300 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
CHAPTER 13 REFERENCES 
1. American Horse Protection Association v. U.S. De- 
partment of the Interior, 551 F.2d 432, 434, n.17 
(D.C. Cir. 1978). 
2. Animal Welfare Institute v. Kreps, 561 F.2d 1002, 
1007 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 
3. Barnes, P., “Animal Advocates Are No Friends to 
Lawyer ,” New Haven (CT) Register , p. 17 (cols. 1-6), 
Aug. 17, 1984. 
4. Becker, G., “The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 
FY 85 Budget,’’ Issue Brief No. IB84043, Congression- 
al Research Service, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 
Mar. 9, 1984. 
5. Californians for Responsible Research, Inc. v. Block, 
et al., (N.D.Calif., 1983). 
6. Cohen, H., “Two Questions Concerning the Animal 
Welfare Act,” Publication No. 85-927A, Congres- 
sional Research Service, U.S. Congress, Washing- 
ton, DC, Aug. 7, 1985. 
7. Conine, D., “Laboratory Audits: An Industry View,” 
Chem. Times Trends 7(3):13-16, 1984. 
8. Ford, D., and Mackler, B., “Good Laboratory Prac- 
tices: A Perspective for Research Scientists,” Bio- 
Techniques Jan. /Feb. 1984:48-49. 
9. Friends of Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corpora- 
tion, Civ. No. B81-643 (D.Conn., Feb. 17, 1982). 
10. Friends of Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corpora- 
tion, Civ. No. B82-744, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 
With Prejudice (D.Conn., Aug. 23, 1984). 
11. Haviland v . Butz , 543 F. 2d 169, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1976), 
cert, denied, 97 S.Ct. 95, 429 U.S. 832 (1976). 
12. Holzer, H. (ed.), “Animal Welfare Act: Rulemaking 
Petition, "Anim. Rights Law Rep. (Int. Soc. for Anim. 
Rights, Clarks Summit, PA) July 1982:14. 
13. Leavitt, E., and Halverson, D., “The Evolution of 
Anti-Cruelty Laws in the United States,” Animals 
and Their Legal Rights , E. Leavitt (ed.) (Washing- 
ton, DC: Animal Welfare Institute, Third Ed., 1978). 
14. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98S.Ct. 1816 
(1978). 
15. McArdle, J., Assistant Director, Institute for The 
Study of Animal Problems, Humane Society of the 
United States, Washington, DC, personal commu- 
nication, Dec. 13, 1984. 
16. Morrison, L., and Levey, G., "Animals and Research: 
Labs Already Take Steps to Protect the Animals’ 
Health and Welfare,” L.A. Daily J., p. 4, June 29, 
1983. 
17. Mosed, R., Executive Director for Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Rockville, MD, personal communica- 
tion, September 1984. 
18. Murray, C., “FDA-Proposed Lab Practice Regula- 
tions Scored,” Chem. Eng. News 55(9):18, 1977. 
19. Poore, S., Freedom of Information Act Coordina- 
tor, Veterinary Services Branch, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agri- 
culture, Washington, DC, personal communica- 
tions, Jan. 11 and 18, 1985. 
20. Rikleen, P., “The Animal Welfare Act: Still a Cru- 
elty to Animals, ’’Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 
7:129-142, 1978. 
21. Robinson v. United States, 718 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 
1983). 
22. Schneider, K., “Faking It: The Case Against Indus- 
trial Bio-T est Laboratories , ” Amicus J. 4(Spring) : 14- 
26, 1983. 
23. Schultz, C., Chief, Sciences Branch, Technology Di- 
vision, Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation, 
Materials Transportation Bureau, Research and 
Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Washington, DC, personal com- 
munication, September 1984. 
24. Solomon, M., and Lovenheim, P., “Reporting Re- 
quirements Under the Animal Welfare Act: Their 
Inadequacies and the Public’s Right to Know,” J. 
Stud. Anim. Problems 3:210-218, 1982. 
25. Stewart, W., "Legal Standards for Humane Care: 
The Animal Welfare Act,” Lab Anim. 13(6):33-41, 
1984. 
26. Time, "In the Doghouse: Protest Halts Animal Kill- 
ings,” 122:38, Aug. 8, 1983. 
27. Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 718 F.2d 
1247 (3rd. Cir. 1983). 
28. United States v. Fraley, 538F. 2d 626 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 
29. United States v.Hill, 694F.2d 258, 264, n.19 (D.C.Cir. 
1982). 
30. U.S., Congressional Record, 112:19559, 19608, State- 
ments of Reps. Rogers and Pepper (1966). 
31. U.S., Congressional Record, 112:19785, Remarks of 
Sen. McIntyre (1966). 
32. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Report 
to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Ru- 
ral Development and Related Agencies, Committee 
on Appropriations, United States Senate: The De- 
partment of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Program, 
GAO/RCED-85-8 (Gaithersburg, MD: May 16, 1985). 
33. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Use of 
Dogs in Experiments at Edgewood Arsenal, Mary- 
land: Department of the Army , GAO Rep. No. PSAD- 
76-80 (Washington, DC: Mar. 12, 1976). 
34. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Commit- 
tee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department 
Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture, Im- 
