An ethical problem; or, Sidelights upon scientific experimentation on man and animalsLeffingwell, Albert
Philosophy
An ethical problem; or, Sidelights upon scientific experimentation on man and animals
Leffingwell, Albert
Medicine, Experimental; Vivisection
One of the most illustrious philosphers which America has produced was
Dr. William James, professor of psychology in Harvard University. In
that institution, thirty-five years ago, he was assistant-professor of
physiology, and knew exactly what was done. Harvard made him a
professor of philosophy, and then of psychology; Princeton and Oxford
and Harvard conferred upon him their highest honours. He lectured
both at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh. He
wa s a member of various scienfitic societies in France, in Germany,
in Denmark, and England. If any man was entitled by experience and
study to speak with some authority concerning vivisection, it was
William James of Harvard University.
He knew to what extent the practice of vivisection was carried on.
Calling upon me one day in Cambridge, we compared views, and although
he told me of certain experiments he proposed to make the next day, he
was emphatic in his denunciation of the atrocities which over and over
again were repeated in physiological laboratories throughout the
land. The men who raised their voices against all reform were--he
said--neither candid, nor honest, nor sincere.
Somewhat later, with some knowledge of his views, he was asked to hold
an honorary relation to the Vivisection Reform Society. His reply was
so characteristic of the man that it is here given:
"Dear Sir,
"I am made of too unorganized stuff to be a Vice-President of the
Vivisection Reform Society, and, moreover, I make it a principle not
to let my name appear anywhere where I am not doing practical work.
But I am glad to send you, in answer to your request, a statement of
my views, which you are at liberty to publish if you see fit.
"Much of the talk against vivisection is, in my opinion, as idiotic as
the talk in defence of it is uncandid; but your Society (if I rightly
understand its policy) aims not at abolishing vivisection, but at
regulating it ethically. AGAINST ANY REGULATION WHATEVER I understand
the various medical and scientific defenders of vivisection to
protest. Their invariable contention, implied or expressed, is that
it is no one's business what happens to an animal so long as the
individual who is handling it can plead that to increase Science is
his aim.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account