3 JANUARY 1931, Page 22


[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,--What exactly is Mr. Stephen Coleridge's position ? Does he mean (a) that animal experiments have produced no useful knowledge ? or (b) that it is morally wrong to seek our salvation at the cost of these experiments ? If he means (a), any unbiased person examining the vast amount of evidence available would be compelled to disagree with him. If he means (b) I for one am strongly tempted to meet him half-way.

Do animal experiments save our bodies and damn our souls ? Must my dog die that I may live ? One would rather not ask these questions, yet they ought to be both asked and answered.

But those of us who elect to save our souls must not in logic grudge the price of our bodies. And this seems an inherent weakness in the argument of the opponents of vivisection, who when offered the choice between cruelty and cancer chose neither. If animal experiments could provide us with a cure for cancer to-morrow (no foolish hypothesis) and the choice lay with Mr. Stephen Coleridge, would he bid us keep our cancers or kill our dogs ?—I am, Sir, &c., - New:bridge, .Upwell, Wisbech. A. J. HAWES, KB.