86-473: Brown Dog may refer to Brown Dog affair , 1900s-decade English vivisection controversy NCSA Brown Dog , legacy-data access facility A dog with a brown coat of fur See also [ edit ] Brown Dog Tick Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Brown Dog . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change
172-490: A pejorative catch-all term for experimentation on live animals by organizations opposed to animal experimentation, but the term is rarely used by practicing scientists. Human vivisection, such as live organ harvesting , has been perpetrated as a form of torture . Research requiring vivisection techniques that cannot be met through other means is often subject to an external ethics review in conception and implementation, and in many jurisdictions use of anesthesia
258-804: A "superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen". In 1875, Irish feminist Frances Power Cobbe founded the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) in London and in 1898 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The former sought to restrict vivisection and the latter to abolish it. The opposition led the British government, in July 1875, to set up
344-532: A group of medical students across the Thames to Battersea to attack the statue with a crowbar and sledgehammer. One of them, Duncan Jones, hit the statue with a hammer, denting it, at which point all ten were arrested by just two police officers. According to Mason, a local doctor told the South Western Star that this signalled the "utter degeneration" of junior doctors: "I can remember the time when it
430-462: A group toward whom male workers felt any warmth. But the "Brown Terrier Dog Done to Death" by the male scientific establishment united them all. Anti-vivisection Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive' and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system , to view living internal structure. The word is, more broadly, used as
516-520: A licence for an experimental project, 'the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue. ' " In Australia , the Code of Practice "requires that all experiments must be approved by an Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee" that includes a "person with an interest in animal welfare who is not employed by the institution conducting
602-424: A life-sized effigy of the magistrate, and singing, "Let's hang Paul Taylor on a sour apple tree / As we go marching on." The Times reported that they tried to burn the effigy but, unable to light it, threw it in the Thames instead. Women's suffrage meetings were invaded, although the students knew that not all suffragettes were anti-vivisectionists. A meeting organised by Millicent Fawcett on 5 December 1907 at
688-480: A man, testified that the dog had seemed unconscious. Coleridge's barrister, John Lawson Walton , called Lind af Hageby and Schartau. They repeated they had been the first students to arrive and had been left alone with the dog for about two minutes. They had observed scars from the previous operations and an incision in the neck where two tubes had been placed. They had not smelled the anaesthetic and had not seen any apparatus delivering it. They said, Mason wrote, that
774-486: A meeting of the Ealing and Acton Anti-Vivisection Society at Acton Central Hall on 11 December 1906, over 100 students disrupted it, throwing chairs and stink bombs, particularly when she objected to a student blowing her a kiss. The Daily Chronicle reported: "The rest of Miss Lind-af-Hageby's indignation was lost in a beautiful 'eggy' atmosphere that was now rolling heavily across the hall. 'Change your socks!' shouted one of
860-545: A probe. Ferrier was successful, but many decried his use of animals in his experiments. Some of these arguments came from a religious standpoint. Some were concerned that Ferrier's experiments would separate God from the mind of man in the name of science. Some of the anti-vivisection movement in England had its roots in Evangelicalism and Quakerism. These religions already had a distrust for science, only intensified by
946-541: A prolonged dissection of a greyhound which attracted wide public comment. Magendie faced widespread opposition in British society, among the general public but also his contemporaries, including William Sharpey who described his experiments aside from cruel as "purposeless" and "without sufficient object", a feeling he claimed was shared among other physiologists. The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 in Britain determined that one could only conduct vivisection on animals with
SECTION 10
#17327723636271032-453: A variety of other important physiological phenomena and principles, many of which were based on their experimental work involving animal vivisection. Starling and Bayliss's lectures had been infiltrated by two Swedish feminists and anti-vivisection activists, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Leisa Schartau. The women had known each other since childhood and came from distinguished families; Lind af Hageby, who had attended Cheltenham Ladies College ,
1118-510: A writ for libel. Ernest Starling decided not to sue; The Lancet , no friend of Coleridge, wrote that "it may be contended that Dr. Starling and Mr. Bayliss committed a technical infringement of the Act under which they performed their experiments." Coleridge tried to persuade the women not to publish their diary before the trial began, but they went ahead anyway, and it was published by Ernest Bell of Covent Garden in July 1903. The trial opened at
1204-635: Is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee , which contains at least one veterinarian, one scientist, one non-scientist, and one other individual from outside the university. In the United Kingdom, any experiment involving vivisection must be licensed by the Home Secretary . The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 "expressly directs that, in determining whether to grant
1290-590: Is legally mandated for any surgery likely to cause pain to any vertebrate . In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act explicitly requires that any procedure that may cause pain use "tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics" with exceptions when "scientifically necessary". The act does not define "scientific necessity" or regulate specific scientific procedures, but approval or rejection of individual techniques in each federally funded lab
1376-478: The Daily Mail ' s suggestion that he call it the "Stephen Coleridge Vivisection Fund". Gratzer wrote in 2004 that the fund may still have been in use then to buy animals. The Times declared itself satisfied with the verdict, although it criticised the rowdy behaviour of medical students during the trial, accusing them of "medical hooliganism". The Sun , Star and Daily News backed Coleridge, calling
1462-477: The London School of Medicine for Women , a vivisection-free college that had visiting arrangements with other colleges. They attended 100 lectures and demonstrations at King's and University College, including 50 experiments on live animals, of which 20 were what Mason called "full-scale vivisection". Their diary, at first called Eye-Witnesses , was later published as The Shambles of Science: Extracts from
1548-613: The National Anti-Vivisection Society . Outraged by the assault on his reputation, Bayliss, whose research on dogs led to the discovery of hormones , sued for libel and won. Anti-vivisectionists commissioned a bronze statue of the dog as a memorial, unveiled on the Latchmere Recreation Ground in Battersea in 1906, but medical students were angered by its provocative plaque—"Men and women of England, how long shall these Things be?"—leading to frequent vandalism of
1634-543: The Old Bailey on 11 November 1903 before Lord Alverstone , the Lord Chief Justice, and lasted four days, closing on 18 November. There were queues 30 yards long outside the courthouse. Bayliss's barrister, Rufus Isaacs , called Starling as his first witness. Starling admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs. Bayliss testified that
1720-412: The duodenum and jejunum , because of the arrival of chyme there. By severing the duodenal and jejunal nerves in anaesthetised dogs, while leaving the blood vessels intact, then introducing acid into the duodenum and jejunum, they discovered that the process is not mediated by a nervous response, but by a new type of chemical reflex. They named the chemical messenger secretin , because it is secreted by
1806-436: The nervous system controls pancreatic secretions, as postulated by Ivan Pavlov . Bayliss had held a licence to practice vivisection since 1890 and had taught physiology since 1900. According to Starling's biographer John Henderson, Starling and Bayliss were "compulsive experimenters", and Starling's lab was the busiest in London. The men knew that the pancreas produces digestive juices in response to increased acidity in
SECTION 20
#17327723636271892-490: The pancreatic duct . For the next two months he lived in a cage, until Starling and Bayliss used him again for two procedures on 2 February 1903, the day the Swedish women were present. Outside the lecture room before the students arrived, according to testimony Starling and others gave in court, Starling cut the dog open again to inspect the results of the previous surgery, which took about 45 minutes, after which he clamped
1978-444: The "hysterical language customary of anti-vivisectionists" and "a slander on the whole medical profession". The group turned to the borough of Battersea for a location for the memorial. Lansbury wrote that the area was a hotbed of radicalism—proletarian, socialist, full of belching smoke and slums, and closely associated with the anti-vivisection movement. The National Anti-Vivisection and Battersea General Hospital —opened in 1896, on
2064-619: The 'interest' of [the physiologist's] experiments". In the early 20th-century the anti-vivisection movement attracted many female supporters associated with women's suffrage . The American Anti-Vivisection Society advocated total abolition of vivisection whilst others such as the American Society for the Regulation of Vivisection wanted better regulation subjected to surveillance, not full prohibition. The Research Defence Society made up of an all-male group of physiologists
2150-513: The Anti-Vivisection Hospital, but were again forced back. When one student fell from the top of a tram , the workers shouted that it was "the brown dog's revenge" and refused to take him to hospital. The British Medical Journal responded that, given that it was the Anti-Vivisection Hospital, the crowd's actions may have been "prompted by benevolence". A second group of students headed for central London, waving effigies of
2236-632: The Brown Dog memorial After the trial Anna Louisa Woodward, founder of the World League Against Vivisection, raised £120 for a public memorial and commissioned a bronze statue of the dog from sculptor Joseph Whitehead . The statue sat on top of a granite memorial stone, 7 ft 6 in (2.29 m) tall, that housed a drinking fountain for human beings and a lower trough for dogs and horses. It also carried an inscription (right) , described by The New York Times in 1910 as
2322-505: The Brown Dog", describing the experiment and the trial. The novelist Thomas Hardy kept a copy of the book on a table for visitors; he told a correspondent that he had "not really read [it], but everybody who comes into this room, where it lies on my table, dips into it, etc, and, I hope, profits something". According to historian Hilda Kean , the Research Defence Society , a lobby group founded in 1908 to counteract
2408-507: The Diary of Two Students of Physiology (1903); shambles was a name for a slaughterhouse. The women were present when the brown dog was vivisected, and wrote a chapter about it entitled "Fun", referring to the laughter they said they heard in the lecture room during the procedure. The following year, a revised edition was published without that chapter; the authors wrote: "The story of the thrice vivisected brown dog as told by its vivisectors to
2494-501: The Home Secretary to state "under what certificate the operation on a brown dog was performed at University College Hospital on Feb. 2 last; and, whether, seeing that a second operation was performed upon this animal before the wounds caused by the first operation had healed, he proposes to take any action in the matter." Bayliss demanded a public apology from Coleridge, and, when it had failed to materialise by 12 May, he issued
2580-570: The Laboratories of University College in February 1903 after having endured Vivisection extending over more than Two Months and having been handed over from one Vivisector to Another Till Death came to his Release. Also in Memory of the 232 dogs Vivisected at the same place during the year 1902. Men and Women of England how long shall these Things be? —Inscription on
2666-528: The Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, and as it is found in the verbatim report of the trial, proved the true nature of vivisection far better than the chapter 'Fun' which can now be dispensed with." According to Starling, the brown dog was "a small brown mongrel allied to a terrier with short roughish hair, about 14–15 lb [c. 6 kg] in weight". He was first used in a vivisection in December 1902 by Starling, who cut open his abdomen and ligated
Brown Dog - Misplaced Pages Continue
2752-757: The Paddington Baths Hall in Bayswater was left with chairs and tables smashed and one steward with a torn ear. Two fireworks were let off, and Fawcett's speech was drowned out by students singing " John Brown's Body ", after which they marched down Queen's Road led by someone with bagpipes. The Daily Express reported the meeting as "Medical Students' Gallant Fight with Women". As we go walking after dark, We turn our steps to Latchmere Park, And there we see, to our surprise, A little brown dog that stands and lies. Ha, ha, ha! Hee, hee, hee! Little brown dog how we hate thee. —Sung by rioters to
2838-494: The Reverend Charles Noel. Medical students at London's teaching hospitals were enraged by the plaque. The first year of the statue's existence was a quiet one, while University College explored whether they could take legal action over it, but from November 1907 the students turned Battersea into the scene of frequent disruption. The first action was on 20 November, when undergraduate William Howard Lister led
2924-481: The Royal Veterinary College, disagreed; there was even a claim that Bayliss had used too much anaesthesia, which is why the dog had failed to respond to the electrical stimulation. According to Bayliss, the dog had been suffering from chorea , a disease that causes involuntary spasm, and that any movement reported by Lind af Hageby and Schartau had not been purposive. Four students, three women and
3010-470: The UK, a figure that had risen to 19,084 in 1903 when the brown dog was vivisected (according to the inscription on the second Brown Dog statue), and to five million by 1970. Physiologists in the 19th century were frequently criticised for their work. The prominent French physiologist Claude Bernard appears to have shared the distaste of his critics, who included his wife, referring to "the science of life" as
3096-426: The accuracy of this claim is disputed by many historians. In the 12th century CE, Andalusian Arab Ibn Tufail elaborated on human vivisection in his treatise called Hayy ibn Yaqzan . In an extensive article on the subject, Iranian academic Nadia Maftouni believes him to be among the early supporters of autopsy and vivisection. Unit 731 , a biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of
3182-530: The animals as "victims" and the apparent sadism that Magendie displayed when teaching his classes. Magendie's experiments were cited in the drafting of the British Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822 , otherwise known as Martin's Act. The latter bill's namesake, Irish MP and well known anti-cruelty campaigner Richard Martin , called Magendie a "disgrace to Society" and his public vivisections "anatomical theatres" following
3268-401: The anti-vivisection movement in Britain with his experiments when he had a debate with his German opponent, Friedrich Goltz. They would effectively enter the vivisection arena, with Ferrier presenting a monkey, and Goltz presenting a dog, both of which had already been operated on. Ferrier won the debate, but did not have a license, leading the anti-vivisection movement to sue him in 1881. Ferrier
3354-526: The anti-vivisection movement. One polarizing figure in the anti-vivisection movement was François Magendie . Magendie was a physiologist at the Académie Royale de Médecine in France, established in the first half of the 19th century. Magendie made several groundbreaking medical discoveries, but was far more aggressive than some of his contemporaries in the use of animal experimentation. For example,
3440-643: The antivivisectionist campaign, discussed how to have the revised editions withdrawn because of the book's impact. In December 1903, Mark Twain , who opposed vivisection, published a short story, A Dog's Tale , in Harper's , written from the point of view of a dog whose puppy is experimented on and killed. Given the timing and Twain's views, the story may have been inspired by the libel trial, according to Mark Twain scholar Shelley Fisher Fishkin . Coleridge ordered 3,000 copies of A Dog's Tale , which were specially printed for him by Harper's . On 17 September 1906,
3526-447: The appropriate license from the state, and that the work the physiologist was doing had to be original and absolutely necessary. The stage was set for such legislation by physiologist David Ferrier . Ferrier was a pioneer in understanding the brain and used animals to show that certain locales of the brain corresponded to bodily movement elsewhere in the body in 1873. He put these animals to sleep, and caused them to move unconsciously with
Brown Dog - Misplaced Pages Continue
3612-406: The board, his head clamped and his mouth muzzled. According to Bayliss, the dog had been given a morphine injection earlier in the day, then was anaesthetised during the procedure with six fluid ounces of alcohol, chloroform and ether (ACE), delivered from an ante-room to a tube in his trachea , via a pipe hidden behind the bench on which the men were working. The Swedish students disputed that
3698-443: The brown dog, joined by a police escort and, briefly, a busker with bagpipes. As the marchers reached Trafalgar Square, they were 400 strong, facing 200–300 police officers, 15 of them on horseback. The students gathered around Nelson's Column , where the ringleaders climbed onto its base to make speeches. While students fought with police on the ground, mounted police charged the crowd, scattering them into smaller groups and arresting
3784-419: The claims would be denied, and that he continued to regard the women's statement as true. The Times wrote of his testimony: "The Defendant, when placed in the witness box, did as much damage to his own case as the time at his disposal for the purpose would allow." Lord Alverstone told the jury that the case was an important one of national interest. He called The Shambles of Science "hysterical" and advised
3870-537: The corner of Albert Bridge Road and Prince of Wales Drive , and closed in 1972—refused until 1935 to perform vivisection or employ doctors who engaged in it, and was known locally as the "antiviv" or the "old anti". The chairman of the Battersea Dogs Home , William Cavendish-Bentinck, 6th Duke of Portland , rejected a request in 1907 that its lost dogs be sold to vivisectors as "not only horrible, but absurd". Battersea council agreed to provide space for
3956-528: The court that he had, in fact, used a knife. On 14 April 1903, Lind af Hageby and Schartau showed their unpublished 200-page diary, published later that year as The Shambles of Science , to the barrister Stephen Coleridge , secretary of the National Anti-Vivisection Society. Coleridge was the son of John Duke Coleridge , former Lord Chief Justice of England, and great-grandson of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge . His attention
4042-430: The decision a miscarriage of justice. Ernest Bell, publisher of The Shambles of Science , apologised to Bayliss on 25 November, and pledged to withdraw the diary and pass its remaining copies to Bayliss's solicitors. The Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society , founded by Lind af Hageby in 1903, republished the book, printing a fifth edition by 1913. The chapter "Fun" was replaced by one called "The Vivisections of
4128-554: The discovery of the different functionalities of dorsal and ventral spinal nerve roots was achieved by both Magendie, as well as a Scottish anatomist named Charles Bell . Bell used an unconscious rabbit because of "the protracted cruelty of the dissection", which caused him to miss that the dorsal roots were also responsible for sensory information. Magendie, on the other hand, used conscious, six-week-old puppies for his own experiments. While Magendie's approach would today be considered an abuse of animal rights, both Bell and Magendie used
4214-557: The dog had arched his back and jerked his legs in what they regarded as an effort to escape. When the experiment began the dog continued to "upheave its abdomen" and tremble, they said, movements they regarded as "violent and purposeful". Bayliss's lawyer criticised Coleridge for having accepted the women's statements without seeking corroboration, and for speaking about the issue publicly without first approaching Bayliss, despite knowing that doing so could lead to litigation. Coleridge replied that he had not sought verification because he knew
4300-410: The dog had been adequately anaesthetised. They said the dog had appeared conscious during the procedure, had tried to lift himself off the board, and that there was no smell of anaesthesia or the usual hissing sound of the apparatus. Other students said the dog had not struggled, but had merely twitched. In front of around 60 students, Bayliss stimulated the nerves with electricity for half an hour, but
4386-432: The dog had been given one-and-a-half grains of morphia earlier in the day, then six ounces of alcohol, chloroform and ether, delivered from an ante room to a tube connected to the dog's trachea. The tubes were fragile, he said, and had the dog been struggling they would have broken. A veterinarian, Alfred Sewell, said the system Bayliss was using was unlikely to be adequate, but other witnesses, including Frederick Hobday of
SECTION 50
#17327723636274472-445: The experiment, and an additional independent person not involved in animal experimentation." Anti-vivisectionists have played roles in the emergence of the animal welfare and animal rights movements, arguing that animals and humans have the same natural rights as living creatures, and that it is inherently immoral to inflict pain or injury on another living creature, regardless of the purpose or potential benefit to mankind. At
4558-507: The first Royal Commission on the "Practice of Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments for Scientific Purposes". After hearing that researchers did not use anaesthesia regularly—one scientist, Emmanuel Klein told the commission he had "no regard at all" for the suffering of the animals—the commission recommended a series of measures, including a ban on experiments on dogs, cats, horses, donkeys and mules. The General Medical Council and British Medical Journal objected, so additional protection
4644-579: The government appointed the Second Royal Commission on Vivisection, which heard evidence from scientists and anti-vivisection groups; Ernest Starling addressed the commission for three days in December 1906. After much delay (two of its ten members died and several fell ill), the commission reported its findings in March 1912. Its 139-page report recommended an increase in the number of full-time inspectors from two to four, and restrictions on
4730-465: The infiltration of University of London medical lectures by Swedish feminists , battles between medical students and the police, police protection for the statue of a dog, a libel trial at the Royal Courts of Justice , and the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the use of animals in experiments. The affair became a cause célèbre that divided the country. The controversy
4816-509: The intestinal lining into the bloodstream, stimulating the pancreas on circulation . In 1905 Starling coined the term hormone —from the Greek hormao ὁρµάω meaning "I arouse" or "I excite"—to describe chemicals such as secretin that are capable, in extremely small quantities, of stimulating organs from a distance. Bayliss and Starling had also used vivisection on anaesthetised dogs to discover peristalsis in 1899. They went on to discover
4902-518: The jury not to be swayed by arguments about the validity of vivisection. After retiring for 25 minutes on 18 November 1903, the jury unanimously found that Bayliss had been defamed, to the applause of physicians in the public gallery. Bayliss was awarded £2,000 with £3,000 costs; Coleridge gave him a cheque the next day. The Daily News asked for donations to cover Coleridge's costs and raised £5,700 within four months. Bayliss donated his damages to UCL for use in research; according to Mason, Bayliss ignored
4988-495: The link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_Dog&oldid=1120081717 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Brown Dog affair The Brown Dog affair was a political controversy about vivisection that raged in Britain from 1903 until 1910. It involved
5074-467: The memorial and the need for a 24-hour police guard against the so-called anti-doggers. On 10 December 1907, hundreds of medical students marched through central London waving effigies of the brown dog on sticks, clashing with suffragettes , trade unionists and 300 police officers, one of a series of battles known as the Brown Dog riots. In March 1910, tired of the controversy, Battersea Council sent four workers accompanied by 120 police officers to remove
5160-483: The neck, exposing the gland. The animal exhibits all signs of intense suffering; in his struggles, he again and again lifts his body from the board, and makes powerful attempts to get free. The allegations of repeated use and inadequate anaesthesia represented prima facie violations of the Cruelty to Animals Act. In addition the diary said the dog had been killed by Henry Dale, an unlicensed research student, and that
5246-462: The original statue. There was significant opposition to vivisection in England, in both houses of Parliament, during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837–1901); the Queen herself strongly opposed it. The term vivisection referred to the dissection of living animals, with and without anaesthesia , often in front of audiences of medical students. In 1878 there were under 300 experiments on animals in
SECTION 60
#17327723636275332-517: The patient recover. The demand for more effective treatment shifted emphasis to research with the goal of understanding disease mechanisms and anatomy. This shift had a few effects, one of which was the rise in patient experimentation, leading to some moral questions about what was acceptable in clinical trials and what was not. An easy solution to the moral problem was to use animals in vivisection experiments, so as not to endanger human patients. This, however, had its own set of moral obstacles, leading to
5418-409: The procedures on the brown dog: Today's lecture will include a repetition of a demonstration which failed last time. A large dog, stretched on its back on an operation board, is carried into the lecture-room by the demonstrator and the laboratory attendant. Its legs are fixed to the board, its head is firmly held in the usual manner, and it is tightly muzzled. There is a large incision in the side of
5504-496: The recent publishing of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in 1859. Neither side was pleased with how the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 was passed. The scientific community felt as though the government was restricting their ability to compete with the quickly advancing France and Germany with new regulations. The anti-vivisection movement was also unhappy, but because they believed that it was a concession to scientists for allowing vivisection to continue at all. Ferrier would continue to vex
5590-551: The same experiment were permitted. The animal had to be killed when the study was over, unless doing so would frustrate the object of the experiment. Prosecutions could take place only with the approval of the home secretary . At the time of the Brown Dog affair, this was Aretas Akers-Douglas , who was unsympathetic to the anti-vivisectionist cause. In the early 20th century, Ernest Starling , professor of physiology at University College London, and his brother-in-law William Bayliss , were using vivisection on dogs to determine whether
5676-545: The same rationalization for vivisection: the cost of animal experimentation being worth it for the benefit of humanity. Many viewed Magendie's work as cruel and unnecessarily torturous. One note is that Magendie carried out many of his experiments before the advent of anesthesia, but even after ether was discovered it was not used in any of his experiments or classes. Even during the period before anesthesia, other physiologists expressed their disgust with how he conducted his work. One such visiting American physiologist describes
5762-554: The scientists of torture: "If this is not torture, let Mr. Bayliss and his friends ... tell us in Heaven's name what torture is." Details of the speech were published the next day by the radical Daily News (founded in 1846 by Charles Dickens ), and questions were raised in the House of Commons, particularly by Sir Frederick Banbury , a Conservative MP and sponsor of a bill aimed at ending vivisection demonstrations. Banbury asked
5848-542: The statue on its Latchmere Recreation Ground, part of the council's new Latchmere Estate , which offered terraced homes to rent for seven and sixpence a week. The statue was unveiled on 15 September 1906 in front of a large crowd, with speakers that included George Bernard Shaw , the Irish feminist Charlotte Despard , the mayor of Battersea, James H. Brown (secretary of the Battersea Trades and Labour Council), and
5934-485: The statue under cover of darkness, after which it was reportedly melted down by the council's blacksmith, despite a 20,000-strong petition in its favour. A new statue of the brown dog, commissioned by anti-vivisection groups, was erected in Battersea Park in 1985. On 6 September 2021, the 115th anniversary of when the original statue was unveiled, a new campaign was launched by the author Paula S. Owen to recast
6020-534: The stragglers, including one undergraduate, Alexander Bowley, who was arrested for "barking like a dog". The fighting continued for hours before the police gained control. At Bow Street magistrate's court the next day, ten students were bound over to keep the peace; several were fined 40 shillings, or £3 if they had fought with police. Rioting broke out elsewhere over the following days and months, as medical and veterinary students united. Whenever Lizzy Lind af Hageby spoke, students would shout her down. When she arranged
6106-662: The students had laughed during the procedure; there were "jokes and laughter everywhere" in the lecture hall, it said. According to Mason, Coleridge decided there was no point in relying on a prosecution under the act, which he regarded as deliberately obstructive. Instead he gave an angry speech about the dog on 1 May 1903 to the annual meeting of the National Anti-Vivisection Society at St James's Hall in Piccadilly, attended by 2,000–3,000 people. Mason writes that support and apologies for absence were sent by Jerome K. Jerome , Thomas Hardy and Rudyard Kipling . Coleridge accused
6192-462: The students." Furniture was smashed and clothing torn. For Susan McHugh of the University of New England, the political coalition of trade unionists, socialists, Marxists, liberals and suffragettes that rallied to the statue's defence reflected the brown dog's mongrel status. The riots saw them descend on Battersea to fight the medical students, even though, she writes, the suffragettes were not
6278-471: The tune of Little Brown Jug The rioting reached its height five days later, on Tuesday, 10 December, when 100 medical students tried to pull the memorial down. The previous protests had been spontaneous, but this one was organised to coincide with the annual Oxford–Cambridge rugby match at Queen's Club , West Kensington. The protesters hoped (in vain, as it turned out) that some of the thousands of Oxbridge students would swell their numbers. The intention
6364-424: The turn of the 19th century, medicine was undergoing a transformation. The emergence of hospitals and the development of more advanced medical tools such as the stethoscope are but a few of the changes in the medical field. There was also an increased recognition that medical practices needed to be improved, as many of the current therapeutics were based on unproven, traditional theories that may or may not have helped
6450-405: The use of curare , a poison used to immobilise animals during experiments. The Commission decided that animals should be adequately anaesthetised, and euthanised if the pain was likely to continue, and experiments should not be performed "as an illustration of lectures" in medical schools and similar. All the restrictions could be lifted if they would "frustrate the object of the experiment". There
6536-436: The wound with forceps and handed the dog over to Bayliss. Bayliss cut a new opening in the dog's neck to expose the lingual nerves of the salivary glands , to which he attached electrodes. The aim was to stimulate the nerves with electricity to demonstrate that salivary pressure was independent of blood pressure . The dog was then carried to the lecture theatre, stretched on his back on an operating board, with his legs tied to
6622-626: Was also a tightening of the definition and practice of pithing . The Commission recommended the maintenance of more detailed records and the establishment of a committee to advise the Secretary of State on matters related to the Cruelty to Animals Act. The latter became the Animal Procedures Committee under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 . In Memory of the Brown Terrier Dog Done to Death in
6708-404: Was drawn to the account of the brown dog. The 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act forbade the use of an animal in more than one experiment, yet it appeared that the brown dog had been used by Starling to perform surgery on the pancreas, used again by him when he opened the dog to inspect the results of the previous surgery, and used for a third time by Bayliss to study the salivary glands. The diary said of
6794-615: Was founded in 1908 to defend vivisection. In the 1920s, anti-vivisectionists exerted significant influence over the editorial decisions of medical journals. It is possible that human vivisection was practised by some Greek anatomists in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE. Celsus in De Medicina states that Herophilos of Alexandria vivisected some criminals sent by the king. The early Christian writer Tertullian states that Herophilos vivisected at least 600 live prisoners, although
6880-455: Was introduced instead. The result was the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 , criticised by NAVS as "infamous but well-named". The act stipulated that researchers could not be prosecuted for cruelty, but that the animal must be anaesthetised, unless the anaesthesia would interfere with the point of the experiment. Each animal could be used only once, although several procedures regarded as part of
6966-637: Was more than 10 policemen could do to take one student. The Anglo-Saxon race is played out." The students were fined £5 by the magistrate, Paul Taylor, at South-West London Police Court in Battersea and warned they would be jailed next time. This triggered another protest two days later, when medical students from UCL, King's, Guy's, and the West Middlesex hospitals marched along the Strand toward King's College, waving miniature brown dogs on sticks and
7052-400: Was not found guilty, as his assistant was the one operating, and his assistant did have a license. Ferrier and his practices gained public support, leaving the anti-vivisection movement scrambling. They made the moral argument that given recent developments, scientists would venture into more extreme practices to operating on "the cripple, the mute, the idiot, the convict, the pauper, to enhance
7138-606: Was that, after toppling the statue and throwing it in the Thames, 2,000–3,000 students would meet at 11:30 pm in Trafalgar Square . Street vendors sold handkerchiefs stamped with the date of the protest and the words, "Brown Dog's inscription is a lie, and the statuette an insult to the London University." In the afternoon, protesters headed for the statue, but were driven off by locals. The students proceeded down Battersea Park Road instead, intending to attack
7224-606: Was the granddaughter of a chamberlain to the king of Sweden. In 1900, the women visited the Pasteur Institute in Paris, a centre of animal experimentation, and were shocked by the rooms full of caged animals given diseases by the researchers. When they returned home, they founded the Anti-Vivisection Society of Sweden, and to gain medical training to help their campaigning, they enrolled in 1902 at
7310-468: Was triggered by allegations that, in February 1903, William Bayliss of the Department of Physiology at University College London performed an illegal vivisection, before an audience of 60 medical students, on a brown terrier dog—adequately anaesthetised, according to Bayliss and his team; conscious and struggling, according to the Swedish activists. The procedure was condemned as cruel and unlawful by
7396-470: Was unable to demonstrate his point. The dog was then handed to a student, Henry Dale , a future Nobel laureate, who removed the dog's pancreas, then killed him with a knife through the heart. This became a point of embarrassment during the libel trial, when Bayliss's laboratory assistant, Charles Scuttle, testified that the dog had been killed with chloroform or the ACE mixture. After Scuttle's testimony, Dale told
#626373