART AND THE CLAIMS OF VIVISECTION. (12mo, London, 1890.) A\nTRIUMPH OF VIVISECTION. (8vo, London, 1890.)\n\nBernard (Claude). LES VIVISECTIONS. (_Union medicale_, 1865, 305-310 _et\nRevue Scientifique_, 1878, 799-802.)\n\nBigelow (H. R.). THE PRACTICAL UTILITY OF VIVISECTION. (_Maryland Med.\nJourn._, 1880, 246-249.)\n\nBowditch (H. P.). VIVISECTION JUSTIFIABLE. (_Sanitar. New York Journ._,\n1896, 229-243.)\n\nBos (A.). SULLE V. (_Imparziale_, 1874, 225-231.)\n\nBrown (J. M.). VIVISECTION, A REPLY TO DR KEEN. (_J. Am. Med. Ass._, 1901,\n592.)\n\nBryan (B.). THE BRITISH VIVISECTOR'S DIRECTORY, A BLACK BOOK FOR THE UNITED\nKINGDOM. (12mo, London, 1890.)\n\nBurt. THE ETHICS OF EXPERIMENTATION UPON LIVING ANIMALS. (Post-graduate,\n1890, 53-55.)\n\nCarpenter (W. B.). THE ETHICS OF VIVISECTION. (_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882,\n237-246.)\n\nCejon (E. de). THE ANTI-VIVISECTIONIST AGITATION. (_Contemporary Rev._,\n1883, 498-910.)\n\nCoats. ON LUDWIG AND PASTEUR, AND ON VIVISECTION. (_Glasg. Med. Journ._,\n1895, 330-335.)\n\nCobbe (Fr. P.). ILLUSTRATIONS OF VIVISECTION. (8vo, Philadelphia, 1887.)\n\nCobbe (Fr.). THE MODERN RACK; PAPERS ON VIVISECTION. (8vo, London, 1889.)\n\nCobbe (Fr. P.). VIVISECTION; FOUR REPLIES. (_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882,\n88-104, and _Contemporary Rev._, 1882, 610-626.)\n\nColeridge (Lord). THE NINETEENTH CENTURY DEFENDERS OF VIVISECTION.\n(_Fortnightly Rev._, 1882, 225-236.)\n\nDalton. EXPERIMENTATION ON ANIMALS. (12mo, New York, 1875.)\n\nDalton. MAGENDIE AS A PHYSIOLOGIST. (_Internat. Rev._, 1880, 120-129.)\n\nDalton (J. C). VIVISECTION: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT HAS ACCOMPLISHED.\n(_Bull. B. York Acad. med._, 1866, 159-198.)\n\nDarwin (Ch.). VIEWS ON VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1881, 424; et Rev.\nScient., 1881 (1), 731.)\n\nDavis (N. B.). THE MORAL ASPECTS OF VIVISECTION. (_North Americ. Rev._,\n1885, 203-220.)\n\nDelolm de Lalaubie. VIVISECTION, DISS. IN. (Paris, 1868.)\n\nDeswattines. SUGGESTIF PETIT TABLEAU DE LA CRUELLE ET INUTILE VIVISECTION.\n(_Medecin_, 1904, 35.)\n\nFerguson (Sir W.). OPINIONS OF EMINENT SURGEONS, PHYSIOLOGISTS AND OTHERS,\nAS TO THE FOLLY AND MISLEADING AND DEMORALISING RESULTS OF VIVISECTION.\n(London, 1880.)\n\nFletcher. A FEW NOTES ON CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, ON THE INADEQUACY OF PENAL\nLAW. (8vo, London, 1846.)\n\nForeau de Courmelles. ESSAI DE LIMITATION SCIENTIFIQUE DE LA VIVISECTION.\n(_Revue med._, 1902, 481-484.)\n\nFoster (M.). VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1873, pp. 672-685.)\n\nGamgee (S.). ON VIVISECTION AND SCIENTIFIC SURGERY. (_Brit. Med. Journ._\n(2), 1876, 104.)\n\nGuetzlaw (V.). SCHOPENHAUER UeBER DIE THIERE UND DER THIERSCHUTZ. (8vo,\nBerlin, 1879.)\n\nHarnack (E.). WIDER DIE V.-GEGNER. (_D. med. Woch._, 1905, 1115-1116.)\n\nHarvey. THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE AND VIVISECTION. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1895,\n49-57.)\n\nHehir (P.). VIVISECTION SO CALLED, ITS ROLE IN THE SERVICE OF MAN AND\nBEAST. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1897, 91.)\n\nHeidenhain (R.). DIE V. IM DIENSTE DER HEILKUNDE. (8vo, Leipzig, 1879.)\n\nHermann (L.). DIE V. FRAGE. (8vo, Leipzig, 1877.)\n\nHodge. THE VIVISECTION QUESTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1896, 614-630,\n771-786.)\n\nHorsley (V.). and Rutter (A.). THE MORALITY OF VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth\nCentury_, 1892, pp. 804-817.)\n\nHutton (R. H.). THE BIOLOGISTS ON VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth Century_, 1882,\n29-39, and _Contemp. Rev._, 1883, 510-516.)\n\nJaeger (G.). V. UND HEILKUNST. (_Jaegers Monatsbl._, 1905, 137-141, 173-183,\n197-203.)\n\nKeen (W. W.). OUR RECENT DEBTS TO VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1889,\n1-15 and _Harper's Mag._, 1893, pp. 28-139.)\n\nKeen (W. W.). MISSTATEMENTS OF THE ANTI-VIVISECTIONISTS AGAIN. (_Phil. Med.\nJour._, 1901, 204-206.)\n\nKingsford (A.). THE USELESSNESS OF VIVISECTION. (_Nineteenth Century_,\n1882, 171-183.)\n\nKleffer (H.). LA VIVISECTION, SON UTILITE, SA MORALE. (GENEVE, GEORG, 12mo,\n1883.)\n\nLawson (H.). THE VIVISECTION CLAMOUR. (_Pop. Sc. Rev._, 1876, 398-405.)\n\nLeffingwell. VIVISECTION, A REPLY TO PROF. H. WOOD. (_Bost. Med. and Surg.\nJourn._, 1899, 371.)\n\nLeneveu (G.). DE L'UTILITE DE LA VIVISECTION. (Diss, in., Paris, 1883.)\n\nLund (P. W.). PHYSIOLOGISCHE RESULTATE DER V. NEUERER ZEIT (_trad. du\nDanois_). (Kopenhagen, 1825.)\n\nMacphail (J. A.). VIVISECTION. (_Montreal Med. Journ._, 1890, 895-919.)\n\nMagnan. DE LA FOLIE DES ANTIVIVISECTIONNISTES. (_C. R. de la Soc. de Biol.\nde Paris_, 1884, 101-104.)\n\nMarechal (Ph.). LA VIVISECTION. (_Medecin_, 1904, 35, and _Revue du Cien_,\n13-15.)\n\nMaurel. LA VIVISECTION EST ELLE INDISPENSABLE. (_Ass. pour l'ac. des\nsciences_, 1901, 294.)\n\nMerbach. UEBER DIE GESCHICHTE DER V. (_Jahresb. d. Ges. f. Nat. u. Heilk.\nin Dresd._ 1878, 98-103.)\n\nMetzger (D.). LA VIVISECTION, LES DANGERS, ET LES CRIMES. (8vo, Paris,\n1891.)\n\nMoore (W. J.). HARVEY AND VIVISECTION. (_Ind. Med. Gaz._, 1876, 230-233.)\n\nMoquin Tandon. RAPPORT SUR LES VIVISECTIONS. (_Bull. de l'ac. de Medecine\nde Paris_, 1862, 948-960.)\n\nNagel (R.). DER WISSENSCHAFTLICHE UNWERTH DER V IN ALLEN IHREN ARTEN. (8vo,\nBerlin, 1881.)\n\nNovi (J.). SULLA V. (_Boll. d. sc. med. di Bologne_, 1893, 263, 421.)\n\nPaget (Stephen). EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS. (_Murray_).\n\nRenault (E.). LA SOC. PROTECTS. DES ANIMAUX ET LA VIVISECTION. (_Rec. de\nMed. veterin._, 1862, 231-247.)\n\nRenooz (C). A PROPOS DE LA VIVISECTION. (_Medecin_, 1904, 178-179.)\n\nRichet (Ch.). MAN'S RIGHT OVER ANIMALS. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1884, xxv.,\n759-766.)\n\nSmith (R. M.). MATERIA MEDICA AND VIVISECTION. (_Merck's Arch._, 1900,\n44-47.)\n\nSmith (R. M.). SHOULD EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS BE RESTRICTED OR ABOLISHED?\n(_Therap. Gaz._, 1884, 497, 533.)\n\nSmith (Pye). ON VIVISECTION. (_Brit. Med. Journ._ (2), 1879, 349.)\n\nStuser (E.). IS VIVISECTION A BENEFIT TO ANIMALS AND MAN, AND JUSTIFIABLE?\n(_Med. News_, 1902, 108-111.)\n\nTait (Lawson.). THE USELESSNESS OF VIVISECTION UPON ANIMALS AS A METHOD OF\nSCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. (London, 8vo, 1883 (?).)\n\nTuckermann. ABSTRACT OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON VIVISECTION.\n(_Columb. Med. Journ._, 1897, 237-243.)\n\nWeber (E.). LES CHAMBRES DE TORTURE DE LA SCIENCE. (Paris, Leroux, 8vo,\n1879.)\n\nWilberforce (C). WOMEN, CLERGYMEN AND DOCTORS. (_New Review_, 1893, 85-95.)\n\nWilks. THE ETHICS OF VIVISECTION. (_Pop. Sc. Monthly_, 1882, xxi.,\n344-350.)\n\nWilliams. A FEW PERSONAL FACTS CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS OPPOSED TO\nTHE FALSE FANCIES OF THE PERSECUTORS OF VIVISECTORS. (_Brit. Med. Journ._,\n(2), 1876, 104.)\n\nWolff. DISPUTATIO PHILOSOPHICA DE MORALITATE ANATOMES CIRCA ANIMALIA VICA\nOCCUPATAE. (Leipzig, 1709.)\n\nWood (H.). THE CONTROL OF VIVISECTION. (_Bost. Med. and Surg. Journ._,\n1895, 342.)\n\nZoellner (F.). UEBER DER WISSENSCHAFTLICHEN MISSBRAUCH DER V., MIT\nHISTORISCHEN DOCUMENTEN UeBER DIE V. VON MENSCHEN. (Leipzig, 8vo, 1880, 2nd\ned., 1885.)\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C\n\nTHE RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY\n\n\nIn January 1908, a Society with the above name was formed in England, the\naims and objects of which are clearly stated in the following letter from\nLord Cromer, its President; this letter was published in the English\nnewspapers on 24th April 1908:--\n\nSIR,\n\nA Society has been formed, with the name of the Research Defence Society,\nto make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the\nimmense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments; and the\ngreat saving of human life and health directly attributable to them.\n\nThe great advance that has been made during the last quarter of a century\nin our knowledge of the functions of the body, and of the causes of\ndisease, would have been impossible without a combination of experiment and\nobservation.\n\nThe use of antiseptics, and the modern treatment of wounds, is the direct\noutcome of the experiments of Pasteur and Lister. Pasteur's discovery of\nthe microbial cause of puerperal fever has in itself enormously reduced the\ndeaths of women in child-birth.\n\nThe nature of tuberculosis is now known, and its incidence has materially\ndiminished.\n\nWe owe the invention of diphtheria antitoxin entirely to experiments on\nanimals.\n\nThe causes of plague, cholera, typhoid, Mediterranean fever, and sleeping\nsickness, have been discovered solely by the experimental method.\n\nNot only have a large number of drugs been placed at our disposal, but\naccurate knowledge has replaced the empirical use of many of those\npreviously known.\n\nThe evidence before the Royal Commission has shown that these experiments\nare conducted with proper care; the small amount of pain or discomfort\ninflicted is insignificant compared with the great gain to knowledge and\nthe direct advantage to humanity.\n\nWhile acknowledging in general the utility of the experimental method,\nefforts have been made by a section of the public to throw discredit on all\nexperiments involving the use of animals. The Research Defence Society will\ntherefore endeavour to make it clear that medical and other scientific men\nwho employ these methods are not less humane than the rest of their\ncountrymen, who daily, though perhaps unconsciously, profit by them.\n\nThe Society proposes to give information to all enquirers, to publish\n_precis_, articles, and leaflets, to make arrangements for lectures, to\nsend speakers, if required, to debates, and to assist all who desire to\nexamine the arguments on behalf of experiments on animals. It hopes to\nestablish branches in our chief cities, and thus to be in touch with all\nparts of the kingdom; and to be at the service of municipal bodies,\nhospitals, and other public institutions.\n\nThe Society was formed on 27th January of the present year, and already\nnumbers more than 800 members.[9] It is not an association of men of\nscience or of medical men alone; its membership has been drawn from all\ndepartments of public life, and includes representatives of every class of\neducated Englishmen and Englishwomen, including many who have taken an\nactive part in the prevention of cruelty to animals. This fact is in itself\na remarkable protest against the attacks which have been made on the\nresearches that the Society has been formed to defend.\n\nThe annual subscription is five shillings to cover working expenses: but\nlarger subscriptions, or donations, will be gladly received. The acting\nHon. Treasurer, _pro tem._, is Mr J. Luard Pattisson, C.B. (of the Lister\nInstitute),[10] and an account in the Society's name has been opened with\nMessrs Coutts & Co., 440 Strand. The Hon. Secretary is Mr Stephen Paget, 70\nHarley Street, W., to whom all communications should be addressed.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\nCROMER, _President_.\n\n\nThe following is a list of the pamphlets already issued by the Society:--\n\n1. Letter from the President announcing the formation of the Society, April\n24.\n\n2. Report of the inaugural meeting.\n\n3. Experiments on animals during 1907 in Great Britain and Ireland.\n\n4. Some facts as to the administration of the Act.\n\n5. The value of antitoxin in the treatment of diphtheria.\n\n6. Evidence of Sir Frederick Treves.\n\n7. Yellow fever and malaria.\n\n8. Extinction of Malta fever.\n\n9. Have experiments on animals advanced Therapeutics?\n\n10. The work of the Research Defence Society.\n\n11. Vivisection and medicine. Evidence of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton\nbefore the Royal Commission.\n\nAll or any of these will be forwarded on application to the Hon. Secretary,\nMr Stephen Paget, 70 Harley Street, London, W. Other pamphlets are in\nactive preparation; arrangements are also being made for meetings, and for\nthe organisation of Branch Societies in many parts of the kingdom; the\nSociety is also concerned in the institution of a similar movement for the\ndefence of research in America.\n\nSpace does not permit the publication of the full list of members of the\nSociety. The following list of the President and Vice-Presidents, however,\nwill show that those who have joined are representative not only of the\nleading men and women in the medical profession, but also of those who are\npre-eminent in various other branches of science, in literature, politics,\nart, and theology.\n\n\nPRESIDENT\n\nTHE EARL OF CROMER, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., O.M.\n\n\nVICE-PRESIDENTS\n\nHIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ABERCORN, K.G.\n\nSIR WILLIAM ABNEY, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\nSIR T. CLIFFORD ALLBUTT, K.C.B., F.R.S. (_Regius Professor of Physic,\nUniversity of Cambridge_).\n\nSIR L. ALMA-TADEMA, O.M., R.A.\n\nMRS GARRETT ANDERSON, M.D.\n\nSIR WILLIAM ANSON, BT., D.C.L., M.P.\n\nTHE RT. HON. LORD AVEBURY, F.R.S.\n\n[A]SIR JOHN BANKS, K.C.B., M.D.\n\nTHE RT. HON. LORD BARRYMORE.\n\nTHE MARQUIS OF BATH.\n\nLADY BLISS.\n\nLADY BUCKLEY.\n\nLADY BURDON-SANDERSON.\n\nLORD BLYTH.\n\nTHE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY, D.D.\n\nEARL CATHCART.\n\nLORD ROBERT CECIL, K.C., M.P.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER, D.D.\n\nTHE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CHESTER, D.D.\n\nLORD CHEYLESMORE, C.V.O. (_Chairman, Middlesex Hospital_).\n\nTHE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH, D.D.\n\nSIR JAMES CRICHTON-BROWNE, F.R.S.\n\nTHE COUNTESS OF CROMER.\n\nTHE RT. HON. SIR SAVILE CROSSLEY, BT., M.V.O.\n\nSIR EDMUND HAY CURRIE.\n\nLORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., F.R.S.\n\nTHE REV. DR DALLINGER, F.R.S.\n\nFRANCIS DARWIN, ESQ., F.R.S.\n\nSIR GEORGE H. DARWIN, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\nSIR JAMES DEWAR, F.R.S.\n\nSIR A. CONAN DOYLE, LL.D.\n\nTHE REV. CANON DUCKWORTH, C.V.O.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE BISHOP OF EDINBURGH, D.D.\n\nEARL EGERTON.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER, D.D.\n\nLORD FABER.\n\nTHE REV. A. M. FAIRBAIRN, D.D., LL.D. (_Principal of Mansfield College,\nOxford_).\n\nLORD FARRER.\n\nSIR LUKE FILDES, R.A.\n\nLORD FORTESCUE.\n\nSIR THOMAS FRASER, M.D., F.R.S. (_Professor of Clinical Medicine,\nUniversity of Edinburgh_).\n\nSIR DAVID GILL, K.C.B., LL.D., F.R.S.\n\nTHE EARL OF GLASGOW, G.C.M.G.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF GRANTHAM, D.D.\n\nFIELD-MARSHAL LORD GRENFELL, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.\n\nTHE HON. WALTER GUINNESS, M.P.\n\nTHE RT. HON. THE EARL OF HALSBURY, K.B., F.R.S.\n\nLORD CLAUD HAMILTON.\n\nH. A. HARBEN, ESQ. (_Chairman, St Mary's Hospital_).\n\nJ. T. HELBY, ESQ. (_Chairman, Metropolitan Asylums Board_).\n\nSIR SAMUEL HOARE, BT.\n\nTHE HON. SYDNEY HOLLAND (_Chairman, London Hospital_).\n\nSIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER, G.C.S.I., F.R.S., O.M.\n\nSIR WILLIAM HUGGINS, K.C.B., F.R.S., O.M.\n\nJ. HUGHLINGS JACKSON, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.\n\nMONTAGUE RHODES JAMES, LITT.D. (_Provost of King's College, Cambridge_).\n\nSIR ALFRED JONES, K.C.M.G.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF KINGSTON.\n\nTHE EARL OF KILMOREY (_Chairman, Charing Cross Hospital_).\n\nLORD LAMINGTON, G.C.M.G.\n\nSIR E. RAY LANKESTER, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\nR. F. C. LEITH, M.SC., (_Professor of Pathology, Birmingham_).\n\nTHE RT. HON. LORD LINDLEY, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.\n\nSIR NORMAN LOCKYER, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\nTHE RT. HON. WALTER LONG, M.P.\n\nHENRY LUCAS, ESQ. (_Chairman, University College Hospital_).\n\nLORD LUDLOW.\n\nTHE HON. G. W. SPENCER LYTTELTON, C.B.\n\nFREDERICK MACMILLAN, ESQ. (_Chairman, National Hospital for the Paralysed\nand Epileptic_).\n\nTHE RT. HON. SIR HERBERT E. MAXWELL, BT., F.R.S.\n\nLORD METHUEN, G.C.B., K.C.V.O.\n\nHER GRACE THE DUCHESS OF MONTROSE.\n\nLADY DOROTHY NEVILL.\n\nTHE EARL OF NORTHBROOK (_President, Cancer Hospital_).\n\nLORD NORTHCLIFFE.\n\nWILLIAM OSLER, M.D., F.R.S. (_Regius Professor of Medicine, University of\nOxford_).\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, D.D.\n\nSIR GILBERT PARKER, D.C.L., M.P.\n\nEDEN PHILLPOTTS, ESQ.\n\nCOUNT PLUNKETT.\n\nSIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BT., LL.D., D.C.L.\n\nSIR JOHN DICKSON POYNDER, BT., M.P. (_Chairman, Great Northern Hospital_).\n\nLADY PRIESTLEY.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE BISHOP OF NORTH QUEENSLAND, D.D.\n\nSIR WILLIAM RAMSAY, K.C.B., F.R.S.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF RANGOON.\n\nSIR JAMES REID, BT., G.C.V.O.\n\nLADY RUSSELL REYNOLDS.\n\nTHE VERY REV. HON. THE DEAN OF RIPON, D.D.\n\nBRITON RIVIERE, ESQ., R.A., D.C.L.\n\nMRS ROGET.\n\nMRS ROMANES.\n\nSIR HENRY ROSCOE, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n[A]THE RT. HON. THE EARL OF ROSSE, K.P., LL.D., F.R.S. (_Chancellor of the\nUniversity of Dublin_).\n\nLORD ROTHSCHILD, G.C.V.O.\n\nSIR ARTHUR RUeCKER, F.R.S.\n\nTHE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF SALISBURY, D.D.\n\nTHE RT. HON. THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.\n\nTHE RT. HON. THE MARQUIS OF SLIGO.\n\nISABEL MARCHIONESS OF SLIGO.\n\nTHE RT. HON. SIR CECIL CLEMENTI SMITH, G.C.M.G.\n\nSIR THOMAS SMITH, BT., K.C.V.O.\n\nTHE HON. W. F. D. SMITH, M.P. (_Chairman, Removal Fund, King's College\nHospital_).\n\nTHE HON. SIR RICHARD SOLOMON, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.\n\nSIR EDGAR SPEYER, BT. (_President, Poplar Hospital_).\n\nTHE RT. HON. LORD STALBRIDGE.\n\nLORD STANLEY, K.C.V.O.\n\nLORD STRATHCONA, G.C.M.G.\n\nLADY SUTTON.\n\nMAJ.-GEN. SIR REGINALD TALBOT, K.C.B.\n\nSIR FREDERICK TREVES, BT., G.C.V.O.\n\nSIR JOHN BATTY TUKE, M.P.\n\nSIR WILLIAM TURNER, K.C.B., F.R.S. (_Principal of the University of\nEdinburgh_).\n\nJAMES G. WAINWRIGHT, ESQ. (_Chairman, St Thomas's Hospital_).\n\n_Earl Waldegrave._\n\n_The Rt. Rev. Bishop Welldon._\n\nHIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON, K.G.\n\nA. W. WEST, ESQ. (_Treasurer and Chairman, St George's Hospital_).\n\nSIR JAMES WHITEHEAD, BT. (_First President of the Lister Institute_).\n\nMRS ROBERT PEEL WETHERED.\n\nSIR SAMUEL WILKS, BT., F.R.S.\n\nTHE RT. HON. SIR ALFRED WILLS.\n\nTHE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER.\n\nTHE REV. H. G. WOODS, D.D. (_Master of the Temple_).\n\n[Note A: Since deceased.]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[9] 22nd October 1908. The number of members is now over 1530, of whom 160\nare ladies.\n\n[10] 27th May. Dr Sandwith, 31 Cavendish Square, London, W., is now Hon.\nTreasurer.\n\n\nTURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.","title":"The Pros and Cons of Vivisection","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":28860}