276 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Congressional handling of humane treatment for 
experimental animals , discussed in this chapter, 
is an interesting mixture: It professes to protect 
the individual animal (e.g., the experimental sub- 
ject), but it establishes classifications that favor 
some animals over others. It uses Federal author- 
ity over interstate commerce to regulate the pro- 
curement and housing of laboratory animals, but 
it does not use it to the same degree as for other 
animals in other circumstances. Though Congress 
has found less-than -humane treatment of labora- 
tory animals to be worth exercising authority over 
interstate commerce in order to control, it has not 
judged the burden on commerce to be serious 
enough to preempt the regulatory field. By a cau- 
tious exercise of its power, Congress has acknowl- 
edged implicitly that there is some intrinsic pub- 
lic value in animal experimentation and that the 
uniqueness of the process of experimentation re- 
quires a deliberate approach, in order to achieve 
one policy objective without sacrificing the other. 
The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act 
The 1966 Act 
Finding increasing evidence that dogs and cats 
owned as pets were being stolen by unscrupulous 
dealers, moved across State lines, and resold to 
research institutions to satisfy a demand for ex- 
perimental subjects, Congress enacted the Labora- 
tory Animal Welfare Act in 1966. The act sought 
to head off these abuses by requiring dealers and 
research facilities that handle, care for, treat, or 
transport certain animals “in commerce” to fol- 
low standards to be developed and issued by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The pur- 
poses of the act were: 
• to protect the owners of dogs and cats from 
theft of such pets; 
• to prevent the use or sale of stolen dogs or 
cats for purposes of research or experimen- 
tation; and 
• to establish humane standards for the treat- 
ment of dogs, cats, and certain other animals 
by animal dealers and medical research fa- 
cilities. 
"In commerce” meant interstate commerce be- 
tween States, the District of Columbia, territories, 
and possessions; between points within a State, 
the District of Columbia, a territory, or a posses- 
sion, but through an outside point; or within the 
District of Columbia, a territory, or possession. 
Thus, to be covered by the act a dealer or research 
facility would have to acquire, for a use covered 
by the act, a regulated animal that had moved, or 
at some point would move, “in commerce.” 
Although "animal” was defined to include non- 
human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rab- 
bits, recordkeeping requirements were restricted 
to dogs and cats. Humane treatment was required 
on the premises of animal dealers, in transit, and 
at research institutions. The act established a sys- 
tem for licensing dealers and registering research 
facilities, with monitoring by Federal regulators. 
The Secretary of Agriculture was vested with the 
power to promulgate and enforce standards for 
humane care, treatment, and housing of protected 
animals. The act provided for the suspension of 
the license of any dealer violating its provisions 
and, upon conviction, imprisonment of not more 
than 1 year and a fine of not more than $1,000. 
The law’s reach extended to transportation of reg- 
ulated animals by the supplier, but not by common 
carriers. The Secretary was authorized to coop- 
erate with State and local officials to prevent theft 
of dogs and cats, apprehend pet thieves, and admin- 
ister the provisions of the act. In addition, the Sec- 
retary was directed to establish rules for inspec- 
tions of premises and of the required records of 
licensed dealers and registered research facilities, 
primarily to expedite the search for stolen pets. 
As applied to research, the act’s reach was short. 
Research facilities to be regulated were limited by 
definition to those that: 
• used or intended to use dogs or cats in exper- 
iments, and 
• either purchased them "in commerce” or re- 
ceived any Federal funds for research, tests, 
or experiments. 
Covered facilities were required to register with 
the Secretary rather than be subject to more strin- 
gent licensure requirements. Research animal sup- 
pliers were subject to the new law’s requirements 
only if they bought, sold, or transported dogs or 
cats and if the dogs or cats supplied were used 
for research by the client institution. In other 
words, research facilities could continue to pro- 
cure experimental animals from farms, munici- 
