Report of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes : with minutes and evidence and appendix / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty.
- Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vivisection (1875)
- Date:
- 1876
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes : with minutes and evidence and appendix / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.
123/1052 (page 93)
![itself. It revealed to us the presence of the acarus scabies, but did uot teach us that sulphur could destroy it. A full knowledge of the nature of a process would be highly important, but are unable to observe the consecutive series of organic changes that occur within our organism during the course of a disease. We talk of a cancerous diathesis, but cannot trace the organic changes idtimately generating a cancerous tumor iu the breast. 1762. There is another very important set of diseases, take the case of ringworm for example ; I presume that no rational treatment of that was- adopted; that the theory of that disease was not understood until it was known that it was a parasite ?—They used a good many efficient remedies for it before they knew it was a parasitic dis^ease. 1763. It was sometimes treated with calomel, was it not ?—Yes. 1764. Inasmuch as in a case Hke that the knowledge of the nature of the disease has led to its rational treatment, is it not to be expected that a knowledge, if we could obtain it, of the nature of, we will say, small-pox, may by and bye help us to treat it proper] y ? —My answer to that question is this: if you could attain to the essential nature of what small-pox is, and the organic changes which take place in the human system during, we will say eight days, that amount of knowledge would be most important, but it is almost siipernatural. 1765. Are you aware of the fact that Avithin the last ten years such progress, as you are now regarding as supernatural, has been made iu regard to sheep-pox, a perfectly analogous disease ?—If by that question is meant that they have attained to a knowledge of the organic changes that take place in a sheep affected with sheep-pox, I know nothing about it. 1766. You are not aware then that investigation ' has shown that that disease is the work of a small organism?—I am perfectly aware of that. What I mean to say is, that the organic changes that that small organism produces in the animal are not known to us. 1767. But the first step to understand the nature of the disease, and therefore to get at a rational treat- ment of it, is to know what is the cause of the disease ? —Etiology is no doubt very important ; chiefly, how- ever, to prevent the advent of disease. It seldom indicates a rational treatment of it. I refer you to what I have said about murch miasma, intermittent fever, and quinine. 1768. You think that purely empirical treatment is better than rational treatment, do you ?—No ; but I deny that the knowledge of the first initial stage of a disease gives you a direct clue to the right treatment of it. 1769. In the case of ringworm, I thought we agreed that knowledge of the disease has been a great help to right treatment of it ?—Yes, it has. It indicates that the parasite must be destroyed, but does not teach us what agent could afiect that. Sulphur was used long before it was known that scabies was due to the presence of a parasite. Parasitic disease, however, is not the best example to discuss. They involve no, or only slight, organic changes. Kill the parasite, and the disease is cured, just as a surgeon removes a splinter from the soft parts, and cures his patient. 1770. By the rule of thumb you mean ?—Science has made as many blunders as anything else that the world has seen. Anything can be defended in the name of science. If you say that blunders have been committed by empiricism, I reply that as many blunders have been committed on the other side. I am not an empiric, although I verify everything by experiment. 1771. Do I rightly understand you to say, as among the naeasures which you propose, that the experimentor should send in two returns, one of experiments in- tended to be performed, and the other of the results of experiments performed ?—Yes, I did suggest that. 1772. And your object was that somebody should 20-Oct. 1875. be the judge whether these experiments were neces- Mr. A. de Noe sary, or not ?—Yes, that was my object. Walker. 1773. Has it occurred to you to consider who would be an appropriate somebody to undertake that office ?— I am sorry that I am not in a position to reply to you in a satisfactory way. I will, however, suggest that probably no control would be efficient that has not the residt of the vinited judgment and action of a board composed of physiologists, an equal number of physicians, surgeons, and pathologists ; and even a chemist might sometimes give valuable suggestions. 1774. But still you incline to institute a sort of board of control for scientific experimentation ?—Yes, on every kind of experiments on living animals. 1775. (^Mr. Erichsen.) There are two or three points in your evidence which I should like cleared up. One is this : if I understand rightly, you seem to di'aw a distinction between pure physiologists or biologists and practical medical men ?—A very great distinction. 1776. You mean, I suppose, that there is a class of men who are devoted now to the study of the structure of animals and the functions of their organs, quite irrespective of medical practice ?—Yes. 1777. But it is not the business of those men in the study of the healthy organisms, to dis- cover new methodB of treatment, or to devise new plans of operation for instance; their business is simply to discover the actions of the bodies of animals in the healthy state ?—And it Avould be very im- portant if they kept to that, but my teachers always misled me for some years by saying that the knowledge of the healthy functions which they were teaching us was to form the basis of therapeutics, and of pathology. 1778. And is it the fact that among medical prac- titioners there are many men very distinguished in practice who never performed any experiments ?—A great many. 1779. One of those gentlemen we have had before us, and in answer to a question of mine, he stated that he was greatly indebted in his practice to the experi- ments of tiie physiologists ?—Did he specify what advantages he had gained from them, may I ask ? 1780. He only stated it generally?—Then in my estimation it is worth nothing; we may quite agree or totally disagree. If, as Professor Huxley was en- deavouring to establish, these were of use for localising disease, then he was right. If he went beyond that, in my estimation, he was thoroughly mistaken. 1781. There was another point on which you made a statement somewhat at variance with what we have formerly heard, that is with regard to the influence of experiments on therapeutics. There is a disease called angina pectoris, which has been beyond the reach of medical science, and a remedy for it has now been discovered called nitrite of amyl, and Dr. Brunton was led to the application of that drug to angina pectoris by experiments on living animals, and finding that nitrite of amyl produced dilatation of the arteries in them. Tliat is a direct application of a therapeutic experiment to medical practice, is it uot ? —If the doctor found out from the action of that agent, that it was a remedy for angina j^ectoris simply from seeing that it dilated the arteries it was a happy guess. 1782. He was led to that inference by seeing the way in which it acted on the arteries of living animals ? —We do not know what angina pectoris consists of, and therefore I do not see how he could have been rationally led to that conclusion. The tendency in the medical profession is, when any agent has an elective affinity lor a particular organ to try it for several of the diseases of that organ. But I am far from wishing to depreciate the experiment. I believe the specific use of every drug can be known from its action on the healthy organs and tissues. 1783. Then there were a series of experiments per- formed by Majendie which have a very close bearing on this point. It was supposed before those experi- ments were made that an animal could live and thrive upon a simple substance such as gelatine, and Majendie, M 3](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b23983334_0125.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
