370 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
conduct of scientific research than are the university presidents, deans of 
medical schools, directors of research institutes, and academic department 
heads who now bear responsibility for the character of animal research in the 
United States. 
(3) The bills to regulate research offer no constructive provisions for improv- 
ing laboratory animal care but, on the contrary, provide numerous handicaps 
and hazards to scientific investigation. No provisions are made for research 
to develop better methods, training to develop better qualified personnel and 
appropriations for better facilities. 
(4) The Griffiths bill states that, “* * * living vertebrate animals * * * 
shall be used only when no other feasible and satisfactory methods can be used 
to ascertain biological and scientific information for the cure of disease * * 
Strictly interpreted this would stop all medical and biological research except 
on plants and microbes for many years until scientists could be sure that every 
possibility for the use of such lower forms of life in the solution of medical 
problems has been exhausted. Then and only then could the full range of 
modern research methods be employed. 
(5) Both proposals for Federal regulation of research include the provision 
that no experiment or test on living animals shall be performed unless a detailed 
project plan is approved by Federal authorities. The project plan must describe 
in advance all procedures to be employed with respect to living animals. This 
provision assumes that the investigator knows, in advance, each step in his 
research program. Such is not the case. The general objective is known, but 
the method of attack develops as the work progresses. Fruitless avenues are 
abandoned and new and developing leads followed as they open up. Indeed, 
the entire objective may be abandoned in favor of some newer objective that 
has come into view as the work progresses. The stringent regulation proposed 
would stifle real exploratory research and favor more perfunctory technological 
exercises where the outcome is already known in advance. 
(6) The two proposed laws to regulate research demand that records be kept 
of experiments, that animals be identified in relation to these experiments and 
that the disposition of animals also be recorded. Annual reports based on 
these records are to be made to Washington. Presumably the records to be 
maintained and the reports to be made are in addition to the already extensive 
records essential to the collection and reporting of scientific data. It is likely, 
therefore, that these scientifically useless reports would approximately double 
the burden of recordkeeping in conjunction with research. Not only would 
allocations for research be drained away in the employment of extra secretarial 
help, but also in Washington large numbers of clerks would have to read, sort, 
and file a mountain of such useless reports. 
(7) The proposed laws would authorize the appointment of inspectors with 
authority to examine the records of individual scientists and to stop investiga- 
tion if, in the judgment of the inspectors, the plans outlined in advance had 
not been followed accurately. The inspectors obviously would have great power 
that could be misused to strangle research. 
(8) In discussing proposed special policing of scientists, Prof. Maurice B. 
Visscher has made use of the following useful analogy: “Cruelty to children 
is and should be a crime. Some parents have been known to abuse their chil- 
dren. However, we do not, and I hope will not, set up governmental licensing 
bureaus to regulate which families may have children and to snoop on all homes 
to catch those infinitesimally few parents who beat their babies. We who love 
children know that such an espionage system would destroy more values than 
it would salvage.” All of the 50 States in the Union have statutes prohibiting 
cruelty to animals. In every instance these laws govern the work of medical 
scientists as well as other citizens. 
(9) The United States leads the world in medical research. This leadership 
not only makes our Nation healthy and strong, it makes the United States a 
great world benefactor, for discoveries made here alleviate suffering and save 
lives everywhere. Much of the progress in medical science in the United States 
is due to substantial governmental support of research. The value of govern- 
mental support depends in great degree upon care to avoid excessive bureaucratic 
pressures that could make Government support more destructive than beneficial. 
The object of research is innovation and innovation demands a reasonable degree 
of freedom. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that the great achievements of the 
American people in science and technology since the founding days of the 
Republic have been due more to the free political environment of the United 
