[Skip to Navigation]
March 1954


AMA Arch Derm Syphilol. 1954;69(3):257. doi:10.1001/archderm.1954.01540150001001

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 report by Callaway and Hambrick in this issue represents an enormous and arduous task which will serve a useful purpose if it does no more than to spotlight a troublesome situation that confronts the entire medical profession too often—that is, the shameful need to defend repeatedly against the misguided but frequently effective efforts of antivivisectionists to abolish animal experimentation.

The benefits to mankind from animal experimentation have been recited time and again, but even in dermatology, where because of structural and biological differences animal skins are not always ideal for study, the rewards have been significant—in studies of permeability and absorptive powers of the skin so important to the therapist and the commercial chemist, in studies of anaphylaxis and sensitization, in the study of infections of all sorts, particularly tuberculosis, in pigmentation, tumor formation, metabolism, nutrition, in fact in almost every phase of dermatology. The

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution