THE USE OF IMPLANTABLE TELEMETRY SYSTEMS 
FOR ANIMAL MONITORING 
D. F. Schwindaman, Mark Conner, Charles McPherson, Joseph Pierce, John C. Norman, Julius Cass, Harold R. Parker and Lowell T. Harmison 
Dr. Harmison: This session touches upon 
several aspects of the use of animals, their care 
and research. We thought it would be appro- 
priate to approach this somewhat delicate situa- 
tion from the standpoint of understanding more 
clearly the regulations set forth in the Animal 
Welfare Act. This will be followed by a discus- 
sion of the guidelines for implementation and 
follow-through, as viewed by the NIH, and a 
discussion of how the legislation, the Act, and 
the interpretation of the guidelines fit in with 
the people who have to use, follow, and execute 
the information. I think it goes without saying 
that the scientific community has long recog- 
nized the responsibility, both technically and 
ethically, of the need for guidelines in the care 
of good animal research. It goes beyond that 
to include the broader domain of humane care 
in the total treatment of medicine extending 
itself to man. So, it is a broad subject. We're 
dealing only with the first part, that is, with 
the animal. We're not here to basically discuss 
the justification or the lack thereof, but to face 
the problem in a real and direct sense as it 
presents itself today. From this vantage point, 
we can see that the scientific community has a 
major jole and a major responsibility. 
Without further discussion on my part, let 
me introduce the panel members who have so 
graciously consented to participate in this dis- 
cussion. To my left is Dr. Mark Conner who will 
be discussing the NIH Guidelines. Dr. Charles 
McPherson from NIH, the Animal Resources 
Branch ; Dr. D. F. Schwindaman from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Dr. Joseph E. 
Pierce from NHLI; Dr. Julius Cass from the 
Veterans' Administration; Dr. Harold Parker 
from the University of California at Davis, who 
* A panel discussion presented at the Conference "Research Ani- 
mals in Medicine," Washington, D. C, January 29, 1972. 
really has two views here tonight, one repre- 
senting his new role as Chairman of the Com- 
mittee of the American Physiological Society 
and his own personal views; and Dr. John C. 
Norman from Harvard to give us a view of how 
the clinical side of the legislation directly inter- 
relates and comes to bear on the subject of hu- 
mane care. At this time I'd like to ask Dr. 
Schwindaman to present a discussion of the 
Animal Welfare Act. 
Dr. Schwindaman : I will start by giving you 
just a little background on the first law. Public 
Law 89-544 ; what led up to the passage of that 
particular law ; what happened in the four years 
that we were enforcing it; and the amendment 
that came about with the passage of Public Law 
91-579, the Animal Welfare Act of 1970. 
Now during the discussion I'm going to be 
talking about the Old Act, the New Act, and 
The Act. When I talk about "The Act," I'm 
taking about the two Acts put together, P.L. 
89-544 as amended by P.L. 91-579. 
Public Law 89-544, as most of you know, was 
passed and signed on August 24, 1966. This 
particular Act came about after several bills 
had been introduced into Congress in the pre- 
vious years, but I think primarily it was articles 
in the public press that really brought about the 
public reaction to cause its passage. This Act 
was somewhat limited in its scope. It directed 
itself toward two aspects; one aspect covered 
dealers in dogs and cats who sold them for 
purposes of research or experimentation, and 
the second covered the research facilities where 
such dogs and cats were used for experimenta- 
tion. 
Public Law 89-544 was keyed to the use of 
dogs and cats. There were six species mentioned, 
but it was oriented to these two species. Now if 
you used dogs and cats and came under the 
1271 
