HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 367 
licensed veterinarian or a doctor of medicine qualified in anesthesiology, or a 
graduate medical school student under the immediate supervision of one of the 
former. Practically all research in university departments of agriculture, and 
biology, a large part of research in departments of animal husbandry and medi- 
cine, almost all animal research in colleges and high schools would be impossible 
if this condition were imposed. 
(2) The bill would apply to any living creature of any vertebrate species and 
of any other species capable of developing a conditional response; hence even 
many animals used in simple elementary, junior high, and high school experi- 
ments — one-celled animals like Paramecium, simple creatures like flatworms, for 
according to recent evidence, even these may be conditioned — would be included. 
Also consider that applications for a certificate would be required to study the 
octopus and squid ( and these would have to be anesthetized by a qualified veteri- 
narian or medical anesthesiologist). 
(3) Failure to comply with these or numerous other such regulations would 
result in suspension of a certificate and, would cut off all grant support to the 
laboratory. There is no provision for reinstatement. 
In summary, these bills bear titles that suggest that they will provide for 
humane treatment of animals used in research by recipients of grants from the 
United States, and by agencies and instrumentalities of the United States. They 
have both general and specific faults that make it uncertain that their stated 
objectives will be accomplished, yet make it certain that money, effort, and time 
intended for biological, medical, and veterinary research, teaching, testing, and 
production of materials, and consequent improvement of practice, would be 
distracted from their principal objectives by being administratively encumbered, 
delayed, and made more expensive. 
Yours sincerely, 
James D. Ebeet. 
National Society fob Medical Reseabch, 
Rochester, Minn., October 4, 1962. 
Mr. W. E. Williamson, 
Cleric, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representa- 
tives, Hew House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
Deab Mr. Williamson : I am grateful for your many favors to allow spokes- 
men from the fields of biology, medicine, and agriculture to state their case last 
Friday. It was a mistake on our part not to follow through on the panel pres- 
entation. You certainly did your part to help us bring clear understanding to a 
muddled issue. 
Dr. C. A. M. Hogben neglected to turn in the enclosed statement from Lord 
Lister when he spoke. 
Another exhibit that was turned in but not explained was the text of the 
German law that parallels the Moulder and Griffiths proposals. Perhaps you 
should have the following background on the German law. 
The German law was adopted soon after Hitler came into power. It was 
sponsored by Hermann Goering who was honorary president of the German 
National Anti vivisection Society. 
The text of the German law is not in itself severe, but during the Nazi regime 
it was administered quite harshly. Meanwhile Dachau and Auswitz became 
monuments to the antivivisectionist ideal. 
Even today in Germany this law presents some restrictions on animal research. 
Ironically there are no similar restrictions on experiments on human subjects. 
This is the most significant fact behind the thalidomide tragedy. 
I am glad that Congressman Harris’ committee advanced action to correct this 
condition in the United States. 
Sincerely, 
Ralph A. Rohweder, 
Executive Secretary. 
