OF THE American Humane Association ON VIVISECTION IN AMERICA ADOPTED AT MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. SEPTEMBER 26, 1895. CHICAGO, ILL. THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION. 560 WABASH AVENUE. 1896. REPORT OF THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION ON VIVISECTION IN AMERICA. MINNEAPOLIS, SEPT. 26, 1895. THE HE Special Committee appointed at the last annual meeting of the AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION, for the purpose of obtaining a census of the opinions regarding Vivisection which generally prevail, have now completed their task, and beg leave to submit the following report: The purpose and scope of their investigations seem to have been somewhat misunderstood. The American Humane Association did not wish to obtain a preponderance of signatures, either for or against the practice of vivisection. What seemed desirable was an investigation regarding the extent to which different views, particularly regarding painful experimentation, are now entertained by those more influential classes of society whose judgments exert the greater potency in the formation of public opinion. To do this, it became necessary to formulate precise statements of slightly. diverging beliefs, in such form as that they should at any rate touch this one question of restriction or non-restriction of experiments in pain. It needs to be remembered that the word "vivisection," when used as a synonym for scientific experiments upon animals, may cover operations not more painful than a pin-prick; or, on the other hand, experiences as excruciating as the imagination can conceive. To ask simply whether one approves of vivisection or condemns it, would be meaningless, unless the definitions given were precise. Three leading views regarding the practice of vivisection may be easily recognized: 1. Its total condemnation because of tendency to cruelty. 2. Its restriction within certain limits. 3. Its approval without any other restraint than the will of the experimenter himself. The second view, however, is capable of considerable subdivision. One person may favor vivisection provided it be limited to absolutely painless experiments. Another would not condemn it if the pain were slight, and the possible utility to humanity very great. Four statements of opinion were carefully formulated, and to these a fifth was finally added, which was sent, however, as hereafter noted, to but very few others than members of the medical profession. But even these could by no means express all the shades of differing opinion which seem to exist in regard to this subject. Some few persons indeed could find nothing in either statement to endorse or condemn, while others, reading with extreme and careful discrimination, indicated by erasures and changes in phraseology their variance of opinion. But that the statements, as drawn, do fairly represent existing opinions is evinced by the fact, that, without any erasures or changes, each one received the signatures of men of national reputation. The choice of persons whose views on this question should be solicited was a matter of no little consideration. It was, of course, impossible to ask all whose judgment would be valuable; and such selection was necessary as at least should be fairly representative in character and weight. It may be of interest to know the leading rules which governed the final choice of names. 1. In the first place, the opinions of the Medical Profession were desired. For their benefit, real or supposed, the practice of vivisection is mostly carried on. If, then, all experiments upon living animals are of such great value that no restraint whatever need be observed, it might be safely assumed that medical men after years of practical experience in the treatment of disease would be certain to know it. But the number of men in the medical profession in this country alone is over one hundred thousand, and to ask the judgment of all these would be manifestly impracticable. Then, too, the opinions of young men fresh from the medical school could. not compare in value with those of other physicians who for years have been engaged in the combat with disease. It was necessary somewhat to draw lines. The medical profession in the States of New York and Massachusetts may be assumed to be as intelligently acquainted with the whole subject as physicians anywhere in the United States, and it seemed to us exceedingly probable that the views of physicians in other sections of the country would not greatly differ in their proportions from the varying judgments regarding vivisection which should be elicited in these two great commonwealths. Every physician in these two States who had been at least fifteen years in the practice of his profession was invited to give the Association the benefit of his mature experience on the question. A few prominent medical men in other States received like invitations, but these instances were rare. The physicians upon the Board of Instructors in several leading medical colleges in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Syracuse, Chicago, and other cities were also asked for expressions of opinion. The jury in this case seems to us to be fairly representative of the medical profession, and the results obtained were so unexpected as to call for special remark. If we may judge from the replies received, the majority of physicians who have tested value by experience are not in favor of "unrestricted vivisection." 2. For the opinions of those engaged in Educational work, our circulars were sent, first, to the president of each college and university in the United States; and, next, to the principal members of the teaching faculty of the leading institutions of learning. 3. In respect to Clergymen, it was very difficult to determine from whom among them opinions should be asked; and, as in the case of physicians, it was deemed best to solicit views only among those of the various denominations whose years of service or whose prominent position in the Church lent to their words a greater weight. To professors in various theological schools, to clergymen in our larger cities, and especially to men upon whom for years of service or unusual activity in clerical work the degree of Doctor of Divinity has been conferred, our circulars have been principally addressed. Your committee regret the modest reticence which in so many instances probably prevented that mention of honorary degrees to which signers were entitled, and of which note was requested. In some cases, by careful research, these have been supplied; but there are doubtless many to which such titles belong, and from which they are absent in the lists which follow. 4. From Literary Men, Editors, and Authors, opinions were sought, when addresses could be obtained, wherever achievement and worthy popularity lent weight to the expression of their views. Besides all these classes, there were a few others in other walks of life for whose judgment the world has regard, and whose opinions have been sought. From foreign countries also some expression of sentiment was desired; but these names are reckoned separately in the lists which follow. Your committee believe that opinions thus obtained are of special value. We have not attempted a mere "counting of heads." We believe that the views thus collected do represent, in their proportions, the various shades of opinion which prevail among the educated classes of the country in regard to the question of unrestricted vivisection. It is to be regretted that in some instances the purpose of this inquiry should have been so misunderstood, and that those who |