Appendix to Second report of the Commissioners : minutes of evidence, February to March, 1907.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vivisection (1906)
Date:
1907
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Appendix to Second report of the Commissioners : minutes of evidence, February to March, 1907. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/104 (page 8)
    of years ago that of ‘to-day ought to be tending to field, Dr. Grimbaum, Dr. Haldane, Dr. Hamer; Dr. Mr. W,H ; ae Jeni V. D. Harris, Mr. (now Sir) Victor Horsley, Dr. A. C. Power, reduce the amount of Peiieinn ware ‘ Houston, Dra Jae Kanthack, Dr. E. Klein, Mr. C.B., FR.S. 4398. You were asked as to the case mortality atistics of diphtheria prior to the use of the anti- oan and ae eh to its use. W hat were the means possessed by the profession of diagnosing diph- theria before the date of the antitoxin ?—Purely clinical observation for the most part. 4399. Should I be right in thinking that since the introduction of the antitoxin the diagnosis of diph- theria has been largely upon bacillary grounds ?—Yes, certainly. ; 4400-1. Will that have the effect of diagnosing cases of diphtheria which previously would have escaped {— I think so. There is something in that, I think. 4402. So that a considerable number of cases of diph- theria would now be diagnosed by the bacillary test which would not have been so diagnosed by clinical observation ?—They would not have been notified. 4403. Would that have any effect upon the case mor- tality ?—It would produce, of course, a large number of cases on which to rate the absolute deaths, and to that extent it might have the effect of giving a seeming reduction of the case mortality which was not alto- gether real. That would have to be taken into con- sideration in judging the case mortality now as com- pared with the case mortality of years ago. 4404. It- would be a factor to be considered possibly with regard to the point that was put to you as to the total mortality rate not having fallen while the case mortality had fallen?—Yes; the mortality might be stationary, while identifications of the disease were becoming more abundant. 4405. I think you referred to Sir John Simon as being the first to advise a Government Health Depart- ment to utilise vivisection experiments for purposes of scientific investigation ?—Yes ; it commenced under his reign. 4406. Could you tell us in what year?—I think it was about 1864 when he first mentioned it. I have a note here which perhaps might be of assistance in this matter. I see that Sir John Simon, in his “ English Sanitary Institutions,” says: “Soon afterwards, 7.e., after 1869, the departmental organisation was strengthened in an important outwork, the first be- ginnings of which, five years previously, i.c., 1865, had heen noticed in my eighth annual report.” 4407. That would have been when he was Medical Officer to the Privy Council ?—Yes. 4408. And then from 1865 until the present time the Privy Council or the Local Government Board has had resort to these vivisection experiments for the purpose of scientific investigation?—Yes, systemati- cally, since 1870, when there was a special grant from the Treasury for the purpose of scientific investigation. 4409. Could you give me an idea as to the amount of those grants?—Yes. Formerly, when it was first granted, I think under Mr. W. E. Forster’s dispensa- tion, in 1870 or 1871, the sum was £2,000; and it remained at £2,000 for a good many years, until, I think, soon after Sir John Simon retired, when it became £1,900, and £1,900 it has remained ever since. 4410. Then for the last thirty-six years we may take it that it has averaged £2,000 or £1,900 a year ?—Yes. 4411. Did I correctly understand you to say that at one time the Local Government Board had laboratories of their own?—They hired a laboratory, and paid directly for the use of the laboratory; it was the St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Laboratory. They paid some couple of hundred pounds a year. I think they paid for the laboratory, and attendants, and re-agents, and things of that kind ; but in more recent years that has been discontinued, and now each worker makes his own arrangements as to the use of a laboratory—of course it has to be a licensed place—and his remunera- tion takes account of the expenses that he is put to in that way. 4412. Do the Board ever employ a whole time bac- teriologist ?—No, they have not done so. 4413. Would you give us the names of the scientific authorities who have been employed from as far back as you can remember until the present time ?—Dr. Andrewes, Dr. Blaxall, Dr. Theodore Cash, Dr. Edmund Heart (I am giving them alphabeticall), Dr Cory, Dr. Creighton, Mr. Dowdeswell, Dr. Dupré, Dr. “teneage Gibbs, Dr. Mervyr’Gordon, Dr. W. 8. Green- Parry Laws, Mr. Alfred Lingard, Dr. MacFadyen, Dr. Sidney Martin, Dr. Burdon Sanderson, Dr. W. R. Smith, Dr. Thudichum, Dr. John Wade, and Dr. Wooldridge. 4414. And would you be so good as to give me the names of those who hold letters of engagement now ?.— Dr. Klein, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Griinbaum, Dr. Sidney Martin, Dr. Horder, Dr. Savage, and Dr. F. W. Andrewes. I think that is all. 4415. Do you say that Dr. Klein is still employed ?— He is still employed. 4416.. You told us that you issued a special note to each experimenter that no painful experiments were to be performed without anesthetics ?—Yes. 4417. And that they were to report such to you ?— Quite so. 4418. Has your attention been called to the evidence given before the former Royal Commission by Dr. Klein ?—Of course I, in a sense, know it well. I remember hearing of it. I was a junior at the time. 4419. On page 183 I see the question was put to him, “Then for your own purposes you disregard entirely the question of the suffering of the animal in ver- forming a painful experiment?” And his answer was, “T do. Did that evidence have any effect upon you as regards this note that you issue ?—I think very possibly it had a good deal to do with the origination of Mr. Forster’s wishing that each one of the investigators should be specially cautioned against engaging in painful experiments if they could possibly be avoided. I have already quoted a memorandum made upon the subject by Mr. W. E. Forster to Sir John Simon. 4420. What was the date of Mr. Forster’s memo. randum ?—February 17, 1874. 4421. The evidence of Dr. Klein to which I have called your attention was given on October 28, 1875, according to this Blue Book?—The date of the minute by Mr. Forster is February 17, 1874, and I suppose that thereafter Sir John Simon began to give the special caution that is now given. When exactly he began it I could not say. 4422. The evidence of Dr. Klein could hardly have been the occasion of the minute by Mr. Forster ?—No, it looks as if it were not so; I agree. 4423. In his evidence before the foriaer Commission Sir John Simon stated that it was his aim to obtain exact scientific knowledge of the causes and mode of acquiring of any disease which is in question. I suppose that is still the aim?—That is still the aim. 4424, And in your own précis I see that you state that your object is to secure immediate administrative advantage ?—Quite so; one of our objects. 4425. What would you regard as the most typical or most successful example of these researches cul- minating in exact scientific knowledge or in securing immediate administrative advantage?—It is hard to point to anything that has given immediate advan- tage. Some instances of recent work in scientific research, say within the last ten or twelve years, leading to important results in regard to disease pre- vention or public health administration, are with regard to intestinal micro-organisms, the lead-poisoning abilities of water supply, bacteriology of scarlet fever and diphtheria, and the preparation of Haffkine’s and other prophylactics, For instance, in regard to presence and abundance of particular intestinal organisms, say in drinking water, a guide has been afforded to administra- tive authorities and their expert officers with regard to the uses and limitations of bacteriology in these matters, A series of reports has been made available when a question arises as to, the bacteriological methods to be adopted or the interpretation of bacteriological results. There can be no doubt that these reports have been and are being used and studied, to the advantage of good public health administration. _ 4426. Is that what you would cite as an example of immediate administrative advantage ?—I am speaking in a general way. An immediate administrative advantage, of course, is the detection of imported infectious epidemic disease which may spread over the country, as, for instance, plague, or cholera, or cerebro-spinal fever, and matters of that kind, 4427. Are you satisfied that you have the means of certainly identifying the presence of cholera by micro-