336 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
Present standards require professional direction of laboratory animal facilities, 
technically competent animal care personnel and physical facilities and methods 
of care to permit the housing of animals in a state of well-being and comfort. 
Careful financial planning is essential to assure the necessary funds to meet 
these standards. 
Chicago, III., September 27, 1962. 
Representative Kenneth A. Roberts, 
Chairman Subcommittee on Health and Safety, 
House Committee on Intersta te and Foreign Commerce, 
New Haven Office Building, Washington, D.C.: 
I have just been informed that you have scheduled a hearing on the Griffith 
bill, H.R. 1937. Tomorrow, I want to be heard in opposition of this bill. Griffith 
bill is patterned after the British law, passed in 1876 when less than 20 scientists 
were regularly engaged in research employing animals when probably less than 
$20,000 per year was spent on medical research in Great Britain. It is unrea- 
sonable to expect that the British Parliament could write a law 88 years ago 
that would be suitable for these United States today. British law was passed 
as result of an antivivisection campaign with the usual false accusation. Griffith 
bill would place Government restrictions and regulations on research and teach- 
ing supported by Government funds. It would place the same Government 
restrictions on research supported by private funds. If such research was done 
in institutions that have received or may receive Government funds for con- 
struction or remodeling of school buildings in which any research is done, 
British science has suffered in the volume of research that requires the use of 
the larger mammals, particularly the dog and cat. Such restriction is shown 
in the statistics of the British Home Office on the number of these animals used 
annually. One medical school in this country may use as many dogs and cats 
in 1 year as were used in 1959 in all of the university laboratories of Great 
Britain. The antivivisection societies are powerful in Great Britain. British 
scientists accept the British law to gain protection from the anti-viviseetionists 
because the law provides that they cannot be prosecuted without obtaining writ- 
ten consent of the Home Secretary in the interest of the future progress of 
medical, dental, and veterinary research in this country. I trust that your com- 
mittee will not give favorable consideration to this bill. 
A. H. Rtan, M.D., 
President, Illinois Society for Medical Research. 
Webster Groves, Mo., September 27, 1962. 
Congressman Kenneth Roberts, 
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: 
Respectfully urge your committee to recommend the Moulder bill, H.R. 3556, 
for passage, and please incorporate this request in the official record. 
The Missouri League for Humane Progress, Inc. 
Grace Conahan, Executive Secretary. 
History of the British Law of 1876 — An Act To Amend the Law Relating 
To Cruelty to Animals, Submitted by Andrew H. Ryan, M.D., Dean of 
Students, the Chicago Medical School, President, the Illinois Society 
for Medical Research 
Within the past 2 years, three bills have been introduced into the Congress, 
which would place restrictions on investigators who agreed to accept research 
grants or contracts for research employing vertebrate animals, supported by 
Government funds. (The bill of Senator Cooper, S. 3570, in 1960 and the bills 
of Senator Clark, S. 3088, and Representative Griffiths, H.R. 1937, in the present 
session of Congress.) These bills are patterned after the British law signed 
by Queen Victoria in 1876. 
The British law has had no change except for a further restriction in 1906, 
which prohibits public pounds from making dogs and cats available for research 
and teaching, and one in 1912 which provides that Government inspectors may 
