280 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
the slogans of this meeting were “patience” and “nothing British.” In 
other words, no form of regulation that might actually curb cruelty 
to the millions of vertebrate animals used today. 
The British law does offer some protection to laboratory animals 
but it is anathema to those who feel they have a God-given right to 
treat animals as they and their dieners, student assistants and their 
candidates for Ph. D.’s and what I have heard a research man call “a 
pair of hands” see fit in the complete seclusion of laboratories. The 
most recent attempt by scientists to enforce some measure of protection 
for laboratory animals is the 1960 rule of the American Journal of 
Physiology which is to refuse publication of papers that show no 
consideration for the animals used in the experimental procedure. 
This would seem to be the most hopeful attempt to prevent cruelty 
so far. But reading the American Journal of Physiology for 1960 
and 1961 and the first six numbers of 1962 and then judging by the 
papers published therein it appears that either this rule is very laxly 
enforced or that there are very different standards of proper treat- 
ment of animals by different judges of the papers submitted. 
This diversity of opinion on humaneness is always found and shows 
again how important an unbiased law requiring individual licensing, 
unannounced inspection by incorruptible and informed inspectors, 
and above all the pain rule which prohibits severe and prolonged pain 
to any animal even though the hoped for result of the experiment has 
not been attained. 
These three basic requirements of the British Act are incorporated 
in the Griffiths bill which should be passed as promptly as possible — 
for we are already 86 years behind in proper consideration of the mil- 
lions of experimental animals we are exploiting every year. 
Mr. Roberts. Thank you very much. How long have you been 
interested in this matter, Mrs. Gesell ? 
Mrs. Gesell. Fifty years. 
Mr. Roberts. I take it from your statement that you see very little 
progress that has been made in the 50 years as far as any change in 
the opinions of the people who oppose this legislation. 
Mrs. Gesell. I am afraid it is the reverse. If there were even the 
slightest progress, I do not think any of us would be here. 
Mr. Roberts. It is just the other way ? 
Mrs. Gesell. Exactly. 
Mr. Roberts. Thank you so much. I appreciate your very fine 
statement. 
Mrs. Gesell. Thank you. 
Mr. Roberts. I will call Mrs. Gordon B. Desmond, secretary, Fed- 
eration of Homemakers, Arlington, Va. Mrs. Desmond’s statement 
will be filed for the record. 
(Mrs. Desmond’s statement follows :) 
Statement of Mrs. Gordon B. Desmond, Secretary, Federation of Homemakers 
Mr. Chairman and members of the Health and Safety Subcommittee; I am 
Ruth Desmond, secretary of the Federation of Homemakers, a nationwide organ- 
ization of public-spirited housewives who endeavor to obtain uncontaminated food 
for their families. The federation’s officers welcome this opportunity to publicly 
support legislation designed to remedy the conditions under which laboratory 
animals are used in scientific experiments and research by recipients of grants 
supported in whole or in part by Federal funds, through the licensing of all 
scientists performing said animal experiments in institutions receiving Govern- 
