HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 305 
tion sets the climate and standard of public policy, sets into motion new social 
sanction and expectations ; at the same time, it provides a direct and immediate 
form of education.” 
Many of the arguments against Federal regulation of animal experimentation 
either evade the issue or distort the facts. They evade the issue in two ways : 
first, they present the question of animal experimentation as a purely scientific 
one, to be decided only by specialists, whereas the truth is that it is a moral 
issue, which scientists are not any more equipped to decide than laymen ; sec- 
ond, they confuse the question of regulation with that of antivivisection, which 
is not the issue. Distortion of the facts is evident to anyone familiar with them. 
Further, it is made apparent by contradictions in the statements of the oppo- 
nents themselves : 
The National Society for Medical Research sent out a special memorandum, 
in 1960, to members of the Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology, 
which, as a Federation member, I received. The title of the memorandum was 
“Nine Reasons Why the Scientific Community Opposes Federal Regulation of 
Research in Biology and Medicine.” Many of the “reasons” do not differ sub- 
stantially from each other. But because they have been repeated so frequently 
in this form in the scientific and in the public press, I would like to analyze 
them individually. 
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH (NSMR) “REASON” NO. 1 
“Presumably the proposal to police medical and biological research was intro- 
duced on the assumption that, at the present time, there exists significant mis- 
treatment of animals in research and teaching laboratories. This is a false as- 
sumption. It is insulting to the men who are devoting their lives to scientific 
research and to the administrative officials in charge of the various institutions 
where research employing animals is done. If the Congress is in doubt about 
this matter, an investigation should be ordered before regulatory or punitive 
measures are considered.” 
Discussion . — I have never seen statistics on this subject, and do not believe 
they exist. The opposite statement, that a significant number of scientists are 
inhumane in their treatment of animals may equally be true. Both statements 
represent no more than a clinical impression. Moreover, “significant mistreat- 
ment” is not truly definable, since there is no agreement on what constitutes 
“mistreatment” when the term is applied to experimental animals, or on how 
much “mistreatment” there would have to be, to be considered “significant.” 
To my mind it is not necessary to assume that the object of an animal experi- 
ment is intentional cruelty in order to consider the animal mistreated. At best, 
one can say that it is mistreated for a worthwhile reason, for a legitimate 
scientific purpose. The same procedure, without the reason, would be immoral, 
and illegal under existing State anticruelty laws. Much suffering of experi- 
mental animals is unnecessary, and serves no scientific purpose. It is due to 
carelessness and indifference. Surely it is the right of everyone to demand that 
this be eliminated. Much suffering is involved as a necessary component of 
some experiments. Surely it is right that experiments of this nature be per- 
formed only by those qualified to perform them with skill, and to interpret them 
with understanding. Whether the quantity or quality of mistreatment is sig- 
nificant is a value judgment, and as such, is admittedly outside the realm of 
science. However, as with any other immoral act, like murder, it is not neces- 
sary to decide that its quality or quantity is significant before agreeing that 
there must be legislation against it, and police to enforce such legislation. This 
is not an insult to the general population. It is not insulting to research men 
and administrators to be considered human. 
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH “REASON” NO. 2, 
“It is not reasonable to assume that police inspectors could be hired by the 
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare who would be wiser, kinder, and 
better qualified technically to supervise the conduct of scientific research than 
are the university presidents, deans of medical schools, directors of research in- 
stitutes and academic department heads who now bear responsibility for the 
character of animal research in the United States.” 
Discussion . — Such an assumption is not necessary in order to justify the legis- 
lation and enforcement of acceptable uniform standards. The analogy of a police 
force still holds. Policemen need not be wiser, kinder, and better qualified techni- 
