366 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
Both bills would provide investigation systems of the Federal Government to 
assure compliance with the act, and both establish certain standards for treat- 
ment of research animals, to be supplemented by further Federal Government 
regulations.” 
DIFFERENCES 
The principal differences between the two bills are as follows : 
1. The Griffiths bill would place administration in the hands of the Secretary 
of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Moulder bill would create a new 
executive agency, headed by a Commissioner to be appointed by the President 
and required to have been admitted to practice law in the Supreme Court of 
the United States and not to have had any connection with any laboratory. 
2. The Griffiths bill would require certification of Federal grantees ; the 
Moulder bill would require certificates of Federal grantees, laboratories from 
which the Federal Government makes purchases, and Federal agencies and 
instrumentalities. 
3. The Griffiths bill would require the Secretary to provide reinstatement 
procedures to be applicable after withdrawal of certificate for noncompliance; 
the Moulder bill would make any noncomplying laboratory ineligible thereafter 
for such certificate. 
4. The Griffiths bill would require the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
Welfare to make public notice of uncorrected noncompliance by any Federal 
agency ; the Moulder bill would require public notice of uncorrected noncompli- 
ance by a Federal agency, such agency to be thereafter ineligible to use Federal 
funds for experiments involving use of animals. 
5. According to the Griffiths bill, the Secretary would determine qualifications 
for issuance of licenses to personnel using research animals ; the Moulder bill 
limits validity of such licenses to 1 year and specifies certain minimum qualifi- 
cations ( including holding of a doctoral degree in medicine, veterinary medicine, 
physiology, psychology, or zoological science.) 
6. Standards provided by the Moulder bill are greater in number and some 
are stricter in concept than those of the Griffiths bill.” 
In my judgment, neither of these bills is in the best interest of the American 
people. They do not contribute to the general health and welfare, but tend 
rather to divert efforts away from the efficient attainment of these objectives. 
Let me amplify these general statements. The basic urge to protect living 
animals against unnecessary fear and pain is shared by all of us. Over the years 
the management of animal experimentation has been the responsibility of indi- 
vidual investigators, physicians, and teachers, with such professionally in- 
formed persons having the authority to organize whatever programs, and con- 
duct whatever experiments, best serve scientific and medical progress, and thus 
the welfare of the public, future as well as present. With that responsibility 
goes another charge, that of insuring the welfare of the animals being used, 
so far as that is consistent with the primary objective, but not at the expense 
of the primary objective. These bills make the primary objective, the efficient 
practice of animal experimentation, impossible. 
I should emphasize that animal experimentation is necessary. I would not 
mislead the public: without such experimentation, medical advance would be 
thwarted. One need cite only the recent tragic story of thalidomide to em- 
phasize the urging of more, not less, animal experimentation. Moreover there 
is a risk of pain, even death, in experiments. Who would deny it? It is for 
that very reason that animals are used. But they are used humanely as far as 
possible. The proposed legislation would serve only to render more difficult an 
already difficult task. 
We all recognize the propriety of asking an overtly anxious parent or relative 
to remain outside the operating room when a loved one is being treated, not 
because we are unsympathetic, but because intense emotion and the voluble 
expression of it actually give neither comfort nor protection to the patient — in 
fact, they impede treatment and lessen the chance of recovery. 
These bills, too, appear to be based on emotion. They subordinate the wisdom 
of the investigator and physician, hence the general welfare, to the emotion of 
a sympathetic onlooker. The advancement of medicine and science is impeded. 
Perhaps it will be helpful if I illustrate these points, selecting just a few out 
of many highly objectionable features, drawn from H.R. 3556. 
(1) One requirement alone would bring most of the animal research in this 
country to an immediate halt; anesthetics would be administered only by a 
