The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-15

placement r. largely a matter OF Time.
Now Il appears that the higher animals
share this power, at least with respect
10 one organ and that the most I'M
portant OF ali. >.
This is not altogether new idea. IL
has been advanced before. ana mas even
becn made the subject OF somewhat heat
cd controversy; but NJ. Vicious expert
ments are so apparently decisive that
they may settle the matter. although In
science all questions are open and no ono
may consider that he has said a pcrman-
Ont last word" However this may be,
these are the experiments that seem 10
settle the matter. They were tried not on
man, II is unnecessary TO say, for IL Is
not yet legal 10 scoop out even part or
human brain while its owner yet lives
but on some OF his nearest relatives
among the lower animals, namely. mon
keys. The opponents OF vivisection would
doubtless raise their voices I'm energetic
protest at the cruelty shown TO these
creatures. That experimentation of THIS
kind must necessarily he cruel few VIII
deny. but 10 the enthusiastic physiologist
cruelty is quite justinable when II leads
10 the acquisition of scientific knowledge.
In this case. that part of the brain was
removed from each of the monkeys that
presidcs over the sense of sight. the
part without which any one OF us woule
be quite as blind as If his eyes were put
out. 1t was quite evident. after the
operation. that the animals were, in fact.
totally blind. They were kept and cared
for. and as the months went on they
seemed 10 be on the way 10 recovery.
Finally in about a years time il was
evident that they saw. II not as perfectly
as before at least partly; that is some
thing was performing the functions Of
the removed brain tissue. So far the ex-
pertinent can hardly be said TO be con-
elusive. for cases have been known where
one part of the brain has been able TO
perform the duty Of another part. II may
have been, then. that the task OF respond
ing TO visual impressions had been learned
by some other part of the brain. The
monkeys were therefore operated upon
again. part Of the skull was removed, and
the brain was examined. The part that
had been taken out was found TO be part
ly replaced by n growth Of new cells. so
that ii seems practically certain that It
was this new brain growth that had been
the cause OF the partial restoration Of
sight.
What will this all lead to? II il will be
Of any benefit TO the human race then
the poor monkeys suffered and died in n
good cause. If monkeys brain cells can
and this fact gives us reason to hope for
recovery in cases Of serious brain injury
that before seemed hopeless. Again. If
such growth is possible. means of foster
ing and stimulating 1t are probable. and
will doubtless be the objects of further
research. Some method may even be dis
covered by which the new growth may
be made more vigorous and healthy tran
the old. in which case startling and SEN
satonal results may follow. though this
may seem to be looking a little too far
into the realms Of mere possibility. But
why should not q weak part of the brain
he cut out ard replaced with new and
healthy growth of brain cells? Why
should not the idiot be given in this way
new thinking machine. and the imbccile.
the paranoiac. the crank be fitted out
with new mental apparatus?
I'm the days to come the statement that
John Smith has just been growing new
cercbellum in the hospital may be heard
with no more surprise than Is now caused
by the news Of an operation for appendi-
citis. The question would then arise:
Who is the reconstructed John Smith?
Has his personality altered? Is he the
same or another? But this must be left
to the psychologists and the courts Of law
of the year 1850. or thereabouts.-New
Orleans Times Democrat.