116 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
In the case of a senior scientist who is known to be ethically reliable 
the definition might be in wide enough terms to embrace a large class 
of procedures, but in this case if the licensee wished to adopt a pro- 
cedure which might entail serious discomfort he would consult his in- 
spector, and the inspector would, if necessary, consult an appropriate 
member of the Advisory Committee at the Home Office. 
In order to achieve its purpose such a system must gain the good will 
and collaboration of a majority of the leaders of science, as it has done 
in Britain. I have, therefore, to deal with two questions which may 
arise out of this fact. Everybody knows that passionate and bitter 
feelings have been whipped up amongst American scientists by means 
of violent and fanatical propaganda, and the climate of opinion among 
them is at present unfavorable to this reform ; indeed it is in some cases 
almost hysterically hostile. 
But I venture to predict that with the passage of the bill passions 
will calm down, commonsense will prevail, and the love of truth which 
is natural to all true scientists will bring about a humane and responsi- 
ble climate of opinion. 
Secondly, it has been suggested that the desired reform should be 
left to voluntary action by scientists themselves. But without legal 
sanctions such voluntary persuasion will certainly be ineffective, for 
it has been tried and failed. American scientists have for many years 
drawn up ethical codes for the laboratory, but in the absence of any 
legal status for these they have failed to prevent irresponsible and 
cruel experimentation, not only by the camp followers of science but 
also by experienced scientists. 
As recently as September 14 an American scientist, at a symposium 
at the Postgraduate Medical School in London, described an experi- 
ment so cruel that it profoundly shocked the moral conscience of a 
by no means sentimental scientific gathering. 
May I as an appendix put in the letters which we received in re- 
sponse to a questionnaire issued last year in connection with Senator 
Cooper’s bill ? • The questionnaire was issued to all biological fellows 
of the Boyal Society, which embodies the cream of our research scien- 
tists, and to a small number of other scientists. 
Of 89 who replied, only 1 would favor repeal of our law. These 
letters are summarized in a printed leaflet “Opinions of British Scien- 
tists on the Home Office Control of Experiments on Animals,” which 
I have included as exhibit C. Here are a few quotations from them : 
Sir Francis Walshe, F.R.S., wrote : 
A wide familiarity with the literature of experimental neurophysiology leads 
me to think that in other countries where no such rational mode of control is 
used, not a few futile and unnecessarily painful animal experiments are carried 
out by persons not always qualified to do them. 
Prof. H. A. Krebs, F.R.S., a Nobel Prize man, wrote : 
I am very glad indeed to support a move to introduce in the United States 
legislation on animal welfare similar to that operating in Great Britain. 
Prof. A. Haddow, F.R.S., Director of the Chester Beatty Cancer 
Research Institute, wrote : 
I have, of course, been most interested to learn of the American bill, and sorry 
to hear of the opposition to it. 
