HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 351 
Bethesda, Md., September 21f, 1962. 
Hon. Kenneth Roberts, 
House Committee on Interstate Commerce. 
Dear Congressman : Miss Christine Stevens, president of the Society for 
Animal Protective Legislation, asked me to say a word on II. R. 1987 before your 
committee, Friday, September 28. If, however, your time was too taken up in 
these closing days of the Congress, possibly a statement might suffice. I shall, 
if possible, be on hand. Statement follows : 
“My name is Alexander Sharp, vice admiral, U.S. Navy (retired) ; class of 
1906, U.S. Naval Academy; age 77; address, 6306 Bannockburn Drive, Bethesda, 
Md., Montgomery County. I am a member of the Humane Society of the United 
States and also a member of its Montgomery County branch. 
“I cannot speak with firsthand knowledge on the subject of animals for ex- 
perimental purposes in hospitals, but the subject will no doubt be fully covered 
by Miss Stevens who does know. 
“The ‘Information Reports,’ Animal Welfare Institute, 22 East 17th Street, 
New York, N.Y., for September-October 1961 ; for January-February 1962 ; for 
March-April 1962, and the report from Concern of the General Board of Chris- 
tian Concerns of the Methodist Church, November 15, 1961, ‘Laboratory Animals 
Need Your Help,’ together with the pamphlet ‘The Case for Humane Vivisec- 
tion’ by Paul W. Kearney — give a good idea of the case, and make one wonder 
whether we are living in a civilized country or in the days of Genghis Khan 
here in our beloved country. The record contained in the above pamphlets 
together with information picked up in less documented form makes one wonder 
why such callousness, neglect, and cruelty has not been the subject of pre- 
ventive legislation long before this. The British have an act which humanely 
regulates experiments on animals. 
“I hope and pray that Senate bill S. 3088 and House bill H.R. 1937 may pass 
the Congress soon, for it has been said in the military that ‘inspection makes 
’em good and keeps ’em that way.’ 
“I never heard of sailor men maltreating animals and can figure no one would 
get away with it in their presence. As a hard old sailor myself, I think the 
time has come to stop neglect and cruelty to those who can’t defend themselves.” 
Very respectfully, 
Alex. Sharp. 
The George Washington University School of Medicine, 
Department of Physiology, 
Washington, D.C., July 10, 1962. 
Congressman Oren Harris, 
House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Congressman Harris : As scientists actively engaged in medical research, 
we would like to express our reactions to the Griffiths bill, H.R. 1937, and to the 
Moulder bill, H.R. 3556, now before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, pertaining to the use of animals in research. From our combined 
experience in a number of medical schools and medical research institutions 
we feel that for the most part such bills are unnecessary, and, in the rare 
instances where abuses have occurred, such bills would not have prevented 
them. Carelessness in the handling of animals by either scientists or caretakers 
is best dealt with by those on the spot, whether colleagues or employers, rather 
than by annual reports and occasional inspection visits. 
We are also concerned about specific provisions in each bill. The Griffiths 
bill, although more moderate than the Moulder bill, would still impede medical 
research. There are blanket conditions set which, though good as creneral 
guidelines, would rule out certain important types of experiments. For ex- 
ample, the requirement for adequate food would preclude nutrition studies of 
the minimum daily requirements for foodstuffs; and the provision that all ani- 
mals used by students be killed without recovering consciousness means that a 
student of surgery could not ascertain whether a practice procedure had in 
fact been successful; indeed, it would demand that this particular experiment 
be performed and its outcome be determined on a young surgeon’s first human 
patient. 
Proponents of the bill state that the paperwork required for the project plan 
an annual report will take an insignificant amount of a scientist’s time. No one 
can make such a statement, since the bill leaves the form of the project plan. 
