[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 1, 1908


JAMA. 1908;L(5):366-367. doi:10.1001/jama.1908.02530310042003

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


The endeavor now being made in the State of New York to secure the adhesion of the medical profession to a legislative bill providing for governmental regulation of experiments on animals, brings clearly before physicians the question of the attitude they should assume toward such legislation in general. No one competent to treat those suffering from disease can deny the overwhelming value to medical practice of the results of animal experimentation, for a physician seldom prescribes for a patient without making use of the knowledge thus gained. Nevertheless, the question is occasionally presented to members of our profession, and is listened to receptively, especially by those who are not familiar with antivivisection agitation: May it not be advisable to support moderate specific legislative control beyond that which is obtained through the customary laws relating to cruelty to animals in general?

In a democracy there are two criteria for restrictive legislation,

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview