Animal Rights History »» Albert Leffingwell
| ||||||
|
CHAPTER II. VIVISECTION IN AMERICAN COLLEGES. THUS far we have examined the question of unrestricted experimentation as a method of medical instruction. That it would be confined to this purpose no attentive observer of the modern scientific spirit could for a moment believe. Once let it be granted that sentient creatures may be subjected to any degree of pain for the simple illustration of well-known facts, and it is certainly difficult to say why the practice should not be so extended as to gratify the scientific curiosity of anyone who desires seriously to investigate the phenomena of life. Within the past few years a new aspiration has become prominent—the wish to penetrate to the very heart of Nature, and to pluck from thence each mystery which there lies hidden. Since for the future, one of the chief aims of scientific endeavour is to wrest from unwilling Nature her secret thought, we could have known for certainty, years ago, that this idea would not be confined within the walls of the medical school. That which any careful observer of recent tendencies in thought might have foreseen, has actually occurred. Spurred by competitive rivalry into provision for the most advanced courses of instruction ; hindered by no strong public sentiment, which should demand the least safeguard against danger or abuse, nearly every great educational institution of America is widening the opportunity for its young men and young women to investigate the phenomena of living things,—not as an adjunct to professional study, but merely as a phase of that scientific training which in future is to form a part of a liberal education. The change has been gradual and unobtrusive. In the printed catalogues of colleges we may find little note of the study of physiology ; that, to-day, is merely a department of Biology, which includes within its scope not only the functions, but also the structure and development of all living creatures. The American university of to-day has no thought of fashioning itself after the ancient models of Oxford and Cambridge ; its ideals are found rather in Germany or France. No American college at present reckons itself completely equipped without its biological laboratory and its staff of instructors, conversant with newest methods of foreign investigation.
Nor is the modern aim simply to teach students the gathered facts of previous inquiries. The new ideal would inspire students, not to believe, but to investigate.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY.—
YALE UNIVERSITY ; COURSE 128.—
WILLIAMS COLLEGE.—
TUFTS COLLEGE.—
PRINCETON (COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY).—
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.—
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER.—
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY.—(Physiology.)
CORNELL UNIVERSITY.—
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.—
LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY (California).—
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.— This is by no means a complete list, but it serves as a fair illustration of the position attained to–day by that spirit of scientific inquiry, which, within a quarter of a century, step by step, has conquered its way into dominant ascendency over the old and long–established ideals of collegiate training. In regard to most of the group of sciences included
under the name of Biology, to the study of organization, of tissue and development, there is no question of their vast importance and value. But the complete study of animal functions introduces the young student to another phase of investigation—"the observation of pain". One may indeed learn all the truths of Physiology without this experience ; but he must then be willing to accept facts upon others' testimony ; and the new scientific spirit insists that personal investigation must supersede belief. For example, you may learn perfectly each and all of the functions of the nervous system, by the careful study of recorded facts. But suppose you demand that the recorded fact shall be emphasized
I think this inquiry one of great importance. Here is no question of Let us make the question as definite as possible. One of the principal European experimenters to–day is Dr.
Simon Stricker, of Vienna. Not long since I was told by a professor in one of the leading medical colleges of New York, that he had himself witnessed the most horrible tortures conceivable inflicted by this man upon living monkeys,—animals specially selected because in their dying torments their facial expression became so like to human agony ! A European journal recently describes one of his class–demonstrations, wherein he destroys the spinal cord of a dog by thrusting a steel probe into the spinal column, producing, we may say, the most atrocious torture it is possible to conceive. The animal evinced its agony by fearful convulsions ; but it was permitted to utter no cry that might evoke sympathy, for previous to the demonstration its laryngeal nerves had been cut ! No vivisection could be more utterly unjustifiable or more fiendish in atrocity. And yet with entire and perfect good faith this demonstrator might have repeated the well–worn formula, that he was
Now for this same reason, merely as a method of teaching, what prevents that demonstration–experiment of Stricker from being regularly repeated before young men and young women in the leading colleges and universities of the United States? I am indebted to a distinguished member of the medical profession, Dr. Ballou, of Providence, R. I., for information which seems to me to afford a complete answer to this question. Desiring to ascertain whether any restrictions, hindering the use of torture as a means of illustration, had been imposed by those having control of our educational institutions, he wrote to the presidents of certain representative American colleges, asking them whether any regulations existed, defining or limiting the extent to which living animals might be subjected to painful experiment in the College laboratory. In nearly all cases the inquiry was accompanied by special reference to statements in the printed catalogue, and the correspondence therefore seems to have varied somewhat in phraseology, although the leading question was invariably the same. The following letter is fairly representative of this request for light :
The following extracts are from some of the replies he received. The italics are my own.
From REV. DR. TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
. . .
From CHARLES W. ELIOT, LL.D.,
From REV. DR. FRANCIS L. PATTON,
. . . or limited, so far as my knowledge goes, the extent to which living animals may be subjected to pain.
From JAMES R. DAY, D.D.,
. . .
From JAMES B. ANGELL, LL.D.,
. . .
From WILLIAM R. HARPER, Ph.D., D.D.,
. . .
REV. DR. CHARLES F. THWING.
. . .
From PRESIDENT CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL.D.,
. . .
From G. A. GATES, LL.D.,
. . . I should leave it to the judgment of the instructor, or else change instructors.
From HENRY WADE ROGERS, LL.D.,
. . .
From REV. DR. ELMER H. CAPEN,
. . . .
. . .
From FRANKLIN CARTER, Ph.D., L.L.D.,
We have not laid down any restrictions in our biological work, on our teachers. The principle in the College has always been in every department to trust the professor wholly, unless there seemed reason for distrust
. . .
The College has no rules or regulations on the subject of experiments in Biology.
. . . though we have to omit certain lines of research.
In a few instances the letter of inquiry was referred by the president of the college to the Professor of Biology. Some of the replies received from this source were as follows :
. . .
. . . "I think that the judgment of preceptors and of really advanced pupils should be trusted in such matters. . . .
. . . deem it necessary to exercise a censorship over them, either in the biological or any other department.
. . . I neither perform, nor allow any student to perform, any experiments involving vivisection in the laboratory. . . . In very simple physiological experiments, such as showing the circulation of the blood, I always etherize the animal thoroughly, and then use the time of complete insensibility preceding death for demonstration. 1
. . .
It is evident therefore that in the majority of American universities and colleges there are no restrictions governing or limiting the infliction of pain. The judgment of the professor is the only guide ; his wish, the only limitation. That which in England would be a crime, in America would not be even the infraction of a college rule ! The freedom which prevails in the physiological laboratories at Vienna, Berlin, and Paris has quietly taken root in our American universities. One hesitates to believe that the atrocities of torture which have so often stained methods of research on the Continent have been duplicated in the physiological laboratories of any American college ; but the opportunity is there. As a method of teaching, no present impediment prevents their introduction at any time.
Nor is it reassuring to note the apparent unwillingness of teachers of Biology to have freedom of action limited by any restrictions hindering the infliction of prolonged or excruciating pain. This repugnance one might expect in medical schools ; but it is startling to find it in schools of science and art, where no plea of
highest type of conduct. What, for instance, would be thought of the president of a great and wealthy university who should proclaim that, as regards the expenditure of the treasurer, no restraints or restrictions were ever imposed ; that complete confidence in personal character took the place of all vouchers and receipts? What opinion should we hear of the college treasurer himself, who refused all demand for detailed statement of his accounts, as What may be done? The first step is to convince those who govern the policy of our institutions of learning that here, too, is need of judicious surveillance and control. I am not urging this from the stand–point of anti–vivisection. My only question is whether vivisection shall, or shall not be unrestricted by any rules, or surrounded by any precautions. If every American college were to adopt merely the restraints which characterize the statute law of England on this subject, the condition would be far better than the immunity that now prevails. Or, go yet a step farther. What consistent objection is there to a college regulation or law that should forbid altogether those laboratory experiments or demonstrations which cause the infliction of any pain beyond that incident to the most humane method of taking life? At
Hamilton College, New York, no experiments are made upon conscious animals. At Cornell University
We are almost at the beginning of the twentieth century. Civilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve, new dangers to confront, new hopes to realize. It is useless to deny the increasing ascendancy of that spirit which in regard to the problems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but continues its search for solution ; useless to shut our eyes to its influence upon those beliefs which for many ages have anchored human conduct to ethical ideals. Regret would be futile ; and here, perhaps, is no occasion for regret. I say But all real progress in civilization depends upon
man's ethical ideals. Infinite responsibility for the moral impetus of the next generation rests to-day on the shoulders of those who stand at the head of institutions of learning wherein are created and fashioned the aspirations of young men. What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to assume in coming years ? What are the ideals held up before American students in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to fire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and similar success? Is it Richet, These men, it is true, Science counts among her disciples.
They reached fame through great tribulation, through agony that never can be reckoned up, but it was not their own ; through Perchance the curiosity of Science will one day spend itself. The last evasive and evading mystery of Life may not be wrested from Nature by fire or steel. Then there may be names that Humanity will forget, or remember only to execrate. But whenever in time to come, men shall long to lessen in some way the awful sum of ache and anguish in the world, may they not rather turn for their inspiration to those ideal examples of self-sacrifice which still encourage us ; to Howard, risking life in prison and lazar–house, that by revelation of their infamy he might stir the conscience of Europe to the need of reform ; to Wilberforce and Clarkson, toiling amid obloquy and abuse for more than twenty years to put down the African slave–trade ; to Garrison, waging war for thirty years that he might help to free America from the stain of human bondage ; to Shaftesbury, confronting the organized greed of England in his effort to protect children in coal mines and factories ; to Arnold Toynbee, making his home amid the squalor and wretchedness of Whitechapel, that he might know by hard experience the bitterness of life for the London poor. Are not these better examples for the emulation of youth than those devotees of research whose pitilessness is their supreme title to the remembrance of posterity? Surely, they would whisper to us, if they could, from their eternal serenity, that the right path to the world's amelioration is not by way of torture ; that our closing century will not see the end of great opportunities for helpful work ; that while poverty, war, preventable disease and unmerited suffering yet afflict the world, it will not cease to need the sympathy, the devotion, and the self–sacrifice of earnest souls.
p149-1
p158-1 What test of "worth" would Rev. Dr. Thwing apply ? Professor Gad, of Berlin, obtained a year's leave of absence during 1893-94 for the purpose of "regulating" the physiological courses of instruction at the Western Reserve University. If Professor Gad is "worthy," why might not Professor Stricker be regarded as worthy to succeed him as a teacher of foreign methods ? [158-1*back] p160-1 The question asked was not answered. [160-1*back]
p162-1
Shorlty after writing this letter Professor Tyler left for Europe, for the pupose of taking an advanced course in Biology at the University of Prague. Doubtless the apparent inconsistency of these two sentences arise from the omission of the word | ||||||
|
Albert Leffingwell, Vivisection in America, in Animals' Rights, Considered in Relation to Social Progress by Henry Salt ([First Edition of Vivisection in America New York & London, 1894; Online at Animal Rights History, 2002). Vivisection in America These pages are part of an ongoing effort to provide free online access to historical literature on animal rights, animal welfare and humanity against cruelty to animals. Quotes briefly introduce animal rights activists, animal welfare advocates and authors; the history of animal rights, animal welfare and animal protection; and the literature of the humane movement against cruelty to animals. Free Online Library—Complete Texts · Accessible Online · Free of Charge Links to primary source historical literature document the authenticity of quotations while providing more in-depth insight into the ideologies of the humane movement against cruelty to animals and additional historical perspective on the continuing struggle for animal rights, animal welfare and the protection of animals. | ||||||
|
[Home] [Top of Page]
| ||||||