A PHYSIOLOGICAL LABORATORY AT OXFORD.
[To TR6 EDITOR or TH1 "SPECTATOR.")
Sia,—Since the decree was passed in Convocation last June, though by the narrowest majority, sanctioning a very large expenditure for the erection of a Physiological Laboratory, the question of any apparent approval by the University of experi- ments on living animals has occupied the thoughts of many of us who are anxious on this subject. It is well known in Oxford that the consideration of this side of physiological investigation was not pressed on the attention of the Council, and not until opposition to the decree was offered in the Convocation of June 5th did the matter receive much public attention. Indeed, more than one eminent member of the University, both within the Council and outside, was not even acquainted with the opinion of the Professor of Physiology himself on it.
You will, perhaps, think it not unsuitable that at the begin- ning of Term some reasons should be expressed in your columns why Convocation should desire that the limits and the degree of vivisectional experiment in its buildings should be strictly defined. It is impossible for us to fold our hands, and say this question should be left exclusively to the judgment of physiologists, if only on account of their divergent judgment. To speak only of the dead, how widely separated were the feelings herein of Rolleston and Claude Bernard ! A con- siderable number of members of Convocation in and near Oxford earnestly desire that the question should be in itself submitted to the judgment of the House, and that a decree should be promulgated which would prohibit (a), painful experiment otherwise than under anaesthetics ; (b), experiments on domestic animals altogether.
(a.) Since the discovery of those anmsthetics which cause a dreadful operation to pass like a pleasant dream, we men have used them with a most affectionate solicitude for our ease, even to- escape trivial pain, and it seems only fair to extend this protec- tion to other creatures whose nerves of sensation are as acute to- suffer as are our own. I need not labour this point, because the best English physiologists have acceded to this merciful provi- sion, and indeea initiated it long before the judgment of the country was formulated in the Act of Parliament. But excep- tions to this rule are allowed, and it is denied that in Oxford there should be none. Then the feeling of camaraderie amongst physiologists is strong. Men have not forgotten the experiments on the two dogs at Norwich, in 1874, when those present " did not like " to interfere with M. Magnan's operation.. An eminent gentleman complained the other day that it had been necessary to obtain for the public service a foreigner trained in the laboratories of Germany. Was this the physicist who was so intent on his investigation that he could spare no time to think of the suffering of his subject?- " In Tiberim defluxit Orontes." He spoke in all innocence of heart, and was surprised that this acknowledgment had excited indignation in the minds of those who heard him ; but an apology for such a treatment of a grave subject, or an ignoring it, must necessarily be received in England with impatience.-
(b.) As to the exemption of domestic animals. Surely this is a reasonable request. It seems to be a base requital for the affec- tion, for the courage, for the sagacity, for the confidence of a dog, that he should in any place run the risk of such a termina- tion of his life ; it is a cruel treatment of a familiar friend. We do not like a prowling dog-stealer. Should we love him more, if we thought that he was decoying the friend of our hearth to hand him over to the custodian of the laboratory P And physiologists of note, whose general kindness of heart in all sincerity I do not wish to call in question, have said that they did not know and did not inquire from whence the subjects of their investigation had been brought. Is it impossible that they will consent to grant this boon P
It was inferred, too, at Southport that those who would restrict' vivisection are opponents of the advancement of science : that "they execrate the physiologist as a monster of cruelty," as others. " brand the geologist as a blasphemer." Pray, Sir, where are these- latter Rip Van Winkles of fanaticism and ignorance to be found As to physiologists, it is true that occasionally harsh and in- temperate language may be used concerning them. This is to be deprecated. But injustice of expression—and a denunciation of" any class of men is certain to involve injustice—does not destroy the fact that carelessness about animal suffering in the laboratory has existed to a grievous extent, and has often been excused ; or that, as lately in your columns, the question has been dismissed' with an airy disdain, as unworthy a philosopher's attention.
If I am not trespassing unduly on your space, I would say- one word about the familiar argument that no restriction is needed because Dr. X or Sir A B, gentlemen regarded by all men with esteem, do not think it necessary. This is a form of the old fallacy that there was no appreciable danger of abuse of slavery, because Bishop This of Senator That —kindly and humane men—treated their dependents well,. and were too polite to conjecture that in the wide area of the- Southern States other standards than theirs of duty and of
conscience might exist.—I am, Sir, &c., B. D.
Previous page
