SCIENCE.
��FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1385.
��COMMENT AND CRITICISM. The Apkii. issue of Ibe Zoophilist is very much a. Bullimore number, from the apace given to Professor Marliii, and to the ' martyr- ilotn' of Prof. J. Rpiidi-l Harris. Professor Martin's replj^ to some strictures made upon bis work in aa eai'lier issue of Ibe same journal is treated aa 'an angi'v, exaggerated, and ab- surd pamplilet ' by various writers. We liave already made, as we believe, suitable mention of the pamphlet in question, bnt return to the controvei-sy again beeause the ZmphilUt offers so clear an illustration of Ibe unfair and un- generous methods which find favor with the aotivivisectionista, Many of these persons hold views, such that, however much we maj- disflgree with them, lliey are entitled to re- spect — and silence. When, however, any person having ' views ' is not only unable to j>erceive that an opponent may be equally car- neat and upright, bnt also uses the press to show bimupnsapi'evaricDtor, or, more plainly, as a liar, it is time fur self-res|>ccting persona to speak out.
The i>oints in the discussion are briefly Ibese ; Professor Martin pnblished some experiments
which pliysiologists, and Other medical men familiar with experimental work, — i.e., those irersona most competent to sit in judgment thereon, — consider a vsiUiable addition to our knowledge of the working of the animal body both in health and disease. In his account of his work — written for these same competent observers, and published where perfect candor and fulness are a matter of professional honor, so to speak ^ — it is expressly stated that these animals were all put under the influence of undoubted anaesthetics or narcotics, except in two instances, where curare was used in order to be certain that the oilier drugs had uot
No. 123. — ISM.
��iiijured the organ under investigation. The Zoophilist people claimed, that, as he used artificial respiration in every experiment, be must also have employed curare in those other i< cases where it is not mentioned, and made' other statements concerning; the invcstigatioriB, which show that a knowledge of some of llio most elementary principles of physiology is sat^lly wanting in the editorial rooms of that paper. The effort to fall back upon informa- tion furnished by ' an eminent physiologist ' would ine\'itably result in making him ridicu- lous, if the mention of his name could be |*er- roitted. Professor Martin's replj- clearly set forth the nature of the operations performed, and especially the necessity of the traclieotomy and artificial respiration, since he wished to rapidly kill every organ except the lungs and the beaj'C. The Zoophilist returns U> the at- tack ; but this is a mere reiteration of its for- mer absurdities, with some added excrescences suggested by fresh and perverse misunder- standings of Professor Martin's explanations.
Thismay, perhaps, seem a triflingmatter, bnt such it is not. Everywhere else, when diver- gency ofviews exists, opponents certainly agree to consider each other honest and fVank. Such odium as their experimental work may call forth from the unthinking or ignorant mind, and more espeeiollj' from the feminine type of it, the physiologists can readily endure, but they do fairly claim the right to be looked upon as men of at least as much candor and upright- ness as those who oppose their research and yet expect to be classed among the educated and thoughtful. It is the duty of all workers in the different fields of science to stand to- gether in such things, and to insist upon fair and just treatment from these ignorant critics who have the ear of that portion of the public with whom feeling and sentiment are on an equality with knowledge, and abusive misrepre- sentation passes for argument.
�� �
