HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 123 
The bills before the Health and Safety Subcommittee of the House Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce Committee would set standards for the licensing of 
researchers on animal-using projects receiving Government funds. 
BILLS BEING FOUGHT 
The bills are being fought by antivivisection groups, whose aim is to outlaw 
all scientific use of animals. Opposition also have been voiced by the American 
Medical Association, the American Pharmaceutical Association, and the National 
Society for Medical Research. 
In fact, the latter group has joined forces in a strange alliance with the 
National Anti-Vivisection Society to combat what Representative Roberts terms 
a “moderate approach” to the problem. 
The scientific groups contend that abuses are too few to warrant the neces- 
sary paperwork of a regulatory law. They prefer voluntary compliance with 
standards set by themselves. 
Support of the bills has come from Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders 
and in particular, the Protestant Journal Christian Century. 
BRITISH LAW 
The story of the 86-year-old British laboratory-animal law will be told by 
British humanitarians and scientists coming to Washington for the hearing. 
Passage of this law was urged by Charles Darwin in 1876. 
Sponsors of the proposed legislation are Representatives Martha Griffiths, 
Democrat, of Michigan, and Morgan Moulder, Democrat, of Missouri, and Sena- 
tors Joseph Clark, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, and Maurine Neuberger, Demo- 
crat, of Oregon. 
Moulder’s bill differs from the others primarily in that the administration of 
the law would be under a presidentially appointed commissioner. The others 
would give the responsibility to the welfare secretary. 
The bills require that experimenters receiving Federal funds provide animals 
with comfortable quarters, adequate nourishment, and sufficient space for nor- 
mal exercise. Painful experiments would be reduced by a project approval 
system. Scientifically trained Federal officials would be given the right to 
enter the laboratories. 
Mrs. Free. Thank you, sir. 
Mr. Roberts. I am informed by the gentleman from Minnesota that 
he has two witnesses to introduce who are catching planes this after- 
noon, Dr. Thorp, dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Univer- 
sity of Minnesota, and Dr. Maurice B. Visscher, professor of physi- 
ology, University of Minnesota. 
First we will take Dr. Thorp. 
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM T. S. THORP, D.V.M., DEAN, COLLEGE 
OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 
Dr. Thorp. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 
William T. S. Thorp, doctor of veterinary medicine, dean of the 
College of the University of Minnesota. I have spent 19 years in 
animal disease research, primarily pathology. I have my specialty 
board in pathology and in laboratory animal medicine. I partici- 
pated in the biomedical program of the AEC, and I am on a number 
of councils related to all types of biomedical research. As a charter 
member of the Animal Care panel opposing H.R. 3556 and H.R. 1937 I 
would like as chairman of the committee on Animal Facilities in 
Medical Research of the National Research Council to report briefly 
on this committee’s survey started in January 1961. 
91142 0—62 9 
