SCHWINDAMAN, CONNOR, MCPHERSON, PIERCE, NORMAN, CASS, PARKER & HARMISON 1283 
to all of the things that occur, I feel sure, in the 
policy of the NIH. 
I would like to tell you some of the playback 
that has occurred over recent years, where the 
law has come into effect by speaking to the use 
of terms when we speak about these various 
fields. When I have spoken of these matters with 
many of you, the statement generally comes, 
"Well, that's what we intend but we may be 
using the wrong word." I would like to suggest 
that in using the word "care" we are not ad- 
dressing ourselves to the total setting in which 
we are working; the setting being the animal, 
its definition, its biological characteristics, its 
state at any point in time, and its surroundings, 
both before and throughout studies we carry on. 
This setting is no different from a hospital 
setting, where the doctor comes to treat his 
patient ; it doesn't in any way usurp his preroga- 
tive as a professional. The dietitian knows her 
job, the housekeeper knows her job, the clinical 
laboratory knows its job, the nurse knows her 
job, and if there need to be changes in this set- 
ting, the physician requires it, writes it down 
and it's done. But the setting is primary. We're 
dealing with the same kind of thing with the 
animal in its surroundings. 
The animal subject (let's quit calling it a 
model except as we mean a model) is a subject 
from which we derive all of our initial data, all 
of our initial observations, all of our initial 
biological materials. And yet what investigator 
among us would be willing to accept funds to do 
a research program that did not have instru- 
mentation that was sensitive and reliable 
enough to yield the answers to our questions or 
the analytical method that was sensitive 
enough. We would refuse to do that study. But 
we don't refuse with a fully compromised ani- 
mal subject from which we derive the data 
initially. I don't care how good the instrument 
is that follows that initial piece of material you 
obtain, you will not correct the variability with 
good instrumentation. 
Using the term "animal care committee" 
weds us to the fact that this is a humane aspect 
of the work. In the case of human studies, they 
call it the "human studies committee" which is 
great because it reviews the protocol, it ad- 
dresses itself to the totality of the setting, and 
the procedures, and their humaneness in the 
case of man. The parallel to this would be the 
"animal studies committee," not the "animal 
care committee," and, as a matter of fact, Dr. 
Conner addressed himself to the fact that it 
wasn't only the humane aspects with which this 
committee would be concerned. It could assist 
in protocol review on animal subjects being 
used. Using the word "holding facility," for 
example, suggests there are no observations 
made there, no monitoring done there, and it 
could just as well be a bunch of equipment put 
out into the back storage room. 
These are words that have made a second and 
third priority of the animal subject and its 
surroundings from which we derive our initial 
data. I sincerely hope that we don't simply 
pass that off by saying, "Oh those are just 
words." Congressmen do not have the back- 
ground. Personnel people who are classifiers do 
not have the background and look upon people 
who feed and water animals not as people who 
affect these animals, but as janitor types and 
they classify them accordingly. When we want 
to upgrade the quality of the animal setting we 
use, we are faced with the statement that first 
the man doing the research must receive his 
money to support his research and then we'll 
look at the facilities from an entirely different 
standpoint. It doesn't make sense and I hope 
we join these two once again as with clinical 
research and facilities for human subjects, and 
laboratory research and facilities for biological 
materials. 
Dr. Harmison : I would like to ask Dr. Harold 
Parker to give us the views of the American 
Physiological Society, the committee which he's 
chairing, and some of his own personal views 
on this subject. 
Dr. Parker : It is a pleasure and honor to be 
asked to participate in this panel discussion as 
a veterinarian and physiologist. 
Since I am wearing two hats this evening I 
will first speak as a veterinarian-investigator. 
Requirements of the new law — The Animals 
Welfare Act of 1970— and the NIH Guidelines 
pose no particular problems because they spell 
out objectives which veterinarians believe in. 
When we became veterinarians we accepted 
responsibility to work toward improving health 
