204 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
of this group of statisticians, headed by Dr. Edward C. Bryant, former head of 
the Department of Statistics of the University of Wyoming, are highly trained 
and experienced in the statistical design of biological experiments. 
I am not authorized to attribute direct quotations to Dr. Bryant’s group at 
this time, because they have not completed their work, but Dr. Bryant told me 
in a very recent conference that he and his colleagues have determined that 
in more than 70 percent of approximately 200 statistically typical experiments 
analyzed, a statistically excessive number of animals was used. The indications 
are that the excess runs to an average of around 20 percent. 
I am not a statistician and I shall not attempt to offer any exact interpretation 
of Dr. Bryant’s findings but it is obvious that many millions of animals now 
are being used unnecessarily. 
Other eminent scientists have agreed with the indicated results of the Bryant 
study. For example, Dr. John T. Litchfield, Jr., director of experimental thera- 
peutics research for Lederle Laboratories, said in a recent address to the 
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association that there is a fallacy in the de- 
mands frequently heard for testing of drugs on more and more animals. 
“* * * How many animals are enough? Dr. Litchfield asked. 
He answered that, of course, there must be a statistical design that takes into 
account the purpose and background information of the experiment, but “this is 
not enough.” The number of animals that can be usefully used is limited, Dr. 
Litchfield said, by the necessity for observing each experimental animal care- 
fully and of conducting microscopic morphological observations postmortem. 
“One can observe a small number of animals carefully,” Dr. Litchfield observed, 
“but it is obviously not practically possible to observe 100 or more to the same 
extent.” 
This is a clear, indisputable proof that H.R. 3556 would reduce pain without in 
any way impeding medical research. Incidentally, here also is clear proof that 
the bill would save money for taxpayers and even improve the quality of 
medical resarch. I shall say more along that line a bit later. 
H.R. 3556 would further reduce the aggregate of pain and suffering among 
laboratory animals through its simple and reasonable requirement (sec. 12-e) 
that “animals used in surgery or other procedures causing pain or stress shall 
be given pain-relieving care and convalescence conditions substantially equal 
to those customarily or usually given to human patients before, during, and 
after similar procedures.’’ 
Judging from performances elsewhere, I suspect that opponents of this legis- 
lation will today argue variously: (1) that these policies already are standard 
practice in all laboratories and (2) that the idea is ridiculous and, anyway, would 
be too costly. I have often heard -both arguments advanced from the same 
platform, sometimes even by the same speaker. 
But the National Society for Medical Research, the American Physiological 
Society, the American Medical Association and other impeccable scientific organ- 
izations seem to agree that this section of Mr. Moulder’s bill is reasonable as well 
as humane. The American Physiological Society has published from time to 
time a set of “Guiding Principles in the Gare and Use of Animals” in laboratories. 
“The postoperative care of experimental animals shall be such,” the APS says, 
“as to minimize discomfort during convalescence. All conditions must be main- 
tained for the animal’s comfort in accordance with the best practices in small 
animal hospitals or in accordance with the practices followed in human medicine 
and surgery.” 
The American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences-National 
Research Council, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 
and the National Society for Medical Research have agreed in a published state- 
ment that : 
“The postoperation care of animals must be such as to minimize discomfort dur- 
ing convalescence in accordance with acceptable hospital practice.” 
Mighty few laboratories in America, if any, abide by those standards but 
we have the considered judgment of the authoritative organizations quoted that 
section 12-e of H.R. 3556 is reasonable, practical, and morally mandatory. H.R. 
3556 would achieve a reduction of the total pain suffered by laboratory animals 
by converting into enforcible law what is now only a pious and dishonored 
preachment. 
Indeed, every clause of Mr. Moulder’s bill would operate to reduce suffering, 
as well as to reduce waste of money and of research facilities, but I will offer 
only one more example. Let us consider section 12-i: “All premises where 
