46 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
being sent out by public relations personnel for the U.S. Public Health Service, 
Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, that : “The Public 
Health Service has long observed the most humane rule possible — that an animal 
be used for experimental research only when no other feasible and satisfactory 
method is available.” If they have already been doing this, why object to 
legislation which uses these very words ? 
The fact is, however, that even the American Medical Association is sharply 
criticizing the wastefulness of the National Institutes of Health. An article in 
the April 13, 1962 issue of the Wall Street Journal states in part : “The [AMA] 
journal noting a sharp increase in Federal spending on medical research in 
recent years, claimed it is ‘probable’ that ‘huge sums of money are spent on 
doubtful, artificially blown-up, occasionally ridiculous projects * * * far too 
few people have realized that the stepped-up efficiency with which these sums 
are raised does not necessarily mean that they are equally efficiently spent.’ 
The journal warned medical school administrators to be on the watch for 
unwise use of research grants on unscientific projects, to watch for ‘grant 
eaters’ and to guard against what it called ‘scientism.’ ” 
The journal of the AMA gives the following description : “Scientism is not 
easy to define, but it is not hard to recognize. Research administrators get 
it and it spreads like wildfire. Its epidemiology and statistical significance are 
now being studied ; but much committee work is still needed to define it as a syn- 
drome. A true scientist, a true educator, or a trained practitioner of medicine is 
immune. But it does infect people who are none of these. The disease is highly 
infectious, is spread by seminars and workshops, by mail and telephone. Only 
withdrawal of grant money, with proper diversion of funds elsewhere, can dry it 
up. Like a fungus it remains dormant until suddenly wetted by a skillful 
‘grant eater.’ Scientism may be defined as ‘grant getting by wisdom of applica- 
tion’ — a combination of pseudoscientific, pecuniary pedantry and integrated 
cooperative research based all too often on irrelevant or misinterpreted data, 
and compounded by mass computer techniques.” 
The National Institutes of Health have failed signally to bring about humane 
treatment of animals in institutions to which it makes grants (see Information 
Report, vol. 11, No. 1). There needs to be legislation administered entirely 
separately from the NIH to require decent treatment of these animals. A chief 
inspector or administrator working directly out of the Office of the Secretary of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, with a small group of fulltime inspectors located 
in different parts of the country, could do this work effectively. Because they 
would be enforcing Federal law specifically designed to prevent needless suffering 
in laboratories, they could be expected to become (like their counterparts in 
Great Britain, all of whom are medically qualified), experts on humane technique 
of equal help to the animals and the scientists. Of interest in this connection 
is a comment by Prof. R. J. Harrison of the London Hospital Medical College : 
“On two important occasions the Home Office made suggestions of the very 
greatest help and significance which materially increased the standard of the 
research and the importance of the results.” 
Contrast this with the shockingly ignorant statement which appeared in “Re- 
search Highlights. National Institutes of Health, 1960. Items of Interest on 
Program Developments and Research Studies Conducted and Supported by the 
Institutes and Divisions of NIH, as Presented to the Congress of the United 
States, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Serv- 
ice.” On page 271 of this document, it is reported : "Data were obtained from 
40 adult cats anesthetised with Nembutal or curare preparations.” Confusion be- 
tween anesthetics such as Nembutal (which render animals unconscious and un- 
able to feel pain) and muscle relaxants such as curare (which leave the animals 
conscious but paralyzed so that they are unable to move or make a sound) is 
inexcusable. A recent editorial in Anesthesiology ( September-Octoher 1961) 
states in part: “Other researchers may have immobilized animals with muscle 
relaxants rather than anesthetic agents. This procedure is unwarranted and to 
be condemned. Quite likely, however, many investigators are uninformed as 
to adequate anesthetic procedures in animals which would obtund or eliminate 
pain and discomfort without interference with results of the experiment.” 2 
2 The editorial suggests that a book be written by anesthesiologists on anesthetics for 
animal experiments. The AWI hopes a complete text will be prepared on all species com- 
monly used in laboratories and calls attention to “An Introduction to the Anesthesia of 
Laboratory Animals” by Phyllis Croft, Ph. D., M.K.C.V.S., available from the AWI for 
$0.50. This covers the smaller species. 
