Vivisection in Harvard Medical School — A Reply

It is well known that ¡t bill to restrict experimentation on living animals was brought before tlie MaSSa- chusetts Legislature several years ago and was rejected ¡tf'ter it number of full and impartial hearings, in which the attempt was vainly made to show that abuses ex- isted in the work of our higher educational institutions.This year the same effort is being renewed, and should be opposed, not only by professional investigators but also by physicians and laymen who are conscious of the debt that the community owes to those who labor in the important fields of physiology and experimental pathology.One of the most liberal of the supporters of the pre- vious movement, Dr. Leilingvvell, luis recently distri- buted again, in pamphlet form, under the caption " Dues Science Need Secrecy '( " : a letter originally published in the Boston Transcript, of ¡September 28, 18!)f>, ¡is a reply to one by Professor Porter, of the Harvard Medi- cal ¡School, which had appeared two days before, and in it he makes a number of statements which should not be allowed to pass without notice, the more so be- cause the.fact is ignored that some of them had already been publicly shown to be erroneous.It seems to be as inevitable as it, is unfortunate that the discussion should become public, -unfortunate, because so many persons in the community have shown themselves, again and again, ignorant of the value of the ends which are sought, and therefore unable to recognize how amply they justify the means mat ¡ire used to gain them.My objection to Dr. Leflingwell's pamphlet, is not that it is critical but that, it is unjust.It is an attempt to make it appear that men intentionally deceive who do not, intentionally deceive ; that men are, cruel who ¡ire not cruel ; that systems are in vogue which are not in vogue; that suffering is inflicted which is not inflicted; that the practical results of physiological research are of trivial value, whereas without them the splendid ediliee of medical science could never have been built.'The " practical " physicians who are so proud of the fact that they have exchanged the ignorant and brutal empiricism of the past for treatment based on a rela- tively accurate knowledge of the body in disease and health owe that knowledge, to an extent they often fail to realize, to the discoveries of these men, which nave been incorporated like the "water of crystallization " into the working forces of the médical art.It must not be, forgotten by those who hold that it is wholly wrong to seek knowledge through experiinenta- hon on living animals (though we may make them suller pain for our protection, our sport, our conven- ience, and our food), that Dr. Lefñngwell is himself an avowed supporter of such experiments.•le says ' * " As a physician, 1 have never been able to go to the extreme of denouncing all experimentation upon animals whatever, even though from lirst to last no pain be felt.Between the total abolition of all sacrifice of animal life for scientific purposes demanded by many humanitarians and that absolute freedom to inflict torture without restraint claimed by sonic physiologists, there must be a middle ground."In another place he says," " I am not ¡m ¡intivivisee- fionisf, for I believe in the practice, when it is rigidly guarded against all abuses, limited to useful ends, and subject to public criticism and the supervision of the law."No physiologist, so far as I know, claims freedom to " inflict torture " either with or without restraint: so that the main difference between Dr. Leflingwell's position and that of his colleagues with whom lie dis- agrees is that he thinks the best safeguards against abuse, and the best way of limiting experimentation to " useful ends," to be " public criticism and the super- vision of the law,'" while we trust far more in the char- acter, traditions and training of the men who have this serious and important work in charge.If Dr. Leffingwell were only carrying out, as a practical l'MIteonlh thousand.Does Selonco Need SocrecyV A reply to Bro-