OF EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
"Know, Nature\'s children all divide her care;
The fur that warms a monarch warmed a bear."
Pope.

In the foregoing experiments, the reader will have observed the significant words, "having killed a frog"—Abernethy not approving of experiments on living animals. When we reflect for a moment on the thousands of dreadful experiments which have been made on living animals, and the utter inconclusiveness of them for any useful purpose, there are, amongst the numerous errors by which so many philosophical inquiries have been delayed or defeated, few that are more lamentable.

This mode of investigation has not, so far as we can see, produced any one useful discovery; whilst it has tended to obscure, by all that is disgusting and repulsive, the true mode of cultivating a most alluring science.

But as we write, however humbly, as physiologists, and may be regarded as advocating the claims and attractions of that science with something of the esprit de métier, rather than in the cautious spirit which should characterize a philosophical discussion,—let us for one moment consider the claims of physiology on the attention of mankind.

Physiology has for its object the investigation of the functions and relations of the whole organic kingdom (the vegetable and animal creation), and cannot be successfully cultivated without consulting the phenomena in both these kingdoms of nature.

100

The branch of physiology most interesting to the medical philosopher is that which deals with the functions of animals in general, and of man in particular. The special interest to the medical philosopher is therefore obvious: let us just glance at its more general claims. Linn?us said that the world was one vast museum; and it illustrates the nature and attributes of the Deity.

But how? In the first place, by the numerous evidences it everywhere presents, even to our finite capacities, of design, wisdom, and power; and further, of the Unity of that power. But, to our finite perceptions, it does not everywhere present evidences of love, mercy, and parental care. Not because they may not exist universally, but because our faculties do not allow us to connect these ideas with any but "sentient beings."

This alone renders physiology one of the most elevating of all human studies—most general in its application—most comprehensive in the attributes it unfolds to us, and therefore most refining to our moral nature.

Although, therefore, we would claim the special theological evidences of physiology, as the distinguishing excellence of this science, it is not less commanding as regard the evidences which it affords in common with other parts of the Creation.

In animals, we see not less indications of design, wisdom, power, and beauty, than elsewhere; but we also see a provision for their wants and comforts, of such a kind as leaves no room for doubting that both have been the objects of design. We need not here go into the multiplied proofs of this proposition. A priori, then, it would seem very unlikely that a mode of investigating the functions of animals would be productive, which begins by ignoring one of their most striking relations.

This, too, at once suggests the moral question, Is it right? There is no necessity, for our present purpose, to moot that question. We have, over and over again, challenged investigation; but the case is too clear to admit of discussion. Again, although we humbly submit that the moral bearing of philosophical questions must always be a legitimate subject of inquiry, yet it is inexpedient to introduce that question where it is not101 required. The questions whether the progress of physiology has been accelerated by experiments on living animals, or whether the treatment of diseases has been improved by that mode of inquiry, or whether it has tended to mislead people into erroneous and mischievous views, are all things that admit of proof entirely independent of moral considerations. Now we should be sorry to appear to undervalue that which we most highly prize, or to represent that to be irrelevant which is, in all subjects, the great consideration; but it is wise to take the ground chosen by those who argue in support of a fallacy; not that which they would ignore, or regard as disputable.

As we have already observed, we think it demonstrable that experiments on living animals, involving cruelty, have been entirely unproductive, whilst they have tended to mislead more than any other mode of investigation whatever. Many years since, we corrected some very extraordinary mis-statements in regard to the experiments of Orfila, Sir Charles Bell, and others, which could only be accounted for by a want of attention to the works from which they were selected; for it is curious to observe that (though different in kind) the most conclusive evidence of the erroneous value attributed to the experiments is furnished by the distinguished authors themselves.

Orfila wished to know what would be the effect of various poisons on the animal economy. He therefore set to work as follows:—He opened the gullet of a living animal, put in the poison, and then tied the tube; and this to ascertain how the stomach dealt with substances of this kind taken into that organ. Now there have been, unfortunately, too many instances afforded, by accidents and by suicides, of these very things in the human subject; presenting us with a series of facts, deplorable enough, it is true, but which, regarded merely as grounds of philosophical inquiry, are comparatively free from objection; whilst the experiments made by Orfila on his tortured animals are obviously loaded with all the elements of fallacy. It is surely not necessary to urge, as one of these, so serious a preliminary as placing a ligature on the gullet. We say nothing of the horrible cries that Orfila describes these animals as uttering; but surely, if the102 object had been to interfere with and obscure the processes of nature by every conceivable ingenuity, one could not have imagined any conditions better calculated for this purpose.

Sir Charles Bell was a physiologist who distinguished himself by a really important discovery; and it has been cited as an example of the successful application of the mode of inquiry in question. This is entirely an error. Whoever will read his book, will at once perceive the truth of that which he himself judiciously observes; namely, that physiology is much more a science of observation than experiment. As to the influence of experiments on animals, in his own discoveries, we have the best possible authority for denying it; viz. Sir Charles Bell himself. He states very clearly ............