Letters to and from the Editor

LETTERS TO AND FROM THE EDITOR Dear Sir: I appreciate the invitation to comment on the interesting article, "The Care and Treatment ofAnimals" by Dr. Dwight Ingle [Perspect. Biol. Med., 6:256, 1963]. Dr. Ingle is a very intelligent man. He has seen the fallacies in the arguments presented by more emotional persons in opposition to S. 533, the bill to require humane treatment ofexperimental animals introduced by Senators Clark, Neuberger, and Young. He points out that "medical scientists object also to being singled out from among all groups of citizens handling animals as the target ofa Federal bill." They are not singled out. Federal legislation thatmakes humane treatmentofanimals compulsorycontrols(1)meatpackers, (2)importers ofanimals from foreign lands, (3) those who transport animals from state to state. Medical scientists have not been "singled out." They have been included among the many who use large quantities ofanimals. Dr. Ingle states that "scientists uniformly agree that each bill would be restrictive and impractical." This is not an accurate statement. It does apply to those scientists who "uniformly agree" to whatever the officers ofthe organizations they belong to decide. It also applies to those who fear to express an independent viewpoint, lest they harm their chances for academic advancement under the sharp eye of"organization men." However, there are brave and honest scientists and medical men who speak out and even submit testimony to Congress in support ofthe legislation based on the principles ofthe British Act which has regulated—with the strong approval of those who work under its provisions —animal experiments there for the past 87 years. On page 259, Dr. Ingle states that "Dr. Anton J. Carlson, founder of the National Society for Medical Research, showed the way to advance medical research by bold, frank policies based on truth. . . . Ifscience can show that it intends to solve these problems [optimal care and treatment ofexperimental animals] by self-discipline, it might be aided, rather than opposed, by sane groups oflay citizens interested in the humane treatment ofanimals." How true this statement, but how baseless the assumption on which it rests. Though I think it would be helpful to quote at length from the correspondence between my father, Dr. Robert Gesell, Chairman ofthe Department ofPhysiology at the University ofMichigan Medical School, and Dr. Carlson, who founded the NSMR, this correspondence was circulated by my father in 1951 to all members ofthe Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and it will suffice here to state that my father's efforts to obtain humane control by the NSMR met with total failure. Dr. Ingle feels that the NSMR is helpful in improving standards ofanimal care (p. 259). Though he does not refer to the testimony of the executive director of this Society at hearings (September 28 and 29, 1962) to the effect that "laboratory animals are more pampered than pets," he does not refute such absurdities but encourages his readers to believe that 129 the NSMR is sound and honest. He goes on to say, "It [the National Society for Medical Research] has supported the development ofthe Animal Care Panel, which was founded by Doctor N. R. Brewer ofthe University ofChicago. The Animal Care Panel is interested in raising the standards ofproduction, care, and study oflaboratory animals. There is no question ofthe scientific community's attitude." (Emphasis supplied.) In my opinion, there is a very great question ofthe scientific community's attitude. I, personally, believe that the majority of scientists are humane and that if they attended the meetings ofthe Animal Care Panel, as I have done for the past dozen years, they would not support the callousness and cruelty encouraged there. I do not think that most American scientists would approve the tying down ofan unanesthetized rabbit, his head fixed in a V-shaped board, his four legs tightly pulled back by leather thongs. This supine, immobilized position was what was recommended for dropping irritating substances in the unanesthetized animal's eyes or painting them on his stomach. I do not believe the whole "scientific community " would sit idly by when the operator of a commercial laboratory boasted that he had deprived chinchillas offood and water for 32 days to see how long...