chap12

Back to main

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 absorver of the modern scientific spirit could for a moment believe. Once let it be granted that sensient creatures may be subjected to any degree of pain for the simple illustration of well-known facts, that 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 endeavor 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 sentiemnt, 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 women to investigate for the phemonena 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 unobstrusive. 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. "Every encouragement is afforded to those who show aptitude for original research," is the frequently recorded promise to the young inquirer. Let us take a few representative American Colleges, and note some of the advantages they are offering to the student of to-day.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.-"Students working in the Physiology Laboratory study the various digestive and respiratory processes . . . and devote themselves to similar problems and processes.

"All the apparatus used in this laboratory is contrived and made expressly for it."-From "What Harvard College Is."-By F. Bolles, Sec'y.

YALE UNIVERSITY; COURSE 128.-"Huxley's Lessons in Elementary Physiology, with occasional lectures and illustrative experiments. . . . A course of lectures on Experimental Toxicology [*1] is open to students in the above course."

*1. "Toxicology: The science which treats of poisons."-WEBSTER.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE.-"Anatomy is studied only so far as it may be necessary to an intelligent discussion of Physiology. An effort is made to exhibit not only the results, but also the methods of physiological research. . . . The new Thompson Biological Laboratory is a large building of four stories. The laboratory is well equipped with . . . all the appliances for general and advanced work."

TUFTS COLLEGE.-"The work in Biology begins with the study of Physiology, which is required of all students in the Classical and Philosophical Courses. . . . Subjects are taught by lectures and by laboratory work, the object being to impart the scientific method, rather than a large number of unimportant facts(!).

"Provision is made for original investigations, and studends will be encouraged to continue their work in this department (Biology) by means of research on special problems."

PRINCETON (COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY).-"An advanced course in Biology has been established . . . the objects in view being (1) To foster a spirit of original research; (2) to qualify advanced students to become teachers. It is not restricted to students who are candidates for a degree, if they possess sufficient elementary knowledge, to profit by the instruction. These courses are of a comprehensive and elastic character, and . . . include much laboratory work under the direction of the instructor."

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.-"Biology is required in all the courses during the third term of the sophomore year. To students showing special aptness there is opportunity for continuous work along special lines."

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER.-"Instruction is given by means of laboratory work, lectures, and recitations, especial attention being igven to the first. . . . Physiology: Experiments performed by the students individually form a feature of the course. Honor Studies: Experimental work on digestion and on the functions of nerves. (Seniors.)"

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY.-(Physiology.) "The work consists of laboratory work, four hours a week, with weekly lectures upon comparative anatomy, amply illustrated by dissection and demonstrations."

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.-"In all the courses, laboratory work forms an integral part. With the general courses in Physiology and Zoölogy, one-third of the time devoted to the subject is occupied on laboratory work or demonstrations. In the advanced courses, laboratory work is proportionally much greater in amount."

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.-The courses in Physiology are arranged or those who intend to become physicians or dentists, those who propose to teach the subject, and those who contemplate making Biology a specialty. . . . In the laboratory, the student learns to use the apparatus and methods employed in ordinary physiological experiments. Advanced students are given an opportunity to begin research work. . . . The laboratories of the University are provided with the necessary facilities, not only for ordinary biological work, but for somewhat extended research, and every encouragement is given to the students, especially in the last year, to devote themselves to original investigatinos."

LELAND STANFORD JR. UNIVERSITY (California.)-"1. General Anatomy and Physiology: Laboratory work seven and one-half hours a week through the year. . . . The laboratory work will give occasion to discuss many question of general biology. 2. Animal Physiology: . . . Laboratory work five hours a week through the year. It includes an experimental course in Physiology, based upon Foster's 'Physiology' as the text. The Graduate Courses in Physiology and Histology will include the thorough study of some of the more recent treatises of various subjects in Histology and Physiology, iand a repetition of a sufficient number of experimental investigations to give a discipline in the methods of investigation. . . . Students in this department will occupy the latter portion of their coruses, mainly on some original research the subject of which is determined by previous training-and their inclinations."

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.-"Autumn Quarter (Assistant Professor Loeb): Original investigation in Physiology. Laboratory work in physiology of the sense-organs and the nervous system. Water Quarter: Laboratory work in the physiology of circulation, respiration, and animal heat. Spring Quarter: Laboratory work in physiology of the nerves and muscles, and in general physiology. Summer Quarter: Physiological Demonstrations. It is the aim of this course to give to teachers in high schools and colleges an opportunity to become familiar with the typical physiological experiments."

This is by no means a complete list, but it serves as a fair illustration of the position attined to-day by that spirit of scientific inquiry, which, whithin 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.

It regard to most of the group of sciences included under the name of Biology, the study of orginazition, 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 "by experiment and opportunity for observation?" Then some creature must be put to an agonizing death to gratify your curiosity. Now how far is this method of study a permissible element in the training of young men of American colleges?

I think this inquiry one of great importance. Here is no question of "cruelty," for the essence of that vice is the infliction of agony for amusement, the causation of wanton torment, of purposeless pain. Nobody acquainted with the earnest men who direct the science-teaching departmentns of our coleges, will for a moment fancy them guilty of aimless torture. But how far will scientific enthusiasm lead them on/ To what extent do the university authorities in America permit the causation of pain, simply for purposes of illustration?

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 especially selected because in their dying torments their facial experssion became so like to human agony! A European journal recently describse 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 in 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 "careful to inflict no unnecessary pain." "I know," said Herr Stricker, on one occasion, "that this experiment will seem cruel; but it is 'necessary' that my hearers should have its effects impressed on their minds!" Surely, there was never more fit example of Milton's words;

"So spake the fiend, and with Necessity,
The tyrant's plea, excused by his dev'lish deeds."

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 State?

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 ocmplete 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 catalague, and the correspondence therefore seems to have varied somewhan in the phraseology, although the leading question was invarable the same. The following letter is fairly representative of this request for light:

"To the President of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

"DEAR SIR: Referring to your 'Register' and to the outlines of biological studies there presented, may I ask whether the University of California, by any written instructions, has placed any limitations to painful experimentation upon living animals? Are students . . . permitted to carry their investigations to any extent inclination may suggest? In this matter, in short, does the University regard it best to leave all questions as to methods of research solely to investigators themselves-puils or instructors?"

The following extracts are from some of the replies he received. The italics are my own.

From REV. DR. TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
President of Yale University, New Haven, Ct.

. . . "In answer to your letter of the 14th I would say that we have had no occasion to lay down any definite restrictions as to the matter to whichyou refer, as we have entire confidence in the professors having special charge of the courses of study in physiology. . . .

"TIMOTHY DWIGHT."

From CHARLES W. ELIOT, LL.D.,
President of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

"Original research in Biology and allied branches is not limited in any way at this University. The instructors take all responsibility regarding methods of research. The students work wholly under the direction of the instructors, and have no discretion as to methods employed.

"CHARLES W. ELIOT."

From REV. DR. FRANCIS L. PATTON,
President of the College of New Jersey, Princeton.

. . . "The College of New Jersey has not defined or limited, so far as my knowledge goes, the extent to which living animals ma be subjected to poin. . . .

"FRANCIS L. PATTON."

From JAMES R. DAY, D.D.,
President Syracuse University, N. Y.

. . . "In reply to your first question would say that there are no written restrictions.
We leave the decision to the judgment of the investigator.

"JAMES R. DAY."

From JAMES B. ANGELL, LL.D., President of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

"The methods in use in our biological laboratory are those ordinarily employed, I think elsewhere in similar institutions; but students are not permitted to work on living animals except under supervision. . . .

"JAMES B. ANGELL."

From WILLIAM R. HARPER, Ph D., D.D.,
President of The University of Chicago, Ill. [Founded by John D. Rockefeller.]

. . . "We have not thought it wise to place any restriction upon experimantion involving prolonged or severe pain. . . .

"WM. R. HARPER."

From REV. DR. CHARLES F. THWING, President of the Western Reserve University, Cleveland, O.

. . . "In answer to your courteous inquiry, I beg to say that a professor who is worthy of being made head of the Department of Biology is certainly worthy of deciding the important question which you ask. [*1]

"CHARLES F. THWING."

*1. What test of "worth" would Rev. Dr. Thwing apply? Professor Gad, of Berlin, obtained a year's leave of absence during 1893-1894 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 hum as a teacher of foreign methods?

From PRESIDENT CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL. D.,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

. . . "There are no rules or regulations limiting our professors of zoölogy in the matter of vivisection. I have the impression that all the authorities of the University have confidence that our professol will not use their privileges in an improper manner.

"C. K. ADAMS."

From G. A. GATES, LL. D.,
President Iowa College, Grinnell, Ia.

. . . "The College authoritise have never had occasion to take any action in the matter. Personally, I should leave it to the judgment of the instructor, or else change instructers.

"G. A. GATES."

From HENRY WADE ROGERS, LL. D.,
President of Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.

. . . "The University authorities have not, by any written regulations, defined or limited the extent to which living animals, used for experiment, may be subjected to pain. We have felt that the matter could be safely left to the discretion of the preceptor. . . .

"HENRY WADE ROGERS."

From REV. DR. ELMER H. CAPEN,
President of Tufts College, Boston, Mass.

. . . "The methods of doing work in the several departments is left to the discretion of the individual instructors. In reference to the Department of Biology, I have never known of experiments involving needless pain to the lower animals

"E. H. CAPEN."

From DAVID STARR JORDAN, LL. D., President of Leland Stanford Jr. University, Palo Alto, Cal.

. . . "In matters of this kind, I am decidedly of the opinion that no restrictions should be put upon the student except those which the professor may lay upon him.

"DAVID S. JORDAN."

From FRANKLIN CARTER, Ph. D., LL. D.
President of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.

"We have not laid down any restrictions in our biological work, on our teachers. The principle in that College has always been in every department to trust the professor wholly, unless there seemed reason for distrust.

"FRANKLIN CARTER."

From J. G. SCHURMAN, D.Sc., LL.D.,
President of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

"President's Room,
"CORNELL UNIVERSITY, March 8th.
"All experiments, in the courses of Physiology, are upon animals just killed or completely anæsthetized. [*1]

"J. G. SCHURMAN."

*1. The question asked was not answered.

From REV. DR. WILLIAM DE WITT HYDE,
President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

"The college has no rules or regulations on the subject of experiments in Biology.

"WM. D. W. HYDE."

From ISAAC SHARPLESS, Sc.D., LL.D,
President of Haverford College, Haverford, Pa.

"HAVERFORD COLLEGE, Pa.

. . . "Our trustees have forbidden any vivisection in our laboratory. We do not find this a serious disadvantage, though we have to omit certain lines of research.

"J. SHARPLESS."

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:

"Biological Laboratory, HAMILTON COLLEGE, N. Y.

. . . "I am glad to say that no restrictions have been placed upon the experimental work of this department. The most painful experiments have been omitted. . . . Anæsthetics are used in the few experiments tried, and the animal is not allowed to recover consciousness.

"A. D. MORELL."

"OBERLIN COLLEGE, March 5th.

. . . "I think that the judment of preceptors and of really advanced pupils should be trusted in such matters. . . .

"ALBERT A. WRIGHT."

"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, March 9th.

. . . "Your letter to President Kellogg, making certain inquiries about our work in Biology has been handed to me for repyling. I beg to say that the University of California employs instructors whose judgment it is willing to trust concerning the matter to be taught and the methods of teaching it. It does not, consequently, deem it necessary to exercise a censorship over them, either in the biological or any other department.

"WM. E. RITTER, Asst. Prof. of Biology."

"AMHERST COLLEGE, Mass.

. . . "Thus far, the professor has had the power to decide what sort of work should be done in the zoölogical laboratory, and undre what conditions it should be done. . . . The trustees have undoubtedly power to make and enforce whatever rules and restrictions may seem best to them. They have never, to my knowledge, made any attempt to modify my modes of laboratory work.
"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]

*1. Shorty after writing this letter Professor Tyler left for Europe, for the purpose of taking an advanced course in Biology ta the University of Prague. Doubtless the apparent inconsistency of these tow sentences arises from the ommision of the word "painful" before "vivisection."

. . . "I am convinced that our board would pass no restrictions or prohibitions without allowing me a hearing. I should deprecate strongly any restrictions. I should consider such a restriction a very grave and severe reflection of my character; any other zoölogist would feel it just as deeply. . . .

"JOHN M. TYLER."

It is evident therefore that in the majority of American universities and colleges ther 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 Veinna, 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 reserach 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 hinduring 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 "beneficent utility" can be brought forward. "I should consider such restriction a very grave and severe reflection on my characetr; any other zoölogist would feel it just as deeply," says one of the leading biologists of this country. I do not understand this extreme sensibility. Doubtless the Czar of Russia prefers unlimited power to the restrictions of a written constitution; but absolutism, whether on the imperial throne or in the physiological laboratory, has not offered to the world the 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 retraints or restrictions were ever imposed; that compelte 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 accounts, as "a grave reflection upon his character?" There is not an institution in the land where such financial mismanagement would not be condemned. Yet why so many precautions against prodigality of money, and such acute sensitiveness toward the slightest impediment against prodigality of pain?

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 statue law of England on this subject, the condition would be far better than the immunity that now prevails. Or, go yet a stop 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 "the utmost pain inflicted is the instantaneous killing of a frog. If Science-teaching there does not suffer from the self-imposed restraint, why should not such praiseworthy custom be made in every college the imperative rule? "Unnecessary?" There never yet was unlimited opportunity, that did not, in the end, witness most grave abuse.

We are almost at the beginning of the tewntieth cetury. Civilization is about to enter a new era, with new problems to solve, new dangers to confront, new hopes to realize. I tis useless to deny the increasinig ascendancy of that spirit which in regard to the problems of the Universe, affirms nothing, denies nothing, but continues its research 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 fetule; and here, perhaps, is no occasion for regret. I say "perhaps;" some doubt yet mingles with our hopes. To the new spirit which perchance is about to dominate the future-this longing for Truth, not fro what she gives us in the profit that the ledgers reckon, but for what she is herself; this high ambition to solve the mysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries that shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely more glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final record, history is so soon to end.

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 amibitions 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, "bending over palpitating entrails, surrounded by groaning creatures," not, as he tells us, with any thought of benefit to mankind, but simply "to seek out a new fact, to verify a disputed point?" Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, "con molto amore e patiensa moltissima"-with much pleasure and patience-the agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Séquard, ending al ong life dewoted to the torment of living things, with the invention of a sontrum chat earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of Strassburg, noting with wonder that mother-love and yearning solicitude could be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off, and whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for cataract, and plunging the needle to the bottom of his patient's eye, that by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of irritating the retina? Is it Stricker, making a tortured ape to mimic the agony of a dying man?

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 "sacrifice," indeed, but not self-sacrifice; through abnegation of compassion, by suppression of pity. Surely in these names, and such as these, there can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that unselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the amelioration of the world. "The old order changeth," but are there not some ideals of humanity that do not waver with the passing years?

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 fore 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 obliquy 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 wretched ness 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.