HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 365 
and scientists are mean, cruel, and sadistic, requiring police action to control 
them. Existing State and municipal laws, university rules and regulations, 
codes of ethics, and the actual requirements of proper scientific research are 
adequate to secure and protect the objectives of the proposed legislation. 
It should be recognized that these bills offered in the name of humane treat- 
ment for animals offer no constructive provision for the advancement of the 
science and are of animal care, no provision for training in animal laboratory 
care, no provision for the interchange of information on laboratory animal care, 
and no provision for better facilities for laboratory animal care. 
All of the limited abuses in the care of laboratory animals which may exist 
can and are being corrected through responsible scientific efforts. Such insti- 
tutions and organizations as the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Na- 
tional Research Council; the Animal Care Panel; the American Board of 
Laboratory Animal Medicine ; the American Association of Medical Colleges ; 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Hos- 
pital Association ; and the National Society for Medical Research, as well as 
the American Medical Association, have in action or under study programs to 
help insure the safe, humane treatment of laboratory animals. Voluntary efforts 
such as these accomplish the objective of providing for “the humane treatment 
of animals used in experiments and test.” The proposed legislation, in our 
opinion, does not. 
We thank you for giving us the opportunity to express the views of the physi- 
cians of America on these important bills. We respectfully request that this 
statement by the American Medical Association be included in the record of the 
hearings on H.R. 1937 and H.R. 3556, 87th Congress. 
Sincerely yours, 
F. J. L. Blasingame, M.D. 
American Institute op Biological Sciences, 
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1962. 
Congressman Kenneth A. Roberts, 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Congressman Roberts : I am enclosing a copy of a letter to me from 
Dr. James D. Ebert, president-elect of the American Institute of Biological 
Sciences, in which he expresses his concern over the impact upon biological 
and medical research of the passage of the so-called Moulder and Griffiths bills 
or any others which might have the same provisions. I respectfully request 
that this very fine statement be made a part of the record of testimony which 
was recently conducted by your subcommittee. 
Enclosure. 
Carnegie Institution of Washington, 
Department of Embryology, 
Baltimore, Md., October 16, 1962. 
Dr. Hiden T. Cox, 
Executive Director, American Institute of Biological Sciences, 
Washington, D.C. 
Dear Hiden : I have completed a careful examination of bills H.R. 1937 (by 
Mrs. Griffiths) and H.R. 3556 (by Mr. Moulder). In my study I have been 
aided by a detailed comparison and evaluation of the bills prepared by my col- 
league, Bent G. Boving, M.D., and other members of our staff, and by a similar 
comparison prepared by the Legislative Liaison and Reference Section, Office of 
Program Planning, National Institutes of Health. In the latter document, the 
similarities and differences in the bills are stated effectively as follows : 
SIMILARITIES 
“Both bills provide for issuance by the Federal Government of certificates of 
compliance as a prerequisite to use of research animals by specific laboratories, 
and the issuance of licenses to persons authorized to conduct, in such laboratories, 
experiments involving use of live animals. Both require submission and accept- 
ance by the Federal Government of individual project plans prior to initiation 
of a given experiment involving animals, and both require annual reporting. 
