William Osler and Arthur Conan Doyle versus the antivivisectionists: some lessons from history for today.

Abstract

Reaction against vivisection for research reached its height in the last two decades of the 19th century and the first two of the 20th, and a resurgence began in the 1960s. Antivivisectionism was and is related, in part, to emphasis on humanitarian sentiments. Two humanitarian physicians defended vivisection as essential. Dr. Arthur Conan Doyle in 1886 justified the killing of rabbits to relieve human suffering from hydrophobia. In 1910, he objected to the antihuman campaign of the antivivisectionists. Dr. William Osler reacted similarly to the threat to vivisection. He gave emphatic evidence to investigative committees in the United States in 1900 and in Britain in 1907. Osler also performed vivisection. His experimentation included studies of pig typhoid and tapeworm cysts in pigs and of the fate of india ink injected into the lungs of kittens. Osler and Conan Doyle were but two of the many prominent physicians who helped stem the tide of antivivisection legislation near the turn of the century. A review of the elements that fostered antivivisectionism in the society of their time is relevant in understanding and reacting to similar sentiments in the present era.