HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 81 
Supposing that he later finds a different promising avenue of ap- 
proach, will his original project plan cover him legally ? If there were 
no difference in the procedures relating to animal suffering, it prob- 
ably would. If, on the other hand, he decided to change from an ex- 
periment involving no pain to one involving pain, he would clearly 
have to let the Secretary know of this change. I have some plans as 
used under the British act, if the committee wishes to examine them. 
As you can see, they are brief. 
What is the purpose of filing project plans? From the moral stand- 
point, to encourage the most humane design of experiments. From the 
practical standpoint, to make possible effective enforcement of the 
measure without needlessly wasting the time of the scientist or the 
inspector. If inspectors had to start from a basis of complete igno- 
rance of the experiments being carried on, they would have to ask a 
great many questions, get corroboration from others, and end up per- 
haps with a confused report, aggravating to all concerned. But when 
the inspector has the facts in hand, the project plans clearly in mind, 
and finds the cages properly marked, he can do an efficient job of in- 
spection within a short time, and, if all is in order, be on his way again. 
II. ft. 1937 would not in any way hamper humane and responsible 
scientists. An even stricter law in England has not hampered them. 
In England the experimental plans must have prior approval from the 
Home Office. Under H.R.. 1937 the potential delay which conceivably 
might occur in our much larger country has been eliminated by placing 
the burden on the Secretary to disapprove if he believes the law is 
being violated, but not to require prior approval. 
At the end of the year each licensee would send to the Secretary of 
Health, Education, and Welfare reprints of his work published during 
the year and a brief report on the number of animals used, proce- 
dures used, and names of coworkers. Thus, the previous records are 
annually confirmed. Here is a sample of the one-page form for the 
animal report under the British law. As you can see, it is not demand- 
ing. No more than half an hour would be required to fill it out. 
To conclude the list of basic principles of the bill, it should be noted 
that it applies to all vertebrate animals. These are the animals whose 
central nervous system is more or less similar to our own, who have 
brains and spinal cords and nerves which, among the mammals es- 
pecially, closely follow the human pattern. It is clearly essential that 
all these creatures be treated with humane consideration. 
I would like to place in the record a letter from Dr. P. L. C. 
Carrier, recently retired Chief Inspector, carrying out the provisions 
of the British act of 1876. I hope that we may have a man of equal 
stature working directly from the Secretary’s Office, not — and I wish 
to emphasize this point — from the National Institutes of Health or 
the Public Health Service, to administer H.R. 1937. 
H.R. 1937 is a very moderate bill. It is opposed both by those who 
say it is too strong and those who say it is too weak. It is not a bill 
that aims to punish, rather it provides a strong incentive for humane 
design of experiments and humane care of animals. At present, there 
is virtually no incentive for scientists to plan experiments humanely — 
the only one I know is that I mentioned earlier by the American 
Physiological Society, and it is weak and variable. But if a scientist 
were aware that his project plan might not be accepted if his plan- 
