CHAPTER X

THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION

In the year 1906, a Royal Commission was appointed by King Edward to investigate the practice of animal experimentation. Thirty years had passed since the appearance of the earlier inquiry, upon which was based the English law regulating the practice of such experiments. On the one hand, it had been denounced as affording most inadequate protection to animals liable to such exploitation; on the other hand, in the United States it had been condemned as a hindrance to scientific progress, and a warning against any similar legislation. A new Commission was therefore appointed to inquire into the practice, to take evidence, and to report what changes, if any, in the existing statute might seem advisable.

The composition of the new Commission leaned heavily toward the laboratory. It included no opponent to all vivisection. On the other hand, three of the Commissioners at one time or another had held a licence to vivisect, and one of them seems to have held this permission for some fourteen years. The Commission also included among its members the permanent Under-Secretary to the Government--an official whose acts had again and again been arraigned, and were soon to be challenged once more. The unusual spectacle was therefore to be presented of men sitting in judgment upon themselves. One of the Commissioners--Dr. George Wilson, well known for his work regarding the public health--had at various times questioned the conclusions of certain experimenters, but he was not opposed to all research upon animal life. From a Commission so constituted, we might have expected as the final result of their labours a report favourable to the interests of the laboratory, to marked modifications of the existing law by a lessened stringency of inspection, to relaxation of restrictions, and to an endorsement of every claim of utility which the experimenters should put forth.

Such an outcome of the deliberations of the Royal Commission must have seemed to American vivisectors almost a certainty. During the past twenty years, repeated attempts have been made in New York, in Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, and in the city of Washington, to obtain some legislation regulating the practice of animal experimentation to the extent which obtains in England. At "hearings" before various legislative and Senate Committees, all such attempts have been vigorously combated by representatives and defenders of the physiological laboratories, and their strongest argument has always been the exceedingly detrimental effect of the English Act of 1876 both upon medical education and upon the progress of medical science. Professor Bowditch once said:

"The amount of mischief which may be produced by the English law depends very much on the good judgment of the Home Secretary.... In general, it may be said that the system of licensing and Government inspection is UNDER THE MOST FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS a source of serious annoyance to investigation."

We shall have reason hereafter to see the inaccuracy of this statement, so far as may be evinced by the opinions of English physiologists and teachers.

Upon the secrecy now maintained in English laboratories, a vivid light is thrown by the evidence given before the Commission. Quite as strong as in America have been the precautions taken in England to prevent any knowledge of the methods of vivisection from coming before the general public except through the assertions of the experimenters themselves. In America, where we have no legal limitations to experimentation, such secrecy occasions no surprise; but that in England the laboratory had secured so complete a degree of security from criticism by concealment of that which we are told needs no concealment gives reason for questionings. One of the Government inspectors--a Dr. Thane--insists that although a physiological laboratory is open to the visits of medical students at any time, it would hardly be possible to permit a similar privilege to physicians not in sympathy with experimentation. "I see no way of doing it," he declares. He does not seem to be certain that one of the Royal Commissioners before whom he was giving evidence could be admitted. Dr. George Wilson asks him the question in regard to seeing the various operations which are open to medical students. "I can go and see them? I suppose I would have no difficulty?" Dr. Thane's reply was by no means assuring. "I do not see how it could be done," he replied. He could not see how one of the most distinguished physicians of England could secure the legal right of admission to a physiological laboratory!

Some of the evidence given regarding this point seems a little suggestive of a willingness to mislead a thoughtless questioner. Was there any wish to give an impression that the secrecy of the laboratory did not exist? One of the Government inspectors--Sir James Russell--informed the Commissioners that HE never had any difficulty in getting into laboratories. "I simply walk into them, and have always found the doors open," as if that proved that there was nothing to be concealed. The professor of physiology at University College was particularly examined on this point. "Would there be any difficulty in a doctor who was very strongly opposed on all grounds to experiments on animals presenting his card and being present?" "None whatsoever," was the Professor's answer to his questioner, the Chairman of the Commission. "I want to see," added Lord Selby, "what sort of check there is upon the neglect of the statute; ... whether any medical man who disagreed with the Act and disagreed with vivisection altogether would be able to attend?" "In these advanced lectures there is no means by which we can prevent him from attending," was the instant reply. "In point of fact, are ANY steps taken with a view of preventing it?" "None whatever," was the reply. "There is NOTHING to prevent it?" persisted Lord Selby; and the reply of the professor was reiterated: "There is nothing to prevent the attendance of any medical man at these advanced lectures."

The distinguished jurist undoubtedly believed that by these repeated interrogations he had reached a complete denial of the secrecy of experimentation so far as the witness was concerned.

On the day following, the same professor of physiology continued his evidence, and another member of the Commission--A. J. Ram, Esq.--"one of our counsel learned in the law," took part in the examination. "One hears a good deal in lay papers and so forth about experiments conducted with closed doors. IS THERE ANYTHING OF THAT SORT AT ALL?" The very form of his inquiry would seem to indicate his disbelief in the practice of secret vivisection. His question, however, admitted of two different replies. The physiologist might assert the necessary seclusion of physiological experimentation, or he might construe the question in a literal sense as pertaining merely to the locking of his inner door. He preferred the latter course. "I have ever come across a laboratory where there were any closed doors. In my laboratory any student wanting to speak to me walks straight in. The door of my laboratory, where I do the chief part of my work, IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE PASSAGE."

This is very clever. The two leading lawyers of the Commission have sought to get at the truth concerning the secrecy of vivisection, and apparently are quite satisfied. But some hours later another member of the Commission, a plain Member of Parliament, without skill of fence or experience in the examination of witnesses, asks a question or two. "You have told us," said Mr. Tomkinson, "that any medical man, on presenting his card, can obtain admission at once to a laboratory?"

Here was an inquiry that could be answered but in one way. "No," replied the physiologist; "to the advanced physiological lectures which are given in the University of London." "NOT TO WITNESS ANY OPERATION?" "No; only to witness the demonstrations that are given in those lectures." "But might not the public be more satisfied if a layman--a Member of Parliament, for example--had the right of entry on presenting his card?" "Do you mean to the advanced lectures or to the laboratory?" "I mean to an operation IN THE LABORATORY: say a Member of Parliament or anyone whose position is assured?" "I should be only too pleased to see any Member of Parliament or any layman who had any doubt about it if he presented his card, but I SHOULD HAVE TO BE SATISFIED OF HIS BONA FIDES."

It is a pity that no one thought to ask the physiologist how he expected a Member of Parliament to prove his "good faith" before he could enter precincts open to every student of the University. Sir William Church came to his assistance by suggesting that the professor would admit anyone "vouched for" by a person whom you know, or whose position you know; but the curt monosyllabic reply was not indicative of a welcome, and it was quite different from the conditions which had just been laid down. The doors of the laboratory are "open," but only to those in whose silence and discretion the vivisector may trust.

A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to the alleged painfulness of vivisection. It is the great problem. If the absence of sensation were a certainty in all operations of the kind, there would be no reasonable objection to them, no matter to what extent they might be carried. The physiologists of the present day occupy a somewhat different attitude from those of half a century ago, or of yet later periods. Thirty years ago, one of the leading experimenters in England declared that he had "no regard at all" for the pain inflicted upon a vivisected animal; that he never used anaesthetics except when necessary for personal convenience; and that he had "no time, so to speak, for thinking what the animal will suffer." We find no such profession of indifference in the testimony of modern physiologists. What seems to take its place is, in many cases, a denial of the existence of pain in the experimentation of the present day. Does anything here turn upon a definition of words? A professor at King's College, London, giving his testimony, affirmed that "no student in England has EVER SEEN PAIN in an animal experiment"--a statement which in one sense everyone can accept, for who can say that he ever SAW a pain anywhere? Professor Starling, of the University College in London, declared that during his seventeen years of experimentation "on no occasion HAVE I EVER SEEN PAIN inflicted in any experiment on dog, cat, or rabbit in a physiological laboratory in this country." The experimenter is undoubtedly correct. Neither he nor anyone else in or out of a laboratory has ever "SEEN PAIN."

Some of Dr. Starling's testimony on the subject of pain is very curious. Pain, he tells the Commissioners, "would spoil the experiment," and "A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT WHICH IS PAINFUL IS THEREBY A BAD EXPERIMENT." He is asked whether "there are any operations performed under circumstances in which the animal is necessarily and intentionally sensitive to some pain?" Without any apparent hesitation he replied: "NO, NEVER." Surely this is a remarkable assertion. He is not speaking, so far as one can see, of his own laboratory, but of all the laboratories of the world. If, since the discovery of anaesthesia over sixty years ago, there has been painful physiological experimentation in England, in America, or on the Continent of Europe, IT HAS BEEN BAD EXPERIMENTATION. THE PAIN INFLICTED HAS SPOILED THEIR WORK. One may not be inclined to dispute this opinion, and yet be quite certain that some very eminent vivisectors in Europe and America would question its accuracy so far as their own work is concerned.

It is interesting to compare these assertions with the testimony given by another physiologist--Dr. Pembrey, the lecturer on physiology at Guy's Hospital in London. He tells the Commission that "a common- sense view should be taken of the question," and then makes a definite admission that by no means bears out the contention of the physiologist of University College. "I ADMIT," said Dr. Pembrey, "THAT I HAVE DONE PAINFUL EXPERIMENTS, and I am not ashamed of admitting it." He goes yet further, declaring that if you caused an animal to suffer extreme agony, the pain itself might be so severe as to render the creature unconscious. It is probable that the physiologist could not have foreseen the results of his candid admissions. When the Commission made their final report, they expressed unanimously the opinion that "to grant a licence to any person holding such views as those formerly expressed by Dr. Klein and as those entertained by Dr. Pembrey is calculated to create serious misgiving in the mind of the public."

Closely allied to this question is the problem of anaesthesia. Fifty years ago ether and chloroform were administered to animals very much as they were given to human beings undergoing operations in surgery. An animal returning to consciousness gave abundant evidence of its sensibility to suffering by its struggles and cries. The experimenter might try to believe that the pain was slight, but he never disputed its existence. To-day, all this is changed. As much or as little of the anaesthetic may be given as the vivisector desires, and yet he may declare that "ANAESTHETICS WERE USED," no matter how slight the degree of sensibility thus induced. It is a known fact that a dog is very susceptible to the action of chloroform, so that during its administration death frequently occurs. Sir Thornley Stoker, the President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, and for many years a teacher of science, testified before the Commission that a dog's heart is very weak and irregular, and susceptible to the poisonous influence of chloroform. Over and over again he expresses the doubts that arise concerning the administration of chloroform. "I fear that, particularly in the case of dogs, ANAESTHESIA IS NOT ALWAYS PUSHED TO A SUFFICIENT EXTENT, as these animals often die from the effects of the anaesthetic if given to a full extent.... I am never sure, if I give a dog chloroform, that I will not kill it.... THE ANAESTHESIA CANNOT BE COMPLETE if the dog lives as long as is necessary for some of these experiments." Even for one hour he believes it would be generally impossible to keep a dog alive under full anaesthesia. On the other hand, Dr. Starling declared that "there is no difficulty in keeping an animal alive as long as you like," and Sir Victor Horsley affirmed that one could keep a dog under chloroform "FOR A WEEK, if you only take the trouble."[1]

[1] See Minutes of Evidence, November 13, 1907, Q. 15,649.

The discrepancy here would seem insurmountable. May it not be more in appearance than in reality? One man tells me that arsenic is a poison, very liable to cause death. Another affirms that he has taken it for days in succession, and has experienced no unpleasant results. Both statements can be true, for they need not refer to the same amount. In the modern laboratory there is little danger that the animals will succumb to the effects of anaesthetic. Assuredly we may question the completeness of that insensibility which Sir Victor Horsley apparently declares may be maintained for a week.

The use of the substance known as CURARE, either alone or in connection with anaesthetics or narcotics, was naturally a subject of passing inquiry. So slight is the knowledge afforded by certain physiologists that it would almost seem that they were united in a "conspiracy of silence" regarding it; in neither of the last two editions of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is there more than a casual reference to the poison, and no reference to its origin. "What is it?" asked one of the Commissioners. "Is it an herb?" A brief account of the poison, in view of an ignorance so widespread, is not out of place.

Curare is the arrow-poison of certain tribes of South American Indians. It was first brought to the knowledge of Europeans by Sir Walter Raleigh on his return from a voyage to Guiana in 1595, over three centuries ago. Its actual composition, even at the present time, is unknown; it is probable that different tribes of savages have their special methods of preparing it. Some travellers claim that it consists only of a decoction of poisonous plants; others believe that with such substances are mixed the fangs of snakes, and certain species of poisonous ants, the whole compound being boiled down to the consistency of tar.

The action of the poison thus made is exceedingly rapid. Numerous experiments by different observers have demonstrated that it swiftly destroys the functions of the motor nerves of the body, leaving the sensory nerves unaffected to any extent. Claude Be'rnard, who made many experiments with curare, came to the same conclusion; it abolishes the power of motion, but has no effect upon the nerves of sensation. An American physiologist, Dr. Isaac Ott, tells us that it is able to render animals immovable "by a paralysis of motor nerves ,LEAVING SENSORY NERVES INTACT." Be'rnard asserts as a result of numerous experiments that in an animal poisoned with curare, "its intelligence, sensibility and will-power are not affected, but they lose the power of moving;" and that death, apparently so calm, "is accompanied by sufferings the most atrocious that the human imagination can conceive." Although it may seem to be a corpse without movement, and with every appearance of death, "sensibility and intelligence exist ... it hears and comprehends whatever goes on, and feels whatever painful impressions we may inflict." It is only within late years, and since the employment of curare has been denounced, that anyone has suggested any doubt of these physiological conclusions.

It has been found by physiologists that if the throat of a dog be severed and the windpipe exposed and artificial respiration kept up, all the functions of life may be greatly prolonged; and if curare be used, the creature does not die, although it feels. Supposing that morphia or chloroform be administered at the same time--is the animal, notwithstanding, conscious of pain? Professor Starling admitted in his evidence that if the anaesthetic passed off, the curarized animal would be unable to move or to show any sign of suffering; there would be no possibility of a dog whining or moaning; "it could not, under curare," he frankly admits. Dr. Thane, one of the Government inspectors of laboratories, gave interesting evidence on this point, in reply to questions of one of the Commissioners.

"What is the object of giving curare when you are going to give an anaesthetic?"

"The object of giving curare is to stop all reflex movements...."

"It would stop all struggling, would it not?"

"IT WOULD STOP ALL STRUGGLING."

"That is to say, it would put an end to the usual signs of the animal not being properly under anaesthesia?"

"That is so."

"And in that case the experimenter has to depend solely, not upon the attendant, but upon the accuracy of his apparatus? He cannot tell from looking at the animal, which is perfectly still, whether it is suffering or not?"

"If his apparatus breaks down, the animal will die of suffocation; it will not get air."

"Yes, it may die; but so long as it is alive, HE could not say, YOU could not say, I could not say--if I were present--that the animal was properly under anaesthesia, IF THERE WERE NO SIGNS BY WHICH YOU CAN TELL?"

"We could say the animal is respiring air which is charged with anaesthetic in sufficient quantity to keep it anaesthetized before we gave it curare."

"That is all you could say?"

"That is all we could say."[1]

[1] Evidence taken November 21, 1906.

And this pious opinion Dr. Thane reiterates to other questioners. It fails to satisfy except where faith is strong. "The curious thing to me," said Dr. George Wilson, "is that you or anyone else can say positively that an animal which cannot, by moving, give any indication that it is not completely anaesthetized during all this time that it is under a terribly severe operation does not suffer.... I cannot understand such a positive statement." And after Dr. Starling had admitted the impossibility of a dog, under curare, making any cry, Dr. Wilson rejoins: "THEN HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT IT SUFFERS NO PAIN? You may hope and believe, but how can you tell that during a prolonged and terrible experiment, the animal suffers no pain?" The only reply that the experimenter could give was a reiteration of faith in the working of the apparatus.

And here, for the present, the problem must be left. Its only answer is a guess. Yet it should be capable of a definite solution. Every year, in our great cities, it becomes necessary to put homeless dogs out of existence in some merciful way. It should be possible, by use of chloroform, to determine which theory is true. If, under proper circumstances, a dozen animals were made absolutely unconscious by the use of chloroform, as insensible as human being are made before a capital operation, so that the corneal reflex is abolished, could this degree of unconsciousness be maintained "as long as any experimenter desired"? Would it even be possible as a rule to keep them alive a week, yet completely anaesthetized? Or, on the contrary, would such animals be peculiarly liable to sudden death from the effects of the chloroform? One cannot doubt the possibility of laboratory anaesthesia being maintained indefinitely; but how is it with complex and full surgical anaesthesia? Until such appeal to science shall have been made in the presence of those who doubt, and are able to judge, the question cannot be regarded as settled. There are those who will believe that the older investigators were right; that the perfect insensibility to pain is not invariably attained in these cases; and that both in English and American laboratories the most hideous torments are sometimes inflicted upon man's most faithful servant and friend. Even Dr. Thane, the Government inspector, admitted that in making reports the inspector "never could determine which experiments were painless and which were painful."

The evidence given by experimenters was frequently very curious, and sometimes suggestive. Professor Starling, for example, testified that dogs exhibited no fright or fear at entering a vivisection chamber; there are no signs "that they have ANY IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SUFFER," said the physiologist; "that is a great consolation in dealing with animals, as compared with dealing with a man."[1] "GOING TO SUFFER" is a somewhat significant admission. He is asked whether the experimentation of to-day is more or less humanely conducted than it was before the Act of 1876; and instead of replying he tells the Commissioners that "there was very little work carried out before the Act; THERE WERE ONLY ONE OR TWO PHYSIOLOGISTS." Upon such ignorance of history comment is hardly necessary. We have heard much concerning a "wonderful discovery" of a Dr. Crile, the giving of morphia before a surgical operation, in order to quiet the apprehensions of the patients and so to prevent the occurrence of shock. Yet as long ago as 1906, Dr. Thane, a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, testified, upon the authority of a distinguished scientist, that such use of morphia before administration of anaesthetics "is often done in surgical operations." The attention of Sir Victor Horsley was called to the experiments of a Dr. Watson in America. Had he heard of them?

[1] Minutes of Evidence, Q. 3,885.

"Yes, I know of those experiments," was the reply.

"Were they, in your opinion, valuable experiments?"

"I cannot, at the moment, call to mind whether they revealed any new conditions. I should have to look them up again."

"Were they justifiable, in your opinion?"

"CERTAINLY," was Sir Victor Horsley's terse reply.

Yet, when the account of these experiments was first published, the British Medical Journal, in its editorial columns, thus commented upon them:

"The present pamphlet calls for our strongest reprobation as a record of the most wanton and stupidest cruelty we have ever seen chronicled under the guise of scientific experiments.... Apart from the utterly useless nature of the observations, so far as regards human pathology, there is a callous indifference shown in the description of the suffering of the poor brutes which is positively revolting.... WE TRUST THAT NO ONE, IN THE PROFESSION OR OUT OF IT, will be tempted by the fancy that these or such-like experiments are scientific or justifiable."

It will be seen that concerning Watson's most cruel vivisections Sir Victor Horsley was not in agreement with the British Medical Journal, the official organ of the Association of which, before the Commission, he appeared as the representative!

The final report of the Royal Commission occupies a volume. The long period over which the inquiry extended, the generally apparent desire to permit every phase of opinion to have a hearing, all tended toward views which, if not unanimous, at any rate indicated a desire to be fair. Taken as a whole, the evidence and the final decisions of the Commission constitute an important contribution to the literature of animal experimentation which has appeared during the present century.

The conclusions of the Commission are almost, yet not quite, unanimous. All of the eight members signed the final report, three of them, however, making their assent subject to a qualifying memorandum that in certain respects indicated a considerable divergence of opinion. The following are the conclusions of the Commission, the words in italics and parentheses being the qualifying additions of one of their number, Dr. George Wilson.

"Altogether, apart from the moral and ethical questions involved in the employment of experiments on living animals for scientific purposes, we are, after full consideration, inclined to think--

"1. That certain results, claimed from time to time have been proved by experiments upon living animals, and alleged to have been beneficial in preventing and curing disease, have, upon further investigation, been found to be fallacious or useless. (INDEED, THE FALLACIES AND FAILURES ARE, IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN SUCCESSFUL RESULTS.)

"2. That notwithstanding such failures, valuable knowledge has been acquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of disease, and that (SOME) methods for the prevention, cure, and treatment of certain diseases (OTHER THAN BACTERIAL), have resulted from experimental investigations upon living animals.

"3. That, as far as we can judge, it is highly improbable that, without experiments made upon animals, mankind would by now have been in possession of such knowledge.

"4. That in so far as disease has been successfully prevented, or its mortality reduced, suffering has been diminished in man and the lower animals.

"5. That there is ground for believing that similar methods of investigation, if pursued in the future, will be attended with similar results." (FAILURES PLENTIFUL ENOUGH STILL, BUT SUCCESSFUL RESULTS FEWER AND FEWER AS THE FIELD OF LEGITIMATE RESEARCH MUST BECOME GRADUALLY MORE AND MORE RESTRICTED.)

Other conclusions appear to be as follows:

"We strongly hold that limits should be placed to animal suffering in the search for physiological or pathological knowledge."

How far interference with experimentation should extend appears to have been a matter of divergent views. Five of the Commissioners took the following position:

"An Inspector should have the power to order the painless destruction of any animal which, having been the subject of any experiment, shows signs of obvious suffering or considerable pain, even though the object of the experiment may not have been obtained; and

"That in all cases in which, in the opinion of the experimenter, the animal is suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, it shall be his duty to cause painless death, even though the object of the experiment has not been attained."

Three of the Commissioners--Sir William J. Collins, M.D., Dr. George Wilson, and Colonel Lockwood--do not agree with this clause. They cannot approve of a rule which leaves to the discretion of the vivisector the right of keeping alive for an indefinite period, a suffering creature. They recommend that all observations, "likely to cause pain and suffering shall be conducted under adequate anaesthetics, skilfully and humanely administered, or if the nature of the investigation render this impracticable, then, that on the supervention of real or obvious suffering the animal shall be forthwith painlessly killed."

The Commission recommended that, in certain cases, immediate or special records or reports of results should be furnished by the experimenter. The three members just named agree with this, but would have such reports the rule, and not the exception. With this view I am personally in emphatic accord. Every experiment should have its complete record, available for publication if so desired.

That part of the final report which in certain respects is more valuable than all the rest, is the reservation memorandum of Dr. George Wilson, one of the Commissioners. He is not an anti- vivisectionist, for he agrees with the unanimous conclusion of his associates that "experiments upon animals, adequately safeguarded by laws faithfully administered, are morally justifiable." Regarding the practice as now carried on, he maintains the only scientific position, that which more inclines to doubt than to credulity. The assurances of witnesses, that in certain experimental operations no pain was inflicted, Dr. Wilson accepts "as opinions to which the greatest weight should be attached, and not as statements of absolute fact, so far as specific instances are concerned." That insensibility to pain is invariably maintained is by no means sure; "however confident the operator may be that he has abolished all pain, VIVISECTIONAL ANAESTHESIA, WITH ALL ITS VARIETIES OF AGENTS AND METHODS OF INDUCTION, CAN NEVER BE DIVESTED OF AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY."

What are we to say of the results, either to science or the art of healing, which modern vivisection has contributed? It is regarding this point that Dr. Wilson has brought together a mass of evidence of unquestionable value, in a field of inquiry peculiarly his own. For more than thirty years he had been a writer upon topics pertaining to the Public Health. One by one, in his memorandum, Dr. Wilson has examined the claims of vivisection regarding the chief forms of disease which have occupied the attention of experimenters--cancer, which still maintains its advance in fatality; tuberculosis, which began to decline in England more than forty years ago, before it was associated with experimentation; hydrophobia, diphtheria, tetanus, typhoid fever, snake-poison, sleeping-sickness, and certain animal ailments of an infectious character. What is his conclusion regarding all the claims of vastly increased potency of modern medicine over these powers of darkness and death? That experiments have been utterly valueless? No; some useful knowledge has been acquired, in certain directions. "But I still contend, and have endeavored to prove, that the useful results which have been claimed, or may still be claimed, HAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY OVER-ESTIMATED." And the final conclusion of this keen observer and lifelong student of medicine is this: "That experiments on animals, no matter with what prospective gain to humanity, are repellant to the ethical sense; and that those who persistently advocate them as beneficial to human or animal life MUST JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS BY RESULTS.... Even admitting that experiments on animals have contributed to the relief of human suffering, such measure of relief is infinitesimal compared with the pain which has been inflicted to secure it."

What changes to the existing law of England regarding animal experimentation, or in the administration of the Act, did this Commission recommend?

FIRST. AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS. "The inspectors should be sufficiently numerous and should have at their command ample time to afford to the public reasonable assurance that the law is faithfully administered."

SECOND. RESTRICTIONS IN THE USE OF CURARE. "We are all agreed, that if its use is to be permitted at all, an inspector, or some person nominated by the Secretary of State, should be present from the commencement of the experiment, who should satisfy himself that the animal is throughout the whole experiment and UNTIL ITS DEATH IN A STATE OF COMPLETE ANAESTHESIA."

This is a most remarkable recommendation. Can it imply anything else than distrust of the experimenter?

THIRD. "STRICTER PROVISIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF PITHING." The operation must be complete; performed only under an adequate anaesthetic; and by a licensed person when made on a warm-blooded animal.

FOURTH. "ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS REGULATING THE PAINLESS DESTRUCTION OF ANIMALS which show signs of suffering after the experiment."

To this recommendation and its suggested amendment by three of the Commissioners, reference has already been made.

FIFTH. "A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF SELECTING and in the constitution of the Advisory body to the Secretary of State."

SIXTH. "SPECIAL RECORDS BY EXPERIMENTERS IN CERTAIN CASES." On this point we have seen that three of the Commissioners went yet farther, and believed that in ALL cases of painful experiment--and, possibly, in all cases whatsoever, such reports should be made.

It is now upwards of thirty-five years since the Act regulating the practice of vivisection in England came into effect. During all that period, in the United States, the law has never ceased to be an object of misrepresentation and attack. Before Legislatures and Senate Committees, on the platform and in the press, by men of good reputation but associated with laboratory interests, the English law has been denounced as a hindrance to scientific progress and a warning against similar legislation in the United States. And yet nothing can be more evident that all these attacks were based upon ignorance and misstatement. We find a Royal Commission in England, composed almost entirely of scientific men, everyone of them favourable to animal experimentation, devoting years to an inquiry concerning not vivisection only, but the working of the law by which it is regulated. And the conclusions reached are in every respect opposed to the statements made by the laboratory interests here. THEY FULLY ENDORSE THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE REGULATION, WHICH EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA IS SO STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED. But this is not all. Every recommendation made for modification of the Act is in the direction of animal protection, and toward an increased stringency of the regulations relating to animal experimentation. In not a single instance was there recommendation that the regulations should be less stringent; not an instance in which it was suggested that privileges of the vivisector should be enlarged. That this should be the result of an inquiry in this twentieth century, extending over five years, is remarkable indeed. Perhaps there is no reason for surprise that all these conclusions of the Royal Commission were never made known to the American public by the periodicals of the day. Is it possible for anyone to believe that such conclusions would ever have been attained if the denunciations of State regulation of vivisection, proceeding from the American laboratory, had been grounded in truth?