VIVISECTION. The term popularly applied to experiments on animals (see ANIMALS, EXPERIMENTS ON ). Even in the early days of legislation on the subject when physiology was in its infancy, the name was only in a measure accurate, as cutting experiments formed but a portion of the experiments on animals. Investigations on body temperature, respiration, digestion, the action of drugs, in many instances involved no cutting operation of any kind ; still they were included under the general name of vivi section because they were carried out on living animals. At the present time, though the number of animal experiments in Great. Britain and the civilized world generally has increased propor tionately with the modern greater pursuit of medical knowledge in all its branches, cutting experiments form an insignificant propor tion of the whole. Probably it is true to say that the procedure in over 9o% of so-called vivisection experiments consists in nothing more formidable than a prick with a hypodermic needle and the injection of a small quantity of fluid or of solid tissue beneath the skin of a mouse, rat, guinea-pig or rabbit. That, in some instances, a disease is thereby conveyed to the animal, is true, but this is only a stage in the endeavour to elucidate the nature of the dis ease in question and to devise a means for combating it whether the disease be one affecting man or one of the domestic animals.
That experiment in the broadest sense is necessary to the advancement of knowledge, cogitation alone being insufficient, has been shown by every branch of science. Indeed, it has been said that without experiment no substantial advance in knowledge of the physical sciences has occurred and the example of volcanic action has been adduced. We know, to-day, little more concerning volcanoes than was known centuries ago because we cannot experiment with volcanoes; such additional knowledge as we pos sess depends upon experiments on explosives conducted on a small scale. In the case of medical science living men and animals are concerned. In the case of human disease an earlier investiga tion has almost always been carried out on lower animals. As examples may be given the antitoxin treatment of diphtheria, the prophylactic vaccine inoculation for typhoid and paratyphoid fevers, the insulin treatment of diabetes. By most persons it is held that the testing of a hypothesis in medicine should, in the first instance, be carried out on lower animals. By some it is con sidered that the attainment of manual dexterity in the perform ance of surgical operations should also be carried out by practice on lower animals, but this is forbidden by law in Great Britain.
The essence of "vivisection" consists in the fact that the experi-, ment is conducted in the pursuit of knowledge and the term has lost, to a large extent, its etymological meaning of cutting with a knife and, in general, implies experiments on living animals carried out for the advancement of medical knowledge. Breeding and feeding experiments carried out by the farmer for the improvement of his stock, operations such as gelding, docking and de-horning are not included under the term.
The extent to which the British law on animal experiment is applicable is shown by the following example. In the bacterial treatment of sewage at a certain town the effluent was so clear that an ornamental pool was made and some goldfish were placed therein. It was held that this constituted an animal experiment under the act inasmuch as it was not known that the fish would not be injured thereby. The example is useful as showing the vigilance of the authorities over the unquestioned rights of lower animals as determined by law.
No account of animal experiment would be complete without reference to the opposition that such experiments have aroused in certain countries. In England "anti-vivisectionists" have formed a society and published a journal. There are two lines of thought, one that aims at total abolition, another that wishes experiments on dogs to be prohibited. To combat these views the Research Defence Society was founded in 1908 and issues literature on the subject from time to time. The main argument of anti-vivisec tionists is that man is not morally justified in profiting by experi ments at the expense of lower animals. Arising from this principle it is contended ( r) that the friendship of the dog and the cat for man and their trustfulness render experiments on them particu larly undesirable; (2) that such experiments tend to injure the moral character of the operator; (3) that many of the beneficial results ascribed to animal experiments have been dependent upon other causes than the experiments ; (4) that in numerous instances there is difference of opinion even amongst experimenters; and (5) that lower animals and man differ so greatly that application of results obtained in lower animals to man is unjustifiable. These contentions are controverted by the other party. Probably natural mental attributes ultimately determine whether animal experi ment is viewed with approval or disapproval, but either view to be respected must be based upon extensive and accurate knowledge, accurate statement and sincerity. Unfortunately these are not always manifested by protagonists. (W. S. L-B.)