Part 30 (1/2)
The North-Western University Medical School of Chicago sent a courteous reply, stating that it would be hardly possible to make any report ”as to the number of animals used in experimental work in our laboratories.” Research work was carried on ”in at least four laboratories of the Medical School, and in the work dogs, rabbits, and guinea-pigs particularly are used.... As the work of research varies materially from time to time in the several laboratories, we have no way of making even an approximate estimate which would be of value” of the number of animals used. Probably this is the case with most other large laboratories in this country.
The Eclectic Medical University reported the use of but six small animals in its research work. The director says:
”Our laboratories lead the world in cancer research, yet we have never used an animal for this purpose. We are the second laboratory in the world in research of pellagra, and have used only four animals.... We have achieved the above results because we believe in clinical and not in experimental research.”
From some thirteen inst.i.tutions, chiefly belonging to the South or West, vague or imperfect reports were received. Some of them disclaimed the use of living animals in teacher, or the use of animals higher in the scale than turtles or frogs.
Two inst.i.tutions refused to give any information whatever. An official connected with Rush Medical College of Chicago wrote:
”The statement that your society is not opposed to vivisection may deceive the uninitiated. Either vivisection is a good thing and hence should not be interfered with, or it is a nefarious business and should be stopped.... You and your society are either honestly misinformed, suffer from delusions, or are lying bigots. In my opinion, mainly the latter. You are my enemy, and the enemy of every man of intelligence interested in the well fare (sic) of mankind and animals. I will give no information to wilfull (sic) falsifiers, the insane, or those too lazy or stupid to inform themselves of facts.”
Some further study of a primary spelling-book might be recommended to this representative of an inst.i.tution of learning.
The inst.i.tutions making no reply of any kind numbered eighty-eight, or about 83 per cent. of those addressed.
The inquiry resulted in confirming previous impressions. It was not believed that information concerning the number of animals used would be generally given. The experiment of courteous inquiry, however, was deemed worthy of a trial. The result would seem to demonstrate that even the simplest facts concerning the practice of animal experimentation in the United States cannot be obtained except through inquiry inst.i.tuted by the authority of the State.
AN ETHICAL PROBLEM OR SIDELIGHTS UPON SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION UPON MAN AND ANIMALS --------------- PRESS NOTICES
”Dr. Leffingwell has probably done more than any other one man for the education of the public to a right att.i.tude on the vivisection question.”--Dallas News.
”The author has studied this question for forty years. He shows by the material gathered in this volume and the interesting conclusions reached, the careful consideration of long years of study.”--Detroit News Tribune.
”The author's moderation in discussing this burning question will appeal to a much wider circle of scientific readers than a policy that demands complete annihilation of all animal experimentation.”--The Open Door, New York.
”The volume deals with vivisection, and the author holds that it is to preventive medicine that the world must learn to look, not to the conquest of disease by new drugs or new serums.... He enters deeply into the question, and shows the result of long and careful research work.”--Norwich Bulletin
”In an elaborate discussion of the vexed question of vivisection, Dr. Leffingwell tries to take a mediating position. He is strong in showing that there has been a vast amount of needless and useless suffering to animals caused by vivisection.... Some of his quotations are amazing in showing the indifference and even cold-blooded cruelty of some surgeons.”--New York Watchman.
”One of the most thorough books on vivisection yet published is by Dr. Albert Leffingwell, ent.i.tled 'An Ethical Problem.' It is not the book of an extremist or a crank. Dr. Leffingwell admits the necessity of vivisection in certain circ.u.mstances and for certain purposes. His endeavour is not so much to get rid of vivisection as to prove that the problem connected with it is an ethical one; that the practice should be regulated and guided by public authority. His book is thorough, ingenious, and, for the most part, very temperate in expression.”--The New York Evening Mail.
”Readers of Dr. Leffingwell's earlier books will expect to find this one written in the same quiet tone, with the same care and accuracy, and they will not be disappointed. The book begins with a history of vivisection in which the reader's chief suprise will be in finding that medical opinion a generation ago was much more humane than now.
The humane protests of the last generation seem incredible to-day, when the profession almost to a man stands for the secvret and unlimited exploitation of animals.”--S. N. Cleghorn, in Journal of Zoophily.
”This book is devoted to a study and discussion of medical experimentation upon both man and animals. The writer is forced in his literary style, and has long commanded special attention on this particular subject. In a skilful and scholarly manner he treats of the historical development of the agitation in favour of restricted and regulated experimentation. The book should be read by every person interested in the discussion, whether in favour of restriction or not.... All who desire to be placed in touch with the latest word in regard to this important humanitarian question should secure a copy of Dr. Leffingwell's scholarly book.”--National Humane Review.
”Dr. Leffingwell a.n.a.lyzes the results of vivisection in America in a masterly way. Many methods of experimentation he finds not only extremely cruel, but valueless. For instance, the raising of the blood-pressure of a dog by scorching its paws, one after the other, so that the blood-pressure might be maintained for twenty minutes. 'Of what possible value was such an experiment?' he asks. 'Does anyone believe than in a human being, blood-pressure will ever be maintained by slowly scorching the hands and feet of the patient?' ... The matter is clearly presented, and is interesting to the layman as well as to the student of physiology.”--Hartford Post.