216 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
United States oppose this kind of legislation. I do not know whether 
most scientists oppose this or not, because I do not believe that anyone 
yet has taken a poll of most of the scientists of the United States. But 
we attempted to ascertain on your own account what is the typical opin- 
ion of scientists and other leading figures among the most eminent citi- 
zens of the United States. I ask you to let me read a very short 
statement. ' This statement was signed by a great number of scientists. 
The 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 
first be laid down. Within certain limitations I regard the practice to be so 
justified by utility as to be legitimate, expedient and right Beyond those bound- 
aries it is cruel and wrong. 
And then I skip part of the statement, because it is in my prepared 
statement. And it concludes, then : 
I believe, therefore, that the common interests of humanity and science demand 
that the use of animals in research and teaching should be brought under the 
control of laws. 
The signers of this statement include— and I am not going to 
attempt 
Mr. Rogers of Florida. Is that in your statement, too ? 
Mr. Myers. Yes. But I just want to point out to you that they 
include four university presidents — many of which have research 
institutions of the kind we are discussing. They include such men 
as Dr. Warren Drew, a professor of anatomy at Indiana University. 
They include the director of the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Re- 
search. They include scientists of all types. And they are saying to 
the Congress in these signed statements that they believe you should 
enact this type of legislation. 
I believe that that is all that I can offer under these circumstances. 
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Myers. And I want to say that the 
subcommittee appreciate the very fine work you have done in the field, 
and your interest in this legislation and other legislation. 
Now, I would like to ask one question. The conditions you spoke 
of, as shown in the pictures that you exhibited to us— and you also 
talked about the prosecution of the people in the Overholdt Labora- 
tories, and their conviction — now, would those situations in your opin- 
ion be covered under the bill before the subcommittee ? 
Mr. Myers. Yes, sir, I believe they would be well covered. This 
bill, as someone else emphasized, is not a punitive police bill. It is a 
bill which sets standards for the distribution of Federal funds. But 
in the end result there is an iron hand in a velvet glove. Those who 
seek Federal funds under the terms of H.R. 3556 would have to sign 
application statements and make further reports that would be under 
the penalties of perjury. And that would be the ultimate, I think, 
penalty. 
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Rogers? 
Mr. Rogers of Florida. I appreciate your statement, Mr. Myers. 
I think you pointed out the problem extremely well. As I under- 
stand it, it is your position that this bill is not needed for medical re- ! ( 
search, but you wanted to see them treated as humanely as possible. I - 
Mr. Myers. I certainly want to emphasize that neither of the bills ; > 
here — but I speak particularly of 3556 — is intended to or would in j 1 
any way impede any kind of medical research that is legitimate and 
