214 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
This was a humane law with a humane purpose, and the Congress 
found in that case and the courts have subsequently held with the 
Congress 
Mr. Roberts. I assume that would apply to any interstate carrier, 
would it not ? 
Mr. Mters. No, that one was enacted specifically only for railroads, 
and has not been amended. But I think it is clear 
Mr. Roberts. Carriage by plane ? 
Mr. Myers. Yes. That, too, is regulated, not for a humane purpose, 
but the interstate carriage of animals by plane is the subject of Federal 
statute. 
Mr. Roberts. Thank you. 
Mr. Myers. One other aspect of the major nature of this I think 
could be emphasized. I believe, as Congressman Moulder brought to 
your attention, that easily more than 200,000 persons are engaged in 
this work as a full-time activity. This is as though we were talking 
about the entire population of the city of Flint, Mich., or Charlotte, 
N.C., or similar cities. 
And I think the magnitude has implications about many other 
aspects of the discussion that we have had. For example, no one would 
contend to you that because most of the people of Flint, Mich., are 
humane, therefore the city of Flint, Mich., needs no anticruelty law. 
The fact that there are good people and churches and active organiza- 
tions in Flint, Mich., working for humane treatment of animals, would 
not be accepted as an argument why there should be no law. 
The thing that seems to me most important to establish in this hear- 
ing is that if there is one thing certain about this whole subject, it is 
that ultimately the Congress will find itself compelled to act. 
I would like to stress another point. I will try to be very brief — and 
I am not going into my statement. 
Mrs. Stevens made principally the point that there is a vast suffering 
among the animals that are involved. 
My argument for this bill would run this way : that there is a vast 
suffering, that much of this is preventable without in any way imped- 
ing medical research, and that if that is true, then the law should be 
enacted. 
Further, I would say that there are incidental benefits, such as that 
it would save enormous sums of the Federal taxpayers’ money, and 
that it would improve the quality of medical research in many ways. 
As to the first point, that there is need for this kind of legislation, 
allow me to describe the operation of this. (Mr. Myers pointed to two 
pieces of equipment on a table.) The details are described in my 
statement. This is an instrument of common use in most laboratories, 
and has been for many years, and it is still used to create a traumatic 
shock in experimental animals. In this particular instrument the 
forelegs of an animal — guinea pig, rabbit, or such small animal — are 
taped together, the hind legs are taped together, the conscious animal 
is put into this drum, which is called a Noble-Collip drum, a door or 
plate is placed over the front, and then the whole thing is revolved at 
approximately 80 to 100 revolutions a minute for anywhere from 100 
to 2,000 revolutions, the effect being that the animal is lifted and 
dropped and lifted and dropped. This produces, of course, internal 
injuries and an extreme condition of assault on all of the tissues and 
