uggestion that Sanarelli's
allusion to the poisons fabricated in his laboratory may have been
"DELIBERATELY ADDED"--an imputation of forgery. WHERE ON THIS PAGE,
IN THE TEXT OR BY FOOTNOTE, HAS THE AUTHOR WITHDRAWN THAT INSINUATION?
IT CANNOT BE FOUND.

[1] "Animal Experimentation," pp. 143-144.

II.

One of the most serious offences against literacy accuracy which this
writer has apparently committed appears in the garbling of the
opinions of Dr. Henry J. Bigelow of Harvard University, on the subject
of vivisection. The case is of especial interest not only because the
facts are so clear, but because they bring into relief certain methods
of controversy, which by some seem to be regarded as entirely
justifiable.

A sketch of the life of Dr. Bigelow, with extended quotations from his
writings, will be found in the ninth chapter of the work now in the
reader's hands. The opinions there expressed regarding vivisection
are by no means extreme. No past writer on this subject has left
behind him more abundant evidence of his position in this
controversy. It was not animal experimentation that he condemned, but
the cruelty that sometimes accompanies it, and to which, if
vivisection be unregulated by law, it is so often liable.

How may the views of such a writer be attacked after he is in his
grave? A physiological casuist would suggest, for instance, that
although for forty years connected with a medical school, Dr. Bigelow
really knew little or nothing about vivisection except what he had
chanced to see in France, although his writings abound with allusions
indicative of familiarity with laboratory scenes. It might be
asserted, indeed, that "in his later life," the great advocate of
reform had changed his views; and as a fair exposition of the new
attitude, a brief warning against confounding a painful with a
painless experiment would be quoted, after eliminating from the
paragraph anything that referred to cruelty or abuse.

Is not this exactly what the author of "Animal Experimentation" has
done in his attempt to discredit the weight of Dr. Bigelow's protests?
He tells his readers that "the opponents of research" quote the
Harvard professor's earliest utterances "based on the suffering he saw
at Alfort," but that they carefully omit this expression of his later
opinions:

"The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no more to
be criticized than is the abrupt