294 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
As a result of my efforts on this committee I have been convinced 
of one thing. There are good men doing research, men who are 
humane and who try to keep their animals from suffering. But there 
is a rigorous code among these researchers, a code that keeps them 
from lifting one finger against practices which they themselves would 
not employ. The code dictates that anything done in the name of 
sacrosanct science must have complete immunity from considerations 
of social responsibility. Science must be free to transcend all prin- 
ciples of decency, society, religion or government. Well, that obvi- 
ously is an exaggerated statement, all doctors have ethics regarding 
their human patients, but in the laboratories scientists are deter- 
mined to resist such encroachments on their freedom insofar as they 
possibly can. 
You have heard that code expressed over and over in this room. 
Researchers must have freedom, freedom, freedom. Yet even if we 
were willing to grant science freedom from all moral restraints would 
science really benefit from this freedom? The 1960 edition of the 
Encyclopedia Britannica printed proof that it would not. We have 
heard a lot about the English law but England is not the only coun- 
try to have such a so-called “no pain” regulation. Four other coun- 
tries, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Denmark, have similar reg- 
ulations. The encyclopedia took the population of these and all other 
countries doing biological research and divided the population of 
each country by the number of Nobel prizes in such research awarded 
to the citizens of each country. On this proportioned basis who got 
the greatest number of awards ? The five countries having “no pain” 
laws. They all outstripped America. Apparently, by having to 
eliminate pain they were forced to do more careful research on better 
cared for animals and thus improved their scientific findings. Believe 
me, ethical considerations do pay off. 
Several medical researchers appeared before you yesterday to talk 
about the bill. Some of the objections were obviously absurd. Since 
these laws would apply only to people receiving Federal grants no 
fisherman will be prevented from putting two worms on a hook. But 
most of the objections were based on valid grounds and should receive 
very thoughtful consideration from your committee. Neither of these 
bills is necessarily perfect and could be improved by laboratory experts. 
But did you notice that with all the criticism not one constructive sug- 
gestion was made by the dissenters ? The code prohibits professional 
men even from approving the intent of the bills. Two years ago at 
the annual meeting of the Animal Care Panel I asked if the legal com- 
mittee would not cooperate in drafting a bill that might be acceptable 
to the profession, one that would enforce their own professed stand- 
ards. But I was given the unequivocal answer that the ACP would 
not cooperate in any way to draft any regulatory legislation. We 
need the help of these professionals but against such an attitude how 
are we going to get it ? 
We may not be able to write a perfect bill until we get the best scien- 
tific cooperation but a bill we must have even if it is amended later. 
And I still think that even now if a few professional researchers who 
sincerely want their profession to maintain humane standards should 
volunteer to sit down with your committee and the humane societies, 
details could be worked out that would permit the greatest possible 
