94 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
In analyzing the introductory part of the bill, we find it condones vivisection 
again. Animals shall be spared avoidable pain (it says) ; again, who shall deter- 
mine what is avoidable pain and what is not avoidable pain? The answer is 
the vivisector. Further, it states that the animals shall be used only when no 
other feasible and satisfactory method can be employed to obtain the necessary 
scientific information. Who is to determine when no other feasible and satis- 
factory method can be used — again, the vivisector. On page 3, section 3, line 
13, it states “there is hereby established in the executive branch of the U.S. 
Government, an agency for laboratory animal control, hereinafter sometimes 
called the Agency. 
“The Agency shall be headed by a Commissioner of Laboratory Animal Con- 
trol, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, with the 
approval of the Senate, for a period of 5 years, or until such time as the Com- 
missioner shall resign or be incapable of fulfilling his duties, in which event the 
President shall appoint a new Commissioner for a period of 5 years. To be eli- 
gible for appointment as Commissioner, a candidate must have been admitted to 
practice law in the Supreme Court of the United States. No person who has ever 
been connected with any laboratory shall be eligible for appointment as Commis- 
sioner. Tbe Commissioner shall receive the same remuneration and allowances 
as the judges of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and shall not be removable 
during bis term of office save on such grounds as would constitute grounds for 
impeachment or removal of such a judge. A Commissioner may be reappointed 
with the consent of the Senate.” 
MEDICAL LANGUAGE NOT WANTED 
The language in this section of the bill virtually prevents any person with 
medical knowledge from holding the office of Commissioner of Laboratory Ani- 
mal Control. On page 7, section 12(b), line 22, “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, or procedure, unless the project plan ap- 
proved by the Commissioner states that anesthesia would frustrate the purpose 
of the project.” Here, again, we have the vivisector as the only person to deter- 
mine whether or not the animals should be anesthetized, and how much anes- 
thesia should be used. We must bear in mind that when the vivisectors tell us 
that the animals were anesthetized, that they often fail to tell us the depth or 
amount of anesthesia administered. Too often a small dose of anesthesia would 
not alleviate total pain and suffering, but the mere use of the word anesthesia 
leads the public to believe that the animal does not feel pain. 
Those of us who read the medical journals continually, know better. 
On page 8, section 12(c), “No unasthetized animals shall be burned or scalded 
or subjected to perforation of the abdominal viscera, or any similarly acutely pain- 
ful procedure.” 
This is the one clause in the bill that the proponents are depending upon in 
their appeal to the public, emphasizing that enactment would eliminate most of 
the cruelty now practiced in the vivisectional laboratories. 
This clause has three major faults. It ratifies vivisection, it makes no provi- 
sion for enforcement, no funds are appropriated for inspection : Over 15,000 
laboratories now receiving Federal aid should be continuously inspected, 24 
hours a day. To enforce this clause would require a force of approximately 
20,000 inspectors. Yet no provision appears in the bill to finance and provide 
proper enforcement. 
AVe know from experience in dealing with highly controversial legislation such 
as these three bills, that were they to be adopted, they would not include any- 
thing resembling section 12(c), as quoted above. The axe would fall on section 
12(c) long before enactment. 
On page 8, line 7, section 12(d) of the bill : “Regardless of the nature or pur- 
pose of any experiment or procedure, animals that would suffer prolonged pain 
or stress as a result an experiment or procedure, shall be painlessly killed im- 
mediately after the procedure causing pain or stress is completed, whether or not 
the objective of the experiment or procedure has been attained.” This clause, 
when scrutinized, still gives the vivisector days and weeks to perform his ex- 
periment on animals which is now customary procedure in laboratories, and the 
animals can be suffering for days and weeks at a time during the experiment 
before they are destroyed. Therefore, no suffering has been eliminated or al- 
leviated in this bill. 
