HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 187 
adequate facilities for the housing and care of animals, whether there 
is adequate personnel for their maintenance, and other types of con- 
trol which would have to do with regulating types of experimentation, 
types of use to which animals might be put. 
I think that in the hearings thus far the distinction has not been 
made plain. And I believe that you will find as you go through the 
document that I have left with you that the scientists throughout this 
country, biological scientists, have not opposed but have promoted— 
as in the Dog Pound Act of the State of Minnesota, passed in 1949- 
inspection and actual certification of laboratories as suitable for ex- 
perimental purposes. 
Mr. Roberts. Doctor, have any other States enacted similar legis- 
lation? 
Dr. Visscher. Yes, there are seven or eight other States which have 
enacted similar legislation. I think that the document that will be 
given to you names the States and also municipalities, and if I am not 
mistaken the District of Columbia falls in the same category. In other 
words, we are not without some regulatory procedures with regard to 
control of the quality of facilities. 
We are, however, very much concerned with improving the facilities 
that can be made available for the care of the increasing numbers of 
animals that are going to be used in biological and particularly medi- 
cal investigations in the future. 
There has been a very large increase, as has been pointed out earlier 
today, in the funds available for such research, which has made in- 
creasing volume of facilities necessary. And concomitant with this 
it has been necessary to train large numbers of additional workers. 
And every scientist who will testfy before you — although I predict 
that the majority of them will oppose the bills that are being con- 
sidered today — every scientist will favor moves in the direction of 
improving the quality of care and adequacy of facilities. 
If I may, I should like to read into the record something which is 
not in my mimeographed testimony, the resolution of the American 
Physiological Society passed at its annual meeting last year after the 
introduction of these bills — passed, if I am not mistaken, unanimously : 
The American Physiological Society urges the Congress to defeat H.R. 1937 
and H.R. 3556. The members of the American Physiological Society are deeply 
sympathetic with measures designed to assure humane treatment of laboratory 
animals, and they continue to work as scientists and through their professional 
organizations to maintain humane standards. We believe that the provisions 
of these two bills would tremendously increase the administrative work of 
scientists, and while increasing the cost, would reduce the ability of scientists 
to do productive research and effective teaching. We believe that the object 
of humane use of laboratory animals in the best interests of both man and 
animals can be obtained by making funds available to improve housing and 
care of animals needed for research and teaching. Therefore we urge that 
the Congress, by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
encourage the use of existing funds for improving animal facilities and care, 
and leave the maintenance of standards to the scientists, the universities, and 
local and State authorities. 
I also wish to point out that although we have heard from some of 
our British colleagues that there is no great objection to the 1876 
act of Parliament which regulates animal experimentation in Britain, 
at the present time there is no agreement among British scientists 
that the introduction of such measures into the United States would 
91142—62 13 
