HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 293 
Now I would have great respect for these good experimenters except 
for one thing : all the good experimenters know all about the painful 
experiments, and though they would not commit such painful acts 
themselves they do little or nothing to stop such malpractices among 
their confreres. But at least once they almost did take such a step. 
Shortly before the first regulatory bill was introduced into Congress 
the Animal Care Panel set up a committee which some of us hoped 
might obviate the necessity for regulatory legislation. It was called 
the Committee on Ethicai Considerations in the Use of Laboratory 
Animals. Dr. Bennett Cohen, who addressed you yesterday, was then 
president of the Animal Care Panel, and did me the very great honor 
of asking me to serve on the committee as a representative of the 
humane interests. At the time I sincerely believed, and I think Dr. 
Cohen did, too, that reform could come from within reasonably soon, 
and I was tremendously heartened that the doctors were ready to take 
such action. The letter of invitation from Dr. Cohen made it clear 
that we were to be concerned with the problems of humane (or in- 
humane) research. 
However, almost from the minute the committee was appointed, 
pressure seemed to come from all sides to steer us clear of any con- 
sideration involving painful experimentation, but to confine ourselves 
to matters of animal husbandry. Well, to make a long story short, 
that committee was finally transmuted into the Animal Facilities 
Standards Committee which Dr. Cohen has described to you. It is 
now only concerned with matters of equipment, personnel, laboratory 
management, et cetera, very similar to Dr. Thorp’s committee in the 
National Research Council. In the last draft I saw of tilings under 
consideration there was no mention of suffering though a question 
on exercise areas was included as were questions of heat and ventila- 
tion. But many other considerations had entered the picture such 
as public relations, a dressing room for employees, et cetera. 
For a year I did my best to keep ethical considerations before the 
committee but I stood alone and finally resigned. For I could not 
always agree with the committee even on matters of facilities. For 
example, one general practice that humane societies have always de- 
cried is keeping large animals in small cages, for months or even for 
years on end. Most doctors claim it is a lack of funds that make this 
crowding necessary. Nonsense! One small stainless steel cage of 
the type currently vogue may cost $1,300 or even more. I repeat, 
$1,300 for just one of these cages! The animals are miserable in 
them. But my colleagues on the committee seemed to think they 
were tops in facilities sophistication. On the other hand, at the 
Naval Research Center in Bethesda and at the Jackson Memorial 
Laboratories in Bar Harbor I have seen very happy dogs living and 
playing together in large pens winch were very cheaply constructed. 
These animals were, to my mind, ideally housed and cared for, but 
most researchers look upon such cheap quarters as hopelessly primi- 
tive. Yet even if we could agree on such things, and even if the 
animals liked the standards we might set up, these standards would 
be only recommendations. There is no compulsion whatever that 
laboratories accept them. Nor would the profession tolerate any 
compulsion. 
