HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 371 
States than to any other factor. Here unregimented minds have been free to 
create, and they have created more new things than any society that ever has 
existed on this earth. It is important to understand how closely the scientific 
leadership of the United States is tied to America’s historic abhorrence of 
regimentation. 
The group concluded that much can be done by the Federal Government to speed 
progress in the care and use of experimental animals in scientific laboratories. 
Public concern and congressional concei’n about laboratory animal welfare could 
result in programs that will be of real value to investigators working with 
animals. Four areas in which Federal support would aid biological science are : 
Research in laboratory animal husbandry. There are almost no objective 
data, for instance, on the space and exercise requirements for dogs used in 
chronic experiments. 
Training for laboratory animal care personnel. There is a critical need 
for more veterinarians trained especially in laboratory animal medicine. 
There is a need for better qualified animal technicians and caretakers. 
Communication of the latest information about animal care methods is 
handled primarily by the Animal Care Panel. However, the ACP has 
limited resources and needs additional funds in order to do an optimum 
job. 
Building of better animal care facilities is both a financial and a technical 
problem. Costly mistakes are sometimes made in the design of new facilities 
and an expanded program of technical guidance is indicated. 
Our position might be summarized by saying that scientists engaged in the 
merciful work of alleviating suffering and prolonging life need Federal help not 
Federal harassment in order to do still a better job. 
National Science Teachers Association, 
Washington, D.C., October 5, 1962. 
Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts, 
House of Representatives, 
Washington, D.C. 
Dear Sir: The National Science Teachers Association is an organization of 
some 20,000 science teachers, the largest organization of its kind in the world. 
Among the objectives of these teachers in their teaching of science to our children 
is one that is concerned with the love, care, and humane treatment of animals. 
Hence our interest in any legislation concerned with the inhumane treatment of 
animals. Specifically, we refer to the proposed Moulder bill (H.R. 3556) and 
to the Griffiths bill (H.R. 1936), both of which deal with animal experimentation. 
After due consideration of the bills, the association wishes to go on record as 
being opposed to them. Although there are many reasons for this position, 
several of the more important ones are indicated below : 
Our experience and observations in the use of laboratory animals do not seem 
to necessitate new legislation at this time. 
The provisions of the bills will place unqualified persons, since no laboratory 
experience is required of them, in positions of supervision and enforcement of 
laboratory practices. 
The provisions of the bills will impose a great deal of needless paperwork on 
research people, thereby hindering rather than aiding their endeavors. 
The bills make no provision for research in animal care, for the education 
of technicians working with experimental animals, or for the improvement of 
animal laboratory facilities. 
The restrictions imposed by the provisions of these bills may well lead to pre- 
mature clinical testing of drugs and techniques on human beings without pre- 
vious conclusive and safe animal results. 
Historically, advances in medicine and biology have been accomplished 
through animal experimentation. To hamper the proper use of these animals for 
this purpose can only be construed as a disservice to our country. 
Very truly yours, 
C. Michael Adragna 
(For the Board of Directors). 
P.S. — Please include this letter as part of the hearing record. 
