HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 347 
Tiie Aspen Ci.inic, 
Aspen, Colo., August 29, 1962. 
Mrs. Roger Stevens, 
Animal Welfare Institute, 
New York, N.Y. 
Dear Mrs. Stevens : I write you in support of bills H.R. 1937 and S. 30S8 
relative to tbe humane care of animals used in scientific experimentation. 
I have been intermittently engaged in cardiac research requiring animal ex- 
perimentation during the past 5 years or longer, and consequently have firsthand 
experience with some of the conditions which may exist. 
It is my firm belief that medical research would be greatly impeded were all 
investigation forbidden to use experimental animals. Such work is indispens- 
able to progress, and should never be forbidden. 
On the other hand, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that a great deal 
of present animal experimentation is not only useless, repetitious, but cruel 
to the animals involved. In most instances this is due to carelessness or 
thoughtlessness rather than to deliberate cruelty. I have encountered only 
a few scientists who are deliberately and unnecessarily cruel — though they exist. 
I thoroughly agree with the provisions of the above bills which deal with 
inspection of animal facilities, approval of experimental designs, and with the 
many other safeguards for the animals involved. In my opinion most scientists 
who deal in this type of research would agree with these safeguards, subject 
only to the provisions mentioned in the next paragraph. 
I feel certain that the scientists who oppose these bills do so for fear of 
increasing Federal interference with private or institutional research. If an 
incompetent, ignorant, or corrupt inspector were permitted to approve or dis- 
approve an experimental program, the entire program would be in jeopardy. 
Those of us who have been in private medicine fear Federal control more than 
anything else, and this is even more important in research where the borders 
are less well defined. If there were any way in which impartial, honest, and 
competent supervision could be placed over experimental animal research, it 
is my firm belief that most scientists would support these bills, but without this 
protection many scientists will fear them. 
In summary then, if the supervision can be adequately controlled, I, like 
most scientists, strongly favor these bills. 
Sincerely yours, 
Charles S. Houston, M.D. 
University of Pennsylvania, 
The School of Veterinary Medicine, 
Philadelphia, September 25, 1962. 
Miss Christine Stevens, 
President, Animal Welfare Institute, 
New York, N.Y. 
Dear Miss Stevens : As a biologist who uses animals in research on repro- 
duction, I am writing to add my support to bills H.R. 1937 and S. 3088. I 
must add, however, that I do so as a private individual and do not represent 
my department at the University of Pennsylvania in this matter. 
Regrettably, many scientists have been urged not to support this legisla- 
tion on the grounds that (a) it is unnecessary (ft) it will hamper research. 
The innumerable instances of needless cruelty which I personally have wit- 
nessed, and which are well documented by the Animal Welfare Institute, 
refute the first of these contentions. The second is refuted by the enthusiastic 
support given by British scientists to their more demanding legislation (the 
British Act of 1876). 
I believe that we should always remember that the purpose of a law is 
not primarily to control, but rather to educate and to sensitize us. 
Perhaps you might bring these remarks to the attention of the commit- 
tee at the forthcoming hearings. 
Tours very sincerely, „ 
Ralph Gwatkin. 
91142— e: 
-23 
