neficial results."

Two or three weeks later, on October 10, the Journal again touches the
subject of physiological demonstrations, and denounces them--when
conducted as in Paris--as a scandal to humanity. The Journal says:

"M. Dubois has published a discourse ... on the subject of vivisection
in answer to objections made to the amendments proposed by him. It is
a brilliant summary of the whole subject, and utterly condemnative of
the amendments carried by the Academy. M. Dubois showed to
demonstration that ... physiological demonstrations on living animals
in the public [Medical] schools ARE UTTERLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, AND A
SCANDAL TO HUMANITY. IN ALL THIS WE MOST THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH HIM.
He said:

"`If we are to carry out the wishes of certain savants, we shall make
everyone of our professional chairs a scene of blood.... Let us tell
the Minister that vivisections are necessary for the advancement of
science, and that to suppress them would be to arrest the progress of
physiology; but let us also say that THEY ARE UNNECESSARY IN THE
TEACHING OF THIS SCIENCE, AND THAT RECOURSE OUGHT NOT TO BE HAD TO
THEM, EITHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LECTURE.'"

Under what restrictions would the British Medical Journal of that day
permit animal experimentation?

In two editorial utterances the Journal briefly defines its position.
In the issue of January 16, 1864, we have the following expression of
its views:

"The conditions under which--and under which alone--vivisections may
be justifiably performed seem to us to be clear and easily stated....
We would say, then, in the first place, that those experiments on
living animals, and those alone, are justifiable which are performed
for the purpose of elucidating obscure or unknown questions in
physiology or pathology; that whenever any physiological or
pathological fact has been distinctly and satisfactorily cleared up
and settled, all further repetition of the experiments which were
originally performed for its demonstration are unjustifiable; that
they are needless torture inflicted on animals, being, in fact,
performed not for the purpose of eliciting unknown facts, BUT TO
SATISFY MAN'S CURIOUSITY....

"And in the second place, we would say that only those persons are
justified in experimenting upon living animals who are capable
experimentalists.... All experiments made by inexperienced and
incapable observers are unjustifiable, and for an obvious reason. The
pain in suc