INTRODUCTION.
A CONTROVERSY is persistently carried on between an increasing body of the non-professional laity and an important section of the medical profession, in relation to the methods pursued in investigating biological phenomena.
The criticism of medical research by non-medical people is naturally resented by some who are engaged in experimentation; and it is stated seriously that non-scientific persons will impede progress if they interfere with, or succeed in restricting, the efforts of those who specially devote themselves to this branch of research.
This controversy is still going on in ever-widening circles; and it is bound to do so, until the present confusion of thought which exists on this subject is removed, and the broad distinction between right and wrong experimentation is more fully acknowledged and more clearly defined. Our relation to the lower animals has never yet been brought fully into the clear light of reason and conscience. Yet in the order of Providential development it must so come forward.
As advancing humanity has gradually recognised natural rights as existing in the various races of mankind—is carrying on a persistent warfare against human slavery—is slowly awakening to the moral crime of introducing disease and vice amongst native races; and the rights, as well as duties, of women and of children are being gradually recognised; so the time has come when the natural rights of inferior living creatures must be seriously studied.
This study has become obligatory, not only in regard to the welfare of the brute creation, but for the sake of our own human growth as rational and moral beings.
The common-sense of mankind recognises our right to use the lower animals for human benefit, whilst our superior intelligence gives us the power to so use them. But 'can' and 'ought' are different aspects of our mental constitution, which require to he harmonized. What we can do is not the true measure of what we ought to do, in any department of life.
We can starve a child, or lash a horse to death, but we have no right to do so.
The laws of our human constitution compel us to recognise that intellect and conscience, although essential parts, are not identical parts of our nature. Long experience shows us that social progress can only become permanent when conscience guides intelligence.
How far the guidance of conscience can extend, with the practical results to medical research involved in the recognition of such guidance, forms the subject of present consideration.