Page:Science vol. 5.djvu/342

 [Vol. v., No. 116. I

��except wbere the occurrence of pain (ortos r neces- Bary part q£ the experiment; i.e., in certain re- Marcbes on the functions of sensor; nerves. But aa all the functions of sensory nerves which require for their study the infliction of pain have already been worked out, physiology, as it now slands, does not demand the absence of anaesthetics, save in a very Bmall percentage of operations: therefore, wlieu pain Is inflicted during an oiterntlon. It is due, as a rule, not to the exigencies of research, but to the in- difference of the operator, — a tact which we think physioli^iats ought to be more insistent than they are in impressing upon the mind of the public.

Nevertheless, we feel persuaded that Professor San- derson was perfectly right In not binding himeelf never to operate without anaesthetics: for by so doing he would have virtually conceded the prin* ciple that the itiffering of an animal is too great a price at which to buy an advance of knowl- edge; and this, among other things, would have been to place a moral atigma upon some of the most valuable retearcbes of the past. Besides, as was pointed out in the course of an able speech bf Professor Dicey, it is not desirable that the »latua of a protessDr in the university sliimid be regarded as iMneath that of a genileman; and, if it is sup- posed [hat Dr. Sanderson is not to be trusted In the latter capacity, he ought never to have been chosen to fill an Oxford chair. In short, as the rep- resentative of physiology in Oxford, Dr. Sanderson, by the nature and extent of his concession, has drawn a clear distinction between the importance of teaching and of research: he has consented to allow the teach- ing to suffer. If needs be; but he will not consent to yield an inch where the principles of research are concerned.

The other suggestion which was thrown out by Canon Liddon — namely, that a professor of physi- ology ought to pledge himself to kill every animal before it recovers from its anaesthesia — is, from every point of view, absurd. In the first place, the suggestion can only emanate from the unhiformed supposition that the pain of a healing wound is i;un- siderable. But we know, from the experience of hos- pital practice, that even the most severe wounds are painless while healing, unless the process of healing Is complicated by morbid conditions, which now ad- mit of being wholly prevented by antiseptic methods. As a matter of fact, therefore. In our physiological laboratories, as in our surgical wards, there Is at the present time but an extremely small amount of suffer- ing to be found in connection with the healing of wounds; and no man of ordinary sense, who had ever seen the inside of either the one or the other, would have cared to make the suggestion which we are con- sidering. But in the next place, even if this were not so, it would have been highly wrong In any pro- fessor of physiology to restrict himself to the per- formance of experiments the objects of which could be secured during the action of an anaesthetic. Cer- talnly more than half the experiments which the physiologist has now to pertorni have reference to questions of after-effects, and this Is especially the

��case In experiments bearing upon the problet pathology.

The speech of the bishop of Oxford wa.f bad. both in logic and in taste. It was bad in logic, because, i: arguing for the total suppression of physiological n search In Oxford, he relied upon foreign practice for his evidence of cruelty. This was essentially illogi- cal, because it fails to distinguish between two very 1 different things; namely, the cruelty, if any, which | attaches to vivisection per sc, and the cruelty which | arises from other sources. If the state of public fee] Ing in some foreign countries Is not so sensitive a it Is In our own on the matter of Inflicting pain upon the lower animals. It Is obviously unfair to search through the continent for Instances of cruelty in connection with physiological research, and then to adduce such instances as proof of cruelty necessarily attaching to physiological research at home. We might as well argue against the use of mules in England because these animals are badly treated in Spain. As we have already said, there are now bttl. extremely few cases possible in which the occurrence i of pain is necessary for the purposes of an expert- 1 ment; and therefore the proof of pain having been Inflicted in any one case conBtltutes proof, not of the pain-giving character of vivisection In general, but of the carelessness of some operator in particular. The cruelty must belong to the Individual, not to the methods; and we are not aware that any charge of cruelty has hitherto been proved against an English physiologist.

The tishop of Oxford's speech was bad in taste, because he sought, missionary- wise, to tell some anr ecdote of horror, which the good sense of convoca- 1 tion prevented him from narrating, further than that | the subject of his story was to have been ' An affec- tionate little dog.' But as he was not able to give any reference to the scene of his tragedy, after a pro- longed battle with his audience upon tbli somewhat necessary proof of authenticity, he was obliged to give way. His taste was perhaps still more ques- tionable, when, in the presence of Professor Sander- son and other working physiologist!', he proceeded to adduce the favorite argument that the pursuit ol ex- perimental physiology exercises a baleful influence on the moral nature. That the argument is unsound, both in principle and In fact, we need not wait to show.

The speech of Professor Freeman waa rendered wholly Inaudible by a general uproar, which pro- ceeded chiefly from the side which he rose to sup- 'port. We were told that this was due to the memory of the effect which was produced by his speech on the occasion of the previous vote.

Upon the whole, we think that the debate was of no little service to the cause of physiology in Oxford; and. when we consider how largely the majority of voles has grown since the first of the three divisions, we are glad to congratulate the university upon hav- ing shown so emphatically, that, not less than her sister, slie is able to withstand the assault* ot t two great enemies of learning, — ignorance a naticistn.

��laulta ot ths j ince and Uf J

�� �