80 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
that are suffering must be painlessly killed as soon as the main result 
of the experiment has been achieved and that if an animal “is found 
to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, such animal shall 
forthwith be painlessly killed.” Further, if an inspector finds an 
animal suffering considerable pain and directs that it be destroyed, this 
shall be done at once. These principles have been incorporated in 
H.R. 1937. 
Fourth, minimum standards of care and comfortable housing are 
required. 
Fifth, student work, as distinct from research conducted by qualified 
scientists, must be painless. 
Sixth, records adequate to allow the inspectors to enforce the law 
are required. Because an issue has been made on this subject by 
opponents of H.R. 1937, the allegations of “redtape” and “burdensome 
recordkeeping” should be carefully examined. To be a modern sci- 
entist and not keep records is obviously unthinkable. The greater 
the emphasis on the statistical approach the more records necessarily 
have to be kept. This is not the fault of H.R. 1937, which asks no 
more, so far as records and identification of cages or animals, than 
every responsible scientist now keeps. The false rumor has been 
spread that each individual animal used (for example, a thousand mice 
in a single experiment) would have to have a separate piece of paper 
filled out for it and that that is what British scientists are now doing. 
It should be obvious to any thinking person that this is not the case — 
as one British scientist now working in the United States put it: 
Reading some of the propagandist literature circulated to me recently by 
the scientific societies of which I am a member, I have had a feeling of unreality 
about the whole affair, engendered by my inability to recognize, in their descrip- 
tions of the restrictions and burdens under which their British colleagues labor, 
the system under which I worked for so many years : sometimes I have wondered 
what cloud-cuckoo land they have confused with Great Britain. 
H.R. 1937 is in no way more demanding than the British act upon 
whose principles it is based. The record in question would show what 
the responsible research worker must know if his work is to have 
any meaning : How many animals, what procedure was used on them, 
what happened to them. All well-run laboratories have cages or 
animals, or both, marked so that they do not get mixed up. H.R. 
1937 would require all laboratories that receive Federal funds to come 
up to proper standards in this respect. I have been in many labora- 
tories where cages are unmarked or have old marking unrelated to 
their current occupants. In one hospital, I observed dogs whose cages 
were identified with the name of a doctor who had not used dogs for 
2 years. 
Another aspect of the so-called redtape which has been attacked are 
the project plans. Every scientist who gets a grant from the Federal 
Government has to present his experimental plans in far greater detail 
than anything called for in H.R. 1937. He has to wait considerable 
periods before he learns whether his grant has been accepted or not. 
Unscrupulous opponents of H.R. 1937 have deliberately misled many 
scientists into believing that the same would hold true with regard to 
the submission of project plans in this bill. The truth is that the bill 
was most carefully drawn to prevent any possible delay. Project 
plans must be prefiled, not preapproved. 'There can be no delay be- 
cause the scientist is at liberty to proceed as soon as his plan is on file. 
