LONDON DUCKWORTH & CO. 3 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN 1908...

To scientific readers, Professor Charles Richet needs no introduction, but to the public at large it may be necessary to mention that he is one of the best known of French physiologists. He has occupied for a good many years the Chair of Physiology in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, and he has contributed greatly to the progress of the science to which he has devoted his life; some of his discoveries are alluded to with all modesty in the pages which follow. He is, moreover, a man of great eru

The object of this book is to set forth, as impartially as possible, the reasons which militate for and against vivisection. It is, however, a physiologist who is speaking, therefore no one will be surprised that he should defend a practice which is at the basis of the science he teaches. May he be permitted, at the same time, to express the high moral esteem which he feels for all those who, nobly enamoured of a very high ideal, deny to men the right of inflicting suffering, or even death, upon

First of all I declare, without fear of being contradicted by any physiologist, that the past has witnessed much excess, almost guilty excess, and that at the present time excess might still be pointed out. I quite believe that, even to-day, here and there in the laboratories of physiology, young men may be found who are no doubt enamoured of science, but who have not sufficiently reflected on the nature of pain, and consequently, through lack of sympathy, are callous and indifferent about infli

We have not yet touched at the root of the problem, for physiology is not mere demonstration. The real point at issue is the search for new truths. The demonstration of an acquired truth, however important this may be, must not be confused with the research for an unknown truth. Now, physiologists claim that they have not only the right—but that it is their duty—to inflict some suffering on animals, if by so doing they diminish human suffering. I am going to put this proposition to the test. 1.

A few words are first of all necessary to indicate precisely what anæsthesia is. By definition, an anæsthetic is a substance which, without paralysing the activity of the heart and the respiration, abolishes sensibility. Indeed, whenever general sensibility is abolished, there is, at the same time, abolition of consciousness, of intelligence, and of memory. Another characteristic of an anæsthetic is that its action is of a transient nature. At the end of a certain time, it disappears; and then i

We must, however, give to the word "Vivisection" its largest acceptation. It is not only a question of cutting nerves, of stimulating the glands, or of exciting the muscles. There are experiments of much longer duration in which there is no mutilation properly speaking, but intoxication , [7] produced by the injection of poisons and disease germs. It is, indeed, evident that pain can be provoked in other ways than by a sharp-edged instrument, which can always be done under anæsthesia. But may in

I now come to a favourite theme of anti-vivisectionists, viz., that experimental physiology has produced nothing, and that the differences of opinion among savants are so considerable that this alone proves the impossibility of vivisection ever establishing anything permanent. Here again it is difficult to reply because of the very ignorance of the honourable gentlemen who criticise us. Most certainly there still remain many disputed and disputable points in physiology, and nothing is easier tha

If we took the assertions of anti-vivisectionists literally, we should arrive at the strange conclusion, that the victims of vivisection are immensely numerous, and that vivisection is one of the calamities of the century. As a matter of fact, the number of victims due to physiology is very low. Let us try to count them up. There are only about twenty laboratories in France where experiments on animals are made. Let us allow that there are twenty in England, twenty in Italy, forty in Germany, an

We will now briefly consider an interesting and highly practical side of the question. In certain countries, as in England, there are laws regulating vivisection. In other countries, as in France, Germany, and Italy, there is nothing analogous; consequently public opinion on this point is uncertain. In the beginning of this book, I acknowledged that, in spite of the exaggeration of their complaints, anti-vivisectionists had rendered real service to general morality by calling attention to the ex

Let us now leave the opinions of anti-vivisectionists, and carry the problem on to higher ground. Let us see what are the rights of man in Nature, and what is the purpose of human life. Amidst all the unsettled and contradictory theories accumulated by philosophers, thinkers and founders of religion, there remains scarcely any fixed and immutable theory save that of one dominating principle: The respect and love of our brothers in humanity. All else is contestable and contested. Though we are un

In the various works, notices, discourses, etc., which have been published upon Vivisection, generally against Vivisection, I find various erroneous assertions which it is important should be pointed out. I will do so briefly. There is, however, one assertion which appears fairly just to me. This is that in treatises on physiology, sufficient mention is not made of Vivisection, of its limits and of its abuses. At the beginning of a treatise on physiology, the author should distinctly declare the

We give herewith a table showing the absolute and relative mortality due to diphtheria in Paris from 1872 to 1905, out of a population of 2,500,000 inhabitants:— Let us divide this mortality due to diphtheria into three groups (in Paris per 100,000 inhabitants):— A. Before the discovery of serotherapy, from 1872 to 1888. B. During the period of experimentation with serotherapy, from 1889 to 1894. C. After the generalisation of serotherapy, from 1895 to 1905. We have then the following averages:—

Adams (C.). Hunter and the Stag. A reply to Prof. Owen. (8vo, London, 1881.) Adler (H.). Zur Frage der V. ( Wien med. Woch. , 1879, 1161, 1211, 1241.) Anstie (F. E.) The Vivisection Controversy. ( Practitioner , 1874, 38 and 321.) Apinus (S. J.). Diss. ex jure naturae: An liceat brutorum corpora mutilare et speciatim ob es recht sey dass man den Hunden die ohren abschneide, variis observationibus aucta. (Altorphii Noricorum, 1722.) Basch Zur V. Frage. ( Wien med. Blätter , 1879, 2, 73.) Beck (J.

In January 1908, a Society with the above name was formed in England, the aims and objects of which are clearly stated in the following letter from Lord Cromer, its President; this letter was published in the English newspapers on 24th April 1908:— Sir , A Society has been formed, with the name of the Research Defence Society, to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments; and the great saving of human l