HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 257 
Testimony by Db. I. S. Ravdin, Professor of Surgery and Vice President 
for Medical Affairs, University of Pennsylvania 
The research workers in this country are fully aware of the need for healthy, 
happy animals to obtain meaningful results in experiments. Therefore, these 
workers make every effort to see that the animals are maintained under the best 
possible conditions. Improvement in animal care is a point of major concern in 
the minds of most investigators. These individuals are the first to seize and 
act upon any new development which may improve the welfare of the laboratory 
animal. 
Any license requirement for the use of animals would in my opinion seriously 
impair the efforts of the investigator and teacher, and would stymie the remark- 
able progress we have made in this country in the development of skilled scien- 
tists and excellent practicing physicians. I did research at the University of 
Edinburgh in 1927 and worked under the licensing plan. Licensing require- 
ments would add to the administrative burden of the investigator and might 
well reduce his research output. This, in turn, would decrease the rate of 
advancement of our knowledge of a wide variety of pathological processes and 
their control. 
On occasion the British laboratory animal control bill is used to illustrate 
means of control. This legislation, initiated in 1876, is so loosely written lati- 
tude of infinite variety is possible. Over the years British scientists, men of 
conscience and scientific sincerty, have developed means of laboratory animal 
control which work well — less because of legislation than through meeting scien- 
tific necessities in spite of it. Their control techniques and legislation are not 
good products for export. 
The research laboratories of this country concerned with a better understanding 
of normal physiological processes, and the abnormalities imposed by disease, 
have played an important role in the improvement of the health of our people. 
In no country in the world does one find a higher type of medical practice than 
we now have. 
Many Americans and an untold number of nationals of other countries have 
benefited from this research. The scientists concerned with this effort are 
careful, understanding men and women. They know the importance of using 
animals from well-cared-for sources. They have dedicated themselves to search 
for the truth. They are cautious individuals. It is because of their achievements 
that the people of this country are so well cared for. In 1900 the first three 
causes of death were tuberculosis, pneumonia, and the infantile diarrheas. 
Today not a single one of these is among the first 10 causes of death. The 
cardiovascular diseases are first and cancer is second. A restrictive bill will 
definitely slow research and retard clearer understanding of a wide variety of 
disease processes. As a surgeon who has lived to see the present approach to 
many cardivascular disorders I know whereof I speak. 
The answer to cancer will come from a deeper understanding of the biological 
processes involved in these disorders — not from operations which approach 
subtotal eviscera cions by the surgeon’s scalpel. 
I wonder if the distinguished members of this committee really wish to harness 
biological and physiological research and turn back the clock to the days of 
medical empiricis m ? 
In my opinion the bill as drawn will impose rather extensive regulations upon 
the use of live vtrtebrate animals for scientific experiments. The effect would 
undoubtedly be harmful. A distinguished jurist, the dean of one of our great 
schools of law, has said, “I think we should be particularly sensitive about 
congressional conditions attached to grants for education and research. There 
ought to be great restraint on the part of Congress in these matters in the 
interest of genuine independence on the part of people engaged in education 
and research.” I find myself in agreement with this statement, for we might 
well find that what had been accomplished was to produce in medical science 
a desert without oases. 
Mr. Koberts. Dr. Henry T. Bahnson, Johns Hopkins Medical 
School. 
He is not here. 
Dr. Helen B. Taussig, professor of pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hos- 
pital, Baltimore, Md. 
