22 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
Section 3 provides that to be eligible for appointment as Commissioner, a 
candidate must have been admitted to practice law in the Supreme Court of the 
United States but, any candidate is ineligible if he has ever been connected with 
a laboratory. This provision appears singularly unreasonable as it would neces- 
sarily preclude the appointment of those types of persons best qualified to 
supervise the procedures of research laboratories, putting aside for the moment 
the wisdom of imposing such supervision. 
The definition of “laboratory” contained in section 2(g) is vague; thus it is 
unclear in section 5, which provides that no Federal agency shall make any 
purchase from any laboratory not holding a certificate of compliance, whether, 
if any one of the constituent laboratories of a large university or corporation did 
not hold a certificate of compliance, this would preclude all other agencies of 
the Federal Government from contracting with the balance of the applicable 
university or corporation. 
Section 7 provides that the Commissioner shall issue no certificate of compliance 
until he has received proof that projects planned by the applicant laboratory 
will be conducted in accordance with the bill’s policy. It is submitted that this 
is an inconsistency in terms, inasmuch as there can be no proof of an applicant 
laboratory’s future intention. 
The requirement in section 8 that all laboratories agree to permit representa- 
tives of the Commissioner and State law-enforcement officers to have access at 
all times to research animals, premises, and records, is unreasonable (in its 
reference to all times) ; although the bill does not expressly so provide, it is 
assumed, of course, that the bill’s provisions giving inspectors access to labora- 
tories using animals in their research programs is subject to, and does not 
supersede regular security procedures insofar as necessary access to security 
information, if any, is concerned. 
Section 12(a) requires that all laboratories, in order to maintain their certi- 
ficates of compliance, must design and execute their projects so as to obtain 
“maximum reduction and substitution.” “Reduction” is defined as the use of a 
reduced number of animals, and “substitution” is defined as’ the use of a 
less highly developed species of animals in place of a more highly developed 
species. The bill, however, contains no guidance as to how to recognize the 
points at which maximum substitution or maximum reduction are reached, and 
it is believed such guidance is necessary to make section 12(a) meaningful. 
Section 12(b) provides that animals used in any way that would cause pain 
shall be anesthetized so as to prevent the animals from feeling pain during or 
after the experiment unless the project plan approved by the Commissioner 
states that anesthesia would frustrate the purpose of the project. This provi- 
sion would appear to place the Commissioner, a nonseientist, in a position to 
control the scope and method of research projects, which should, in the view 
of this Department, preferably be a decision left to the responsible scientist- 
investigator. 
Section 12(f) requires that anesthetics be administered only by licensed vet- 
erinarians, doctors of medicine, or graduate students in medical schools under 
the immediate supervision of the aforementioned. This requirement is unrealis- 
tic since there are insufficient veterinarians and doctors of medicine available 
to make this proviso feasible. 
In summary, it is stressed that the Department of Defense already adheres 
to the recognized standards for humane treatment of experimental animals es- 
tablished by the National Society for Medical Research, that there is dubious 
value in establishing a uniform Federal policy in this area, that the bill, if 
enacted in its present form, would have a deleterious effect on Government- 
supported research programs in terms of delays and administrative burdens, 
that the costs to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of imple- 
menting the bill’s program appear enormous in the light of the elaborate admin- 
istrative machinery contemplated by the bill, and that such costs might more 
profitably be devoted to additional research effort. 
The specific fiscal effects of this legislation are not known to the Department 
of Defense. 
This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accord- 
ance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. 
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the admin- 
istration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for 
the consideration of the committee. 
Sincerely yours, 
Cyrus R. Vance, 
Secretary of the Army. 
