110 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
welfare of animals, and accordingly I founded UFAW, the Univer- 
sities Federation for Animal Welfare, which has sent me here today. 
This body concerns itself with, among other topics, the humane 
treatment of laboratory animals. It publishes the standard textbook 
on the husbandry of laboratory animals, a textbook which is highly 
esteemed throughout the world and, incidentally, has some American 
contributors. It was also responsible for ‘‘The Principles of Humane 
Experimental Technique,” by Russell and Burch, and for a recent 
international symposium on the assessment of pain in which, inter 
alias, six distinguished American neurophysiologists took part. In 
a debt in the House of Common on July 6 UFAW’s factual statement 
“Experiments on Animals in Great Britain” was quoted as authorita- 
tive 28 times. 
I come now to the contention put forward by the National Society 
for Medical Research to the effect that medical progress in Britain is 
hampered by bureaucratic interference with legitimate research. May 
I give one example of the extremes to which this fanatical opposition 
can go? 
To the 1059 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica an article 
on “Animal Experimentation” was contributed by a director of the 
NSMR. As illustrative of what goes on in our laboratories it con- 
tained, inter alia, the fantastic statement that a person who used 
12.500 fish in a research had to file a separate document at the Home 
Office for each animal, 12,500 documents in all. 
What weight can be attached to the opinions of people who can 
adopt such stories? In fact the article was so misleading on the 
subject of British practice that a protest was sent to the editor of the 
encylopaedia by the honorable secretary of our Research Defence 
Society, and as a result the editor has, in the 1960 impression, cut out 
all that part of the article and substituted matter written by the 
technical secretary of UFAW, who is medically qualified. 
If such contentions had any truth in them, British scientists would 
be anxious to abolish the burden of bureaucracy which is alleged to 
be hampering their researches. In fact, however, British scientific 
opinion is practically unanimous in approving of legal safeguards 
against cruelty. You may find a few grumblers who have worked in 
Britain and have chafed against these, but I venture to predict that 
they will be men whose scientific stature is insignificant. 
To illustrate the view of experienced men who know what they are 
talking about, I would like to read a few recent letters from some of 
our more eminent scientists. 
Lord Brain, better known as Sir Russel Brain, a past president of 
the Royal College of Physicians and editor of the neurological journal, 
“Brain,” would himself have come to testify but for the shortness of 
notice. Instead he has sent me the following letter : 
London, England. Aurjuxt 19 . 1962 . 
Deab IIusrE : T first had experience of the British regulations dealing with 
animal experiments nearly 40 years ago. when I myself held a license for a 
number of years. I never experienced the slightest difficulty in obtaining the 
necessary certificates to enabie me to carry out experiments on any animals 
I wished to use and I always found the authorities very (-operative when ap- 
proached for guidance or help on particular points. The annual returns re- 
quired presented no difficulty. 
A very large volume of animal experiment is now carried out in the United 
Kingdom. The existence of the restrictions and inspections imposed by law 
