354 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
Los Angeles, Calif., July 11, 1962. 
Mrs. CnKiSTiNE Stevens, 
Animal Welfare Institute, 
-New York, N.Y.: 
In response to your request for a statement which could be introduced as 
testimony before a congressional committee, I am writing you this letter. I will 
have it notarized so that you may use it as an affidavit. 
My considered position in regard to the use of laboratory animals is a 
moderate one. I believe in the use but not the abuse of animals. Hence, I 
suffer the fate of most moderates, which is to encounter criticism from both 
directions. 
Whenever humanitarians raise the question of the humane treatment of 
laboratory animals, the reply is usually to the effect that any and all animal 
suffering is justified because of the reduction of human suffering which research 
makes possible. But is this argument valid? 
It is true that some research does make possible the reduction of human 
suffering. But not all of it. Perhaps not even most of it. Much research 
is undertaken by students who need topics for term papers, masters’ theses, or 
doctoral dissertations. Some is done by professors who need to publish in pro- 
fessional journals in order to obtain advancement in academic rank, or salary 
increases, or both. Some is undertaken in the interests of pure science to 
collect evidence toward the acceptance or rejection of challenging hypotheses. 
To be sure, all of these objectives are worthy of consideration. This writer is not 
opposed to the aims of pure science or academic advancement. Far from it. 
But if we are to inflict severe and prolonged pain on laboratory animals under 
the old argument that the end justifies the means, to be logical we must examine 
the ends critically to determine whether they really do justify horribly painful 
means and also whether similar ends might not be achieved by less painful 
means. 
I accept the argument that pain is often necessary to reduce pain. The produc- 
tion of vaccines is at the cost of much suffering in the animal world but they 
serve to obviate an enormous amount of suffering. Practice surgery is part of 
the necessary education of surgeons. Animals are needed for research on new 
drugs and new methods of combating disease. These things are part of the price 
of modern medicine. But all of these things may be done under some reasonable 
limitations such as the British use and could be done under the legislation which 
S. 30S8 and II.R. 1937 would impose. 
However, from reading the scientific journals over the years, I am convinced 
that a great deal of pain (even prolonged agony) is rather frequently inflicted on 
laboratory animals for reasons not even remotely related to the reduction of 
human suffering. For the purpose of illustration only, and not to point out a 
particular researcher for criticism, the investigations of Miller 1 may be cited. 
His report describes a series of experiments designed to investigate some points 
of undoubted interest to theoretical psychologists but, as far as I can see, not 
related to the work of clinical or consulting psychologists in their service to 
humanity. The report goes on to describe things which were done to laboratory 
animals which must have been extremely painful and which evidently went on 
for some considerable time. Not only did Professor Miller do these things 
himself, he also gave the names of some of his students whom he induced to 
participate in these practices. Anyone who cares to pick up a copy of the 
American Psychologist for December 1961 can read all this for himself. 
I wish to emphasize that the study I have cited was not unusual in the 
amount of suffering inflicted. I wish it were. Neither is it unusual in being 
unrelated to the reduction of human suffering. Anyone who will take time 
to look through a few scientific journals will find other such studies and some 
much more cruel. 
It is a fact of American academic life that status and advancement often 
depend on publication. Scholars are sometimes hard pressed to find new topics 
to write about. But it is not necessary to inflict pain in order to publish. Much 
research can be carried on without inflicting pain at all. By redesigning an ex- 
periment it may be possible to obviate, or at least greatly reduce, the amount 
of pain inflicted. Educational researchers have succeeded in studying the 
reading habits of children without cutting their eyes out. 
1 MiUer. Neal E., “Analytical Studies of Drive and Reward,” American Psychologist, 
vol. 16, pp. 739-754, December 1961. 
