290 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
TAX MONEY WASTED ON VIVISECTION CAN BE SAVED 
In physics, in chemistry, even in such relatively new fields as the design 
of atomic reactors, the sciences involved have standards and backgrounds of 
sufficient precision so that there can be no criticism, perhaps, of scientists 
passing on the question of what it may be worthwhile for other scientists, their 
friends and associates, to investigate at Government cost. But in the field 
of animal experimentation, it is in sober truth, as I have just pointed out, and 
with no desire or need to speak metaphorically, a case of the blind leading the 
blind. The procedure at present, as you of course know, is for employees of the 
National Institutes of Health, themselves researchers in the same field, ac- 
customed by usage and by training to working without precise statistical 
criteria, to process the application for Government research funds, and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who 
in turn makes a recommendation to the Congress for appropriations, lumping 
together vast numbers of recommended projects, for a whole year, all at one time. 
What I am venturing to suggest is that, since in all likelihood Congress, and 
even your committee, cannot within the inescapable limitations of time study 
each such proposal in detail, some sort of permanent board of review, made 
up of hardheaded practical men with business experience, who know the worth 
of a dollar, and the gravity of the Nation’s other needs, mediate between the 
speculative researchers and the necessary haste of Congress to get its business 
accomplished in the national interest. For these are, by their very nature, 
questions on which not researchers, but practical businessmen, bankers and 
manufacturers; are the true experts. The businessmen are the ones who are 
used to judging whether a particular speculation is within the realm of worth- 
while risk. They understand the value of progress, of new discovery, of innova- 
tion and research, and at the same time have the mature judgment to sort out 
the purely visionary and theoretical, which may appeal to a particular researcher, 
from the schemes which hold at least a reasonable hope of true worth to the 
country at large, which must foot the bill. Such men are not overawed by risk, 
nor are they ignorant or unable to understand the general trend of scientific 
reasoning. (If they were, most of American technological progress would still 
be in the form of rough notes in the pocket of some unsung theoretician.) Nor 
would such a group of businessmen feel the same pressures and embarrassments 
as must be common to those from the same field, and possibly the same academic 
community, in having to pass on the applications of their friends, former teachers, 
or past or future superiors. 
HUGE COMPUTER USED TO TOTAL COST OF RESEARCH 
I am, after all, only suggesting that, absent and reliable scientific basis for 
evaluating in advance certain types of experiment, because of lack of general 
development of the field, the best test which can be applied to it is sound and 
seasoned business judgment, rather than impetuosity to invade the unknown, 
however scientifically motivated. In actual practice, I am sure that a permanent 
board of business-trained reviewers would have wanted to know a great deal 
more about the aims, the basis, and the probable utility, of the monkey-and- 
its-mother experiments than we have yet heard. Yet, once such a project gains 
initial momentum, it is apparent that it has a tendency to continue and to grow 
in cost and magnitude, from year to year. Surely, sound business judgment 
cannot be an unreasonable basis for safeguarding the taxpayer’s dollar, and the 
Nation’s critical ability to resist aggression. 
Already, I have been informed, some proposals for remedial action in this 
truly alarming state of affairs have been put forward. For example, I under- 
stand that Representative George Meader of Michigan has introduced into the 
House of Representatives a bill which calls for a commission to study the entire 
field of federally supported scientific research, in much the same manner as 
that in which the Hoover Commission reviewed other areas of governmental 
spending. There can be no doubt, of course, that in view of the vast amounts 
of money involved, a careful, business-oriented appraisal of the situation can 
only benefit us. However, with all respect to Representative Meader, it would 
appear to me that a commission which comes in, makes a survey and recom- 
mendations, and then goes home, has helped matters only for the time being. 
I most respectfully suggest to you, sir, that, especially in the area we are now 
discussing, with its demonstrated low order of scientific reliability, what is 
needed once will continue to be needed. We do not simply need an existing 
