Why Did The Royal Society Use Animals?
Granted a royal charter by King Charles II in 1660, the Royal Society, was, to a large extent, the product of the Enlightenment. Inspired by Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the Royal Society began to call into question many of the assertions of Galen, Aristotle, and other crafters of the ancient scientific canon, which served for many years, particularly in the wake of humanism, as the foundation and ultima ratio of European science (America, 2013). Despite abandoning many of the conclusions of ancient thinkers and much of the methodology of Renaissance humanism, the Royal Society continued the ancient legacy of animal experimentation, which was first institutionalized by Galen (Greek, 2000). Commonly killed as a result of testing, dogs were routinely used by the Royal
…show more content…
Society in experiments on the effects of blood transfusion, the effects of injecting various liquids into animals, and the nature of breathing.
These experiments, justified on both theological and utilitarian grounds, were widely acclaimed in the Society’s magnum opus, collectively entitled the “Philosophical Transactions”. In the quest for anatomical and biological knowledge, members of the Royal Society commonly conducted brutally violent, and often deadly, experiments on dogs.
One of the great “fads” among European philosophers and scientists in the 17th century, “the art of transfusing blood from one animal to another” was given “much attention” during the early modern period (Thomson, 1812). Though somewhat comical when considered in light of the current understanding of biology, experimentation conducted by members of the Royal Society often centered around the effect of blood transfusion on the appearance, individual disposition, and species of the recipient. Addressing the transfusion of blood from one dog to another conducted by Dr. Richard Lower,
Robert Boyle, a member of the Royal Society, proposed into whether “by this way of transfusing blood, the disposition of individual animals of the same kind, may not be much altered” (Boyle, 1666). In addition to examining the effect of blood transfusion on individual dispositions, Boyle also proposed experimentation to determine whether blood transfusions might change the hair color of the recipient dog into that of the donor, and whether blood transfusion may cause a change in species to occur (Boyle, 1666). Building upon these inquiries it is noted that scientists, including Boyle, did have hopes that blood transfusion “might be another form of alchemical transmutation-a type of physiological philosopher’s stone” (Tucker, 2011). Reflecting both a “cultural fascination for hybrid beasts that had endured since antiquity” and an era of “therapeutic bloodletting”, experiments in blood transfusion were genuinely based on the notion that “invigorating old or diseased blood with an infusion of new, healthy blood” could serve as a sort of panacea (Tucker, 2011; Guerrini, 1989). Though hyped as a potential cure-all, blood transfusion experiments, which were often conducted on dogs, regularly resulted in the death of both the donor and recipient (Guerrini, 1989). Inserting quills in the “carotid artery of one dog and into the jugular vein of another,” Richard Lower was far from being the only experimenter to use dogs and, in the process, kill them (Thomson, 1812). Translated into English and published by the Royal Society in 1710, Sir William Courten’s experiments on the effects of injecting various “liquors” into dogs serves as one of the Society’s more seemingly senseless endeavours. Injecting everything from emetic wine and olive oil, to vitriol and “salt of urine”, Courten’s inquiries often resulted in violent reactions or death (Thomson, 1812) Those dogs that were not injected with poisons were often poisoned using snakes. Likewise, those dogs that were not killed in their first poisoning episode were often killed in subsequent experiments (Courten, 1710).
As suggested previously, such treatment of dogs was by no means atypical of the period. In addition to performing blood transfusions and liquor injections, scientists also conducted vivisections on dogs in order to experiment on the nature of respiration. Accompanied by live audiences, Dr. Robert Hooke, whose findings were published in the 1667 volume of the “Philosophical Transactions”, performed one of the era’s most brutal experiments on dogs. In an experiment that was “deemed of considerable importance” at the time, Hooke “removed the ribs and diaphragm of a dog, and kept him alive for an hour by blowing into his lungs with a pair of bellows” (Thomson, 1812). Despite the cruel nature of the experiment, Hooke was able to determine, in what amounted to a significant breakthrough, that “air itself and not the motion of the lungs was the crucial element in sustaining the heartbeat (of the dog)” (Guerrini, 1989).
By no means indicative of a universal cruelty towards dogs, the maltreatment of dogs by scientists is quite remarkable when juxtaposed with the “increasingly popular” practice, in seventeenth century England, of owning dogs as pets (Guerrini, 1989). Hardly representing an “anti-dog” faction of society, at least a portion of those who participated in experiments were dog-owners. John Evelyn, a seventeenth century English writer who owned dogs as pets, is a case-in-point of this kind of phenomenon. Evelyn indirectly participated in a number of dog experiments, including vivisections conducted by Robert Hooke, as an observer. Despite finding certain experiments, such as Hooke’s vivisections of dogs, to be “of more cruelty than pleased me,” John Evelyn found experimentation on dogs, in most other cases, to be morally acceptable. Despite his voracious condemnation of dog-fighting as “butcherly [sport] or rather barbarous [cruelty],” Evelyn appears to have had no objection to dog experimentation ipso facto (Guerrini, 1989). Though seemingly dissonant, such a view is consistent with the ethical defense of vivisection and animal experimentation that was articulated by Charles Boyle. In short, experimentation on dogs and other animals was justified on the “theological grounds of gaining knowledge about God’s creation but also because such experiment afforded information beneficial to humans” (Guerrini, 1989). In contrast to the Cartesian attempt to prove through a priori reasonings that animals do not feel pain, Boyle and other scientists accepted the existence of animal suffering while supposing that such suffering was, though perhaps not ideal, nevertheless morally justified on theological and utilitarian grounds.
Society in experiments on the effects of blood transfusion, the effects of injecting various liquids into animals, and the nature of breathing.
These experiments, justified on both theological and utilitarian grounds, were widely acclaimed in the Society’s magnum opus, collectively entitled the “Philosophical Transactions”. In the quest for anatomical and biological knowledge, members of the Royal Society commonly conducted brutally violent, and often deadly, experiments on dogs.
One of the great “fads” among European philosophers and scientists in the 17th century, “the art of transfusing blood from one animal to another” was given “much attention” during the early modern period (Thomson, 1812). Though somewhat comical when considered in light of the current understanding of biology, experimentation conducted by members of the Royal Society often centered around the effect of blood transfusion on the appearance, individual disposition, and species of the recipient. Addressing the transfusion of blood from one dog to another conducted by Dr. Richard Lower,
Robert Boyle, a member of the Royal Society, proposed into whether “by this way of transfusing blood, the disposition of individual animals of the same kind, may not be much altered” (Boyle, 1666). In addition to examining the effect of blood transfusion on individual dispositions, Boyle also proposed experimentation to determine whether blood transfusions might change the hair color of the recipient dog into that of the donor, and whether blood transfusion may cause a change in species to occur (Boyle, 1666). Building upon these inquiries it is noted that scientists, including Boyle, did have hopes that blood transfusion “might be another form of alchemical transmutation-a type of physiological philosopher’s stone” (Tucker, 2011). Reflecting both a “cultural fascination for hybrid beasts that had endured since antiquity” and an era of “therapeutic bloodletting”, experiments in blood transfusion were genuinely based on the notion that “invigorating old or diseased blood with an infusion of new, healthy blood” could serve as a sort of panacea (Tucker, 2011; Guerrini, 1989). Though hyped as a potential cure-all, blood transfusion experiments, which were often conducted on dogs, regularly resulted in the death of both the donor and recipient (Guerrini, 1989). Inserting quills in the “carotid artery of one dog and into the jugular vein of another,” Richard Lower was far from being the only experimenter to use dogs and, in the process, kill them (Thomson, 1812). Translated into English and published by the Royal Society in 1710, Sir William Courten’s experiments on the effects of injecting various “liquors” into dogs serves as one of the Society’s more seemingly senseless endeavours. Injecting everything from emetic wine and olive oil, to vitriol and “salt of urine”, Courten’s inquiries often resulted in violent reactions or death (Thomson, 1812) Those dogs that were not injected with poisons were often poisoned using snakes. Likewise, those dogs that were not killed in their first poisoning episode were often killed in subsequent experiments (Courten, 1710).
As suggested previously, such treatment of dogs was by no means atypical of the period. In addition to performing blood transfusions and liquor injections, scientists also conducted vivisections on dogs in order to experiment on the nature of respiration. Accompanied by live audiences, Dr. Robert Hooke, whose findings were published in the 1667 volume of the “Philosophical Transactions”, performed one of the era’s most brutal experiments on dogs. In an experiment that was “deemed of considerable importance” at the time, Hooke “removed the ribs and diaphragm of a dog, and kept him alive for an hour by blowing into his lungs with a pair of bellows” (Thomson, 1812). Despite the cruel nature of the experiment, Hooke was able to determine, in what amounted to a significant breakthrough, that “air itself and not the motion of the lungs was the crucial element in sustaining the heartbeat (of the dog)” (Guerrini, 1989).
By no means indicative of a universal cruelty towards dogs, the maltreatment of dogs by scientists is quite remarkable when juxtaposed with the “increasingly popular” practice, in seventeenth century England, of owning dogs as pets (Guerrini, 1989). Hardly representing an “anti-dog” faction of society, at least a portion of those who participated in experiments were dog-owners. John Evelyn, a seventeenth century English writer who owned dogs as pets, is a case-in-point of this kind of phenomenon. Evelyn indirectly participated in a number of dog experiments, including vivisections conducted by Robert Hooke, as an observer. Despite finding certain experiments, such as Hooke’s vivisections of dogs, to be “of more cruelty than pleased me,” John Evelyn found experimentation on dogs, in most other cases, to be morally acceptable. Despite his voracious condemnation of dog-fighting as “butcherly [sport] or rather barbarous [cruelty],” Evelyn appears to have had no objection to dog experimentation ipso facto (Guerrini, 1989). Though seemingly dissonant, such a view is consistent with the ethical defense of vivisection and animal experimentation that was articulated by Charles Boyle. In short, experimentation on dogs and other animals was justified on the “theological grounds of gaining knowledge about God’s creation but also because such experiment afforded information beneficial to humans” (Guerrini, 1989). In contrast to the Cartesian attempt to prove through a priori reasonings that animals do not feel pain, Boyle and other scientists accepted the existence of animal suffering while supposing that such suffering was, though perhaps not ideal, nevertheless morally justified on theological and utilitarian grounds.