oubt that
every resource of the laboratory will be brought forward to resist to
the uttermost even the giving of so little information as this.

But we must go beyond this. To trace animals to the door of the
laboratory, and there to drop them, leaves the curtain unlifted; they
enter the darkness, and that darkness must be dispelled. It must be
the privilege of the public to know as completely as possible EXACTLY
WHAT IS DONE AFTER THEY PASS THE DOOR. How is this to be
accomplished? How may we know what is done to the animals thus traced
to the door of every laboratory without being charged with impeding
the legitimate researches of science? For reasons stated, inspection
will not accomplish it. As carried out in England, it certainly has
accomplished but little for the protection of animals. The published
reports of experiments made in that country under one or another
"certificate," are practically of no value whatever except to show the
constant increase of such experiments every year. The plummet must
sink to deeper depths. If Society is to grant to the physiological
laboratory that isolation and freedom from interference which it
craves, THEN SOCIETY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK IN RETURN THE COMPLETEST
DISCLOSURE THAT CAN BE GIVEN OF METHODS AND RESULTS.

It has the right. Unfortunately it cannot persuade or compel. That
is the province of Legislation.

Vivisection, we must always remember, is an exceedingly complex
practice. It is a means of demonstrating well-known facts; it is also
a method of original research. How many animals in any given
laboratory are used in each of these phases of experimentation? No one
can tell us. If the laboratory keeps no account, it is unlikely that
the information could be given by anybody else. A strong impression
exists that "original research" for any object of conceivable utility
to mankind is vastly more infrequent than vivisection for the
repetition--painful or otherwise--of facts perfectly well known. We
need to have the question settled with an accuracy upon which as much
reliance may be placed as upon the oath of the cashier of a bank.
"Every laboratory," said Dr. George M. Guld, in an address before the
American Academy of Medicine, "should publish an annual statement
setting forth plainly the number and kind of experiments, the objects
aimed at, and, most definitely, the methods of conducting them." This
wise suggestion, however, bore no fruit. No such "annual