308 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
to expect the opposite. However, the problem of choosing capable and con- 
scientious inspectors is an important one. It will require understanding and 
sincerity on the part of humanitarians and scientists to solve it satisfactorily. 
It has been done in England. It ought to be possible to do it here. 
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH “REASON” NO. 8 
“In discussing proposed special policing of scientists, Prof. Maurice B. Visscher 
has made use of the following useful analogy : ‘Cruelty to children is and should 
be a crime. Some parents have been known to abuse their children. However, 
we do not, and I hope will not, set up governmental licensing bureaus to regulate 
which families may have children and to snoop on all homes to catch those 
infinitesimally few parents who beat their babies. We who love children know 
that such an espionage system would destroy more values than it would salvage.’ 
All of the 50 States in the Union have statutes prohibiting cruelty to animals. 
In every instance these laws govern the work of medical scientists as well as 
other citizens. No scientist in the United States has ever been convicted of 
mistreating animals despite energetic policing of this possibility by the anti- 
vivisection cult.” 
Discussion . — The first part of this “reason” is difficult to discuss since it im- 
presses me as simply silly. It is difficult to understand how responsible scientists 
can refer to it as a “useful analogy.” It appears to imply that in general, physiol- 
ogists love their experimental animals as parents do their children. The second 
part of the “reason” refers to the fact that all 50 States in the Union have 
statutes prohibiting cruelty to animals. This is completely misleading, since 
these statutes often specifically exclude animal research in laboratories. Further- 
more, the NSMR specifically objects to enforcement of anticruelty legislation in 
the laboratory by an outside agency. The statement is made that “No scientist 
in the United States has ever been convicted of mistreating animals despite 
energetic policing of this possibility by the antivivisection cult.” Does this imply 
that no single instance of cruelty exists? The fact that this is not the case has 
been recognized, most commendably by the American Physiological Society 
itself, which recently adopted the policy of not accepting for publication in its 
journal, papers based on experiments involving unnecessarily cruel procedures. 
(This, of course, only prevents unnecessarily cruel experiments from being 
published, not from being performed. ) 
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH “REASON” NO. 9 
“The United States leads the world in medical research. This leadership not 
only makes our Nation healthy and strong, it makes the United States a great 
world benefactor, for discoveries made here alleviate suffering and save lives 
everywhere. Much of the progress in medical science in the United States is 
due to substantial Government support of research. The value of governmental 
support depends in great degree upon care to avoid excessive bureaucratic pres- 
sures that could make Government support more destructive than beneficial. 
The object of research is innovation and innovation demands a reasonable degree 
of freedom. 
“Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that the great achievement of the American 
people in science and technology since the founding days of the Republic have 
been due more to the free political environment of the United States than to 
any other factor. Here unregimented minds have been free to create, and they 
have created more new things than any society that ever has existed on this 
earth. 
“It is important to understand how closely the scientific leadership of the 
United States is tied to America’s historic abhorrence of regimentation.” 
Discussion . — The statement that the United States leads the world in medical 
research is not a noncontroversial one. But the question of importance here is 
not the truth of this statement, but the question of how Federal regulation of 
animal experimentation will affect medical research in this country. The ex- 
perience in England demonstrates that it need not hamper research. The fact 
is that with considerably less support, the quality of English physiological re- 
search is as fine as any. If the quantity of American research is greater, it is 
rather because, as stated in No. 9 of the reasons, “much of the progress in medical 
science in the United States is due to substantial governmental support of re- 
search.” There is no quarrel with the rest of the statements in No. 9. In ad- 
