56 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
of money” on “doubtful, artificially blown up, occasionally ridiculous 
projects.” I do not always agree with the American Medical Asso- 
ciation but about this subject I think that the association is right. 
Our own House Committee on Governmental Operations has said, 
with emphasis, that we need new and better controls of the projects 
and grants of the National Institutes of Health. 
And I want to quote Mr. J ohn M. Russell, president of the respected 
Markle Foundation, one of the pioneer organizations in private financ- 
ing of medical research. In his 1960 annual report, the president of 
the Markle Foundation said that many experts on current medical re- 
search consider much of the current outpouring of research reports 
“worthless, or at least of questionable value.” 
How can this be true — 
Mr. Russell continued — 
in a world so intensely interested in the eradication of disease and the ad- 
vancement of medical knowledge? It is the very intensity of this interest, the 
unrelenting pressure put on our scientists to produce, that has overstimulated 
medical research, that has encouraged work on marginal projects, that has sup- 
ported men of doubtful ability and has given a boost to the status seekers in 
medical science. 
In other words, much of the work that is being done and the papers that are 
being published are done and published for the wrong reasons : because someone 
had too much money to spend ; or because a Government official had to dispose 
of all the appropriated funds within the fiscal year for which it was appro- 
priated ; or because someone forced someone else to work in an area not of his 
own choosing ; or because someone found it easier to drift along on fellowships 
than to strike off on his own ; or because a practitioner thought it would “look 
good” if he did some research; or because an assistant professor needed “to 
publish” to get a promotion ; or because of a thousand other reasons irrelevant 
to the advancement of medical knowledge. 
Shoddy reasons for doing research tend to produce shoddy research. 
And this cry of dismay and disillusionment, mark you, is from the 
resopnsible, respected head of a foundation that for years has been 
financing medical research. It is a disturbing indictment of our own 
stewardship, in the Congress, of public funds. 
No, I do not for an instant accept the argument that medical re- 
search will be impeded if, before throwing out the taxpayers’ largess, 
we demand more detailed research project plans than we have required 
in the past or if we require those who have used the public funds to 
tell us, later, how the mony was used. Frankly, I look with suspicion 
on any who call such requirements “redtape.” I think that it is pretty 
evident that the so-called redtape requirement of H.R. 3556 would 
pince only those whom the president of the Markle Foundation de- 
scribed as those who are “doing shoddy research for shoddy reasons.” 
The net result of the tightened controls of H.R. 3556, I am con- 
vinced, would be more and better research for every dollar spent. 
Translated, that means that we would get along faster toward a cure 
for cancer, polio, cerebral palsy, heart disease, mental ill health, and 
the other goals that our medical research is supposed to reach, and that 
which the people are interested in and want to be achieved. 
You also, I expect, will hear it argued in this hearing that the 
medical laboratories using animals should be allowed to police them- 
selves. Enactment of the proposed legislation will be opposed by 
statements that scientists are humane, that various professional asso- 
ciations are moving to prevent cruelty, and that legislation, therefore, 
is unnecessary. 
