MICROFILMED 1 993 
 
 r 
 
 
 UMBIA U 
 
 % 
 
 % I 
 
 
 LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the t, • » 
 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project 
 
 i 
 
 Funded by the _^^^ 
 
 TION ' " ENDOWME NT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not bo made without permission from 
 
 * ■ Aw 
 
 sity Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of pnotocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted niater r, 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in tlie law, libraries and 
 
 Durpose other than private study, scholarship 
 Photocopy or reproduction for purposes n excess of fair 
 
 This institution reserves the ^^3^ to refuse to accept a 
 copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the cooyrsght nvw. 
 
 X^, .~M 
 
AUTUOR: 
 
 ■ ■■■■■ mmmm mmmm 
 
 I liiiiiiiiiiii Lmm Ihhk 
 
 luillllMii iHWiiiMi I I 
 
 -> 
 
 ALBERT 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 BY DECEIT? 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 [PROVIDENCE 
 1900 
 
Master Negative it 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 ^:!-ifJXaX. 'F 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 DIDLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Original Material as Fihued - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 li 179.4 
 
 i' V.1 
 
 1 . 
 
 !l 
 
 > -^MkawxtMMHse. ^ 
 
 I 
 
 Leffingwell, Albert, 1845- 1916. 
 
 Is science advanced by deceit? A question and a criti- j 
 cism, by Albert LeffinVwell, m. d. [Providence] The ; 
 American humane association, 1900. ; 
 
 cover-title, 32 p. 23^"". 
 
 An argument against vivisection. 
 
 Volune of par.phlctc. 
 
 \ \ 
 
 1. Vivisection. 
 
 u 
 
 Library of Congress 
 
 QP45.L5 
 
 1-27096 
 
 i.-;- iBCii'OfiT • 
 
 FILM SIZE:__^5. 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 -"<r 
 
 REDUCTION RATIO 
 
 :i(x 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA |L^ IB IID 
 
 DATE FILMED: _-JjS;i(i. INITIALS 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT 
 
 Vl/'"^ 
 

 1 r 
 
 V 
 
 Association for information and Image {Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 11 
 
 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 
 
 4 
 
 iiiiln 
 
 5 6 7 
 
 uuiuiliiuluuluuliJ 
 
 8 9 10 11 
 
 lllllllllllllllllllllll 
 
 12 13 14 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 15 mm 
 
 h 
 
 I FT 
 
 I I I I 
 
 TTTTT 
 
 TTT 
 
 \\\ 
 
 TTT 
 
 V 
 
 Inches 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 2.8 
 
 m 
 
 ■56 MAA. 
 
 leo 
 
 |90 
 
 muu 
 
 3.6 
 
 4.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 MPNUFfiCTURED TO flllM STfiNDflRDS 
 BY fiPPLIED IMAGE. INC. 
 
,A 
 
 ^// Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 A QUESTION AND A CRITICISM 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT LEFFINGWELL, M.D. 
 
 THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 
 
 1900 
 

 IS SCIENCE ADVANCED BY DECEIT?* 
 
 • t "..t 
 
 Not quite two centuries and a half ago, a writer whose 
 name both in science and hterature is Hnked to the immor- 
 lahty of genius, found himself engaged in controversy with 
 a great religious order of his Church. In a series of letters, 
 the literary merit of which has never been surpassed, he 
 boldly charged the Jesuit casuists of his time with practical 
 subversion of the foundation principles of Christian morality. 
 But no charge of Pascal has so clung to reputation as that 
 pertaining to the simple virtue of truthfulness. "How,, 
 for instance," he asks, ''may a man avoid telling a lie when 
 at the same time he is anxious to induce belief in what is 
 false ?" In such a case, he tells us, the Jesuit writer Sanchez 
 lays down the doctrine that "it is permissible to use ambigu- 
 ous terms, leading people to understand them in another 
 sense from that in which we understand them ourselves."t 
 This is the practice and doctrine of Equivocation. But if 
 no equivocal terms come to mind or are available, what then 
 may be done? In such a case one may take refuge in the 
 practice known as Mental Reservation. Thus, says Sanchez : 
 
 '• A man may swear that he never did such a thing, even though he 
 actually did it, meaning within himself that he did not do it on a 
 certain day, or before he was born, or understanding any other such 
 circumstance, while the words he employs have no such sense as 
 would discover his meaning. This is very convenient in many cases." 
 
 It must be said that the Jesuit order has always denied 
 its responsibility for this kind of teaching, even though it 
 was promulgated by casuist writers belonging to the Society. 
 
 *From Senate Document No. 78. Fifty-fifth Congress. 1899. 
 Revised, 
 f Pascal's Provincial Letters, No. IX. 
 
2 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 Certainly, the practice of equivocation and mental reserve 
 is no modern invention, but is as old as the race. Diplomacy 
 so often makes use of words in a double sense that Talley- 
 rand declared language invented to conceal thought. There 
 are nations so imbued with mendacity that they have lost 
 the confidence of their fellow-men. For, however produc- 
 tive of gain they may seem at first, duplicity and deceit have 
 their drawbacks. No man, and no society of men, con- 
 victed of habitual resort to the practice of mental reservation 
 or equivocation can permanently retain the trust and con- 
 fidence of society. And the purpose of this paper is to ask 
 whether this ignoble practice has not come to be, along cer- 
 tain lines, a part of the practical policy of certain scientists 
 in their relations with the public? Is Science advanced by 
 duplicity and honored by deceit ? 
 
 Let us admit at the outset that this practice of equivoca- 
 tion is by no means of universal or even general adoption 
 among men of science. With the great majority of those 
 whose object in life is to ascertain truth and to promulgate 
 it, there is, happily, no temptation to depart from the strictest 
 veracity. Scientific researches are, for the most part, 
 heartily encouraged by the spirit of our age. Nobody ques- 
 tions the moral right of the geologist, the chemist, the 
 botanist, the electrician, or the astronomer to follow lines 
 of research in any direction desired. Their task is an 
 honored one. It is only when we come to that department 
 of scientific investigation which deals with the phenomena of 
 life that questioning murmurs arise. The morality of a 
 practice engaging the time and energy of a large body of 
 scientific men is questioned, impugned, or denied. There 
 are charges of cruelty, and of a pitilessness which is closely 
 allied to vice. Human nature would be different from what 
 it is, if the men engaged in the habitual practice of vivisec- 
 tion as a means of earning their daily bread could remain 
 unmoved and indifferent. What is the reason, they ask, 
 
 Is Science Advanced bv Deceit f 
 
 that the world should manifest such special curiosity regard- 
 ing the methods of the physiologist or pathologist? Why 
 should it be asked that their laboratories be made subject 
 to State inspection any more than the observatory of an 
 astronomer? Why should they be obliged to report what 
 they do with dogs, any more than the chemist what he does 
 with his drugs or the geologist with his specimens? The 
 professional vivisector may come to be indifferent to the 
 sight of suffering in an animal ; but apathy ceases when he 
 is charged with a vice, and when those whom he has met in 
 society decline to recognize him on the public street. 
 
 What shall he reply to such charges? Shall he boldly 
 deny the existence of anything approaching cruelty? How 
 is it possible, against overwhelming proofs to the contrary ? 
 
 "I recall to mind," says Dr. Latour, ''a poor dog, the roots 
 of whose vertebral nerves Magendie desired to lay bare, in 
 order to demonstrate BelFs theory, which he claimed as his 
 own. The dog, mutilated and bleeding, twice escaped from 
 the implacable knife, and threw its front paws around 
 Magendie's neck, as if to soften his murderer and ask for 
 mercy. I confess I was unable to endure that heartrending 
 spectacle." In the documents laid before Congress by 
 various scientific bodies, the name of Magendie is always 
 mentioned with respect, but we venture to say that there is 
 not a scientist in Washington whose name stands as high 
 as that of the late Thomas Henry Huxley, who declared 
 in the report of the Royal Commission: "It is not to be 
 doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very 
 high position as physiologists. We have seen it was so in 
 Magendie." Without changing the definition of the word 
 "cruelty," it is impossible in the face of evidence to claim 
 for vivisection, exemption from its stain. 
 
 Shall the whole truth about vivisection be freely admitted? 
 That is not an unreasonable demand. We doubt if it would 
 lead to that utter condemnation of the whole practice which 
 
4 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 so many scientists seem to fear. But what if statement of 
 the ''whole truth" would only intensify the demand for 
 reform? Dr. Klein told the Royal Commission the whole 
 truth in regard to his own practices, and doubtless has 
 regretted ever since his unexampled veracity. One line 
 of defense remains, but we may be sure that it is one to 
 which no man of scientific training ever consciously resorted 
 without loathing and self-detestation. It is the practice of 
 exaggeration. Equivocation, and Mental Reserve. To the 
 world at large they may seem to deny every charge of 
 cruelty and uselessness, and may have their denials indorsed 
 and supported by the principal scientific bodies of the United 
 States, if only they w^ill adopt the maxim laid down by the 
 Jesuit casuist nearly three hundred years ago, declaring that 
 when one desires to avoid telling a lie, and yet induce a 
 belief in what is false, "it is permissible to use ambiguous 
 terms, leading people to understand them in another sense 
 from that in zvhich zve understand them ourselves/' 
 
 Has this been done? In the defense of the unlimited 
 vivisection of animals, is it true that the names of scientific 
 men of the highest repute may be found attached to state- 
 ments and denials of charges which apparently were meant 
 to be understood by the general public in a sense contrary to 
 the truth? Worse even than this, has equivocation been 
 used in appeals made to the Congress of the United States 
 solely to hinder and prevent any possible legislation on the 
 subject of vivisection? We propose to examine a single 
 document — Senate Report No. 1049 — ^^^ to point out some 
 of the many misstatements, evasions, and exaggerations 
 therein made by scientific men and scientific societies 
 regarding — 
 
 I. The alleged painless character of inoculation experi- 
 ments. 
 
 II. The extent to which animal experimentation is pain- 
 less, because anaesthetics are employed. 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 5 
 
 III. The denial of any cruelty in the practice of Vivisec- 
 tion and the value of such denial. 
 
 IV. The exaggeration of benefit to Humanity. 
 
 Taking these topics in their order, let us see whether 
 misstatement exists, and if it is due to ignorance or design. 
 
 I. Are Inoculation Experiments Painful? 
 
 On the evening of April 22, 1896, the Medical Society of 
 THE District of Columbia met, and, without a dissentient 
 voice, adopted a memorial to Congress in opposition to any 
 regulation of vivisection. Therein they say : 
 
 "As a maUer of fact, ansesthetics are habitually administered in 
 experiments which involve an amount of pain worthy of consid- 
 eration ; but they are not considered necessary in trifling operations, 
 such as the administration of a hypodermic injection or the vacci- 
 nation of a calf." (p. 129.) 
 
 We could hardly have more emphatic assurance of the 
 universal use of aucxsthetics, except in trifling operations, 
 than is here given on the good faith of the Medical Society 
 of the District of Columbia. 
 
 The National Academy of Sciences also unanimously 
 
 assures Congress that — 
 
 '* In modern laboratories anaesthetics are always employed, except 
 when the operation involves less suffering to the animal than the 
 administration of the anaesthetic, as in the case of inoculations, or in 
 those instances in which the anaesthetic would interfere with the object 
 of the experiment." (p. 128.) 
 
 Here, too, we have the most explicit assurance that if 
 ansesthetics are omitted in inoculation experiments it is only 
 because the pain is too trivial to make it worth while to 
 use them. Are these assurances the truth, or are they, on 
 the contrary, an ignoble equivocation? 
 
 What is an ''inoculation?" In medical works it is defined 
 as "the insertion of virus into any part of the body in order 
 
6 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 to communicate a disease." An experiment made by means 
 of inoculation means, therefore, that the virus, the poisonous 
 germs of some particular disease, such as cholera, yellow 
 fever, tuberculosis, or rabies, has been inserted — usually by 
 means of a hypodermic needle — into some part of the body 
 of a living animal, beneath its skin, into the abdomen or the 
 chest, within the eye, or upon its scraped surface. When 
 the writer was at Calcutta, in India, a few years ago, they 
 were inoculating monkeys with the venom of the cobra in 
 a series of experiments that, after all, came to no practical 
 result. Thus, in the Journal of Physiology, Sewell, of 
 Michigan, tells us of inoculations made by him with rattle- 
 snake poison, using pigeons as subjects, and recording that 
 the head rests on the floor, the mouth open, the respiration 
 gasping, and the body convulsed.* Thus Ernst, of Har- 
 vard, inoculated with the virus of rabies, by means of trephin- 
 ing the skull, some thirty-two rabbits, the animal becoming 
 so changed in its natural disposition that from being "lively 
 and affectionate, it becomes dull, sluggish, and even fierce," 
 and so losing the power of swallowing that at first he 
 supposed that they died of starvation.! Thus Cheyne, of 
 Ensrland, tells us that "on manv occasions I have inoculated 
 portions of synovial membrane and pus from strumous 
 joints, subcutaneously or into the anterior chamber of the 
 eye, in rabbits and guinea pigs, and have invariably pro- 
 duced typical tuberculosis by this means." The animals in 
 some of his experiments were not killed for weeks.J Thus 
 Klein, of London, the scientist who affirmed that, for him- 
 self, he had "no regard at all" for the animals he vivisected, 
 tells us of experiments made by inoculating the eyes of 
 cats with the virus of diphtheria. He records that after 
 such inoculations, in one case "the disease set in with great 
 
 * Journal of Ph)'siolog)% Vol. VIII, p. 206. 
 
 f Jour. Med. Sciences, April, 1887. 
 
 :j: British Medical Journal, April 11-18, 1891. 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 7 
 
 intensity," both eyes being closed and the animal living until 
 the seventeenth day; that in another cat, which lived for 
 fifteen days, a "deep, crater-like ulcer" had formed, the 
 eye being much congested, swollen, and coated with puru- 
 lent matter ; that in a third cat the disease steadily increased 
 until the middle of the third week, although great conges- 
 tion began on the fourth day, and the experiment lasted 
 till the eye became perforated.* Do we need to tell anyone 
 that such "inoculations" were by no means "trifling" in the 
 amount of pain they caused ?t 
 
 While in Paris recently the writer visited the Pasteur 
 Institute and was shown over the establishment. There 
 were over 2,000 rabbits awaiting their fate. But neither 
 the great number of victims to research, nor the vast iron 
 cage with the dogs tearing at their chains so impressed 
 memory, as the scores of rabbits lying in their compartments 
 slowly dying, the result of inoculations which the American 
 Academy of Sciences informs Congress "involved less 
 suffering than the administration of an anesthetic !" 
 
 One inoculation experiment of this kind has for us a 
 special and peculiar interest. In the American Journal of 
 Mfdical Sciences for July, 1882, Dr. George M. Stern- 
 berg, now the Surgeon-General of the United States Army, 
 gav^'e' to the world the startling discovery he had made 
 through experiments in blood poisoning. "I have demon- 
 
 *Sup to XlXth Annual Report, Local Gov. Board, 1889-1890. 
 
 + - Inoculations into the anterior chamber of the eye of rabbits and 
 other animals have frequently been practised, and offer certain advan- 
 tages in the study of the local effects of pathogenic organisms. ... 
 Inoculated animals should be carefully observed, and a note made 
 of every symptom indicating departure from the usual condition of 
 health, such as fever, loss of activity, loss of appetite, weakness 
 emaciation, convulsions, dilated pupils, the formation of an abscess 
 or a diffuse cellulitis extending from the point of inoculation. -A 
 Manual of Bacteriology, by George M. Sternberg, M.D., Surgeon- 
 General U. S. A., pp. 97-99- 
 
8 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit F 
 
 strated," he tells us, ''by repeated experiments, that my 
 saliva . . . injected into the subcutaneous connective 
 tissue of a rabbit, invariably produces death, usually within 
 forty-eight hours. ... I think I am quite safe in 
 stating that I have repeated the experiment at least twenty- 
 five times with my own saliva. I beg those who under- 
 take to repeat my experiments to observe that my saliva 
 produced results recorded. The saliva of four students, 
 
 residents of Baltimore, gave negative results 
 
 In my experiments the rabbits were commonly found 
 dead or dying on the second morning after inocula- 
 tion. The constant pathologic lesion found by me was a 
 diffuse cellulitis or inflammatory oedema, extending in all 
 directions from the point of injection. The spleen was 
 usually greatly enlarged; the liver was usually dark in 
 color and gorged with blood." 
 
 In his ''Manual of Bacteriology," Dr. Sternberg claims 
 to have discovered through these experiments a microbe, 
 which he tells us, is now supposed to be concerned in 
 the production of one form of pneumonia. Whether 
 or not this theory is correct, the treatment of pneumonia 
 has remained precisely the same, since this peculiar 
 discovery was made. But what we wish especially to 
 emphasize is the fact that an inoculation experiment, so far 
 from "involving less suffering to the animal than the admin- 
 istration of an anaesthetic," may produce severe and pro- 
 longed anguish for days and weeks. Was this fact known 
 to the members of the scientific bodies whose statements to the 
 contrary I have quoted ? Every man knew it. How, then, 
 could the Medical Society of the District of Columbia 
 dare to assure the Senate of the United States that an experi- 
 ment of this character was "a trifling operation," or the 
 National Academy of Sciences declare that they "involved 
 less suffering to the animal than the administration of the 
 anaesthetic?" Well, until somebody "rises to explain," we 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 9 
 
 can only speculate. Let us imagine this memorial brought 
 up for adoption before one of these learned societies. Sud- 
 denly a member finds himself on his feet. "Mr. President, 
 I do not see how I can give my vote for that memorial as it 
 stands. Every one of us present to-night is aware that 
 an inoculation experiment involves far more suffering to the 
 animcil, as a rule, than the administration of the anaesthetic ; 
 that, sometimes, it means prolonged and extreme pain ; and 
 yet we, as a society, are assuring Congress and publishing 
 to the world, upon our honor as scientific men, that in this 
 class of experiments anaesthetics are not used because the 
 pain is so trifling !* That, sir, is a falsehood ; and I can not 
 vote for a lie." Then, we may fancy some sturdy vivisector, 
 who perhaps drew up the memorial, rising to reply. "Mr. 
 President, this is a matter of more than ordinary importance. 
 At any cost, we must prevent the bill before Congress from 
 becoming a law. Nobody has asked us to define what we 
 mean in the laboratory by an 'inoculation experiment' 
 Suppose, for the present purpose, we define such an experi- 
 
 *A typical instance of equivocation, apparently, may be found in 
 the use made of a quotation from a leUer by Surg. -Gen. Sternberg, in 
 the " Memorial from the Representatives of Medical and other Scien- 
 tific Societies of Washington," printed in Senate Document 107, Fifty- 
 fifth Congress. The italics are as in the original, and their purpose 
 
 is but too evident : 
 
 " The experiments which have been conducted at the Army Medical 
 Museum since I have been Surgeon-General of the Army and, so far 
 as I am informed, previous to that time, relate principally to the cause 
 and prevention of infectious diseases, and to the results of disease 
 processes (pathology). T/iese experiments do not call for any painful 
 dissections, but consist in the subcutaneous inoculation of cultures of 
 various pathological bacteria, etc'' 
 
 This is signed by Dr. S. C. Busey, Dr. Sternberg, D. E. Salmon, 
 (a veterinary surgeon), and others, and they affirm that it " applies as 
 well to other Government laboratories in this city, where biological 
 research work (vivisection) is conducted." Could anything be plainer 
 than the inference it was evidently designed that the Senate should 
 draw from the words so carefully italicized? 
 
10 
 
 Is Science Advanced hy Deceit? 
 
 ment as the prick of the needle hy which the virus is inserted 
 into the tissues. That, certainly is 'a, trifling operation' ; 
 and I think, with this definition in his mind, even our moral 
 young friend can vote for the memorial. There is no doubt 
 that Congress will accept what we say as the truth, if only 
 we are unanimous." Perhaps such debate never occurred, 
 but only on some such hypothesis is it conceivable how men 
 of science, without a dissenting voice, could give assurances 
 so false.* Even in its best aspect, it was an equivocation. 
 Was it honorable dealing with the National Legislature? 
 Was it in harmony with the ideals of Science? Rather, 
 was it not in perfect accord with the maxim of Sanchez, 
 that when one is desirous to induce belief in what is false, 
 "it is permitted to use ambiguous terms, leading people to 
 understand them in another sense from that in zvhich we 
 understand them ourselves?" 
 
 * In his Presidential Address in the Section of State Medicine at the 
 last Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association in August, 
 1899, Dr. George Wilson, LL. D., probably the leading authority in 
 Great Britain upon Preventive Medicine, made the following indig- 
 nant reference to these ignoble equivocations : 
 
 " I boldly say there should be some pause in these ruthless lines of 
 experimentation. ... I have not allied myself to the Anti-vivi- 
 sectionists, but / accuse my profession of viisleading the public as to the 
 cruelties and horrors which are perpetrated on animal life. When it is 
 stated that the actual pain involved in these experiments is commonly 
 of the most trifling description, there is a suppression of the truth, 
 of the most palpable kind, which could only be accounted for at the 
 time by ignorance of the actual facts. I admit that in the mere opera- 
 tion of injecting a virus, whether cultivated or not, there may be little 
 or no pain, but the cruelty does not lie in the operation itself, which is 
 permitted to be performed without anaesthetics, but in the after-effects. 
 Whether so-called toxins are injected under the skin into the perito- 
 neum, into the cranium, under the dura mater, into the pleural cavity, 
 into the veins, eyes or other organs — and all these methods are 
 ruthlessly practiced — there is long-drawn-out agony. The animal so 
 innocently operated on may have to live days, weeks, or months, with 
 no anaesthetic to assuage its sufferings, and nothing but death to 
 relieve." 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 II 
 
 II. Are Ancesthetics so used in Vivisection as Completely 
 
 to Abolish Pain? 
 
 We propose to show that statements, carefully calculated 
 to convey such an impression, were made to Congress for the 
 purpose of influencing legislation; that such impression is 
 absolutely false, and that these statements are entirely in 
 accord with the doctrine of Equivocation. 
 
 The Joint Commission of the Scientific Societies of 
 Washington, in their memorial to Congress, asserts that 
 ''those engaged in research work . . . may be trusted 
 to conduct such experiments in a humane manner, and to 
 give ancesthetics when required to prevent pain." (p. 130.) 
 Here is a distinct implication that whenever "anaesthetics 
 are required to prevent pain" they are given ; and yet every 
 member of the commission who knew anything whatever 
 about vivisection must have known that such meaning of 
 their words could not possibly be true. 
 
 A year later apparently the same body, but now styling 
 itself a ''joint committee" of various local societies, 
 presented another appeal to Congress, stating: "It is the 
 uniform testimony of those who have had the best oppor- 
 tunities for obtaining reliable information on this subject 
 that in the pathological laboratories in this District, and in 
 the United States generally, anaesthetics are habitually 
 employed for the relief of pain, zvhenever it is practicable 
 to give them, and when the amount of pain involved is such 
 as would call for the administration of an anaesthetic, if the 
 operation were to be performed upon a human being." 
 (Senate Doc. 107, p. 22.) The Association of Military 
 Surgeons of the United States adopted without altera- 
 tion the memorial of the American Medical Association, 
 assuring Congress that "anaesthetics are habitually admin- 
 istered to animals subjected to painful experiments" (pp. 13I) 
 132) ; the Medical Society of the District of Colum- 
 bia aflirms that "anaesthetics are habitually administered 
 
 s 
 
12 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 in experiments which involve an amount of pain worthy 
 of consideration (p. 129) ; the National Academy of 
 Sciences declares that ''the suffering incident to biological 
 investigations is trifling in amount/' the New Hampshire 
 Medical Society asserts that ''anaesthetics are habitually 
 administered to animals subjected to painful experiments;'* 
 and, finally, the Surgeon-General calls for proof that "those 
 engaged in experimental research do not administer anaes- 
 thetics to the domestic animals when they are subjected to 
 painful experiments in this District" (p. 125). "^ 
 
 And now, bearing in mind that each of these statements 
 was drawn up by a man of science, trained to the use of 
 accurate expression, and that it was put forth solely to influ- 
 ence Congress against legislation, what is the meaning that a 
 plain man, unused to the subtleties of evasion and equivoca- 
 tion, would find in the passages here quoted? It is 
 doubtful if he notes at first glance that nearly all these 
 assertions are purposely indefinite, and that nowhere is it 
 precisely stated that anaesthetics are effectively used, but 
 onlv that thev are "habituallv" administered. What would 
 seem clear to the average man is this: that some of the 
 most eminent scientific men in the United States give their 
 word of honor to the National Legislature that anaesthetics 
 are so given in animal experimentation as practically to 
 annihilate pain, or, if any pain be felt, it is so slight, so 
 "trifling in amount," so similar to that which we endure 
 every day without a thought of anaesthesia, that it is not 
 "worthv of consideration." That is the inference which, 
 apparently, it was intended that members of Congress 
 should draw from the statements quoted. And that infer- 
 ence is false. 
 
 *The proof is furnished by the Surgeon-General himself. His 
 saliva-experiments were certainly without anaesthetics, and as cer- 
 tainly productive of pain. Unless otherwise specified, all references 
 are to Report 1049. 
 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 13 
 
 The exact truth in this matter was perfectly well known 
 to every member of these distinguished societies. 
 
 First. The effectual administration of an anaesthetic so 
 as to abolish pain is, as a rule, utterly impracticable in that 
 great class of inoculation experiments to which attention 
 has just been called. Anybody can see that you can not 
 insert virus into the eye or the abdomen of a cat, for instance, 
 and then stand over it night and day administering an anaes- 
 thetic ; the thing is never even attempted. When Surgeon- 
 General Sternberg demonstrated by experiments upon over 
 twenty-five rabbits his immortal discovery that his saliva, 
 injected beneath the skin, set up all the symptoms of the 
 severest blood poisoning, he certainly did not give them 
 anesthetics during the entire period of their torment, for 
 he tells us they were "found dead or dying" the second 
 morning after inoculation. But demonstration of the point 
 is quite needless ; the facts are admitted. Dr. Woodward, 
 the health officer of the District of Columbia, has stated 
 that "most of the experiments in bacteriology (which 
 includes nearly all of the vivisection done in this District) , 
 and a very large proportion of those for other purposes, 
 require that the animal shall be kept alive sometimes for 
 weeks after the effect of the anaesthetic has passed off" (p. 
 124).* We are therefore indebted to him for revealing, 
 that in the experimentation which goes on in this District, a 
 large majority of the animals must be kept alive for a con- 
 siderable time. 
 
 Second. In a large number of other experiments upon 
 living animals, some of them involving prolonged and 
 extreme pain, it is practically impossible to relieve suffering 
 by anesthetics, unless it be during the brief preliminary 
 cutting operation, when that takes place. In the expen- 
 
 *Does Dr Woodward mean to imply that in '' experiments in bacteri- 
 ology" anaesthetics are administered? Such is the impression con- 
 veyed by the above quotation. 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
 14 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 ments of Luciani on the starvation of dogs; of Colin, in 
 freezing animals alive; of Chauveau, who tells us that he 
 "consecrated'' some eighty horses and asses to experiments 
 on the spinal marrow, producing "intense" and "most vio- 
 lent pain;" in experiments on the reflex action of sensory 
 nerves ; in experiments connected with the glandular secre- 
 tions; in experiments with certain poisons and drugs; in 
 many experiments upon the heart and the circulation, and, 
 in short, whenever the evidence of pain is important to the 
 investigation — complete and genuine anaesthesia throughout 
 the experiment is quite impossible. There are many experi- 
 ments in surgery where complete anaesthesia can not be 
 maintained. You may, indeed, confer some mitigation of 
 pain by the use of narcotics, such as morphia and chloral, 
 but neither of these is an anaesthetic. As the great experi- 
 menter, Burdon Sanderson, has said, "You cannot produce 
 inflammation in an animal, and maintain a state of anaes- 
 thesia during the whole process." 
 
 Third. In addition to these, there are various other 
 experiments, which, if done at all (and their utility is 
 very questionable), must be done under the influence of 
 curare, a poison which simply makes the victim incapable 
 of the slightest muscular movement, although conscious of 
 what goes on about it and sensible to every pang. 
 
 "An animal under its influence," says Professor Holm- 
 gren, the professor of physiology at Upsala University, "it 
 changes instantly into a living corpse, which hears and sees 
 and knows everything, but is unable to move a single 
 muscle; and under its influence no creature can give the 
 faintest indication of its hopeless condition." This venom 
 is, he says, ''the most cruel of poisons.""^ The French 
 vivisector, Claude Bernard, tells us that it "destroys the 
 power of movement, but permits sensibility to exist;" 
 that the "cadaver one has before him hears and compre- 
 
 * Holmgren's Physiology, p. 231. 
 
 I 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 i; 
 
 hends what goes on about him, and feels whatever painful 
 impressions we may inflict." In a memorial issued last 
 year against legislation, a writer is quoted as stating that 
 "it has never been claimed by any scientific man that it 
 {curare) is an anaesthetic." But it is used in every labora- 
 tory in America where vivisection goes on to any extent, 
 and one of the principal government vivisectors, — who is 
 not a physician but an experimenter, — Charles Wardell 
 Stiles, insists in his statement to Congress (p. 104) that 
 its use "is a point which should be left entirely to the inves- 
 tigators." 
 
 To illustrate its use in laboratories, let us examine the 
 experiments of Dr. H. G. Beyer (a Government employee at 
 the United States National Museum), made upon a large 
 number of dogs. Morphia being administered, the animal 
 is fastened in a "dog holder," tracheotomy performed, a 
 vein dissected out, and "about half a dram of a one per cent, 
 solution of curare is injected, after which artificial respira- 
 tion is begun." The animal is now as solidly fixed to the 
 table as if it were chained, though entirely sensible to pain, 
 and conscious of whatever goes on about it. We need not 
 go into all the details of his experiments — the dividing 
 of nerves, the dissecting out of arteries, the insertion of 
 cannulas, until finally "the whole front and sides of the 
 thorax are cut away and the right subclavian artery dis- 
 sected out and tied."* They are mentioned only to show 
 that animals, twenty-five or thirty in number, may be slowly 
 dissected alive without anaesthetics ; that their death under 
 curare may be accompanied, as Claude Bernard puts it, "by 
 sufferings the most atrocious the imagination of man can 
 conceive;" that all this may be done by one of the paid 
 servants of the United States, and yet the Medical Society 
 of the District of Columbia can soberly assure Congress that 
 "as a matter of fact, anaesthetics are habitually administered 
 
 * American Jour. Med. Sciences, April, 1887. 
 
i6 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 in experiments which involve an amount of pain zvorthy of 
 consideration r No wonder an EngHsh experimenter once 
 declared that "anaesthetics do more to lull public opinion 
 than to mitigate animal suffering. "''' 
 
 And now, why was the truth concealed from Congress 
 in this matter of anaesthetics? If, in so much of animal 
 experimentation it is impossible to give complete immunity 
 from pain, why was not the fact admitted? The reason 
 is not difficult to guess. To admit that in a vast num- 
 ber of cases the practice of vivisection as carried on to-day 
 necessarily implies torment, would be to admit the reason- 
 ableness of some measure of State inspection and control. 
 Might not that admission be avoided? In one way only. 
 With juggling of words it might be possible to conceal the 
 truth. Unfortunately for the true interests of Science and 
 for the honor of those who assume to speak in her behalf, 
 that course of equivocation was followed out. 
 
 * In her statement before the Senate Committee, February 21, igoo, 
 Dr. Mary Putnam Jacobi furnished an additional illustration of the 
 baneful influence of vivisection upon the sense of accuracy and the 
 capacity for stating facts. Referring to the writer she says : 
 
 " He does not seem to know as much about the dormitive powers 
 of opium as did the doctors of Moliere, and severely condemns 
 Dr. Beyer for an experiment on artificial respiration, because mor- 
 phine was employed instead of ether or chloroform." 
 
 A lady with the experience in vivisection which Dr. Jacobi has 
 enjoyed must know perfectly well that (as Claude Bernard has shown 
 in his "Lemons de Physiologic operatoire," p. 115) morphia is not 
 a true anaesthetic, whatever might have been the opinion of Moliere's 
 physicians two hundred years ago ; that the above reference to Beyer's 
 vivisections was to illustrate the use of curare, not morphia ; that Beyer 
 did not make "an experiment on artificial respiration," but thirty to 
 forty experiments on different animals by exposing and isolating the 
 heart; that the "whole front and sides" of a dog's chest are never 
 "cutaway" simply "for an experiment on artificial respiration," 
 and that the above criticism is directed not to cruelty but to false- 
 hood. 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 17 
 
 III. Is there any Cruelty in Vivisection? 
 
 Within the past hundred years the ethical ideals of 
 civilization have so far advanced that cruelty to animals, 
 so long a matter of indifference, is to-day regarded as the 
 manifestation of depravity and vice. To the charge of 
 cruelty, therefore, the American vivisector is justly sensi- 
 tive; and his sensitiveness finds frequent expression in the 
 various memorials made to Congress. Thus the Medical 
 Society of the District of Columbia states with some 
 caution that ''so far as we know no evidence has been 
 adduced that crnel and unnecessary experiments are being 
 performed in this District." One can not withhold admira- 
 tion for the diplomacy which does not deny the fact, but 
 only the lack of evidence pertaining to the present time and 
 present place. The Chemical Society of Washington 
 declares that those who ask for legislation have not been 
 able ''to show a single instance of cruel experiments con- 
 ducted in the District of Columbia" (p. 138). The Ento- 
 mological Society of Washington affirms that it knows of 
 "no cruel experiments which have ever been performed in 
 the District of Columbia by any of our colleagues," what- 
 ever that may mean. And, finally, the Association of 
 American Physicians^ in a memorial to which are attached 
 the names of the leading vivisectors of America, asserts 
 that "we have been unable to learn that there has been 
 a single instance in which abuse has been made of the 
 practice of animal experimentation in the Government 
 laboratories, the medical schools, or the universities of 
 the District of Columbia" (p. 136). 
 
 Are these statements true? They would not be equivo- 
 cations if in some sense they were not the truth. To 
 the average man they appear to deny in the most emphatic 
 manner the implication that any cruel experimentation ever 
 
i8 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 occurred in the District of Columbia. Wherein lies the pos- 
 sibility of equivocation? In the definition of the word 
 "cruelty." That word has one meaning for the general 
 ixiblic, but an entirely different significance for the vivisec- 
 tor. It is very easy to assert, as these societies have done, 
 that no cruel experiments occur in the District of Columbia, 
 simply because as cruelty is defined by the professional vivi- 
 sector, it is practically impossible for him to perform a cruel 
 experiment. 
 
 Let us study a case of what a man of unscientific train- 
 ing might naturally be inclined to stigmatize as a cruel 
 experiment. Suppose that a member of the National 
 Academy of Sciences desires scientifically to test the 
 strength of maternal solicitude and aifection in a dog. For 
 this purpose he chooses a little spaniel, which for the first 
 time has become a mother. Is it possible to make the 
 animal forget her offspring? In the seclusion of his Wash- 
 ington laboratory he applies in the most scientific manner 
 every known method of inducing extreme agony — lacerating 
 the flesh, irritating the nerves — and yet in spite of every 
 torture inflicted^ the creature continues to manifest maternal 
 solicitude. Is there no way to increase its physical tor- 
 ment, and at the same time, to touch the intelligence with 
 despair ? As a final resource he cuts off its breasts, so that 
 it can no longer nurse its offspring; and yet, wonderful 
 to relate, the mother-love persists; and the little animal, 
 dying in an agony which it cannot comprehend, unceasingly 
 licks its young! Perhaps you fancy that such an experi- 
 ment never occurred. You are wrong. That well-known 
 scientist, Professor Goltz, of Strasburg, tells us that it 
 was ''marvelous and astonishing" to find that a dog which 
 had served for some seven experiments, whose hind quar- 
 ters were completely paralyzed and whose breasts he had 
 cut off, was still capable of maternal anxiety and love; 
 "she unceasingly licked the living and the dead puppy, 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 19 
 
 and treated the living puppy with the same tenderness that 
 an uninjured dog would manifest."* 
 
 Or suppose some Washington vivisector in one of the 
 Government laboratories desires, out of scientific curiosity, 
 to repeat the atrocious and perfectly useless experiments 
 of that distinguished scientist. Professor Mantegazza. His 
 problem was to create intense pain and at the same time to 
 compel the creature to keep motionless in an attitude that 
 would not interfere with its breathing. The ingenious 
 scientist devised two methods of accomplishing his end, 
 "either by exasperating the pain, so that its influence over- 
 came the action of the muscles of motion, or by planting 
 sharp and numerous nails through the soles of the feet in 
 such a way as to render the animal nearly motionless, 
 because in every moment it would have felt its torment the 
 more acutely." To exasperate the pain he invented a 
 machine, which he aptly called "a tormentor." With it, he 
 explains, "I can take an ear or a paw and, by turning the 
 handle, squeeze it beneath the teeth of pincers. I can lift the 
 animal by the suffering part. I can tear it or crush it in 
 all sorts of ways." One experiment was on a guinea pig 
 nursing its young. A rabbit, after two hours' torment and 
 a few moments' rest, has nails stuck into its feet in such a 
 way that "a pain much more intense" than in some previous 
 experiment is produced. Two little creatures are subjected 
 for two hours to the tormentor, then "larded with long, thin 
 nails in their limbs." They "suflfer horribly, and, shut up 
 in the machine for two hours more, they rush against each 
 other and, not having the strength to bite, remain interlaced, 
 with mouths open, screaming and groaning."t 
 
 All these experiments, extending over a year, were con- 
 ducted, he tells us, not with repugnance, not with dislike, 
 but ''con niulto amore''— with extreme delight. We do not 
 
 ^Pfluger's Archives, Vol. IX, p. 564. 
 
 f Fisiologia del Dolore, di Paulo Mantegazza, pp. loi, 106, 107, etc. 
 
20 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 21 
 
 mention these experiments as examples of the average 
 investigations going on in laboratories ; doubtless they are 
 extreme instances. The point we desire to make emphatic is 
 this : if such experiments as these of Mantegazza and Goltz 
 can be performed to-day in Washington laboratories, free 
 from any restriction or criticism of any sort; and if, not- 
 withstanding their daily performance, the men at the head 
 of the various vivisecting laboratories could sign memorials ^ 
 to Congress, asserting that ''so far as we know, no cruel 
 experiments have ever been made in this District ;" if all this 
 is possible, then all these denials of cruelty— of cruelty 
 as the world understands it— are absolutely valueless. For 
 certainly if these experiments are not cruel, there is no 
 cruelty in scientific research. 
 
 Well, in the first place, just such experiments are entirely 
 possible in any of the Government laboratories of Wash- 
 ington, if, in "the opinion of the scientific vivisector at 
 the head of such laboratory, they are "properly conducted." 
 The only law applicable to such experimentation is the act 
 of February 13, 1885 (23 Stat., 302), which says: 
 
 Sec. 15. Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to pro- 
 hibit or interfere with any properly conducted scientific experiments or 
 investigation, which experiment shall be performed only under the 
 authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated medical col- 
 lege, university, or scientific society. 
 
 What is there in this law that would prevent, in Washing- 
 ton laboratories, any number of repetitions of the experi- 
 ments of Mantegazza and Goltz? Mantegazza has for some 
 time contemplated a visit to this country. Is there a vivi- 
 sector in Washington who dares to put himself on record 
 that, according to the ethics of the laboratory, this physiol- 
 ogist's investigations were ''improperly conducted?" 
 
 Secondly, the "cruelty" of such experiments could be 
 denied. One of the leading scientific societies of Washing- 
 ton defines cruel experiments as those in which "there is an 
 unjustifiable infliction of pain." What, to a vivisector, is an 
 
 unjustifiable infliction of pain? It is the infliction of more 
 pain than is necessary for the success of the experiment. 
 "Cruelty" as defined by six vivisectors of Harvard Uni- 
 versity, "is the intentional infliction of unnecessary pam." 
 But who is to judge how much or how little pain is "neces- 
 sary^" Who is to decide whether the subjection of the 
 animal to prolonged torture is of the slightest value ? Who, 
 according to the scientific societies of Washington, should be 
 the supreme and only judge of the vivisector? The vivi- 
 sector himself I 
 
 You sav that this is impossible? You can not believe 
 that any scientific society would so juggle with a question 
 of right or wrong as to make the morality of an act depend 
 solely on inclination of the person who does it? Incredible 
 as it may seem, that is precisely what has been done, and 
 that position constitutes to-day the principal difference 
 between the American Humane Association and the vari- 
 ous scientific societies of the United States. We say that 
 Congress should by law stamp its disapproval of wanton and 
 infamous experiments such as those of Mantegazza and 
 Goltz "No," sav the advocates of free vivisection, let the 
 vivisectors alone decide what they may do." In the report to 
 Congress from which quotation has been made, there appears 
 a statement signed by the leading vivisectors of the United 
 States "As to whether or no, under given circumstances 
 of research or teaching, an experiment involving pain should 
 be performed, is a matter which should rest with the respon- 
 sible expert bv whom, or under whose direction, the thing 
 zvonld be don? (p. 60). To that declaration of a vivisec- 
 tor's right to be above all criticism or control, we find the 
 names of Daniel E. Salmon, of Charles Wardell Stiles, of 
 Surgeon-General Sternberg. "We believe that those 
 engaged in scientific investigation are the best judges of the 
 necessity for experiments made by them, ... and of 
 the methods to be employed," says the Philosophical 
 
22 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 23 
 
 Society of Washington (p. 133). What is this but to 
 justify the above experiments of Mantegazza and Goltz? 
 
 The joint commission of the scientific societies of Wash- 
 ington affirm that those engaged in vivisection investigations 
 ''are the best judges of the character of experiments 
 required, and of the necessity for using anccsthetics" (p. 130) . 
 The reader is horrified, perhaps, at some of the experi- 
 ments herein described; but we have only touched the 
 outer edge of the infamy which stains the record of so- 
 called scientific research. Yet it is all permitted, sanctioned, 
 ■ and approved by the scientific societies of Washington, if 
 only it is done by a scientific vivisector ! According to the 
 new ideal of scientific morality, the only person in this 
 universe who has the right to say whether any vivisection 
 is right or wrong, cruel or otherwise, is the man who per- 
 forms it ! "Unnecessary and offensive in the highest degree 
 would it be ... to attempt to dictate or control how, 
 and by whom, and for what purposes and under what condi- 
 tions . . . experiments shall be made'' (p. 135). To 
 that horrible sentiment, unanimously approved by one of' 
 the great associations of professional vivisectors and their 
 friends, is attached the name of Surgeon-General Sternberg. 
 And now, if opportunity existed, we should like to ask 
 Members of Congress if they distinctly understood that all 
 this denial of cruelty in the laboratories of the District of 
 Columbia, so earnestly made, so solemnly asserted, was put 
 forth with the mental reservation that nothing a vivisector 
 might do would ever be "cruel" unless he called it so him- 
 self ? Did you fancy that hidden in high-sounding phrase- 
 ology was the claim that the vivisector alone is qualified to 
 pronounce upon the moral quality of his own actions ? Of 
 what value are all their denials of cruelty? Sanchez shall 
 tell us : ''A man may szvear that he never did such a thing, 
 though he actually did it, . . . zvhile the zvords that he 
 employs have no such sense as would discover his meaning" 
 
 II 
 
 IV. Is the Utility of Vivisection E^faggerated? 
 
 Notwithstanding the opinion of that eminent surgeon, 
 Lawson Tait, of England, that "nothing whatever has been 
 gained by vivisection,"* it has always seemed to us more 
 probable that in certain directions, vivisection within limi- 
 tations is sometimes of such practical and potential utility 
 as to justify its use. But in their eagerness to prevent the 
 slightest degree of Government supervision in the District 
 of Columbia, is it true that certain scientists have made 
 claims of usefulness far beyond the actual truth? One sees 
 nothing of the kind in European countries. There, the 
 idea of utility to humanity as a reason for vivisection is 
 laughed at. Says Professor Hermann, of Zurich Univer- 
 sity : "The advancement of knowledge, and not utility to 
 medicine, is the true and straightforward object of all vivi- 
 section. Science can afford to despise this justification with 
 which vivisection has been defended in England," and he 
 might have added, "in the United States." But public senti- 
 ment in this country at present will not sanction the torment 
 of animals unless behind it is the claim of utility or benefit 
 to humanity. Has this claim been pushed, even by men 
 of scientific training, beyond the limits of scientific truth? 
 To those unacquainted with medical phraseology it is diffi- 
 
 *The late Prof. Lawson Tait, F.R.C.S., one of the most brilliant 
 surgeons of this century, not only affirmed that vivisection was useless, 
 but also declared that it led to erroneous conclusions. In a letter to 
 the Birmingham Daily Post, Dec. 12, 1884, he says : 
 
 *'Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the 
 belief that by vivisection had been obtained almost every important 
 fact in physiology, and that many of our most valued means of saving 
 life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the 
 lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concern- 
 ing the art of surgery ; and not only do I believe that vivisection has 
 not helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him 
 astray." 
 
\ 
 
 24 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 cult to make evident such exaggeration; but the task at 
 least shall be attempted. 
 
 Perhaps the most imposing array of names attached to 
 any memorial to Congress in regard to vivisection is that 
 of the AssociATiox of American Physicians, a body 
 which embraces in its membership, as before pointed out, 
 some of the best known experts in vivisection in the 
 United States. There, in company with leading physicians, 
 are professors and teachers from every quarter ; and experi- 
 menters such as Sternberg and Vaughan, Meltzer and Flex- 
 ner, Ernst and Councilman, Adami and Wood, lift in unison 
 their protesting voices against any hindrance to their 
 methods or any supervision of their work. They are men 
 of science, trained in the exactitude which science is sup- 
 posed to instill. What do they tell us of the benefits which 
 have resulted from vivisection during recent years? We 
 may be sure in so important a document nothing has been 
 omitted which by any possibility could be claimed. 
 
 "To mention only a few of the results obtained within recent years 
 by animal experimentation, attention is called to the discoveries which 
 have revolutionized surgical practice by the introduction of antiseptic 
 methods of treatment, which have rendered infrequent the occurrence 
 of childbed fever, which have made it possible to prevent the develop- 
 ment of hydrophobia after the bite of rabid animals, which have fur- 
 nished an efficacious method of cure of the otherwise incurable 
 disease, myxoedema, and which, by the antitoxin treatment, have 
 greatly lessened the fatality of diphtheria" (p. 135). 
 
 Now, admitting that experimentation has helped to teach 
 surgery the infinite importance of the exclusion of germs 
 by the most absolute cleanliness; and that in other direc- 
 tions, along lines of experimentation in nowise prevented by 
 the limited regulation which we advocate, experiments 
 are throwing light on other matters — admitting all this, — 
 are the claims here made supported by facts? It may 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 25 
 
 be questioned. Here in America we have no national 
 system of registration of deaths such as exists in every 
 other civilized country on the globe, and we can not 
 appeal to any national statistics of our own land. We may 
 be sure, however, that any improvement in way of medical 
 or surgical treatment wherever devised, is at once utilized 
 by the physicians and surgeons of Great Britain, and that if 
 such wonderful discoveries have been made as are claimed 
 above, we shall find evidence thereof in the annual reports 
 of English mortality. 
 
 I. Is it due to animal experimentation that results have 
 been obtained ''which have rendered infrequent the occur- 
 rence" of puerperal fever? The Association of American 
 Physicians so affirms. On the contrary, it can be proven : 
 
 (i) The basis of our knowledge concerning this disease 
 was due to observations in hospitals; and not to animal 
 experimentation. 
 
 (2) The disease is not yet ''infrequent," judging by the 
 statistics of a nation's mortality. 
 
 When the history of medical practice shall one day be 
 written, there is no page we would more willingly have 
 blotted out than that which relates to the causes and treat- 
 ment of this terrible scourge. It is not only that for twenty 
 centuries medical science was absolutely ignorant of the 
 principal cause of this malady, and that the treatment only 
 added to horror and increased mortality ; the tragedy is that 
 the physician himself was, in so many instances, the source 
 of infection. One shudders at the contemplation of the 
 slaughter that went on year after year in the great hospitals 
 of great cities, in Europe and America as well, while medi- 
 cal practitioners, instead of bringing assistance, were often 
 spreading the causes of death throughout a community. 
 
 To whom came the first glimmer of truth regarding the 
 causes and prevention of this scourge of maternity ? Was it 
 some Mantegazza, bending with delight over his crucified vie- 
 
 I 
 
26 
 
 Is Science Advanced bv Deceit f 
 
 tims ? Was it a Goltz, watching agony mingled with maternal 
 love ? To none of these came the truth. It was to a young 
 man who, in 1847, was an assistant in the Lying-in Hospital 
 at Vienna, that medical science owes not only the first 
 teaching of the real facts, but, as Lusk puts it, "a large 
 part of what is now the current doctrine concerning the 
 nature and prevention of puerperal fever."* Because 
 Semmelweis pointed out that the awful scourge was due, 
 not to an "inscrutable and mysterious Providence," but to 
 the carelessness of physicians and their ignorance of the 
 necessity of surgical cleanliness, his discovery was received 
 with ridicule; he was hated and despised in his lifetime, 
 and he died, Lusk tells us, "with no other reward than the 
 scorn of his contemporaries." To-day justice is rendered 
 to his name; and although he did not see the whole truth, 
 although experimentation, acting upon his theory, has 
 broadened our knowledge in many directions, it was 
 primarily to his observations in hospitals, and not to any 
 researches in the laboratory, that the beginnings of all we 
 know regarding the methods of prevention were first 
 brought to light. 
 
 Nor is it yet scientifically true that puerperal fever is 
 "infrequent," if we test infrequency not by individual 
 experience or by the records of this or that hospital, but by 
 the mortality of an entire nation. When one considers 
 the terrible mortality which prevailed in the large lying-in 
 hospitals, up even to a quarter of a century ago, it would 
 be impossible that the recognition of the value of surgical 
 cleanliness should not make evident its influence in lessening 
 the disease. In Bellevue Hospital, New York, for example, 
 the rate of mortality from this disease in relation to con- 
 finements was, in 1872, more than one hundred times as 
 high as that which prevailed during the same year through- 
 
 *Lusk's Science and Art of Midwifery, pp. 653, 654. 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 27 
 
 out England and Wales.* The fact that such awful mor- 
 tality as this has been decreased gives no warrant for the 
 claim that the disease is now infrequent. What has been 
 the experience of England before and since the discoveries 
 to which the Association of American Physicians makes 
 allusion? 
 
 During thirteen years, from i860 to 1873, in England 
 and Wales the death rate of puerperal fever to each 10,000 
 births varied annually from 13 to 20, only once reaching 
 the highest figure. This was during the period long before 
 any knowledge of antisepsis. Coming to our own time, we 
 find that from 1883 to 1896, inclusive, when methods per- 
 taining to antiseptics were in full sway, there was but one 
 year in which the mortality rate from this cause was as low 
 as 20— the highest rate during the earlier period. The rate 
 for 1893 was twice as high as during any of the eight years, 
 1860-1863 and 1866-1869, and with but one exception, higher 
 than any time in thirty years. Even in 1896, the mortality 
 from puerperal fever was actually higher than at any time 
 during the period 1860-1873— a quarter of a century ago! 
 Let us compare four years of English experience.f 
 
 England. 
 
 Total births 
 
 Deaths from puerperal fever 
 
 Rate of mortality to each 10,000 
 births 
 
 1877. I 1878. 
 
 1,444 
 16 
 
 1,415 
 16 
 
 1892. 
 
 888,200 891,906 ' 897,957 
 
 2,356 
 
 26 
 
 1893. 
 
 914,542 
 3,023 
 
 33 
 
 *Lusk tells us that "in the year 1872 puerperal fever destroyed 28 
 women of 156 who were confined in the Bellevue Hospital" (p. 692), 
 or 18 per hundred of the women confined ! It was only 17 per 10,000 
 births in England, the same year, 1872. 
 
 f All English statistics quoted in this paper have been extracted 
 directly from the reports of the Registrar-General of births, marriages, 
 and deaths. None have been copied from other authorities. 
 
2^ 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 29 
 
 To check any possible source of error, let us compare the 
 foregoing facts with the statistics of London for the same 
 four years. 
 
 London. 
 
 1 
 1877. 1 1878. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Total births 
 
 Deaths from puerperal fever 
 
 Mortality rate per 10,000 births .. 
 
 128,092 129,765 
 221 195 
 17 15 
 
 132,328 
 
 347 
 A?6- 
 
 133,062 
 
 394 
 30 
 
 These statistics are peculiarly interesting and valuable. 
 Do they support in the slightest degree the assertion of 
 the Association of American Physicians — made without 
 a word of proof — that the occurrence of puerperal fever has 
 been ''rendered infrequent?" Are they not, on the contrary, 
 absolutely contradictory of that claim? Almost a double 
 death rate in a great nation and a great city, and yet the 
 assertion of infrequency? What, we may well ask, is the 
 use of a scientific association, — what is the value of its 
 testimony, if, when scientific facts are so easily accessible, 
 it can not tell us the truth? 
 
 2. Have recent experiments "made it possible to prevent 
 the development of hydrophobia after the bite of a rabid 
 animal?" 
 
 Taking all the facts into consideration, there is reason to 
 believe that in some cases a certain degree of real immunity 
 is produced, although the evidence is by no means sufficient 
 to release one from the duty of doubt. The failures are very 
 many; and the whole treatment is little more than an im- 
 mense experiment upon the human race, the results of which 
 are yet to be summed up. But what has this to do with the 
 bill before Congress? All such experimentation as that of 
 Pasteur is permitted by the proposed measure. And how 
 few of us remember the almost infinite rarity of hydro- 
 
 
 w 
 
 phobia as a cause of death compared with other causes 
 of mortality. Take an instance: in England and Wales 
 during the year 1896, and again during 1897, the deaths 
 reported by the Registrar-General as due to vaccination 
 were six times as many as those due to hydrophobia !* 
 
 3. We are told that experiments ''have furnished an 
 efficacious method of cure of the otherwise incurable disease, 
 myxoedema." Possibly this is true. But the disease is of 
 such exceeding rarity that it is not even described in any 
 but the most recent medical works, and there is nothing 
 in the bill before Congress that would have prevented the 
 alleged discovery. 
 
 4. And finally it is said that experimentation has led up 
 to the antitoxin treatment, which has "greatly lessened the 
 fatality of diphtheria." 
 
 If it took centuries of experience to determine the use- 
 lessness of the lancet and of other methods of treatment so 
 generally in vogue but a little time ago, it is not easy to 
 perceive how the value of this new method of treatment can 
 be absolutely determined until, after many years' trial, it 
 shall be seen that the actual mortality from this disease has 
 steadily decreased during a number of years in each country 
 where it is tried. All statistics based upon the number of 
 "cases" concerning an alleged remedy in which there is a 
 commercial interest, should be viewed, at least, with sus- 
 pended judgment. Says Dr. Herman of Brooklyn: "Until 
 antitoxin brings down the diphtheria death-rate to a point 
 
 * At the hearing before the Senate Committee at Washington, Feb. 
 21, 1900, Dr. Mary Putnam Jacobi seemed to think that this statement 
 of infrequency was hardly accurate. At the close of her remarks, the 
 Chairman, Senator Gallinger, inquired of her how long she has been 
 engaged in the practice of medicine? " Since 1872," was the answer. 
 '•And in that period, (nearly thirty years) how many cases of hydro- 
 phobia have you met with?" ''Why, I haven't seen any,'' was Mrs. 
 Jacobi's reply. The Chair made no comment. 
 
 « 
 
30 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 31 
 
 lower than it ever was before and keeps it at that point in 
 every place, it must be considered a failure."* 
 
 Now, no fact is more certain than that antitoxin has failed 
 to meet this test. In Boston, in Baltimore, in St. Louis, 
 in Philadelphia, — as Dr. Herman points out, — there were 
 years before the introduction of antitoxin during which the 
 mortality-rate, based upon population, was lower than dur- 
 ing other years since its use. In St. Petersburg, the deaths 
 were 2>7^ in 1893, and in 1897, after antitoxin was intro- 
 duced, the deaths from diphtheria rose to 1,905. The 
 antitoxin treatment in England, so far from lessening 
 the mortality of the disease, has been wholly unable to 
 prevent its vast increase. During five years (1877-1881, 
 inclusive) when antitoxin was wholly unknown, the deaths 
 from diphtheria to each million population of England and 
 Wales were iii, 140, 120, 109, and 121, or an average, 
 roughly, of about 120 per year. How was it after tiie mtro- 
 duction of antitoxin? The corresponding mortality for 
 1895 became 260, for 1896 it rose to 292, and in 1897 it 
 was 246— more than double the mortality of certain years 
 when antitoxin was unknown. The Registrar-General, 
 calling attention to the subject, says that with only two 
 exceptions "the death-rate referred to diphtheria alone in 
 i8p6 zms higher than in any previous year since 1861." 
 Even if we take the death-rates of diphtheria and croup 
 together, the mortality of 1896, the Registrar-General tells 
 us, has been exceeded only seven times in thirty-three years. 
 Let us glance for a moment at the actual number of deaths 
 from diphtheria and croup in London during two years in 
 which antitoxin has been in use (1895-96), and contrast the 
 mortality they exhibit with that which prevailed only a few 
 years ago, when it was entirely unknown. 
 
 *The failure of Antitoxin in the Treatment of Diphtheria," by J. 
 Edward Herman, M.D., p. 5. See Medical Record, May 27, 1899. 
 
 London^ England. — Deaths frorn diphtheria and croup., in periods of two 
 years., before and after the introduction of antitoxin. 
 
 t 
 
 
 1890. \ 1 891. 
 
 1- 
 
 \ 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 
 Deaths from Diphtheria 
 
 Deaths from Croup 
 
 1,382 
 505 
 
 331 
 
 1,433 2,350 
 
 2,664 
 136 
 
 599 
 
 Death-rate from Diphtheria, per 
 1,000,000 population 
 
 34l0 
 
 1 
 
 1 535 
 
 During the three years 1895, 1896 and 1897, when anti- 
 toxin was in use, the death-rate from diphtheria per 
 million population in the city of London was more than 
 three times as high as that which prevailed during seventeen 
 years from 1865 ^o 1881, inclusive. In figures like these 
 taken from Government reports, where is the conclusive 
 evidence of that vastly lessened fatality produced by anti- 
 toxin, which the Association of American Physicians 
 has claimed? Even granting that claim, the fact would 
 have no pertinency as an objection to the bill before 
 Congress, which distinctly permits all the experimen- 
 tation by which antitoxin was discovered. Not a single 
 discovery of any value to humanity, coming from any 
 physiological or pathological laboratory anywhere in the 
 world, during the past quarter of a century, would have 
 been prevented by the legislation that is asked for the 
 District of Columbia. Do the interests of scientific advance- 
 ment require the suppression of this truth? 
 
 In one sense that is the question to-day. All these exag- 
 gerations of utility, these petty evasions, these cunning 
 tricks of equivocation and suppressions of the truth, — can 
 we possibly regard them as an honor of science? Could 
 any more saddening disillusion come to those who love learn- 
 ing and who yet cherish faith in the honor of their fellow 
 men, than the conviction that scientists are given to paltering 
 with veracity; and that whenever personal interests are 
 touched, their word cannot be believed? 
 
 I 
 
.•r*„v.-.;-^-i 
 
 A <"^' 
 
 32 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit f 
 
 There is a sphere of activity, no doubt, where honor is 
 unknown. But above that lower world of fraud and pre- 
 tense, there must be a region of purer and diviner air, 
 where higher ideals are cherished, where truth is held sacred, 
 where falsehood is supremely scorned. If men of science 
 as a class have apparently been far too trustful of their 
 vivisecting brethren, too willing and eager to vouch for their 
 statements, it may be well that they learn by experience 
 the necessity — even here — for scientific doubt. Perhaps the 
 time is ripe for some new expression of the scientific 
 creed. We are quite sure that the great body of scientific 
 workers would therein protest as leading articles of faith, 
 that Science, rightly understood, means only the simple 
 truth; that intentional deception is always a dishonor; and 
 that the sacred cause of learning can never be permanently 
 advanced by exaggeration or deceit. 
 
 ■3f 
 
 Literature Concerning Vivisection 
 
 *>f-^- 
 
 Med 
 
 U V 
 
 icai 
 
 On 
 
 3inion^ ccHice 
 
 'CUU 
 
 ti. 
 
 isccti«)n 
 
 L>. 
 
 iirUu: 
 
 i iS ! iS ! m 
 
 S 
 
 cientific Cf)icaner\' 
 
 f); 
 
 \l Fa" 
 
 <_'Onfess 
 
 >i<',»iis ol a \"ivisectur 
 
 acts aDou 
 
 t \" 
 
 ,v'isec!]on. 
 
 S(at 
 
 e >iiDervision 
 
 Vi\'ist'Ction, 
 
 Dr. Tiieoplii 
 
 iu=. raiaii 
 
 ction, 
 
 Pi 
 
 1VS 
 
 sfiloy; 
 
 m (jiir 
 
 
 S( 
 
 ■ ) I' ! I <? 
 
 A Dangerous Idea!, 
 
 Tlic Brutalization of Childhood, 
 
 Shall Science do Murder? 
 
 per 
 
 rj o 7. e 
 
 "0\"i\C- 
 
 ,06 
 .08 
 
 .35 
 .08 
 
 .08 
 .08 
 .08 
 .06 
 
 ,10 
 
 .05 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 p 1 n 1 u n s c o 11 c e rn 1 11 g 
 
 Vivisection in Sciiools, 
 
 Abstract of Report 
 
 on 
 
 u' 1 s t; 
 
 D 
 
 ocs 
 
 s 
 
 cience need 
 
 Secrecv 
 
 \^, X I ^ / H III 
 
 Is til Ths 
 
 riH-nc 
 
 ' U >iUiU ), 
 
 RcDort of American Humane As 
 
 ation on 
 
 ivisectioii 1 
 
 n x\ r 
 
 nerica. 
 
 Human Vivisection, 
 
 science 
 
 a d V a n c e d h\ D c- c e i t ? 
 
 Some Mistakes of Scientists 
 
 P 
 
 e r CO; 
 
 12 
 
 ,20 
 
 .60 
 
 .08 
 .08 
 .08 
 .08 
 
 Animals' Rights ami 
 (Fifth Thousand; 
 
 ivi<t;ci!ori in 
 
 i( 
 
 .40 
 
 Til 
 
 ese prices include pnstaa'e. 
 
 :i\-ove 
 
 amp 
 
 .oiia! 
 
 Idet 
 
 s. etc 
 
 vv 
 
 :!i he 
 
 [t, do; 
 
 a (_: c 
 
 Add 
 
 ress 
 
 o' adures' 
 
 • r one 
 
 HUMANE LITERATURE COMMITTEE 
 
 AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCUlTIc 
 
 ! \ 
 
 T> 
 
 (J. iiox 2K, 
 
 Pk 
 
 oxir^ysi 
 
32 
 
 Is Science Advanced by Deceit? 
 
 There is a sphere of activity, no doubt, where honor Is 
 unknown. But above that lower world of fraud and pre- 
 tense, there must be a region of purer and diviner air, 
 where higher ideals are cherished, where truth is held sacred, 
 where falsehood is supremely scorned. If men of science 
 as a class have apparently been far too trustful of their 
 vivisecting brethren, too willing and eager to vouch for their 
 statements, it may be well that they learn by experience 
 the necessity — even here — for scientific doubt. Perhaps the 
 time is ripe for some new expression of the scientific 
 creed. We are quite sure that the great body of scientific 
 workers would therein protest as leading articles of faith, 
 that Science, rightly understood, means only the simple 
 truth; that intentional deception is always a dishonor; and 
 that the sacred cause of learning can never be permanently 
 advanced by exaggeration or deceit. 
 
 Literature Concerning Vivisection. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Medical Opinions concerning Vivisection, 
 
 Is Vivisection Painful ? - - - - 
 
 Scientific Chicanery: Does it Pay? - 
 
 Confessions of a Vivisector, - - . 
 
 Facts about Vivisection, - - _ _ 
 
 State Supervision of Vivisection, 
 
 Dr. Theophilus Parvin on Vivisection, 
 
 Physiology in our Public Schools, 
 
 A Dangerous Ideal, - - - . - 
 
 The Brutalization of Childhood, 
 
 Shall Science do Murder? - - - 
 
 Opinions concerning Vivisection in Schools, 
 
 Abstract of Report on Vivisection in America, 
 
 Does Science need Secrecy? (15th Thousand), 
 
 Report of American Humane Association on 
 
 Vivisection in America, - . - 
 Human Vivisection, - - - . - 
 Is Science advanced by Deceit ? - - 
 Some Mistakes of Scientists, - - - 
 Animals' Rights and Vivisection in America, 
 
 (Fifth Thousand), ----- '« *♦ ^q 
 
 These prices include postage. A single copy of all the above 
 pamphlets, etc., will be sent, postage paid, to any address for one 
 dollar. Address : 
 
 HUMANE LITERATURE COMMITTEE, 
 
 AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, 
 
 P. O. Box 215, 
 
 Providence, R. I. 
 
 per dozen copies, $ .06 
 
 (( (( ( 
 
 .08 
 
 t ( i ( t 
 
 .35 
 
 t ( (i ( 
 
 .08 
 
 U (( ( 
 
 .08 
 
 (( tt ( 
 
 .08 
 
 1 ( (( i 
 
 .08 
 
 i i ( ( ( 
 
 .06 
 
 (( (( t 
 
 .10 
 
 ( t (( ( 
 
 .05 
 
 .{ (( t 
 
 ' .12 
 
 ( ( (( ( 
 
 .12 
 
 t ( (k ( 
 
 .20 
 
 (( i ( ( 
 
 .60 
 
 per copy. 
 
 .08 
 
 (( i( 
 
 .08 
 
 t( (( 
 
 .08 
 
 (( i ( 
 
 .08 
 
HUMANE LITERATURE. 
 
 -♦♦♦- 
 
 The American Humane Association was organized in 1877, for the 
 purpose of promoting unity and concert of action among the American 
 societies, having for their object the prevention of Cruelty to children and 
 animals. For twenty-three years it has endeavored to carry out this 
 purpose, principally through deliberative conventions, held annually in 
 various cities throughout the Union, and in Canada. At the meeting of 
 the Association in Washington, D. C, in December, 1898, it was decided 
 somewhat to enlarge its field of activity, and to make the Association more 
 of an Educational force in awakening public sentiment to the need of 
 various reforms. 
 
 One of the methods through which the American Humane Association 
 will aim to accomplish this purpose is by the systematic distribution of 
 Humane Literature. So far as funds permit, it proposes to promulgate 
 the ideals of humane conduct in every direction where necessity exists. 
 Among the subjects regarding which it would seek more thoroughly to 
 arouse public sentiment are the abuses connected with the treatment of 
 domestic animals ; the transportation of cattle and their slaughter for food; 
 the extermination of birds for the demands of fashion ; the cruelties of 
 "sport" ; the abuses of vivisection when carried on, as now, without State 
 supervision or control ; the cruelties pertaining to child-life, and above all, 
 the great and growing abomination of Human Vivisection, in the subjec- 
 tion of children and others to scientific experimentation. 
 
 The extent to which this work can be carried out will depend upon the 
 assistance received. All interested are urgently solicited to contribute 
 towards this object. Every dollar so contributed will be devoted wholly 
 to the publication and dissemination of Humane Literature. Should 
 subscribers desire their contributions to be especially devoted to any one 
 of the above lines of this humanitarian work, their preferences will be 
 
 observed. 
 
 Francis H. Rowley, D.D., 
 
 Treas. Humane Literature Committee, 
 No. 163 Winter Street, 
 
 Fall River, Mass.