An Ethical Problem | Page 2

decision as to precedence to those who give them
financial support.
Though the first edition of the present work was quite large, yet no
challenge of the accuracy of any of its statements concerning
experimentation upon human beings or animals has yet appeared. To
hope for absolute accuracy in a work of this character may be

impossible; yet that ideal has been constantly before the writer. Should
any errors of the kind be discovered to exist in the present edition, their
indication is sincerely desired.
In the chapter "Unfair Methods of Controversy" some illustrative cases
were given without mention, now and then, of the persons criticized. It
seemed to the writer that in certain instances it should be quite
sufficient to point out and to condemn inaccuracies and errors without
bringing upon the record every individual name. No misunderstanding
could possibly exist, since the references were ample in every case. But
since this reticence, in at least one instance, has been criticized by an
unfriendly reviewer, it is perhaps better to state that the repeated
allusions to Lord Lister's journeyings to France, and the article in
Harper's Monthly for April, 1909, were from the pen of the author of
Animal Experimentation--a work which is reviewed in the Appendix to
the present edition. To his advanced age--now far beyond the allotted
span--we may ascribe the inaccuracies which, at an earlier period of his
career, would doubtless have been recognized.
A. L.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION - - - - - xi
I. WHAT IS VIVISECTION? - - - - 1 II. ON CERTAIN MISTAKES
OF SCIENTISTS - - 12 III. AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
VIVISECTOR - - - 22 IV. MAGENDIE AND HIS
CONTEMPORARIES - - - 29 V. A VIVISECTOR'S REMORSE - - - -
47 VI. IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED BY UTILITY? - - 57 VII. THE
COMMENCEMENT OF AGITATION - - - 66 VIII. ATTAINMENT
OF REGULATION IN ENGLAND - - 88 IX. A GREAT
PROTESTANT - - - - 113 X. THE VIVISECTION REPORT OF 1912
- - - 127 XI. THE ANAESTHETIC DELUSION - - - 149 XII. THE
VIVISECTION OF TO-DAY - - - 162 XIII. WHAT IS VIVISECTION
REFORM? - - - 196 XIV. THE WORK OF REFORM SOCIETIES - - -

216 XV. UNFAIR METHODS OF CONTROVERSY - - - 228 XVI.
RESEARCH WITHOUT VIVISECTION - - - 254 XVII. THE
FUTURE OF VIVISECTION - - - 276 XVIII. THE FINAL PHASE:
EXPERIMENTATION ON MAN - 289 XIX. CONCLUSION - - - - -
326
APPENDIXES - - - - 333-364C INDEX - - - - 365-369 PRESS
NOTICES - - - - 371-374
INTRODUCTION
It is now somewhat over a third of a century since my attention was
specially directed to the abuses of animal experimentation. In January,
1880, a paragraph appeared in a morning paper of New York referring
to the late Henry Bergh. With his approval a Bill had come before the
legislature of the State of New York providing for the abolition of all
experiments upon living animals--whether in medical colleges or
elsewhere--on the ground that they were without benefit to anybody,
and demoralizing alike to the teacher and student. As I dropped the
paper, it occurred to me that the chances of success would have been
far greater if less had been asked. That certain vivisections were
atrocious was undoubtedly true; but, on the other hand, there were
some experiments that were absolutely painless. Would it not be wiser
to make some distinctions?
The attempt was made. An article on the subject was at once begun,
and in July of the same year it was published in Scribner's Magazine,
the predecessor of the Century. So far as known, it was the first
argument that ever found expression in the pages of any American
periodical favouring not the entire abolition of vivisection, but the
reform of its abuse.
My knowledge of vivisection had its beginning in personal experience.
Nearly forty years ago, while teaching the elements of physiology at
the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, it occurred to me to illustrate the
statements of textbooks by a repetition of such simple experiments as
had come before my own eyes. Most of my demonstrations were
illustrative of commonplace physiological phenomena: chloroform was

freely used to secure unconsciousness of the animal, and with the
exception of one or two demonstrations, the avoidance of pain or
distress was almost certainly accomplished.
But what especially impressed me at the time was the extraordinary
interest which these experiments seemed to excite. Students from
advanced classes in the institute were often spectators and voluntary
assistants. Of the utility of such demonstrations as a means of fixing
facts in memory, I could not have the slightest doubt. Nor as regards
the rightfulness of vivisection as a method either of study or
demonstration, was