88 HUMANE TREATMENT OE ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
the upper plate, thus restricting his activity. * * * At this point the panel 
may be a little tighter than they will be for final adjustment since the tight 
panels serve to quiet the monkey. * * * It is necessary to check the monkey 
frequently for several days until it becomes accustomed to the chair. * * * 
During this period its activity may loosen some of the adjustments or require 
that others be made. After the monkey has adapted to the chair, a regular 
inspection is required to check for decubitus — which may occur at the neck and 
waist panels but is much more likely to occur in the region of the callosities.” 
The author in an apparent burst of magnanimity states that since it only takes 
5 or 10 minutes to do “there is no reason why the monkey should not be taken out 
of the chair occasionally and put into a cage. This would help to maintain 
muscle tone, prevent decubitus (bed sores) and allow grooming.” However, he 
states that he has maintained monkeys in the chairs continuously for periods of 
2 to 5 months, and “spinal preparations” that is, monkeys whose spinal cords 
have been severed, for weeks in a slightly modified chair. 
For additional examples, I should like to place in the record those included in 
this recently published Information Report of the Animal Welfare Institute. 
It needs to be emphasized that a very substantial proportion of the actions 
being taken in a majority of animal laboratories would constitute prosecutable 
cruelty were they done by a private citizen outside the laboratory. Laboratories 
are specifically exempted in a number of States from the provisions of the anti- 
cruelty laws which apply to all other citizens. Even where there is no specific 
exemption, the ordinary anticruelty laws are not equipped to deal with this vast 
field any more than they were equipped to deal with slaughterhouse cruelty, to 
prevent which Congress so wisely intervened. Federal legislation is even more 
needed for laboratories than it was for slaughterhouses. 
To take a few homespun examples, if a man took his cat and gave it electric 
shocks so strong that it stiffened out as if poisoned with strychnine, then when it 
had recovered from that he slapped it, shook it, held it by one leg — “carried this 
kind of treatment of the extreme and prolonged (it) over many minutes” till 
the unfortunate cat (and I am quoting from a scientific paper) presented the 
following picture, “explosive autonomic discharge was seen, including panting, 
piloerection, defecation, urination, batting and clawing all at once.” If one saw 
this taking place, any decent citizen would call the police if he had not the cour- 
age to intervene personally. However, all this is published as a matter of course 
in the pages of “science.” Admittedly, it is much less painful than many of the 
procedures being carried out every day in hundreds of laboratories. 
Again, in the simple matter of housing, here is a picture of a breeder’s kennel. 
He was prosecuted and fined for breeding dogs in these cages. 2 Yet I have re- 
peatedly seen mother dogs with nursing puppies in even more crowded conditions 
in laboratories; such breeding has even been reported in scientific papers and 
the high mortality of the pups recorded. 
Many more examples might be given, but these should suffice to show that a 
double standard exists, even at the lowest level. 
The privilege which our civilization has extended to scientists is being abused. 
The uninformed believe that animals are used for experiments only when it is 
really necessary, that they are decently housed and cared for and that avoidable 
pain is prevented with care and assiduity. If H.R. 1937 is enacted into law and 
its provisions properly administered, this belief will be correct, but at the present 
time, it is very far from the case. 
How can H.R. 1937 bring animal experimentation in our country up to civilized 
standards? 
First, by careful inspection of laboratories by men whose character and train- 
ing fit them for the work. As you are aware, H.R. 1937 is based on legislation 
which has been successfully in effect in Britain since 1876, and in the adminis- 
tration of this bill, we would urge a careful study of the means whereby the 
British Act has accomplished so much good for animals and for science too. All 
inspectors under the act in Britain have medical qualifications. Medical training- 
alone is not enough, however; the inspectors must have humane regard for 
animals and firm, moral character. 
Second, by placing individual responsibility on each scientist who uses ani- 
mals. This is accomplished by licensing, and it should be emphasized that 
individual licensing is one of the most important, perhaps the most important 
reason why the British act, though so moderate, is so effective. There would 
2 From Animaldom, December 1961. 
