106 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
to the contrary, there is no limitation within the United Kingdom 
as to the vertebrate species that may be employed for experimental 
purposes. Those who wish to work with either dogs and cats or with 
equidae must obtain a certificate to enable them to do so, but this has 
never in my experience been unreasonably refused. 
It might be helpful to mention that in my own laboratory we have 
accommodation for some 10,000 mammals and birds, including not 
only dogs and cats and all the usual laboratory rodents, but also the 
larger domestic animals such as pigs, cattle, sheep, and a variety of 
birds. Among those who hold a license to conduct experiments in 
my laboratory is a local surgeon for whose work we receive a grant 
from the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board to enable him to 
undertake experimental surgery in dogs related to his clinical surgery 
in man. 
At the present time we are undertaking many experiments relating 
to teratogenic activity and to the testing of drugs for other effects. 
Our routine work involves indeed the routine or specialized toxicity 
testing not only of drugs but also of cosmetics, food additives and 
coloring matters, packaging materials, pesticides and herbicides, and 
other substances that might cause an environmental hazard, including 
carcinogenicity, skin sensitization and absorption, and inhalation tox- 
icity. Many of our studies relate to materials that are to form the 
subject of petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and in 
these instances the relevant programs have been discussed in detail 
in advance with the Division of Pharmacology of the Food and Drug 
Administration here in Washington. In none of the programs among 
these categories has there been any restriction on account of the pro- 
visions or enforcement of the Cruelty to Animals Act. 
It may perhaps be inquired whether, in view of the lack of restric- 
tions of which I have spoken, the Cruelty to Animals Act does in 
fact confer any benefits upon animals themselves. The answer must 
be in the affirmative. British research workers are charged to adopt 
all reasonable humane precautions, including the need to stop any 
painful procedure once the result of an experiment has been obtained 
and to destroy painlessly any animal found to be suffering severe 
pain which is likely to endure. 
So far as I am aware, neither I nor any of my colleagues has ever 
felt that this has handicapped research. Again, although the act 
does not deal specifically with animal quarters, in practice the Home 
Office inspectors insist that these must be adequate, and advances in 
laboratory animal husbandry and accommodation are, therefore, as- 
sisted indirectly by the inspections made under the act. In my ex- 
perience all research workers of experience, certainly those who are 
concerned with long-term experiments, are convinced that healthy and 
contented animals are indispensable to reliable results. They, there- 
fore, welcome any improvements that can be suggested. 
It must not be overlooked that the Cruelty to Animals Act protects 
not only the animal but, in a different sense, the research worker. 
It follows from my present position that I am categorically opposed 
to those who would deprive us of the right to undertake experiments 
on living animals, the so-called antivivisectionists. These people are 
vociferous in my country, as in yours, and we consider that the 
Cruelty to Animals Act helps us to reassure the general public that 
