96 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
Ordinarily, only an infinitesimal proportion of tlie population has any direct 
knowledge of vivisection. Most of them consider these practices as going on 
in places and surroundings remote from the ordinary experiences of daily life. 
The result is that if there is general belief that a law exists putting a curb on 
these experiments, people will think the matter has been properly dealt with. 
Let us heed rather the experience of those who have seen the actual results 
of such alleged regulation over a long period of years. This experience has 
amply demonstrated that abolition, not regulation, is the only answer. 
The Menace of Bill S. 3570 
(By M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.) 
“A bill to provide for the humane treatment of animals used in experiments 
and tests by recipients of grants from the United States and by agencies and 
instrumentalities of the U.S. Government, and for other purposes.” 
There are clearly demonstrable reasons why this bill must fail of its object 
and should, therefore, be strenuously fought by all interested in animal welfare 
and opposed to the infliction of pain and suffering in the course of scientific 
research. 
Let it first be granted that the sponsors of the bill, who are for the most part 
concerned with animal welfare but not opposed to vivisection, are genuinely con- 
vinced that this enactment would appreciably reduce the amount of suffering 
endured by the animals experimented upon in the laboratories. In the fol- 
lowing pages it will be proved to the reader that their efforts, however well-in- 
tentioned, are gravely misguided. 
At the outset, we are faced with the anomaly that the bill is hotly criticized 
both by supporters and by opponents of experiments on animals, the sponsors 
of the bill receiving a measure of abuse from both sides. So let us examine the 
validity or otherwise of the conflicting arguments. 
(1) The NSMR (National Society for Medical Research) and similar groups, 
claim that, if enacted, the provisions of the bill would seriously impede the 
progress of medical science. There is not a vestige of truth in this. Years ago 
the legal adviser to the American Medical Association, Mr. John F. Sembower, 
LL.B., when discussing the British Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, stated cate- 
gorically that “all types of animal experimentation performed in the United 
States may be conducted in England,” the obvious inference being that the 
British act presented no obstacle to the work of British scientists. Since bill 
S. 3570 is very largely patterned upon the provisions of the act of 1876, it fol- 
lows that the former will have no more effect upon Americans than the latter 
has had upon British research. In point of fact, the provisions of bill S. 3570 
are, as we shall see later, considerably less strict, in some respects, than those of 
the British act. 
STATEMENT OF PHYSIOLOGIST 
On this side of the Atlantic, we have the statement of a physiologist of Univer- 
sity College Medical School who is licensed under the 1876 act, Mrs. Grace 
Eggleton, 1 2 that “the restrictions imposed by the Home Office are highly desir- 
able, for they afford the protection of the law against interference from the 
antivivisectionists. They offer no hindrance to research. * * * ” This claim would 
receive the assent of most physiologists in Great Britain.* Together with similar 
declarations emanating from responsible authorities in America, it makes non- 
sense of the arguments of the NSMR. 
(2) The main objection to the bill on the part of opponents of vivisection is 
that its provisions do nothing to prevent any of the pain, misery, and suffering 
which are the inevitable accompaniment of many scientific experiments — that 
which is termed by the scientist as unavoidable and therefore justifiable. It is 
certainly often unavoidable if the experiment is to be conducted to its planned end 
(the solution of some problem) and under conditions which do not invalidate 
the results ; but antivivisectionists demur from the inference that this renders 
the experiments justifiable. 
1 British Medical Journal, Nov. 19, 1949, p. 1174. 
2 It was endorsed by Dr. P. L. C. Carrier, chief inspector of the Home Office when speaking 
at a meeting of the Animal Care Panel held in Washington, Oct. 29-31, 1959. (See Infor- 
mation Report, vol. 8, No. 5) Animal Welfare Institute, New York, U.S. A. He said : “The 
act does not interfere with the progress of science.” 
