HtltoANE TREATMENT OF ANIMAtS USED IN RESEARCH 205 
animals are kept shall provide a comfortable resting place, adequate space and 
facilities for exercise normal to the species, sanitary and comfortable cleanliness, 
and lighting, temperature, humidity, and ventilation appropriate to the species.” 
Who will argue that this should not be required? Who will argue that this 
requirement would impede medical research? No one, I think, will so- argue. 
It quite likely will again be argued, instead, that: (1) All laboratories al- 
ready meet the proposed standards, and (2) to meet these standards would be 
forbiddingly costly. 
As rebuttal to any thought that laboratory animals already are comfortably 
and humanely housed, I present to you a photograph of the quarters in which 
the world-famous Overbolzer Thoracic Clinic, of Boston, housed dogs convalesc- 
ing from surgery — until the Massachusetts SPCA prosecuted for cruelty. I also 
offer to you a photograph of monkeys in a research foundation laboratory of the 
Children’s Hospital of Cincinnati, taken by an HSUS staff investigator. Note 
the size of the cage, the wire mesh bottom of the cage, the heavy chains around 
the necks of the monkeys. Where is the “comfortable resting place” and where 
are the “facilities for exercise normal to the species”? And I also show you a 
photograph, also taken by an HSUS investigator, of a typical cat cage in Tulane 
University. Note that the cat can neither stand, walk, nor lie down in any 
normal manner because of the fantastic wire spacing of the cage suspended from 
the ceiling. 
Our own investigators have made hundreds of similar photographs in labora- 
tories throughout the United States. We have pictures showing filth, pictures 
showing dogs that have been confined for as long as 7 years in a single cage, 
without exercise of any kind. 
Yes, the Moulder bill would reduce suffering. And through the operation of 
this particular section the bill would also improve the quality of medical re- 
search. 
Before leaving this point : That much of the suffering now inflicted on labora- 
tory animals is avoidable, I return again to the dictates of ordinary common- 
sense. Regardless of what technical debate there may be about this clause or 
that clause, regardless of arguments about statistics or housing or anesthesia of 
motives — I think that every reasonable man will agree that in the handling of 
300 million animals a year by more than 200,000 persons it must certainly be 
possible to reduce pain and suffering without harm to medical research. And 
when that point is granted we come face to face with a great moral issue. 
The infliction of pain that is avoidable is cruelty. Gruelty is generally con- 
ceded to be immoral and it has historically so been regarded by the laws of the 
United States and by all of its subdivisions. Every major religion of the world 
speaks unequivocally oh this subject. 
To permit and encourage the infliction of avoidable pain is as immoral as 
it is personally to inflict it. As John Ruskin said : “He who is not actively 
kind, is cruel.” 
Neither I nor the humane societies of the United States stand alone in saying 
these things to the Gongress. The public conscience is stirred. Let me prove this. 
Within the last 2 months a special committee of the Humane Society of the 
United States has been seeking expressions of opinion from some of America’s 
most eminent and respected citizens on the general subject matter of this hearing. 
Please listen to this Statement : 
“Use of animals in research is a practice of such variety and complexity that 
one can neither condemn it nor approve it unless some careful distinctions be 
first laid down. Within certain limitations I regard the practice to be so justified 
by utility as to be legitimate, expedient, and right. Beyond those boundaries it 
is cruel and wrong. The essential problem is to define those boundaries. 
“I regard as unjustifiable the common practice of subjecting animals to suffer- 
ing in the laboratory or classroom, merely for the purpose of demonstrating well 
known facts. I hold that the infliction of torment upon a living animal Under 
such circumstances is not justified by necessity, and I believe it psychologically 
harmful to young students. 
“I believe, therefore, that the common interests of humanity and science de- 
mand that use of animals in research and teaching should be brought under the 
control of law. The practice, whether in public or private, should be surrounded 
by every possible safeguard against license or abuse.” 
Please note the climactic statement that “I believe that use of animals in re- 
search and teaching should be brought under control of law.” 
