Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Catherine Roberts, in her article on the use ofanimals in medical research,justifies her opinion "that present progress in biological and medical research is often dependent upon means which are retarding the realization ofhuman potentialities" on the basis that since she is "neither an animal fanatic nor a member ofthe medical profession," and that since "viewing the problem from both perspectives, she may possibly contribute to its more general illumination." Miss Roberts cites research on shock as one ofthe examples that the "objectivity ofscience restricts the further development ofthe medical scientist's humaneness to the pursuit ofknowledge," and one wonders how deeply she studied the problem in order to view it from both perspectives. I would classify work done on shock as one ofthe outstanding humane endeavors ofall time! What moved great humanitarians like Phemister and Blalock to study the phenomena associated with shock? They had seen many accident victims, they had seen many patients undergoing prolonged operative procedures, who died ofshock in spite ofheroic efforts to save them and in spite ofthe application ofall the available knowledge oftheir time. The available knowledge, although gathered from work ofthe most respected authority ofthe time (International Commission on Shock, 1919), was not sufficient to help their patients. How does one study shock? In an armchair? Shock had to be duplicated in a live animal. Every reasonable precaution was taken to eliminate unnecessary pain. The dogs were anesthetized, shock was produced by contusion, and only then were the animals permitted to recover from anesthesia. The state ofshock in itselfis not a painful experience, ifwe are to accept the experiences with humans as any criterion. It hasbeen estimated that 25,000 menreturned from theEuropean theater ofoperations in World War II who would not have returned except for the work done on shock since World War I. This in itselfis more thanjustification for all the discomfort caused all the animals in research on shock. As an added benefit millions ofother humans and animals have benefited, and millions more will continue to benefit. And as we find more and more information about shock, and apply the added increments of knowledge, greater and greater percentages ofdisaster victims will be saved who otherwise would die. One wonders about the source ofthe information that has influenced Miss Roberts to believe that "wholly unrestricted scientific progress, together with all the benefits to man thereby accruing" is incompatible with increased humaneness. Can she possibly believe that discoveries to alleviate the ravages of cancer, of heart disease, of mental illness, of 412 Letters to the Editor Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Spring 1965 shock, ifcarried on at a slower pace is more humane than ifcarried on at an accelerated pace? Man does have an obligation to give those animals he uses for his benefit every practical consideration for their comfort and well-being. This obligation is recognized by those who use and work with laboratory animals tar more than is expected by those who read misinformation disseminated by certain anti-science groups. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement. But improvement will not come from sources that would deaccelerate research. Only those who work with shock can improve on techniques developed in studies on shock. Improved techniques involve two areas of consideration: first, techniques leading to more reliable data; and, second, techniques leading to reduced discomfort to the animal. Both are important. Reliability ofdata is more importantbecause the reliability ofthe conclusions drawn depends upon it. The more reliable are the data, the greater is the information gained per increment ofdiscomfort to research animals used. N. R. Brewer, D.V.M., Ph.D. Central Animal Quarters University ofChicago Dear Sir: In his essay "Why Is the Medical Profession Estimable in the Individual but Not in the Generality?" Rossi attempts to analyze the factors that have contributed to the tarnished image ofthe American physician. Some ofhis theories seem valid, but his semantic manipulations are confusing and lead to several naïve assertions. He proposes that the term "humanistic values" be discarded to avoid confusion (having chosen a restricted cultural definition of "humanistic," ignoring an equally proper quality definition that indicates humanitarianism, devotion to...