[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—You must be perfectly
well aware that the quotation which you give from the report of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has nothing whatever to do with experiments for physiological research. Allow me to say that I consider it a very discreditable thing, on your part, to endeavour to increase the odium of the position which I have taken, by thus indirectly imputing to me the desire to defend practices which I have ex- pressly repudiated, and which no physiologist seeks to justify. The repetition of surgical operations on live horses for the purpose of merely obtaining an increase of dexterity is, I imagine, univer- sally condemned. Its justification or condemnation has no bearing whatever on the case of physiological experiment, and the introduction of the matter into the present discussion is not a fair proceeding.
If I may judge from one of your paragraphs this week, you would be in favour of the establishment of properly-organised and directed laboratories for physiological research. They are a cry- ing want in our Universities and large centres of learning and research, since but two or three of anything like pretensions to adequate equipment exist in the country. It would be a satisfac- tory thing were the anxiety to prevent unnecessary cruelty to take a form at once so favourable for the progress of knowledge, and so well calculated to remove misapprehension of the nature and scope of physiological experiment.—I am, Sir, &c.,
E. RAY LANKESTER.
P.S.—Since the " best medical authority " which you this week proffer as to the inutility of vivisection for purposes of research is no authority at all, I may point out to you that you have failed in the attempt to substantiate your original statement.
[Mr. Lankester has lost his temper. We expressed our inability to understand the force of the word " causation " in the Report of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of Edinburgh, but we did not and do not believe that the opinion we reported means only what Mr. Lankester says ; and we are entirely ignorant of his ground for saying that we have attributed to him, directly or indirectly, the defence of vivisection for purposes of mere demon- stration. We have not done so at any time either in word or thought. As for our failure to " substantiate " what we never pretended to substantiate, we are not ashamed of it. We said that we had good physiological authority for our belief that vivisection is in the rarest possible cases necessary for scientific discovery, and so we had, though we were not permitted to give it. We observe that Mr. Lankester shrinks from the attempt to maintain the legality of physiological experiments in England not conducted throughout under chloroform.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
