HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 45 
who for 18 years did physiological research and teaching under the act, wrote, 
“The formalities involved are trivial : I do not recall that in my own case they 
ever occupied more than 1 minute of my time for each experiment I performed, 
and perhaps 30 minutes for the completion of the annual report.” 1 
The purpose of the pain conditions attached to all British licenses is to prevent 
animals from dying slowly in agony and to' limit, so far as possible, lesser suf- 
fering. S. 3088 and H.R. 1937 require that “animals which are suffering severe 
and prolonged pain shall be painlessly killed.” 
Regarding care and housing of experimental animals, S. 3088 and H.R. 1937 
require: “(a) All premises where animals are kept shall provide a comfortable 
resting place, adequate space and facilities for normal exercise, and adequate 
sanitation, lighting, temperature control and ventilation, (b) Animals shall 
receive adequate food and water and shall not be caused to suffer unnecessary 
or avoidable pain through neglect and mishandling.” 
All institutions supported in whole or in part (through grants) by Federal 
funds would be required to observe the humane conditions, and all scientists in 
these institutions would be licensed. 
A SHIFT IN POSITION BY OPPOSING FORCES 
When legislation providing for the humane treatment of experimental animals 
was first introduced in the 86th Congress, organized scientific opposition took the 
position that it was unnecessary — that all was well with the animals in labora- 
tories and only crackpots could think otherwise. Now, however, it is generally 
conceded that something needs to be done — but, according to the opponents, it 
must not take the form of mandatory law. Like the meatpackers (who man- 
aged to delay humane slaughter legislation for more than a quarter of a century 
by this simple expedient) they plan to set up a committee which, it is asserted, 
will bring about the necessary improvements in the treatment of experimental 
animals by voluntary means. 
Virtually any effort to raise standards in laboratories is welcome, for there 
is a vast amount of work to be done, but to suppose the animal facilities certi- 
fication program of the Animal Care Panel could be a substitute for needed 
legislation would be naive in the extreme. 
Even on the lowest level — the kindergarten of humanitarian thinking, so to 
speak — the Animal Care Panel has demonstrated inability to progress, as wit- 
ness the recent reprinting (June 1961) in its journal, The Proceedings of the 
Animal Care Panel, of the discussions which took place at its first meeting in 
1950. Comments of some of the panelists on the prolonged caging of dogs are 
quoted below : 
“Dr. Brewer. We have kept dogs in cages as long as 5 years with only occa- 
sional release. It is emphasized that such long confinement is not common and 
is used for such as ‘blue baby’ dogs. Of course, these dogs are exercised, but 
they are not taken out of the cages for that purpose regularly. * * * 
“Comment : At Illinois, dogs have been kept in cages for as long as 7 years, 
especially those dogs used in hypertensive studies. These dogs like their cages and 
are unhappy elsewhere excep twhen being observed or handled by the investi- 
gator. 
“C. C. Hargreaves. We have also kept dogs in cages for 7 years. * * * 
“H. H. Struck. If you provide a 5 by 5 by 10 pen for each individual dog 
you have to provide too much space. Most dogs are content with a cage, 
especially if you walk them every couple of days. In our case, we have cages in 
three tiers. * * *” 
It might have been hoped that after 11 years of activity on the subject of 
animal care a change of heart could have taken place among ACP policymakers — 
a little pity for the dogs caged 7 long years, even a little generosity in emulation 
of the generosity of Congress in providing several thousand percent more money 
to experimental laboratories in recent years. 
need for legislation is clear 
How could an honorable Member of Congress accept ACP accreditation as a 
guarantee against the infliction of needless suffering on the millions of animals 
now being purchased by laboratories with money provided by the taxpayers? 
By the same token, how could a Congressman accept the statement now 
1 For Dr. Bernstein’s full letter, see Information Report, vol. 10, No. 3. 
