2
1070 EXPERIMENTS ON DOGS IN THE U.S.A. them to civil employment, where they would be self- supporting and not an additional burden on the public purse. We agree with Dr. Dickie in his regret that oto-laryngology was not officially recognised in the British army as a specialty during the war. It was not until the later stages of the war that special centres for ear cases were created and put in charge of recognised otologists, and then only after great insistence by the various consultants to the armies, equipment and organisation remaining highly inade- quate. Neurological and eye cases could be referred to special hospitals at the base or in England, where expert service was available. Serious ear cases, on the other hand, were often sent to some small country hospital where they received no treatment by specialists. This. should not happen again, and in order to secure an efficient organisation for the future a scheme should be worked out now, so that in war any patient requiring special treatment should be able to obtain it. But, now that the war is over, the problem of chronic aural suppuration among the civil population is insistent. It is generally agreed that the large majority of cases of suppurative otitis recover com- pletely if treated from the onset ; the great cause of chronic otorrhoea, therefore, is neglect of the early acute stage, and the chief hope of improvement lies in the education of all concerned-parents, school- teachers, and medical practitioners. EXPERIMENTS ON DOGS IN THE U.S.A. A PAMPHLET printed in the Government Printing Office at Washington for the use of the Committee of the Judiciary contains a report of a section of the evidence before a subcommittee of that body given ’, by Dr. W. R. Hadwen on the subject of experiments I on animals. The subcommittee has been inquiring with regard to a Bill before the Senate, known shortly as S. 758, to prohibit experiments upon living dogs in the district of Columbia or in any of the territorial or insular possessions of the United States, and pro- viding a penalty for violation thereof. The sub- committee consisted of two members only, Senator S. M. Shortridge, chairman, and Senator H. F. Ashurst, Senator Myers, the introducer of the Bill, being present at the inquiry, which appears to have been open to the public. Since apart from Dr. Hadwen’s testimony the pamphlet contains only a number of letters from American medical men, deans of medical schools and the like, it is not evident whether any members of the medical profession from Great Britain are likely to lay views divergent from his before the subcommittee, but it should be said at once that Dr. Hadwen made no claim to represent his profession, or to give the views of British physi- cians or surgeons on the value of experiments on dogs or other animals. He described himself as president of the " British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which he believed to be the largest society of the kind in the world," and he frankly admitted that he had " eaten neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring for 40 years past," when ques- tioned on his views as to the justifiability of killing animals for food. Those familiar with Dr. Hadwen’s expressed opinions will find nothing very novel in his version of them laid before the subcommittee. There is a familiar ring about a statement that " there is no Act of Parliament that a person cannot drive a team of horses through," or " I have no faith in and no sympathy with a government inspector whose whole vested interest lies in the practice of vivisection." This related, of course, to restrictions imposed in England. In criticising experiments attributed to American physiologists he travelled outside his country, and the subcommittee asked some pertinent questions as to the application of experiments upon animals to conditions peculiar to the United States. They were particularly inquisitive with regard to Dr. Hadwen’s opinions on the desirability of experi- menting on animals for the relief of the sufferings of animals..As to this Dr. I3adwen submitted that it should be sufficient to experiment on an animal when suffering in the ordinary course of things, not to seek a cure by infecting a healthy animal. His ques- tioners referred especially to the bites of rattlesnakes and skunks, and as to the former, Senator Ashurst closed the discussion by saying, " Doctor, you live in England where there are no rattlesnakes, except in museums. I am not surprised at your answer; and I am not surprised that your friends applauded, because you know nothing about rattlesnakes." The incisiveness of some of Senator Ashurst’s observations and the pertinent nature of his interrogations of the witness were evidently the result of professional experience. He observed with regard to the value of experiments on animals : ’’I I am not a physician; I am a jack-leg lawyer, who knows when you are experimenting you would better experiment upon the pine than upon your mahogany. Iri this case I liken the pine to the dog and the mahogany to the human being." On the whole it appears unlikely that Dr. Ifadwen has converted the American legis- lature to his views. ____ RETIREMENT OF SIR PHILIP MAGNUS, M.P. WE understand that Sir Philip Magnus has decided not to offer himself for re-election as Parliamentary representative of the University of London. His letter of intended resignation has been received by the Unionist Association, but the opportunity thus given for the prompt selection of a candidate of this party should be equally convenient to those of other political thinking. Sir Philip Magnus has represented the University of London for upwards of 16 years, and has never forgotten that he was sitting for a con- stituency which has the largest percentage of medical voters in the Kingdom. He has been, throughout his period of service in the legislature, a consistent friend of what he believed to be the best interests of £ medicine, and his farewell letter to his political organisation includes a suggestion that is of universal application. He states that in the selection of a candidate to represent the University of London in Parliament regard should be had not only to his party views, " but also to his wide educational experience and to his detailed acquaintance with the requirements of members of the medical and teaching professions." All our readers know that to-day the interests of the medical profession require insistent attention in the House of Commons, and, having regard to the strength of the medical vote, it seems reasonable to suppose that Sir Philip Magnus, who has acted for so many years as a medical man for legislative purposes, will be succeeded by a Member of Parliament who is a qualified practitioner. ____ PERMEABILITY IN PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY. I SOME five months ago an appreciative audience assembled under the auspices of the University of London to welcome Prof. H. J. Hamburger at the Royal Society of Medicine, and to hear him lecture on this subject. The address was of great intrinsic interest and was delivered in fluent and scholarly English ; for Prof. Hamburger, like so many of his countrymen, speaks our tongue well, and his impromptu remarks were as apt as the more formal parts of his address. Further interest attached to the fact that Prof. Hamburger has himself taken such a large share in forming our modern theories on this subject of permeability. For a large part of his active life has been devoted to the study of this and allied subjects ; his work began at a time when many of his hearers’ parents were as yet unacquainted with one another, and when many of the remainder were yet at school ; it is still in progress. We publish in this issue an almost verbatim copy of the address, which will be of especial interest to those who for various reasons were not able to hear his lecture. The subject of permeability is of the greatest significance from both the theoretical and practical
