HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 79 
If one saw this taking place, any decent citizen would call the 
police if he had not the courage to intervene personally. However, 
all this is published as a matter of course in the pages of “Science.” 
Admittedly, it is much less painful than many of the procedures 
being carried out every day in hundreds of laboratories. 
Again, in the simple matter of housing, here is a picture of a breed- 
er’s kennel. He was prosecuted and fined for breeding dogs in these 
cages. Yet I have repeatedly seen mother dogs with nursing puppies 
in even more crowded conditions in laboratories; such breeding has 
even been reported in scientific papers and the high mortality of the 
pups recorded. 
Many more examples might be given, but these should suffice to show 
that a double standard exists, even at the lowest level. 
The privilege which our civilization has extended to scientists is 
being abused. The uninformed believe that animals are used for ex- 
periments only when it is really necessary, that they are decently 
housed and cared for and that avoidable pain is prevented with care 
and assiduity. If H.R. 1937 is enacted into law and its provisions 
properly administered, this belief will be correct, but at the present 
time, it is very far from the case. 
Very briefly, I will go over the points, the reasons, why H.R. 1937 
can bring animal experimentation in our country up to civilized 
standards. 
First, by careful inspection of laboratories by men whose character 
and training fit them for the work. As you are aware, H.R. 1937 is 
based on legislation which has been successfully in effect in Britain 
since 1876, and in the administration of this bill, we would urge a care- 
ful study of the means whereby the British act has accomplished so 
much good for animals and for science, too. All inspectors under the 
act in Britain have medical qualifications. Medical training alone is 
not enough, however, the inspectors must have humane regard for 
animals and firm moral character. 
Second, by placing individual responsibility on each scientist who 
uses animals. This is accomplished by licensing, and it should be em- 
phasized that individual licensing is one of the most important, per- 
haps the most important reason why the British act, though so mod- 
erate, is so effective. There would be no purpose in passing any bill 
in our country for the purpose of requiring humane treatment of ex- 
perimental animals if the bill does not include individual licensing. 
Opponents wish to dispense with this vital provision knowing that the 
bill cannot be enforced without it. We have had long experience in 
observing the operation of State laws, most of them passed at the be- 
hest of the NSMR for the purpose of procuring animals. These laws 
provide for the licensing of institutions, and, in theory, the license 
might be withdrawn for cause, but an infraction of the law calling 
for suspension or revocation of license would put a halt to all animal 
experiments throughout the institution. The result of such legal 
draftsmanship is that the innocent must suffer with the guilty or the 
law is never enforced. The latter is generally the case. Clearly, 
Congress ought not to follow this highly unsatisfactory pattern. 
Third, by the limitation of pain infliction amounting to torture. In 
England, every license carries with it a series of conditions, among 
them those known as the pain conditions which provide that animals 
