308 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Most of the laws that do address the issue ex- 
empt "scientific experiments” or "investigations” 
entirely. In Alaska, one defense to prosecution is 
that the defendant's conduct "conformed to ac- 
cepted veterinary practice [or] was part of scien- 
tific research governed by accepted standards” 
(1). Maine allows proof of “accepted veterinary 
practice or bona fide experimentation for scien- 
tific research” as an affirmative defense to a 
charge of cruelty as well, so long as the animal's 
destruction, if required, is not "unnecessarily 
cruel unless directly necessary to the veterinary 
purpose” (89). Florida’s 59-year-old law states that 
cruelty "shall be held to include every act, omis- 
sion, or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifi- 
able pain or suffering is caused, except when 
done in the interest of medical science” (34). Geor- 
gia is more direct in establishing a connection be- 
tween the exemption and the interest protected 
by it: "The killing or injuring of an animal for hu- 
mane purposes or in the furtherance of medical 
or scientific research is justifiable” (53). Others 
contain specific provisos that the statutes not be 
construed to prohibit or interfere with scientific 
research, if done by qualified persons in a hu- 
mane manner (18,30). The majority simply exempt 
“acceptable veterinary practices” and "bona fide 
experiments” or research “governed by accepted 
standards” (89). 
Three other anticruelty statutes, all amended 
within the last 3 years, are equivocal. The Indi- 
ana Code was amended in 1983 to exempt "veteri- 
nary practices” from the general anticruelty stat- 
ute (63). In Pennsylvania, neither an exemption 
nor a provision interpreting the statute as exclud- 
ing scientific use is included in the law. The gen- 
eral grant of authority to police or humane soci- 
ety agents to enter premises for the purpose of 
seizing and destroying exploited animals prohibits 
entry or search "where scientific research work 
is being conducted by or under the supervision 
of graduates of reputable scientific schools or 
where biological products are being produced for 
the care or prevention of disease” (97). 
The Maryland General Assembly, in a 1984 
amendment, expressed its intention that "all ani- 
mals . . . under private, local, state, or federally 
funded scientific or medical activity ... be pro- 
tected from intentional cruelty” but provided that 
no person is to be held liable for criminal prose- 
cution due to "normal human activities to which 
the infliction of pain to an animal is purely in- 
cidental and unavoidable.” Authorized enforce- 
ment officers otherwise permitted to take posses- 
sion of animals to protect them from neglect or 
cruelty cannot do so without prior review and 
recommendation from the Division of Veterinary 
Medicine in the Department of Health and Men- 
tal Hygiene. Reports to the State’s attorney for 
the county in which the facility is located must 
be made by the Division within 48 hours of re- 
ceipt of a complaint (75). 
Of greatest concern to those engaged in test- 
ing and research are older, general anticruelty 
statutes that prohibit cruelty to all animals with- 
out requiring proof of a culpable state of mind. 
Many of these statutes do not generally exempt 
scientific inquiry from the prohibitions, and those 
statutes that attempt to do so often fail to define 
"animal” or “science” or contain vague definitions 
of the terms. Virtually none of the statutes sur- 
veyed attempts to define what activities consti- 
tute scientific research, nor do they establish sep- 
arate classifications for experimental animals. 
Enforcemen t 
Like Congress, State legislatures delegate en- 
forcement to the executive branch of govern- 
ment, which is authorized to promulgate regula- 
tions and enforce them under authority of an 
enactment. The exercise of the police power to 
control and protect animals has been sustained 
in a variety of areas, including controlling migra- 
tion of animals into a State, requiring registration 
and licensing of animals, controlling contagious 
and infectious diseases borne by animals, and 
compensating private parties for the destruction 
of animals in furtherance of anticruelty laws (33). 
Because criminal penalties are imposed for vio- 
lations of anticruelty statutes, primary enforce- 
ment responsibility generally rests with "duly con- 
stituted” law enforcement authorities— police and 
sheriff's departments. Most State legislatures, 
however, recognize the difficulty of ensuring en- 
forcement of anticruelty statutes on the local level 
and have also delegated limited police powers to 
private, not-for-profit organizations, principally 
