HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 359 
The process of weighing was conducted differently in each installation. The 
best method seemed to be the one where the space between the container for 
the mice and the scale is the closest. It was observed that this work was 
performed in every installation while the men were in a standing position. Since 
weighing is necessary at a number of points in this program, perhaps the com- 
fort of the technician and the ease of handling might be improved if this pro- 
cedure were to receive the benefit of formal study. 
Three classes of mice are usually present in these colonies and consist of those 
kept in quarantine, those used for investigations, and others used for tumor 
tissue production. Their status is indicated by the careful information that is 
noted on the individual record cards. 
All mice are killed by a single, quick, and humane method. 
In the details noted above it might appear that the differences in care surpass 
the similarities in this small area, i.e., the scientific husbandry of mice. This 
is not true. In the overall perspective, similarities are the rule, and the differ- 
ences, whether they be good or bad, are only a healthy sign of an everchanging 
central program directed toward a high standard of care. 
June 12, 1961. 
Hon. Vance Hartke, 
U.8. Senate, 
Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D.O. 
Dear Senator Hartke : Two bills, H.R. 3556 (the Moulder bill), and H.R. 1937 
(the Grifliths bill) which have serious implications for medical teaching and re- 
search in Indiana and the rest of the country, have been referred to the Commit- 
tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives. Both 
bills will require prior approval of research plans, one at least (H.R. 3556), prior 
approval of all changes in scientific procedures to be employed; implicit is the 
prospect of numerous scientifically superfluous reports, ultimately destined to 
make Washington the repository of additional records requiring large numbers 
of clerks to read, sort, and file. One estimate has been that Federal regulation 
of science would add $54 million to research costs. 
Both bills propose the beginning of regulation January 1, 1962, with what ap- 
pears to be an inadequate survey and study of the situation. Studies are being 
made by the AAMC Committee on Laboratory Animal Care, the Animal Care 
Panel, and the Institution of Laboratory Animal Resources of the National 
Academy of Sciences, NRC, all giving evidence of the sincere desire of medical 
scientists to maintain and even improve the high standards of animal care that 
exist generally in the research laboratories in this country. It should be obvious 
that the maintenance of high standards of care of the experimental animal are 
to the best advantage of any research program. All major scientific societies 
in the country are aware of the problem of cruelty to animals. Important scien- 
tific periodicals are barring from publication any papers which suggest painful 
procedures to unanesthetized animals. 
On the contrary, the proposed bills to regulate research offer no constructive 
provision for improving laboratory animal care, but on the contrary, provide nu- 
merous handicaps and potential hazards to scientific investigation. No pro- 
visions are made for research to develop better methods, for training of personnel, 
and appropriations for better facilities. 
Moreover, annual or occasional visits by agents of the Commissioner of Labora- 
tory Animal Control (H.R. 3556), or authorized representatives of the Secretary 
of Health, Education, and Welfare (H.R. 1937) would be well-nigh useless in 
detecting infringements. More numerous visits would make it a policing action, 
necessitating increased bureaucracy and expense. It would appear best to have 
regulation in the hands of those most qualified, namely, the deans of the medical 
schools, directors of research institutes, and academic department heads. 
To add a few more specific points of criticisms : 
1. The provision of the Moulder bill to have appointed a Commissioner who has 
never been connected with a laboratory is naive and unrealistic. 
2. The principle of substitution as expounded by the Moulder bill (meaning 
the use of a “less highly developed species of animal for species more highly 
developed’’ in research projects) is biologically absurd, and beyond that, im- 
practical. 
3. The requirement that all anesthetics be given by a licensed veterinarian or 
M.D. qualified in anesthesiology is another example of the shortsighted character 
