44 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
[From Information Report, Animal Welfare Institute, March-April 1962] 
Senator Clark Introduces Bill for Humane Treatment of Laboratory 
Animals 
Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, introduced into the U.S. Senate on 
March 28 S. 3088 for the humane treatment of experimental animals, a com- 
panion bill to H.R. 1937. Senator Clark’s bill has been referred to the Com- 
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare. Hearings on the identical bills can now 
be scheduled by either Senator Lister Hill, chairman of the above-mentioned 
committee, or by Congressman Oren Harris, chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, before which 
H.R. 1937 is pending. 
Senator Clark introduced S. 3088 after careful consideration as a matter o' 
conscience. In view of the fierce opposition the proposal 1 as aroused, his 
humaneness and courage are worthy of the greatest respect and his work deserves 
the active support of all humanitarians. 
Introduction of S. 3088 calls for a statement on the provisions of the bill and 
the principles upon which it is based. These principles have stood the test of 
time in a nation renowned for the wisdom of its lawmaking, the achievements of 
its scientists, and the humaneness of its attitude toward animals. The British 
Act of 1876 stands as the most just and humane law on animal experimentation 
ever enacted. The eight major points listed below are incorporated in the com- 
panion bills now pending in Congress, S. 3088 and H.R. 1937. 
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH ACT WHICH HUMANELY REGULATES 
EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS 
The act is based on the principle that the infliction of suffering is, in itself, 
wrong but that, within limits, it should be allowed as a special privilege to 
highly trained persons of serious purpose for needed work which can be accom- 
plished only in this way. Following is a summary of the means by which this 
has been brought into practice by law in Britain. 
( 1 ) Licensing : Each scientist who uses animals for experimental purposes is 
individually licensed and responsible for the animals he uses. Each laboratory 
where animals are used is registered. 
(2) Inspection: Well-qualified inspectors under the direction of a chief inspec- 
tor have access to laboratories and records and make unannounced inspections. 
(3) Pain rule: The pain conditions limit the amount of suffering inflicted. 
(4) Care and housing: Minimum standards of care and comfortable housing 
are required. 
(5) Records: Records adequate to allow the inspectors to enforce the law are 
required. These include: (a) submission of the plan of work showing that it 
has genuine scientific need to be done and has been planned as humanely as 
possible; (b) identification of animals used and their disposition; and (c) a 
brief annual report. 
(6) Student work: Student work, as distinct from research conducted by 
qualified scientists, must be painless. 
(7) Scope : The act applies to all vertebrate animals. 
(8) Enforcement: Compliance with humane principles is obtained because 
experimental plans may be disapproved on humane grounds and because a 
scientist’s license may be suspended or revoked for failure to comply. 
The British act is administered by the Home Office. It is a criminal statute ; 
however, its enforcement has relied on the licensing system rather than on prose- 
cution. S. 3088 and H.R. 1937 were drafted to follow this time-tested example, 
The purpose of the measure is to provide an effective incentive for humane 
planning of experiments and to prevent needless suffering before it takes place 
rather than to aim at punishment after the event. 
For this reason, each scientist who uses animals would be licensed. His 
plan for an experiment or series of experiments would be submitted to the 
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Unless disapproved at once by 
the Secretary, the licensee would be at liberty to proceed. Contrary to asser- 
tions made by opponents of the measures, there is no requirement for prior 
approval, and hence the specter of protracted delay is purely imaginary. 
Another groundless fear which the opponents have sought to instill in the 
minds of scientists is that of a great burden of paperwork. S. 3088 and H.R. 
1937 call for less recordkeeping than the British act, and as Dr. Leon Bernstein, 
