HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 61 
Antivivisection is tlieir indispensable bogey which must be kept before the 
public at any cost. It is their only avenue toward unlimited procurement of 
animals for unlimited and uncontrolled experimentation. 
I shall continue with the quote : 
The NSMR has had but one idea since its organization ; namely, to provide an 
inexhaustible number of animals to an ever-growing crowd of career scientists 
with but little biological background and scant interest in the future of man. 
Consider what we are doing in the name of science and the issue will be clear. 
We are drowning and suffocating unanesthetized animals in the name of science. 
We are determining the amount of abuse that life will endure in unanesthetized 
animals in the name of science. We are producing frustration ulcers in ex- 
perimental animals under shocking conditions in the name of science. We are 
observing animals for weeks, months, and even years under infamous conditions 
in the name of science. 
Well, I have some special knowledge of the kind of work to which 
Dr. Gesell ref erred when he said : 
We are producing frustration ulcers in experimental animals under shocking 
conditions. 
This is a specialty field of my colleagues in the science of psychol- 
ogy. Our scientific literature abounds with detailed reports of such 
things. Dr. Gesell was restrained behind his phrase, “shocking con- 
ditions.” There are thousands of experiments, sometimes mere dem- 
onstrations, that cause intense and prolonged suffering to animals, 
and in many institutions the experimental animals are kept in terrible 
physical conditions and are given only the minimum of care necessary 
to keep them alive for use. 
In studies of the brain, the central nervous system and the reactions 
of organisms to various stimuli, animals of almost every vertebrate 
species are frequently submitted to deliberately induced pain and the 
intense assaults on instinct and basic needs that Dr. Gesell spoke of 
as frustration. 
In recent years we have had an increasing number of experiments 
that involve so-called decerebration of animals, which means that a 
part of the brain is surgically removed or destroyed so that pain stim- 
uli can be administered without anesthesia. There is considerable 
scientific argument about the nature of pain perception, and there 
is vigorous debate about pain experienced by decerebrated cats, mon- 
keys, and dogs. 
But animals so altered — “prepared” is the jargon word that is used 
most frequently in the literature — and then fully conscious, I am of 
the opinion that they suffer to a seldom admitted degree. Such things, 
1 think, should be brought under control by law. 
The Moulder bill would be justified and should become law if only 
because it would compel institutions that use animals to provide 
humane housing and humane care for the animals that they use. 
Laboratories keep animals under conditions that can only be de- 
scribed as Dr. Gesell described them — shocking. Animals of all 
species are jammed into cages too small for them and into rooms too 
small and unsuited for the number of animals kept. It is easy to 
find laboratories with gleaming, expensive, modern equipment, quite 
often paid for by the Federal Government, next door to dismal, damp, 
dark animal quarters, equipped with rusting and odorous cages. 
This kind of thing results from the fact that there is a price tag 
on kindness, and many researchers and university business managers 
are unwilling to carry kindness to the point at which it costs money. 
