322 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, -Testing, and Education 
anatomical specimens purchased from biological 
supply houses. Further, it permits only noninter- 
ventional observation of vertebrate animals (59). 
A similar bill was introduced in the New York As- 
sembly in 1983 (58). 
Only one case has tested the application of a 
State’s general anticruelty statute to secondary 
school experimentation. For a science fair project, 
a New Jersey high school student intentionally in- 
flicted two chickens with cancer and later killed 
them for dissection. The court first found that 
the State’s general exemption for scientific re- 
search was unavailable to the student, since he 
was not a licensed institution. The plaintiff, the 
New Jersey SPCA, argued that experiments such 
as this one were needless and unnecessary. Adopt- 
ing an expansive view of what constitutes scien- 
tific activity, the court found that the experiment 
did not violate the New Jersey anticruelty stat- 
ute, for several reasons, including: 
• the student had received proper supervision 
and normal protocols had been employed; 
• there were general benefits to society in per- 
mitting such experimentation; and 
SUMMARY AND 
Unlike the Federal Animal Welfare Act, most 
State anticruelty statutes were enacted prior to 
the turn of the century, and they have been in- 
terpreted as protecting the interests of society, 
the animal owner, and the animal, in roughly that 
order. Most forbid both active cruelty (torture, 
“overriding”) and failure to satisfy some specific 
(food, water, shelter) or nonspecific (“necessary 
sustenance”) duty of care owed to animals. Many 
incorporate vague or undefined terms, require 
some proof of state of mind (culpability) to sus- 
tain a conviction, and are subject to a variety of 
defenses. Enforcement of most aspects of these 
statutes is usually delegated to local police and 
to humane societies. The members of humane so- 
cieties are generally not trained to build crimi- 
nal cases skillfully, they lack the enforcement 
tools to do so, and they are underfunded for the 
task. 
The application of these statutes to the conduct 
of research is unclear, since many State anti- 
• the chickens were given proper care during 
the term of the experiment, and it was un- 
clear whether the chickens were in pain dur- 
ing the experiment (91). 
Recent Initiatives in Education 
Measures continue to be introduced that re- 
strict the use of some types of animals for exper- 
imentation, teaching, or demonstration purposes 
and that prohibit painful or invasive procedures 
of any kind, as outlined above (56). An extreme 
example is Massachusetts House Bill No. 742, 
which would eliminate the use of animals for 
demonstration purposes at medical schools. 
There appears to be growing interest among 
professional and humane -oriented organizations 
in establishing standards for animal use in teach- 
ing and promoting science to the young that also 
encourage humane attitudes. The Scientists’ Cen- 
ter for Animal Welfare (Bethesda, MD), for exam- 
ple, has targeted science fairs (see ch. 9) as can- 
didates for making students more sensitive to the 
needs of animals. 
CONCLUSIONS 
cruelty laws are general in nature and contain 
no specific exemption for research activity. The 
only case that offered the ideal forum for resolv- 
ing conflicting research and animal protection in- 
terests at the Federal and State level— and for 
deciding whether Congress intended to occupy 
the field of laboratory -animal regulation or, rather, 
to establish a cooperative system of protection— 
was decided without addressing these issues. 
Another State court found no preemptive intent 
in Congress’ passage of the Animal Welfare Act. 
It seems clear enough that the act is intended to 
complement, or at least operate concurrently, 
with State efforts at research regulation, but 
courts' reluctance to render broad decisions in 
cases on animals and the mixture of constitutional 
principles represented in the act make prediction 
of outcome difficult in any given case. 
Twenty States and the District of Columbia reg- 
ulate research to some extent. Like the Federal 
act, however, most address themselves to pro- 
