Address to the Department of Anatomy and Physiology of the British Association / by P.H. Pye-Smith.

  • Philip Henry Pye-Smith
Date:
[1879?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Address to the Department of Anatomy and Physiology of the British Association / by P.H. Pye-Smith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    6/13 (page 6)
    equally, of course, the science of Physiology must also come to a stop, and th < farmer, the cattle-breeder, and the physician must be content with such kuowledg or such ignorance as he at present possesses. I know it has been asserted that th' | science of the functions of living organs is quite independent of experiment upo ; living organs. But this is said by the same persons who have denied that th i art of setting right the functions of the body when they go wrong has anythin tt | do with the knowledge of what those functions are. ° If you could be persuaded that Chemistry can make progress without retorts an< |, balances, that a geologist’s hammer is a useless incumbrance, or that engineers en < > build bridges just as well by the rule of thumb as by the knowledge gained in workshop, then you might believe that Physiology also is independent of expert | jnent. It is absurd to object to the difficulties of the research or even the contradictor- fc results sometimes obtained. The functions ol a muscle or a gland are more com c plicated than those of water or gas, and their investigation needs greater skill, mor; g caution, and more frequent repetition. Imperfect experiments can lead to nothin;, r but error; criticism from other physiologists, or from scientific men experienced i: other branches of research, is not wanting and is ahvays valuable. But vaguu § assertion that further progress is impossible by the very means which have led tt I all our present knowledge, coming from those ‘ who are not of our school’—or an n school, is. undeserving of serious notice. The real contention of course is a moral one, that we ought to relinquish thi I advantage of all experiments which are accompanied with pnin to the creatur- | experimented on. 1 he botanist may serve his plants as he pleases, and even th It animal physiologist may cut, or starve, or poison all sentient organisms whiclji happen not to possess a backbone, and he may try experiments with all backbone! I animals, including himself and his friends, so long as they do not hurt, but that must be the limit. On the most extreme humanitarian views no objection can !>■ a made to experiments upon animals in a state of insensibility to pain, and as these 8 constitute, happily, the vast majority of physiological experiments, the question ii t narrowed to comparatively restricted limits. Is it wrong to inflict painful experr; I ments upon animals for the sake of Science P In the absence of any authority t< 1 appeal to, we can but judge of the matter by analogy. Now it has been the prac 1 tice of all mankind, and is still allowed by the common consent hoth of law anti' I feeling, that we should destroy by more or less painful means, that we should I enslave and force to work, and mutilate by painful operations, and hunt to death i t and wound,and lacerate,and torture the brute creation for the following objects:— I for our own self-preservation, as when we offer a rewTard for the killing o I tigers and snakes in India; for our comfort, as when we poison or otherwise destroy internal parasites, and vermin, and rats, and rabbits. Our safety, ouj food, our convenience, our wealth, or our amusement: all these objects have beei I and are regarded by the great mass of mankind, and are held by the laws o I every civilised country, to be sufficiently important to justify the inflictioi | of pain or death upon animals in whatever numbers may be necessary. The onl) restriction which Christian morality or in certain cases recent legislation imposa ! upon such practices is, that no more pain shall be inflicted than is necessary for the object in view. Killing or hurting domestic animals when moved by passion o: by the horrible delight which some depraved natures feel in the act of inflicting 3 fain was until lately the only recognised transgression against the law of England . & trust I need not say that it is only under such restrictions that physiologists desirr 8 to work.* Anyone who would infiict a single pang beyond what is necessary for f 4 scientific object, or would by carelessness fail to take due care of the animals he < has to deal with, would be justly amenable to public reprobation. And, remem her I it is within these limits that the whole controversy lies, for after a long and patient I examination of all that could be said by our accusers, the Royal Commission whicl o was nominated for the purpose unanimously reported that in this country at least ; scientific experiments upon animals are free from abuse. What is deliberately asserted is that within the restrictions which all humane ' * They are, in fact, the very limits that were put on record by this Associatior •] long before the agitation against Physiology began. See Report for 1871, p. 144.