HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 355 
In conclusion I will state that as a citizen and as a psychologist I will en- 
tertain the argument that the end justifies the means if it really does justify 
it. I do not believe that severe pain should be inflicted on helpless animals for 
superficial or trivial reasons. Therefore I add my endorsement to those of 
other citizens in favor of Senate bill 3088 and House bill 1937. 
If the members of the committee wish to know who I am, you may show 
them the listing of my name in the directory of the American Psychological 
Association and tell them that I am associate professor of psychology at Los 
Angeles City College. 
Respectfully submitted. 
Emile Painton, Ed. D., 
Certified Psychologist. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of July, 1962. 
[seal] John F. Smith, 
Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 
My commission expires November 24, 1962. 
Mabch 14, 1961. 
Re bill S. 3570. 
Hon. Oren Harris, 
Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House of Representa- 
tatives, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Mr. Harris : Recently, Senator John Cooper declared his intention to 
reintroduce a bill similar to the bill introduced by Representative Martha Grif- 
fiths to provide legislation to insure the humane treatment of animals, especially 
animals used under investigative grants from U.S. agencies. 
This bill labors under the erroneous impression that the responsible investiga- 
tors do not treat animals in a humane fashion. It should be pointed out that 
before U.S. agencies make research grants to institutions, investigations are 
made of the facilities of each institution to which the grant is directed. This 
is reasonable and proper and insures adequate control of research moneys. 
To place onerous administrative burdens on the already heavily burdened in- 
vestigators will utilize a good deal of their time and effort in useless administra- 
tive details. The productivity of investigators will be limited and the efforts 
of a large number of scientists will be diverted to useless paperwork at a cost 
of millions of dollars to the Government. 
There has been no satisfactory investigation by Congress of the need for 
such legislation. If such responsible agencies as the Animal Care Panel fails 
to find any need for restrictive legislation, this can be taken as good evidence 
that no such need exists. Aside from throwing a roadblock in the way of medi- 
cal and scientific research, this new measure will be a further extension of 
Parkinson’s law to Government regulation. 
Sincerely yours, 
Harry H. LeVeen, M.D. 
Chief, Surgical Service, and Professor of Surgery, State University of 
New York, Downstate Medical Center. 
Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center — An Evaluation of Its 
Animal Care Program by WARDS (Welfare of Animals Used for Research 
in Drugs and Surgery) 
foreword 
The CCNSC program for research animal care gives hope and direction to 
those concerned with the useless waste and suffering of experimental animals ; 
those interested in economy and those scientists who know that standards for 
the selection and maintainance of these animals are essential. 
Under the National Cancer Institute, CCNSC was established by Congress in 
1955, to screen chemicals and other agents in order to find those that may halt 
cancer growths or cause them to regress. This is a vast operation guided, coordi- 
nated, and served by a handful of people. A very small, well defined section of 
CCNSC directs a national program of cooperation for animal care. To qualify 
for a contract with CCNSC, the applicant must meet certain standards of animal 
care and agree to at least two annual inspections. 
