le to antivivisection, but to restriction.
"There is no objection to vivisection except the physical pain."

SECOND. The cruelties which pertain to certain vivisections and
vivisectors are not myth, but realities. For a description of these
cruelties, Dr. Bigelow expressly refers to the literature of protest.

THIRD. In defence of vivisection or of unrestricted experimentation,
he says that UNTRUTHFUL CLAIMS OF UTILITY have been made.

FOURTH. The reasons for inflicting prolonged torment upon animals are
wholly inadequate for its justification.

FIFTH. Vivisection has a hardening tendency upon its practitioners.
The more eminent the vivisector, the more indifferent he may become to
the infliction of torment.

SIXTH. There is ample reason for the interference of the law. Every
laboratory should be legally supervised. Public opinion should be
frequently informed concerning vivisection, its objects, and its
methods.

I have presented these opinions at length because they represent
exactly the position which I have personally maintained for over
thirty years. And if the time shall come, foreseen by him, "when the
world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of Science, as
we now do to burning at the stake in the name of Religion," then,
surely, it will be remembered that the first strong voice in America
raised, not in condemnation of all experimentation upon animals, but
solely in protest against its cruelty and secrecy, and in appeal for
its reform, was that of the leading American surgeon of his time,
Professor Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University.

CHAPTER X

THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VIVISECTION

In the year 1906, a Royal Commission was appointed by King Edward to
investigate the practice of animal experimentation. Thirty years had
passed since the appearance of the earlier inquiry, upon which was
based the English law regulating the practice of such experiments. On
the one hand, it had been denounced as affording most inadequate
protection to animals liable to such exploitation; on the other hand,
in the United States it had been condemned as a hindrance to
scientific progress, and a warning against any similar legislation. A
new Commission was therefore appointed to inquire into the practice,
to take evidence, and to report what changes, if any, in the existing
statute might seem advisable.

The composition of the new Commission leaned