HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 269 
The preamble to H.R. 1937 is not clear as to its implications for a 
behavioral science such as psychology, or, for that matter, many other 
kinds of investigations as, for example, the beef and poultry produc- 
tion research carried on in agricultural experiment stations. 
Sections 3(a) and 4(g) not only would excessively hamstring but 
also probably make impossible innovative research in many important 
areas. This is a strong statement but is representative of the con- 
sidered judgment of experienced and highly qualified psychological 
scientists. Innovative research, particularly at the pilot study stage, 
does not necessarily proceed according to a well-defined plan. It fre- 
quently has the characteristics of a multiple-contingency situation 
where all the possible contingencies cannot be foreseen in advance. A 
bold and decisive change in procedures or the direction of an experi- 
ment may be required in a matter of minutes or a few hours. Innova- 
tive research has, I believe, many of the characteristics of a brilliant 
parliamentary maneuver or a “tide-turning” extemporaneous speech. 
Like these, its essential component is an artistic human act performed 
at a critical moment in time. Innovative research does not, in the na- 
ture of things, lend itself to advance filing and notification. The pro- 
vision simply would not work. 
We have no objection to the standard laboratory procedures of main- 
taining systematic records. But section 4(h) is a useless requirement 
wasting the time of already scarce and overburdened scientific per- 
sonnel. 
Section 5 gives no assurance that the Secretary would apply ap- 
propriate standards for applicant qualifications, and this is a matter 
of concern to qualified investigators. 
There is nowhere in the act a statement of the minimum qualifications 
of the “authorized representatives of the Secretary” and it also poses 
serious problems of scientific manpower recruitment and utilization. 
I see little or no prospect for the effective and equitable administra- 
tion of some of the dubious requirements now set forth in these pro- 
posed pieces of legislation. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to H.R. 
3556 and H.R. 1937. 
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Doctor. We appreciate your appearance 
and your statement. 
At this point in the record, I wish to insert a number of state- 
ments that have been received by the committee. 
(The statements referred to follow :) 
Statement of Stefan Ansbacher, Sc.D., Scientific and Medical Consultant 
in Support of H.R. 1937 and S. 3088 
For over 2 years I have supported this kind of legislation. I have read the 
arguments by Dr. Dragstedt (June 3, 1960) and others against it; and at first 
I had a negative reaction, because I know that a “scientist” doesn’t need legisla- 
tion of this kind. 
I also realized, however, that there are so many “charlatans” that a bill 
with teeth in it will do more good than harm. 
In August of 1959 I experienced a scene that can hardly be described in a 
letter. Let me say that I saw utmost cruelty inflicted upon an entire group 
of animals by a man “in charge” of them. He was so “mad” that the veterinarian 
who was present with me had to assist me in stopping the “game.” It turned 
out that the man, a native of Holland, had been in a Russian concentration 
camp during most of World War II. For some legal reasons, he couldn’t be 
fired. Had H.R. 1937 or S. 3088 existed, perhaps he would have refrained from 
