On the other side of the debate, those who is favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge and to ensure the safety of products intended for human and animal use. The founders, in 1831, of the Dublin Zoo—the fourth oldest zoo in Europe, after Vienna, Paris, and London—were members of the medical profession, interested in studying the animals both while they were alive and when they were dead.[59] Claude Bernard, known as the "prince of vivisectors"[60] and the father of physiology—whose wife, Marie Françoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883[61]—famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen."[62] Arguing that "experiments on animals...are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man...the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree,"[63] Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.[64] In 1896, the physiologist and physician Dr. Walter B. Cannon said "The antivivisectionists are the second of the two types Theodore Roosevelt described when he said, 'Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.'"[57] These divisions between pro- and anti- animal testing groups first came to public attention during the brown dog affair in the early 20th century, when hundreds of medical students clashed with anti-vivisectionists and police over a memorial to a vivisected dog.[65]