Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 448 Un3554I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LIBRARY Book number 448 1 Un3554I IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES HEARINGS BEFORE A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES SENATE A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT UNCLAIMED ANIMALS LAWFULLY IMPOUNDED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BE M ADE AVAILABLE TO EDUCA- TIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND GOVERNMENTAL IN- STITUTIONS LICENSED UNDER THIS ACT FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES MAY 24 AND 25, 1949 Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1703 USDA National Agricultural Libra NAL Building 10301 Baltimore Blvd. Beitsville, MD 20705-2351 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 01703 WASHINGTON : 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA J. HOWARD McGRATH, Rhode Island, Chairman OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee LESTER C. HUNT, Wyoming J. ALLEN FREAR, Jr., Delaware BERT H. MILLER, Idaho JOHN J. WILLIAMS, Delaware JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL, Kansas ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey Special Subcommittee on S. 1703 MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Chairman LESTER C. HUNT, Wyoming J. HOWARD McGRATH, Rhode Island n yisidJ IfiiufiuohaA IsnoitsU 'Q2LI 3mb!iu8 JAH .bvf8 9iomillsfl iOEOI !(- v-»'C 0 1 o '* CM ,9i!ivEo. 4. Each licensed institution shall provide for the transportation of animals from the pound. Each institution licensed under this Act shall pay an annual fee of $50 to the District of Columbia to pay for the animals received by it from the poundmaster. No institution shall use any animal obtained pursuant to this Act for any purpose except its scientific or educational activities. Sec. 5. Subject to the approval of the Commissioners, the Health Officer may promulgate such regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the pro- visions of this Act. The Health Officer shall inspect annually each licensed institution or as often as he deems necessary. The Health Officer, after due notice and hearing, may suspend or revoke the license granted to an institution for violation of this Act or any regulations promulgated thereunder. Sec. 6. No institution shall be liable for injury or illness or subsequent death of any animal, resulting from the transportation, detention, or proper use of such animal in its scientific or educational activities. Sec. 7. Any person who violates any provision of this Act or any regulation promulgated thereunder, or any person who willfully fails to execute any duty imposed on him by this Act, shall be fined not more than $300 or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both. Sec. 8. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. Sec. 9. This Act shall be so interpreted and construed as to make available unclaimed impounded dogs to licensed institutions for scientific and educational purposes. Sec. 10. All Acts and parts of Acts, to the extent that the}’ are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed. The Chairman. This is a public hearing, will continue to be a public hearing; and, as long as there is room in the committee room, the public will be admitted by that door. I would suggest that some- one check every little while and make that announcement, so that the people will realize that it is because of lack of space that they are not admitted, rather than making it an executive session. In order to expedite the hearing, all statements should be as brief as possible and within the limits of one typewritten page. It will be physically impossible for the committee to hear all witnesses in full detail and length. Of necessity, we must limit the appearances. However, all written statements submitted to the committee will be considered by the committee before any action is taken on this bill. I want to repeat, for emphasis, we have a very, very long list of witnesses; and each witness should confine himself to as brief a state- ment as possible. Unless a witness has something to offer that pre- vious witnesses have not, it would be extremely helpful if repetition and merely cumulative observations would be avoided. Our first witness is Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller, will you give your name? STATEMENT OF HON. A. I. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Mr. Miller. I am A. L. Miller, Representative in Congress from Nebraska. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the committee briefly in behalf of the bill you are considering, S. 1703, and a similar bill which I introduced in the House, H. R. 4349. The bill provides that unclaimed animals lawfully impounded in the District of Columbia be made available to educational, scientific, IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES and governmental institutions licensed under this bill, for scientific purposes. The word “institution” in the bill means any school or college of medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, or agriculture, medical diagnostic laboratory, hospital, or other educational or scien- tific establishment located in the District of Columbia or its metro- politan area which, under the direction of the faculty or responsible officers thereof, is engaged in the investigation of or giving instruction in the functions or structure of living organisms. I might say to the committee that the institutions are licensed. The animals that are presently impounded in the pound, if they are unclaimed after 48 hours, can be parceled out by the poundmaster to these different scientific institutions. The committee might be interested to know that 71 years ago the Congress passed legislation which was a permissive legislation as far as handling the dogs were concerned in the District; 71 years ago. It made a permissive question as to how a poundmaster might dispose of these dogs. I understand that since that time and up to the present time he disposes of them by some form of gassing them. I am not sure as to that; but there are several thousand dogs and cats that are gassed or put to death in the pound each year. Senator McGrath. Under the present law, Doctor, how long is the poundmaster required to keep an animal before he destroys it? Mr. Miller. I am not sure, but I think it is 48 hours. This law would make it 5 days. I think it is 2 days now, and I think under this law it says 96 hours before the animal can be destroyed. Senator McGrath. This law says 96 hours. Mr. Miller. Ninety-six hours, and I believe the present law is 48. However, the poundmaster may enlarge upon that, because he is given a great deal of authority and permissive action under the present bill. For the last 53 years there have been bills introduced into the Congress against anti vivisection. You will hear a great deal of information here relative to cruelty to animals. We have now in the District of Columbia laws to protect animals from cruelty, and I hope they are enforced. They ought to be strictly enforced. The Chairman. We must ask that there be no demonstration. This is an open hearing; and if there is any demonstration, we will be obliged to go into executive session because it is very, very im- portant that we have all of the witnesses heard. Now, we do not want to deprive you of the right of sitting in here and listening: but if this goes on, 1 shall be obliged to ask that we close the room. Continue, Congressman. Mr. Miller. Thank you. You Senators will find that this type of legislation is charged and surcharged with emotion; and the words that you hear about cruelty, I think probably 30 or 35 years ago was true. I was a medical student 35 years ago, and as I look back upon some things that happened at that time in relation to dogs and cats and mice and rats and things we were experimenting with, it probably was not too good a record. But when we had this bill before the House committee 2 years ago, I took my committee to the two universities in the District twice, 4 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES unannounced, and took them to the pound to find out how dogs were being treated. All of the committee was amazed at the dogs in the universities that were being used for scientific purposes, how they were treated with a great deal of consideration. It was certainly a different pic- ture than I remembered 33 years ago when I was a medical student carrying on some scientific experiments. You will find that much of the emotional discharge here today will relate back to 30 or 35 years ago. That is the thing that you Senators must keep in mind. You will receive more letters on this subject probably from people outside your district. I receive more letters from California, Chicago, and New York than I have ever received from my district. I have not received anything from my district on this particular subject, but it is interesting how disturbed people can become about questions that are far Removed from home. This just affects the District of Columbia. It does not affect California, Chicago, or New York. Senator McGrath. I may say this to you, Doctor. One of the reasons I thought it would be very desirable to have hearings on an issue of this kind is because this movement is not confined to the District of Columbia. It is Nation-wide. The effort to prevent cruelty to animals is a Nation-wide effort, carried on by people of very good intent. This is the Nation’s Capital. I thought that here, probably better than anywhere else in the United States, we could develop some facts that would either prove or disprove the contentions that are made. So that, in a sense, people all over the United States do have an interest in this matter; and the intent of these hearings was to provide information, factual information, and we hope accurate information, that can be used in these campaigns, either for or against, whatever seems to be the right thing in the end. Air. Miller. I agree with you, Senator, entirely. The bill I intro- duced is exactly as yours, with the exception on page 3 I did put in this provision: “No surgical experiments may be carried out without complete anesthesia at the time of experimental surgery, and that no practice or experiment involving cruelty shall be permitted. ” I wrote that in on my own thinking and volition, and had no help from anyone except that I wanted to make sure there was no cruelty practiced upon these animals. The law provides for severe penalty if cruelty is practiced. I could go into the benefits that the medical profession derives from experimentation upon animals, not only upon dogs, but on cats, rabbits, and mice; and of benefits to human beings, blue •babies; the operation on cancer of the esophagus was worked out on a dog. But I am going to leave those to more capable men who, I think, will tell you about the benefits that are derived from experiments on animals, not only dogs, but cats, rabbits, mice, guinea pigs, and things of that type. Now, as I say, this is an emotional subject. I received a dozen phone calls vilifying me; and one even called my wife up and wanted to know what kind of beast she was living with. I received a letter from Chicago threatening to kill me, and he signed the letter. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 0 You may get those letters, too. The FBI found the man in Chicago. He said, “Yes, I wrote the letter; but I was drunk when I wrote it and I did not mail it.” That is the type of emotionalism that you get from this type of legislation. I hope that the committee, as you proceed with your hearings, will weigh very carefully these emotional appeals, and make it pos- sible for these scientific institutions in the District of Columbia to proceed with the ceaseless probing of the unknown. Medical science has prolonged all of our lives, has mastered many diseases. They are going to master more diseases and more surgical conditions. But to do so scientifically, they must have some means of experimentation upon animals. I am sure that this committee, as we did over in the House will weigh the evidence pro and con, sift out the wheat from the chaff; and see that no cruelty has been practiced upon dogs. I would be the first one to speak strongly against it. I have a big painting in my office of a husky that I had painted when I was up in Alaska a few years ago. I have had dogs since I was a boy, and my boy had dogs. But I know of the great benefits that come to the medical profession and to mankind by their being permitted to carry on these experiments on a scientific basis. Another thing, I get letters saying, “We do not want our dogs kidnapped.” There is some “dognapping” going on. This bill will protect the individual who has pets at home, because these scientific institutions can go to the poundmaster and say to the poundmaster, “You no longer can destroy those dogs. We have first claim on them.” Now he does not let them have these dogs. He does not care to let the scientific institutions have the dogs, although he could if he wanted to. But he does not do so. Senator McGrath. You made a study of this subject here in the District according to your earlier testimony? Mr. Miller. Yes, Senator. Senator McGrath. Could you tell us how the hospitals and these medical schools get dogs at the present time? Or in what quantity do they get them? Mr. Miller. I believe that they get some of them through some institutions that are set up. There is one in Pennsylvania that makes a business of supplying dogs. I think they go out and get them on the highways. Senator McGrath. How does that institution get the dogs? Mr. Miller. That was rather vague, but as near as I could find out from some of the boys, they went out on the highways, and if they found a stray dog there, whether it belonged to you or to me, they took the dog and sold him through different channels to institu- tions; more or less an illegal procedure. This type of a bill will prevent all of these pets being kidnapped. No one will go out and go to the effort of catching the dog when they can go to the poundmaster and he says, “Here are dogs available for you.” It seems rather wasteful to destroy five or six thousand dogs and cats each year at the pound and not have them available for scientific purposes. I am not sure that they put them to death in a very 6 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES humane fashion. I saw some of it. I would not approve of it, and I am sure this committee would not. I hope* the committee will find time to go to the three medical schools in the District. 1 am sure you will be amazed as I was how kindly the dogs were treated, and the type of anesthetic that is used, the cleanliness of the place. It was a surprise to me because my memory went back 30 or 35 years ago when I did not see those conditions. I think much of your testimony here this morning will be of the type 30 or 35 years ago. Senator McGrath. You are a medical doctor? Mr. M iller. Yes, I am a surgeon, sir. Senator McGrath. In your professional opinion, are animals of the type of dogs and cats essential to experimentation? Mr. Miller. Yes, indeed. I am satisfied that the progress that has been made in surgery and in scientific advancement could never have been made without the help of a dog who has been the best friend of man, and the cats, the guinea pigs, the rabbits, and the mice that are presently being used. The cure for diabetes came about from experiments on dogs. The operation of the removal of the esophagus was worked out on a dog. The operation for blue babies was worked out upon the dog. No one would expect a surgeon to work those things out upon the infant, upon the human being. We must have animals to experiment on, not only in surgery but in medicine for medical procedures to find out how drugs act. Unless that is done, I think that we would hold back scientific development in this country many, many years. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. Doctor, do you have any idea of the number of dogs that are destroyed now at the pound? Mr. Miller. I understand there are about 5,000 dogs each year and 6,000 cats. That can be verified by the poundmaster; but I understand several thousand. Senator Hunt. He is going to testify? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Miller. You probably ought to get that information from him, but I understand several thousand. Senator Hunt. But the information he cannot give is what I am leading up to, Doctor. How many are required by the scientific in- stitutions in the District? Mr. Miller. That I cannot answer, Senator. Senator Hunt. But in all probability they can only use a small per- centage of them? Mr. Miller. A small percentage. I believe one of the medical schools told us they used 150 a year. Now, there may be more or less; but if they used a thousand in each one of the schools, there would still be two or three thousand, I presume, that have to be put to death. Senator Hunt. Do you know anything about the present method of destroying them? Mr. Miller. I understand they use a gas for destruction. Senator Hunt. Is that not done in mass murder, so to speak? Or is it done individually? Mr. Miller. I understand they just herd them into a room and turn on some gas. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 7 Senator McGrath. Wliat is the effect of that on a conscious animal? Mr. Miller. Well, before they pass out, they go through some pretty severe agony. I have seen them gassed, and I know what happens to them; although it is of short duration. Senator McGrath. How long does it take to destroy an animal in the gas chamber? Mr. Mill er. It does not take very long, depending on the gas that is used. If you use a cyanide gas, it is very quick. But I understand he does not use that. I think one time he backed a car up and used some gas from the exhaust of a car. Whether he is using that now, I do not know. Those things you will have to get from the poundmaster and others who are qualified to answer. Senator Hunt. Doctor, at the beginning of the history of this country, the span of life of the human being, our expectancy, was 35 years. Today it is 65 for men and 70 for women; or 67% average. Do you think the experimental work that has been accomplished through the use of animals for scientific purposes has led to that increased life expectency? Mr. Miller. Yes, scientists everywhere have had a ceaseless prob- ing and searching into the unknown for the cause of illnesses, and the means to prolong the span of life; and certainly any scientific experiments Wat can be conducted would be a factor in prolonging life. It has been carried on. I say very frankly when I was a medical student 35 years ago that some of the treatment of dogs at that time would not meet with my approval today; and that was one reason I wrote the short provision in the bill which I thought might protect the cruelty to animals, because I certainly do not want them to be treated with cruelty. But if you are going to continue this ceaseless probing of the unknown, trying to find out what causes illness in individuals and prolonging life, new scientific discoveries, then there must be some place to start with experimentation; and the dog is the place, the best place, to start. Senator Hunt. May I ask you, Doctor, what particular study is made — perhaps by asking that in divisions it will be clearer. Is the muscular tissue studied for the histology structure? Mr. Miller. Yes, they are. The work that I did on dogs as a medical student and later on as a postgraduate physician was one of surgery, the section of the stomach and the intestinal tract. We did a great many experiments on the surgery of the intestinal tract on dogs, and it is quite similar to man. Before 1938 we were able to do nothing with the cancer of the esophagus. Since 1938 in the last few years they have discovered that they can remove the entire esophagus of a man and hook the stomach up to what is left of the esophagus; entirely worked out in experiments upon dogs, surgical experiments upon dogs. It seems incredible that an individual now with cancer of the esophagus can find relief because of the experiments worked out upon the dog. You can remove the esophagus and the man can go on and have a number of years ahead. The operation upon blue babies, the changing of the circulation, was worked out upon dogs ; and there are other men here who will tell 8 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES you more, I am sure, about the great scientific progress that has been made through this experiment. Senator Hunt. Do dogs have any pathological' conditions that are similar to those in humans? Mr. Miller. Yes, they do. A great number of them. I prefer not to go into detail on it, Senator, because I think that several of the other pathologists here can give you in detail the pathology, and even the bacteriology of dogs, histology. Senator Hunt. But do they carry on experiments in treatments as well as experiments in surgery, anatomy, histology, and all of those? Mr. Miller. Yes, reaction of dogs, dog units, and animal units are worked out either with the cat or with the dog in experimentation. If you are going to stop vivisection on dogs, you ought to stop it on cats and mice and rabbits. Senator Hunt. Then you will about stop it on humans, will you not? Mr. Miller. Then you will stop it on humans. Senator McGrath. Are there any lawrs in the District of Columbia at the present time that you are acquainted with that prevent these practices? Mr. Miller. Experimenting on dogs? Senator McGrath. Yes. Mr. Miller. No, I know of no laws except that the poundmaster adopted, as I understand, a rather arbitrary attitude in not turning the dogs over to scientific institutions; and this bill makes it not per- missive; it is compulsory to let the scientific institutions have the first chance of getting the animals. There are laws against cruelty, however, against animals in the District. Senator McGrath. Do you know of any hospitals that raise their own dogs for this purpose? Mr. Miller. No, I do not. The Chairman. Are there any further questions? [There was no response.] Thank you very much, Congressman. Mr. Miller. Thank you very much for your time. The Chairman. We vrill hear Vernon West, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia. Air. West. STATEMENT OF VERNON WEST, CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. West. I am Vernon West, Corporation Counsel. The Com- missioners have not yet arrived at any' conclusion upon this bill. They felt that they should not make any report upon it until they had a public hearing, and had planned to have one until they got notice that a public hearing wras to be had before your committee. So that would probably give you all the information that they could give you. I have one little suggestion about the bill that may mean something, and may not. It all depends on the number of dogs the poundmaster receives. You notice in section 3 on page 2, beginning at line 16, it says: It shall be the duty of the poundmaster, or other legal custodian of such un- claimed animals, to deliver such number of unclaimed animals to any institution license under this act as such institution may request * * *. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 9 Then in section 7 a penalty of not less than $300 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days or both is provided for anyone who violates the act. Now, of course, if the poundmaster always has enough dogs to meet the demands of the institution, why, no difficulty would arise. But I can see that if, for example, he should have 10 dogs in the pound and two or three institutions should make demand on him for 10 dogs, with which he could not comply, that he would really be on the spot. So if there is any danger of the supply of dogs not being equal to the demand, then I think something should be written into the bill for prorating the request. Senator McGrath. I do not think there is any danger of any such interpretation being put on an act of this kind. That merely pro- vides that if he has dogs, he is otherwise going to destroy, those are the only dogs that would be subject to this kind of a demand. Mr. West, is there anybody here who can testify as to the number of complaints the Police Department received concerning lost dogs or stolen dogs in the District. I am told that people of the surround- ing area make a business of trucking dogs in here for this purpose. Have you any information about that? Mr. West. No, I do not. The poundmaster might be able to give you that information. Senator McGrath. Was the Police Department asked to furnish us a list of the number of lost dogs reported in the course of a year? Mr. West. I do not know whether they have been asked to, but I will be glad to ask them to do it. Senator McGrath. I think we would like to know something about what the actual situation is in the District; the number of lost dogs might have a relationship to dogs that are stolen for this purpose. I would like to know what the practices are of the Police Department in trying to find the owners of dogs who are lost, whether any effort is made in that direction at all. Mr. West. I would be glad to try to get you that information. The Chairman. Mr. West, is there any appropriation that takes care of inspectors of policing of the laws pertaining to cruelty to animals? Air. West. I do not know whether there is a specific appropriation; but, of course, if any case of cruelty to animals comes to the attention of the police, they bring it to the attention of our office for prosecution. The Chairman. Then what happens? Air. West. Then they are prosecuted in the municipal court for violation of the statute against cruelty to animals. The Chairman. Do you have any records at all on the number of cases like that that come it? Air. West. I do not know whether they are broken down or not. I might be able to get you a general estimate, but I do not think in our office we attempt to break down all cases. The Chairman. Does any office do it? Air. West. I do not think so. Senator AIcGrath. You could tell us how many cases you prose- cuted for cruelty to animals in a given period of time, could you not? Air. West. I think we could. They could give you a pretty good estimate of the number that they have. 91703—49 2 10 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES The Chairman. It would seem to me that that was your responsi- bility. I would suggest that you give it some thought. Mr. West. Of course, my office is not an investigating office. We only handle the cases that are brought to us. flic Chairman. Do you have any office whose duty it is to investi- gate cases? Mr. West. \\ ell, of course, the Police Department does. And then I think these cruelty to animal cases are investigated by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There is a provision in the law, I think, for their doing it and giving certain powers. I will check that. Put I am quite certain that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is given certain rights under the law in the making of these cases. Senator McGrath. Do you know whether any inspection is made at hospitals and medical schools and the type of school that would be licensed under this bill, whether any agency of the District or any voluntary agency makes inspections to see what practices go on there? Mr. West. I would doubt it. Senator McGrath. Once a dog gets into the hands of one of these institutions Mr. W est. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals probably does make these investigations. Senator McGrath. Is there someone here who is going to testify for the society? The Chairman. Mr. Kirkland is inquiring. Mr. Kirkland. Is there a representative of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the hearing today? [There was no response.] Mr. West. I understand it is the Washington Humane Society instead of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Chairman. Is there anyone here from the Washington Humane Society to appear? Mr. Watson. Madam Chairman, I am counsel for the Washington Humane Society, but a representative is not here at the moment. I will be very glad to see if I can ascertain The Chairman. Was there any request by your society to be heard? Mr. WWtson. Yes, ma’am. The question, as I understand, was the number of prosecutions for cruelty to animals that have occurred? The Chairman. Bring that matter in with the others when your representative appears, and the number of complaints. WTe will hear from Dr. Charles F. Morgan. Will you please give your name and whom you represent to the reporter. STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES F. MORGAN, PROFESSOR OF PHYSI- OLOGY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH AND RESEARCH OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dr. Morgan. My name is Charles F. Morgan. I am professor of physiology and director of the department of physiology, George- town University School of Medicine. I am also president of the Committee for Health and Research of the District of Columbia. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 11 I received my doctorate at the University of Chicago, Chicago, 111.; also a graduate of the University of Wichita. This committee I am representing, the Committee for Health and Research, has found that there is an inadequate supply of dogs in this area. On the one hand we have approximately 6,000 dogs slaughtered at the pound each year benefiting no one; and on the other hand we have an inadequate supply for the medical schools and reasearch institutions in this area. Senator Hunt. May I interrupt to ask, what are your requirements at Georgetown University in number? Dr. Morgan. Our requirements at Georgetown University is 308 dogs year before last; 325, I believe it was, last year. We run around 300 dogs a year, although we require somewhat like about double that number to adequately teach and give instruction at the university in the medical school. Senator Hunt. What would you estimate the total requirement for the District for the scientific Dr. Morgan. At the present time we have that compiled. Dr. Huett, I think, is in the audience; and he can give you the exact figures on that. It is approximately 1,500, is it not, Dr. Huett? Dr. Huett. Is that the number slaughtered or the total number Dr. Morgan. Number of animals required by the medical schools and the National Institute of Health and all the institutions in this area. Dr. Huett. The total number required is hard to estimate. All we know is the number used. I am sure they need more than they have used. But it has averaged for the last 4 or 5 years about 1,100 in the six leading institutions, including Bethesda. Senator Hunt. Then, Doctor, if 6,000 dogs are impounded each year, you would use 1,100 of them, and that would leave something close to 5,000 that are put to death out here in the pound each year? Dr. Morgan. Of course, we do not use those animals from the pound at this time. Senator Hunt. You get them elsewhere? Dr. Morgan. We get them elsewhere. Senator Hunt. And all of the 6,000 are Dr. Morgan. Yes, all 6,000 are slaughtered at the pound, and I do not know of a single instance where dogs were obtained by medical schools or an institution in this area. That is the point that we are here for, and that is the reason for S. 1703 and similar bills. I would like to bring out the point, too, in this testimony, that we are a little bit behind, somewhat behind, other States, that is, States in the Union, in this regard. Governor Youngdahl, of the State of Minnesota, just signed a bill March 26, 1949, and this bill allowed unclaimed animals, made them available to properly licensed institu- tions for research. That is not the only State. The Governor of the State of Michigan has also signed a bill which recognizes the importance of animal experimentation. Then 20 of our larger cities such as Chicago, Memphis, and Richmond, very close at hand, have laws and ordinances by which medical schools and research institutions and hospitals can obtain dogs, unwanted dogs, at the dog pound. It has been working- very nicely in those areas. 12 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 1 would like to testify as to how we treat animals at Georgetown University School of Medicine. They are cared for as human beings. They observe every rule that we know of to prevent cruelty to animals. I cpiote from page 93 of the laboratory manual of the Georgetown School of Medicine, department of physiology, just a sentence: It is your duty — speaking to the students — to care for animals as if it were a human being. Failure to do so will result in dismissal from class, and gross negligence will result in dismissal from the uni- versity. You must realize this is a very severe penalty, because if a student is dropped from a medical school, he can never enter another medical school as long as he lives. Furthermore, all the medical schools have gone into it, and the National Institute of Health and other institutions have rules and regulations regarding the care of animals to prevent cruelty. I would like to submit a cop}I. * * * * * 7 of those rules and regulations for handling of animals in these various institutions. The Chairman. Without objection, it will go into the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:) Rules for the Handling of Animals, Georgetown University School of Medicine I. All persons concerned with the handling of animals shall treat the animals kindly and take every precaution known to avoid the perception of pain by the animal. Animals shall be treated as if they were human. II. In surgery performed upon animals, the animals shall first be rendered incapable of perceiving pain with no discomfort greater than that obtained from anesthetization. III. At the conclusion of an experiment, the animal is to be killed painlessly. IV. Any person showing indifference to the above rules for the handling, treat- ment, and care of animals for experimental procedures will be excluded from doing further laboratory work. Gross negligence will result in dismissal from the university. Animal Care RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CARE OF ALL ANIMALS, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (Walter A. Bloedern, M. D., Dean, George Washington University School of Medicine) I. The department of animal care will be under the complete charge of the officer designated. Any infringement of these rules and regulations will be reported at once to this officer. A full-time caretaker will be in attendance under the direction of the officer in charge. II. All animals are considered as “patients” in the animal hospital and every consideration will be given to their well-being and comfort. III. All animals will be fed and watered according to a schedule of diets pre- pared by the responsible officer in charge. IV. Cages will be kept thoroughly clean and disinfected as often as necessary to keep them from insects and parasites. V. No animal will be operated upon where any pain might be inflicted without the use of an anesthetic effectively administered to allay all suffering. The officer in charge of animal care will be held responsible in enforcing this regulation. VI. All animals under experimentation will be examined daily before 10 a. m. by the department concerned, and instructions will be given the caretaker regard- ing their future care. Special instructions regarding diet will be left in writing on the desk of the officer in charge. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 13 VII. All cages and animals contained therein will be marked plainly by the name of the department and the staff member of the department who is in charge. VIII. A schedule of charges will be prepared regarding the costs of animal care by the officer in charge, and from time to time an accounting will be made from the different departmental budgets. IX. No one who is not a member of the staff of the school of medicine will be permitted in the quarters for animal care without a permit from the dean of the school of medicine. X. These rules and regulations are devised for the purpose of obtaining the most humane treatment of animals possible. A spirit of kindness and considera- tion in animal care must always prevail. Any infraction of these regulations will be dealth with promptly and effectively. XI. All projects involving the use of animals must be approved by the com- mittee on research of the school of medicine. Requests to carry on such projects will be submitted to the dean’s office. Rules Governing the Use of Animals at Howard University School of Medicine, Washington, D. C. 1. Vagrant dogs and cats brought to this laboratory and purchased here shall be held at least as long as at the city pound, and shall be returned to their owners if claimed and identified. 2. Animals in the laboratory shall receive every consideration for their bodily comfort; they shall be kindly treated, properly fed, and their surroundings kept in the best possible sanitary condition. 3. No operation on animals shall be made except with the sanction of the director of the laboratory, who holds himself responsible for the importance of the problems studied and for the propriety of the procedures used in the solution of these problems. 4. In any operation likely to cause greater discomfort than that attending anesthetization, the animal shall first be rendered incapable of perceiving pain and shall be maintained in that condition until the operation is ended. Exceptions to this rule will be made by the director alone and then only when anesthesia would defeat the object of the experiment. In such cases an anesthetic shall be used so far as possible and may be discontinued only so long as absolutely essential for the necessary observations. 5. At the conclusion of the experiment, the animal shall be killed painlessly. Exceptions to this rule will be made only when continuance of the animal’s life is necessary to determine the results of the experiment. In that case, the same aseptic precautions shall be observed during the operation and so far as possible the same care shall be taken to minimize the discomforts during the convalescence as in a hospital for human beings. [Form 9278, Federal Security Agency, Public Health Service, revised August 1941] Rules Regarding Animals, National Institute of Health (Director, National Institute of Health) I. Dogs and cats are purchased from regular animal dealers only and not from individuals having one or two animals to sell. II. Animals in the laboratory shall receive every consideration for their bodily comfort; they shall be kindly treated, properly fed, and their surroundings kept in the best possible sanitary condition. III. No operations on animals shall be made except with the sanction of the director of the institute, who holds himself responsible for the importance of the problems studied and for the propriety of the procedures used in the solution of these problems. IV. In any operation likely to cause greater discomfort than that attending anesthetization, the animal shall first be rendered incapable of perceiving pain and shall be maintained in that condition until the operation is ended. Exceptions to this rule will be made by the director alone and then only when anesthesia would defeat the object of the experiment. In such cases an anesthetic shall be used so far as possible and may be discontinued only so long as is abso- lutely essential for the necessary observations. 14 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES V. At t lie conclusion of the experiment, the animal shall be killed painlessly. Exceptions to this rule will be made only when continuance of the animal’s life is necessary to determine the result of the experiment. In that case, the same aseptic precautions shall be observed during the operation and so far as possible the same care shall be taken to minimize discomforts during the convalescence as in a hospital for human beings. I)r. Morgan. In brief, they simply mean that an animal must be treated as a human. There must be no cruelty, and when there is surgery performed the animal must be anesthetized and every method known to prevent pain must be taken; the pain must be taken care of. That is, no perception of pain can be allowed by an animal. The Chairman. Dr. Morgan, there is a strong belief that much of the vivisection is done by inexperienced medical students for prac- tice. To what extent do experienced doctors supervise and control this? Dr. Morgan. Every medical student is supervised very regorously in the use of live animals. In fact, they do not get to work on live animals in the medical schools until they have reached their second year; and by that time they have become familiar with the anatomy and a good deal of the processes that go on in a human body from study of cadavers, living cadavers. They have dissected living cadavers in their anatomy courses. When they come into physiology, that is the first time they approach living animals. At that time they are very familiar with the parts of the living body, and then at that time they are supervised — they are supervised before, of course, but they are supervised during this very rigorously with the staff and their graduate teaching assistants and fellows, and everyone that is at hand to see that they carry out these rules. After all, if we did not use good care with them, the results obtained would not be applicable to humans. You must use the same conditions. Otherwise, the training would not be applicable. The Chairman. Do you register in a log every dog that you receive or obtain or use for vivisection purposes? Dr. Morgan. No ; it is not put down just as a log, with the exception that we put down requirements of the number of animals used in each group so we always know that. We require so many animals for each laboratory period. That is our regulation there. The Chairman. You then keep a complete record of the experiments performed on these dogs? Dr. M organ. Oh, yes. We have a laboratory manual which directs the students in their procedure; and I read you from this manual a sentence which shows that they must follow the rules very carefully, and we see to it that they do so. The Chairman. Does that record include the final disposition of the dog? Dr. Morgan. Yes; the final disposition of the dog is very carefully taken care of. The dog must be killed painlessly. The Chairman. Are these records subject to inspection? Dr. Morgan. Well, they can look at the laboratory manual at any time and see the rules for that; and also the rules that I have submitted here, which thev must follow. The Chairman. Is it possible to pawprint the dogs just as we finger- print people? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 15 Dr. Morgan. Well, I cannot testify as to that. If we had a vet- erinarian here, he could tell you for sure. The Chairman. Thank you. Senator McGrath. Will you tell us something about how you get your present supply of dogs? Dr. Morgan. We get our present supply of dogs from Pennsylvania, and we do not allow any animals to be brought into the animal house for use from any local sources or any of these so-called one and two animal dealers. That is, suppose someone would come in and say, “I have a dog to sell. Will you buy it from me?” Or a cat. We do not buy those animals. We only buy them from a reputable dealer with whom we have been dealing for a long time, and he presents ownership papers for it. I would like to say that So percent of the people of this country in a national survey are in favor of animal experimentation, and only 8 percent oppose it. I have proof of those figures which I would like to submit from a survey. The Chairman. Without objection, they will go into the record. (The information headed “National Opinion Research Center” is as follows :) National Opinion Research Center UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Totals, Survey 246, National Cross Section, January 17, 1949 ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 1. How much progress would you say there has been in the field of medicine and surger\T in the last 25 years— a great deal, a fair amount or hardly any? Percent A great deal 86 A fair amount 8 HardW any 2 Don’t know 4 Total (N = 2,519) 100 (a) If “a great deal” . — What do you think are the main reasons why medicine has made so much progress in the last 25 years? Anything else? Percent of subgroup Research, nonspecific: it’s the result of all this research, more research is being done, etc 31 War: War speeds up discoveries, creates greater needs, greater opportunities, more funds, etc 21 Improved professional training 19 Favorable economic conditions 19 New discoveries, techniques, drugs 17 Public consciousness, interest, expectations 11 Natural progress 11 Moral qualities of doctors 4 Freedom, individual initiative 1 Animal experimentation 1 Miscellaneous 1 Don’t know 7 Total (Some gave more than one answer) 143 16 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (6) If “a fair amount ” or “ hardly any”. — What do you think are the main reasons why there hasn’t been more progress in medicine in the last 25 years? Anything else? • Percent of subgroup Unfavorable economic conditions 17 Failure to make useful discoveries, find new drugs 13 Moral qualities of doctors 11 Inadequacies of organized medicine, the medical profession 5 Inadequate professional training 4 Too little Government support 4 Lack of public interest 2 Too much Government interference 2 Restrictions on animal experimentation (*) Miscellaneous 23 Don’t know 26 Total (Some gave more than one answer 107 1 Indicates less than 0.5 percent. 2. (a) What is j’our opinion of most doctors today? (6) Why do you feel this way? Percent Well trained, competent 46 Hard-working, conscientious * 8 Friendly, interested, humanitarian 7 Miscellaneous and unexplained approval 14 Too mercenary 12 Cold, unfriendly, lack of personal interest 8 Incompetent, poorly trained 6 Too narrow in training and outlook 5 Too much specialization 3 Miscellaneous and unexplained disapproval 2 Don’t know, can’t generalize 7 Total (Some gave more than one answer) 118 3. Do you think most doctors are too interested in making money from their patients or not? Percent Most are 35 Most are not 57 Don’t know 8 100 (a) If “most are”. — What makes you feel this way? subgroup Overcharge, fees too high 32 Won’t treat you unless you have the money, won’t take poor patients, won’t answer calls if bill is outstanding, etc 19 Give unnecessary and expensive treatments in order to charge more, un- necessary consultations for fee-splitting, keep you coming back 13 Want on office practice, won’t make home calls, night calls 5 Rush from one patient to another to get as many as they can 5 Oppose low-cost medical care plans 2 Personal experiences with doctors, kind unspecified 19 Miscellaneous 7 Don’t know 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 103 4. How much interest do you take in new medical discoveries like the discover5r of new drugs or new ways of treating diseases? Would you say you are very interested, fairly interested, or hardly interested as all? Percent Very interested 44 Fairly interested 38 Hardly at all 17 Don’t know 1 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 17 5. Have you ever had a serious illness or an operation? Yes i No Percent _ 45 _ 55 100 (a) If “yes”. — What was it (the last one you had)? Surgery, all types Respiratory diseases Diseases of digestive and eliminatory systems Communicable systemic diseases Arthritis, rheumatism Fractures, broken bones Diseases of glands and nutrition Cancers Miscellaneous Unspecified Percent of subgroup 53 11 7 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 100 If “illness”: (1) Do you happen to know what medicine was used in treating you? What? (2) If specific medicine is named. — As far as you know, how did they first find out that (name of medicine) was good for (name of illness)? If “operation”: (3) How do you suppose they invented that kind of operation? subgroup By trial and error on human beings, just tried things till found one that worked 14 Through experimentation or research, kind unspecified 8 Through animal experimentation 6 By use of X-ray, other tests, diagnostic procedures 2 Through autopsies, dissections of dead humans 1 Miscellaneous 1 Don’t know how treatment developed 50 Don’t know nature of treatment used 18 Total 100 6. Do you happen to know of any medicine that is made from the organs or tissues of animals? What? Percent Vaccines, sera, antitoxins 12 Hormones 6 Insulin 5 Liver extract 3 Other glandular products: Adrenalin, pituitary, thyroid 2 Miscellaneous correct responses 4 Incorrect responses 4 Knows there are some, but can’t name any 7 Don’t know 63 Total (some gave more than one answer) 106 7. Have you ever read or heard anything about the use of live animals in teach- ing and research in medicine? Percent Yes 82 No 17 Don’t know 1 Total 100 18 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (a) If “yes” to 7. — Where did vou hear or read about this? Percent of subgroup Magazines • 45 Newspapers 34 School work 13 General conversation: just talking with people, etc 10 Personal experience other than school: Worked in, visited labs, etc 7 Books 6 Contacts with medical profession 6 Radio 5 Movies 5 Medical journals 5 SPCA, Humane Society, or Antivivisection literature, ads, etc 1 Miscellaneous 2 Don’t know where, don’t remember 5 Total (some gave more than one answer) 144 ( b ) If “ yes ” to 7. — What sorts of things do they generally use live animals for in medicine? (Is there anvthing else vou know of?) v ° ' Percent of Research: subgroup Discovering uses for new drugs, testing new medicines 50 Studies of causes of presently uncurable diseases, 13 Studies of body functions, diet, nutrition 8 Development of new' sugical procedures 5 Technological : Biological tests 7 Production of sera and vaccines 4 Manufacture of drugs from animal substances 1 Standardization and assay of drugs 0) 1 Indicates less than 0.5 percent. Didactic: Class-room demonstrations 2 Student practice in surgery 2 Vague answers: Experiment on them, unspecified 10 Don’t know 10 Total (some gave more than one answrer) 121 8. In general, do you favor or oppose the use of live animals in medical teaching and research? ‘ Percent Favor 85 Oppose 8 Don’t know 7 Total 100 (a) If “ favor ” or “oppose”. — Why? “favofl It’s better to experiment on animals than on humans 45 P^xperiments are essential to progress in medicine 28 It benefits humanity 24 It’s more practical, efficient to use animals 2 Qualified approval: Only if animals don’t suffer; only if the work’s important; only if they don’t use dogs, etc 3 Miscellaneous 4 Don’t know' 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 107 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 19 Percent of •‘oppose” It’s cruel, inhumane to animals 55 It’s useless, doesn’t do any good 16 Animals have, or should have, the same rights as humans 10 It isn’t indispensable; there are other or better research techniques 10 Miscellaneous 9 Don’t know 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 101 9. Handing respondent card. — Will you look over these three statements and tell me which comes closest to the way you feel about experiments with live animals? Percent Almost nothing important in medicine has ever been discovered from experiments with animals and probably nothing important ever will be__ 2 Maybe experiments with animals did lead to some important discoveries in the past, but further experiments will not add anything new 5 Experimenting with animals is one of the main ways that medicine has progressed in the past, and it needs to be continued 84 Don’t know 9 Total 100 10. When medical schools have animals that they are using in research, do you think they take as good care of them as individual owners would? Percent As good 75 Not as good 11 Can’t compare the two 2 Don’t know 12 Total 100 (a) If “ not as good”. — In what ways is the care not as good? Percent of sub- group Lack of personal attention and/or affection 60 Unnecessary suffering, indifference, abuse, mistreatment 15 Insufficient, inadequate diet 15 Pain is necessarily involved in the experimentation 6 General physical care not as good, neglect 6 Dirty, unsanitary quarters 5 Restrictions on free activity 5 Miscellaneous 1 Don’t know 4 Total (some gave more than one answer) 117 (b) If “ not as good” . — What do you think are the reasons for this? Percent of sub- group Interested in the animal only for their research purposes, have no feeling for the animal, just regard it as a tool 46 Lack of incentive to care for animal since they don’t own them 16 Too busy, haven’t the time 10 Have large numbers of animals to attend to 9 Experiments require it 6 Become hardened, inhumane, sadistic 5 Have to avoid becoming attached to experimental animals 4 Lack of space 2 Miscellaneous 3 Don’t know 3 Total (some gave more than one answer) 104 20 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (c) If “can’t compare the two”. — What are the differences between them? Percent of sub- • group Lack of personal attention and/or affection 72 Pain is necessarily involved in the experimentation 11 Restrictions on free activity 9 General physical care not as good, neglect 4 Unnecessary suffering indifference, abuse, mistreatment 2 Miscellaneous 8 Total (some gave more than one answer) 106 11. As far as you know, how do doctors decide on what kind of animals to use for their work? Percent Choose those that have physiology similar to humans 22 Choose the ones that are “best” for their work, criterion unspecified 10 Choose the inexpensive, available animals 5 Use trial and error till they learn which is best for that experiment 3 Know from experience of other doctors, are taught which are best 3 Choose animals susceptible to the disease they are studying 3 Choose healthy, sound animals 1 Choose animals which are cooperative and easily managed 1 Miscellaneous 1 Don’t know 54 Total (some gave more than one answer) 103 12. In general, when doctors use animals in their work, do you think they really try to keep from hurting the animals? Percent Try 79 Do not 8 Don’t know 13 Total 100 (a) If “do not” . — What do you think is the reason they don’t? PQfsuh group More interested in the experiment than in the animal’s feelings 36 Become hardened, calloused, just don’t care 34 Some experiments require animals to be hurt, have to see reactions to pain, etc 26 Don’t have the time 1 Miscellaneous 3 Don’t know 4 Total (some gave more than one answer) 104 13. Do you think doctors should be free to use any kind of animal in their work or are there some kinds of animals that, they should not be allowed to use? Percent Should be free to use any 67 Should not be allowed to use some 22 Should not be allowed to use any 3 Don’t know 8 Total 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 21 (a) If “should, not be allowed to use some”. — What kind of animals should not be used for medical research? Percent of subgroup Dogs 44 Specific food animals: Cows, sheep, pigs, etc 41 Horses__ 33 Cats 21 Pets, generally 6 Useful animals 3 Domestic animals. 2 Rodents..., 2 All animals except rodents, guinea pigs 1 Miscellaneous 11 Don’t know 4 Total (some gave more than 1 answer) 168 (6) If “ should not be allowed to use some”. — Why should these animals not be used? Percent of subgroup They are close to humans, almost human, are loved, pets, more sensitive, etc. 39 They are useful to man in other ways — for food, labor, etc 37 Scientists wouldn’t want to use this kind of animal 11 I like them 4 8 It isn’t necessary to use these, can use others : 6 They are dirty, diseased 3 They are scarce 2 Miscellaneous 3 Don’t knotV__ 3 Total (some gave more than 1 answer) 112 (c) If “should not be allowed to use some” . — If doctors felt that these animals (the animals named by respondent in ( a )) were better suited to their work than any other kind of animal, would you still be against their using them or not? Percent of subgroup Still against 21 Not against 72 Don’t know 7 Total 100 (1) If “ still against” . — Why? Percent of subgroup They don’t need these animals, can use others, they are all alike, etc 32 I love these animals, can’t bear to see them used 31 We need these animals for other purposes 22 Their work isn’t important enough to justify using them 7 It’s cruel to the animals 5 Scientists wouldn’t want to use them anyway 3 Miscellaneous 5 Don’t know 2 Total (some gave more than 1 answer) 107 14. Handing respondent card. — If the work doctors are doing is going to hurt the animals used, are there any (other) animals on this list that you think should not be used? Percent Cows 27 Horses 1 25 Dogs 19 Cats 9 Monkeys 3 Rabbits 3 Frogs 1 Rats 1 Guinea pigs 1 All of them 4 No, it’s all right to use them all 60 Total (some gave more than 1 answer) 153 22 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 15. Handing respondent card. — As you know, doctors use animals for different things. Do you think it is all right or not all right for t octors to use animals for each of these? (a) A new medicine is tried out by giving animals some disease and seeing if that medicine will cure them. ( b ) A live animal, under an anesthetic to prevent pain, is cut open to show medical students how the different parts of the body work. (c) Medical students learn how to perform operations by practicing on live animals that have nothing wrong with them while the animals are under anes- thesia to prevent pain. (d) Doctors studying a disease that can’t be cured now give it to an animal in order to operate on it and see what goes on inside the animal when it has the disease. A B c D All right . - Percent 91 5 4 Percent 84 10 6 Percent 83 11 6 Percent 87 8 5 Not all right Undecided .. Total 100 100 100 100 If unot all right” . — Why? Percent of subgroup. A B C D Shouldn’t use animals which have nothing wrong with them; isn’t, right to injure them or give them a disease; Percent Percent Percent Percent should use animals that are already sick 42 13 49 54 Can or should use methods not involving living animals; dissections, autopsies, X-rays, moving pictures, watch experienced doctors operate, etc 10 60 32 9 Can’t learn anything about humans by using animals . 13 12 9 15 Should use living human beings; can use people who alreadv have the disease or need an operation 6 2 2 6 Shouldn’t use certain species of animals, otherwise all right 23 8 8 14 Miscellaneous . .. ... . _ __ 10 8 9 4 Don’t know 3 1 1 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 107 104 110 103 16. As far as you know, where do medical schools get most of the animals they use? Percent Buy them 37 Obtained from city pounds, animal shelters, SPCA, etc 17 Raise their own 16 Are received as donations, gifts 4 Pick them up from the streets 4 Steal them or buy stolen animals 1 Miscellaneous 3 Don’t know 37 Total (some gave more than one answer) 119 17. Unless “ don’t know” to 16. — Do you think this is a good way for medical schools to get the animals they use or would some other way be better? Percent of subgroup A good way 84 Some other way better 9 Don’t know 7 Total 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 23 (a) If “some other way better”. — What way? Percent of subgroup Raise their own 53 Buy them from commercial sources 18 Get, them as donations, gifts 8 Get them from city pounds, animal shelters, SPCA, etc 6 Miscellaneous 16 Don’t know 5 Total (some gave more than one answer) 106 18. As far as you know, do medical schools generally have any trouble getting animals to use for research purposes? Percent Yes 14 No 41 Don’t know 45 Total - 100 19. In most cities and towns, stray dogs are picked up by the authorities. What do you think should be done with these dogs, if they are not claimed by their owners, and if nobody else wants them as pets? Do you think they should be put to death by the authorities or should they be turned over to medical schools to be used in research? Percent Put to death 11 To medical schools 85 Don’t know 4 Total 100 20. Some people say that pet dogs or cats are stolen in order to sell them to medical schools for research purposes. Do you think this is true or not? Percent True 20 Not true 59 Don’t know 21 Total 100 (a) If “true”.— Would you say this happens often or only once in a while? Percent of subgroup Often- 24 Once in a while 68 Don’t know 8 Total 100 (b) If “true” . — When this happens, who would you say is mainly at fault — the owner of the pet, the person who steals it, or the medical school that buys it? Percent of subgroup Owner 13 Thief _ 63 Medical school 20. Other 1 Don’t know 3 Total 100 24 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (1) If “ medical school” . — Why? Percent of subgroup They encourage stealing by buying the animals; if. they didn’t buy them people wouldn’t be tempted to steal 59 They ought to find out where the animals they buy are coming from; investi- gate the sources, use only legitimate sources 58 All other 4 Don’t know 1 (Total (some gave more than one answer) 122 21. Have you ever heard or read of anjr people or groups that are trying to keep medical schools from using animals for teaching and research purposes? Percent Yes 37 No 60 Don’t know 3 Total 100 (а) If “yes”. — What people or groups? Percent of subgroup Anti vivisection groups 32 Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 17 Humane societies 16 Hearst press 7 Religious groups 3 Animal rescue leagues, animal shelters 3 Miscellaneous groups 2 Individuals, not organized groups 4 Don’t know names 28 Total (some gave more than one answer) 112 (б) If “yes” . — From what you know, what kind of people would you say they are? • Percent of subgroup Fond of animals, pet owners t 18 Ignorant, stupid, narrow, prejudiced, opposed to medical progress 18 Cranks, fanatics, crackpots, queer, faddists 18 Well-meaning, well intentioned, but uniformed, misinformed, misguided 12 Kind, good, humane, idealistic 1 11 Too emotional, over-sentimental, impractical, too idealistic 8 Selfish, cold, inhumane, like animals better than people 7 Wealthy, idle, “society” people looking for something to do with their time and money, seeking publicity 6 Childless, old maids, taking out their frustrations on animals 4 All kinds of people, just average, typical, normal 4 Miscellaneous 4 Don’t know 11 Total (some gave more than one answer) 121 (c) If “yes”. — Have you ever joined one of these groups or given them any money? Percent of subgroup Joined 1 Gave money 4 Neither 96 Total (some gave more than one answer) 101 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 25 ( d ) If “yes’1. — What have these people or groups done so far? Anything else? Percent of subgroup Educational or propaganda campaign, publish articles, distribute literature... 21 Stir up trouble, cause dissention, spread misinformation 11 Have lobbied, tried to get legislation restricting the use of animals passed 9 Have succeeded in getting restrictive legislation passed or permissive legisla- tion defeated 4 Have interfered with or impeded medical research in ways other than legisla- ► ’ 'tion or unspecified 8 Help prevent mistreatment of animals 8 Take care of stray animals, provide wild life sanctuaries 5 Raise money 2 Miscellaneous 1 Haven’t done anything 14 Don’t know 27 Total (some gave more than one answer) 110 (e) If “yes”. — Do you think they will succeed in keeping medical schools from using animals or not? Percent of subgroup Will succeed 6 Will not 83 Don’t know 11 Total 100 Percent of “will (/) Unless “don’t know” to ( e ). — Why? succeed ” People love animals, will favor protecting them 52 People will be too apathetic, too uninformed to combat the antivivisec- tionists successfully 13 All other 34 Don’t know 3 Total (some gave more than one answer) 102 Percent of “will not succeed’’ Animal experimentation is necessary, important, has done good, and there- fore will continue 36 Most people favor animal experimentation, think it is necessary, want it to continue ; 29 The antivivisectionists are a minority, don’t or won’t have the strength to succeed 19 There are too many broad-minded, sensible, intelligent people 7 Medical schools are strong enough to protect themselves 6 The antivivisectionists haven’t a worth-while cause, aren’t sensible, want to stop progress, therefore will not succeed 4 Animals are too easy to get; couldn’t stop the medical schools from getting them 4 People will take steps to combat the antivivisectionists 1 Miscellaneous 3 Don’t know 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 110 22. Do you think it is important to have rules and regulations covering the way animals are used in medical research or should each doctor be allowed to decide for himself how the animals are to be used? * Percent Rules and regulations 42 Individual decisions 49 Don’t know , 9 Total 100 91703—49 — —3 26 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (a) //" rides and regulations” — What rules should there be? Any others? Percent of . subgroup Humane treatment, general 20 No unnecessary pain, prevent needless suffering, don’t hurt the animals, etc__ 31 No unnecessary experiments, make sure the work is important 14 Good care outside the experimental situation — feeding, housing, sanitation, etc 14 Use anesthetics 12 Have supervision, inspection to enforce standards 10 Define types of animals to be used, legitimate uses, numbers used, set stand- ards 9 Miscellaneous 7 Don’t know 11 Total (some gave more than one answer) 128 iff) If “rules and regulations ” — Do you think that the medical schools should set up the rules or should there be laws setting up the rules for the medical schools? Percent of subgroup Medical schools 45 Laws 48 Don’t knowT 7 Total (1) If “laws” — Why do there have to be laws? To insure enforcement To prevent abuses, require humanity To set limits on what can be done To insure uniformity of practice from one medical school to another... To get disinterested, impartial rules, to give nonmedical people a say To encourage medical research, silence opposition Miscellaneous Don’t know 1 Total (some gave more than one answer) 115 (2) If “laws.” — Do you think the present anti-cruelty laws in your State do the job or not? Percent of subgroup Do the job 35 Do not 19 Don’t know 46 Total (a) If “do not.” — Why not? Are not strict enough, are not enforced, violations not detected Do not ban experiments with animals Do not cover enough, general Do not cover research uses of animals Graft, dishonesty in government Do not cover cleanliness, physical care Miscellaneous Don’t know 5 Total (some gave more than one answer) i 117 23. Do you think the question of the use of animals in medical research has received about the right amount of public attention or not? Percent About, the right amount 28 Not the right amount 38 Don’t know 34 Total Percent of subgroup 72 15 10 8 3 1 Percent of subgroup ... 34 ... 30 20 16 11 1 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 27 ( Percent of (a) (If “ right amount ” or “not right amount ”) — Why do you think that? amount Both sides receive a good deal of attention, there’s enough publicity, general 46 Should not get public attention, it’s a matter for the doctors, people don’t need to know about it 20 Animal experimentation is favorably publicized 13 People aren’t particularly interested in knowing about it 4 Animal experimentation is unfavorably publicized 4 Miscellaneous 6 Don’t know i ¥ 7 Total 100 Percent of If “not right amount .” — Why do you think that? Amount Too little attention to it, in general: Haven’t seen or heard anything about it, people know nothing about it 49 There is too little favorable and/or too much unfavorable to animal experi- mentation presented 39 There is too much favorable and/or too little unfavorable to animal experi- mentation presented 5 People aren’t particularly interested in knowing about it 3 Should not get public attention 2 Miscellaneous 1 Don’t know 1 Total 100 24. I wonder if you’d tell me how much you had thought about the whole question of using animals in medical experiments before today. Would you say a good deal, a little, or not at all? Percent A good deal 22 A little 51 Not at all 27 Don’t know 0) Total i Indicates less than 0.5 percent. FACTUAL DATA 1. Do you usually read a daily newspaper? Which? Hearst newspapers only Hearst newspapers and others Other newspapers only None Total 100 (a) If “Hearst” — Have you ever read any articles in that paper about how animals are treated in medical research? Percent of subgroup Yes 60 No 29 Don’t remember 11 Total (1) If “yes” . — What did you think of them? Acceptance, approval Qualified acceptance, approval Rejection, disapproval Nonevaluative responses Miscellaneous reactions Don’t remember them clearly enough to say Percent of subgroup 40 7 36 7 5 5 Percent 3 __ 16 __ 71 10 Total 100 28 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 2. What \\jas the last grade or year you completed in school? College 20 High school _ J ” 45 Grade school ~ 34 No formal schooling \ Total 100 (a) If any college or high school. — Did you ever have anv courses in which either you or the instructor did experiments with live animals? Percent of subgroup Yes 24 No 76 Don’t know (i) Total 100 1 Indicates less than 0.5 percent. 3. Did you serve in any branch of the Armed Forces during World War II? Percent Yes 15 No ' 85 Total 100 4. What is your approximate age? Percent 21-29 20 30-39 26 40-49 22 50-59 15 60-69 11 70 and over 6 Total _ 100 5. Do you happen to have any pets? What? percent Dog 38 Cat 22 Birds, fish, other nonmammals 4 Miscellaneous mammals 4 No pets at present 60 Total (some gave more than one answer) 128 Percent l ( a ) If “none" . — Did you ever have a pet? What? subgroup Dog 70 Cat 35 Birds, fish, other nonmammals 8 Miscellaneous mammals 8 Never had a pet 16 Total (some gave more than one answer) 137 6. How often do you go to church or religious services? Percent Once a week . 37 1-3 times a month 20 Less than once a month 30 Never 13 Total 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 29 7. What religion do you consider yourself? Protestant 69 Catholic 21 Jewish 6 Other non-Christian (*) None 4 Total 100 1 Indicates less than 0.5 percent. Percent (a) If “Protestant” . — What denomination? subgroup Baptist . 26 Methodist 24 Presbyterian 10 Lutheran 8 Episcopalian 6 Congregationalist and LTnitarian 4 Quakers I Christian Scientists 1 Fundamentalist sects 15 Miscellaneous 1 Undetermined 4 Total 100 8. In what country were you born? percen United States 92 Foreign countries 8 Total 100 (a) If “ United States”. — In what country was your father born? Subgroup Lhited States 81 Easter European countries 5 England, Scotland, Ireland 5 Germany, Netherlands, Austria 4 Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece 2 Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland 1 France, Belgium, Switzerland _ 1 N on-European 1 Total 100 9. Are you married at present? percent Single. _ 13 Widowed 9 Divorced, separated 3 Married 75 Total 100 (a) If ever married. — Do vou have any children? Percent of J subgroup Yes 80 No 20 Total 100 10. Respondent’s occupation or status: jl c r cc it c Professional and semiprofessional workers 5 Proprietors, managers and officials, excluding farm 7 Clerical, sales and kindred workers 8 Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers (skilled workers) 7 Operatives and kindred workers (semiskilled workers) 7 Laborers, nonfarm (unskilled workers) 3 Service workers 5 Farmers 9 Not employed 48 Total 100 30 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Occupation of main earner in household: percen Professional and semiprofessional workers 8 Proprietors, managers and officials, excluding farm • 15 Clerical, sales and kindred workers 12 Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers (skilled workers) 14 Operatives and kindred workers (semiskilled workers) 12 Laborers, nonfarm (unskilled workers) 6 Service workers 8 Farmers 15 No main earner in family, e. g., living on pension, income, etc 10 Total 100 11. Would you tell me in which of these general groups your own total annual family income falls — before taxes? percent Under $500 4 $500 up to $1,000 0 $1,000 up to $2,000 17 $2,000 up to $3,000 27 $3,000 up to $4,000 18 $4,000 up to $5,000 10 $5,000 up to $10,000 8 $10,000 or more 2 Information refused i 5 Total 100 12. Did you ever spend any time on a farm? If “Yes”. — (a) Did you live there or vacation there? (6) Was that when you were a child or since you’ve been grown up? percent Now living on farm *_ 17 Lived there as a child 33 Lived there as an adult 16 Vacationed there as a child 14 Vacationed there as adult 11 Never spend any time on a farm 26 Total (some gave more than one answer) 117 13. Sex of respondent: percent Male 49 Female 51 Total : 100 14. Economic level: Percent Wealthy and prosperous 16 Middle class 53 Poor 31 Total , 100 15. Race of respondent: Percent White 91 Colored 9 Total 100 16. Size of town where respondent lives: Percen City over 500,000 31 50,000-500,000 22 2,500-50,000 15 Under 2,500 (rural nonfarm) 15 Farm 17 Total : 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 31 17. Region of residence: Percent New England States 8 Middle Atlantic States 21 South Atlantic States 9 East South Central States 9 West South Central States 9 East North Central States 22 West North Central States 9 Mountain States 3 Pacific States 10 Total 100 18. Date of interview: Percent Sept. 30, 1948 or earlier 12 Oct. 1, 2, 3 9 Oct. 4, 5, 6, 7 17 Oct. 8, 9, 10 12 Oct. 11, 12, 13, 14 21 Oct. 15, 16, 17 8 Oct. 18, 19, 20, 21 13 Oct. 22, 23, 24 5 Oct. 25 and later 3 Total 100 Senator McGrath. What is the source of those figures? Dr. Morgan. This is the National Opinion Research Center which was financed by the Rockefeller Center; and it was a completely unbiased group of people. The survey was finished in January 1949 and covered the entire country. It was financed by the Rockefeller Center. They found that 85 percent of the people were in favor of live animals for use in medical schools and only 8 percent opposed it. I do not see how 8 percent can be allowed in a democratic country to oppose scientific or retard scientific progress. I should like to submit the copies of the Minnesota bill for the record and some letters from the American Heart Association showing the importance of animal experimentation. (The above-mentioned letters and the Minnesota bill are as follows :) Washington Heart Association, District of Columbia Chapter of the American Heart Association, Washington 6, D. C., May 19, 1949. Hon. J. Howard McGrath, Chairman, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Care of Dr. Charles F. Morgan, Professor of Physiology, Georgetown Medical School, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator McGrath: This letter is in reference to Senate bill 1703, providing for the proper use of dogs for medical research. The Washington Heart Association, an affiliate of the American Heart Asso- ciation, is an organization of laymen and physicians; its sole aim is the saving and extension of human lives. The Washington Heart Association desires to go on record with a complete endorsement of this bill which promises lifesaving develop- ments in the field of heart diseases, the leading cause of death and a devastating crippler of young and old. There are many examples of how such developments have saved and are currently saving human lives, and there is even greater promise for the future if, and only if, dogs are made properly available for the vital medical research that always must precede the application of new methods in the treatment of babies, children, men and women. The famous “blue baby” operation, developed by Drs. Blalock, Taussig, and others has saved the lives of several hundred babies 32 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES and children here and elsewhere. Animals other than dogs would not have been suitable for most of the research that led to perfection of this technique. The dog alone is best consituted for such research and for much of the other work that is being done in the heart field. Other examples include the operation of Dr. Robert Gross for closing a trouble- some arterial bypass, the ductus arteriosus; repairs of a constricted aorta and of other congenitally malformed vessels; and artery transplanting — all of these, having saved human lives, are of both actual value and of great potentiality. They would not have been possible without the dog. The development of anti- coagulant drugs such as dicumerol is yet another example. The new operation developed by Dr. Claude Beck which consists of constructing a new “fuel line" to the patient’s heart out of a section of veins from his arm, holds much promise in coronary thrombosis. It resulted from experimentation with dogs before its application to man. Many other examples could be cited, for the field is large, and in all of the three great brackets of heart disease — the rheumatic, the hypertensive and coronary — there is research under way today which depends upon the dog is the only suitable animal and which will undoubtedly mean that more human lives will be saved. The District of Columbia is itself one of the great medical research centers of the Nation, where much vitally important research of this character is being done. Senate bill 1703 will provide through an appropriate utilization of the dog in lifesaving medical research, for progress against heart disease and we therefore most strongly urge its passage. Sincerely yours, J. Ross Veal, M. D., President , Washington Heart Association. State of Minnesota [S. F. No. 834 , 56th sess.] Introduced and read first time February 24, 1949, by Messrs. Mullin and Carey. Referred to Committee on Public Health. Reported back February 28, 1949. To pass. Read second time February 28, 1949. A BILL For an Act to promote scientific research and instruction in animal and public health by making available to educational and scientific institutions, unclaimed and unredeemed animals impounded by public authority in anima Ipounds; to provide licenses therefor and penalties for violations thereof Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: Section 1. As used in this Act, “institution" means any school or college of agriculture, veterinary medicine, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, or other educa- tional or scientific establishment properly concerned with the investigation of, or instruction concerning, the structure of functions of living organisms, the cause, prevention, control, or cure of diseases or abnormal conditions of human beings or animals. Sec. 2. Such institutions may apply to the State Live Stock Sanitary Board for a license to obtain animals from establishments maintained by or for munici- palities for the impounding, care, and disposal of animals seized by lawful authority. If, after investigation, the State Live Stock Sanitary Board finds that the institu- tion making request for licensure is a fit and proper agency within the meaning of this Act, to receive a license, and that the public interest will be served thereby, it may issue a license to such institution authorizing it to obtain animals here- under, subject to the restrictions and limitations herein provided. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the supervisor of any establishment referred to in section 2 of this Act to make available to an institution licensed hereunder, from the available impounded animals seized by lawful authority, such number of animals as the institution may request: Provided, however, That such animals shall have been impounded for not less than five days or for such other minimum period of time as may be specified by municipal ordinance and remain unclaimed and unredeemed by their owners or by any other person entitled to do so. If a request is made by a licensed institution to such supervisor for a larger number of animals than are available at the time of such request, the supervisor of such establishment shall withhold thereafter from destruction all such unclaimed and unredeemed animals until such request has been filled, provided that the actual expense of holding such animals beyond the time of notice to such institution of their availability shall be borne by the institution receiving them. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 33 Sec. 4. The licensed institution shall provide, at its own expense, for the trans- portation of such animals from the establishment to the institution and shall use them only in the conduct of its scientific and educational activities and for no other purpose. Sec. 5. Each institution licensed under this Act shall pay an annual license fee of S50 for each calendar year, or part thereof, to the State Live Stock Sanitary Board. All such license fees shall be deposited in the general revenue fund of the State of Minnesota. Sec. 6. The State Live Stock Sanitary Board upon 15 days written notice and an opportunity to be heard, may revoke the license granted any institution (1) if the institution has violated any provisions of this Act, or (2) has failed to comply with the conditions required by the State Live Stock Sanitary Board in respect to the issuance of such license. Sec. 7. The State Live Stock Sanitary Board shall have the power to adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, and shall have the right whenever it deems advisable or in the public interest, to inspect or investigate any institution which has applied for a license or has been granted a license hereunder. Sec. 8. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person or corporation to violate any of the provisions of this Act. State of Michigan Sixty-fourth Legislature Regular Session of 1947 Senate bill No. 201, introduced by Senators Bonine and Greene SENATE ENROLLED ACT NO. 108 AN ACT To protect the public health and welfare; and to regulate the humane use of animals for the diag- nosis and treatment of human and animal diseases, the advancement of veterinary, dental, medical, and biological sciences, and the testing and diagnosis, improvement and standardization of laboratory speci- mens, biologic products, pharmaceuticals, and drugs The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 1. The public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases, the advancement of veterinary, dental, medical, and biological sciences, and the testing and diagnosis, improvement and standardization of laboratory specimens, biologic products, pharmaceuticals, and drugs. Sec. 2. The State commissioner of health, with the approval of an advisory committee appointed by the Governor consisting of the dean of the Medical School of the University of Michigan, the dean of the veterinary department of the Michi- gan State College of Agriculture and applied sciences, the dean of the Medical School of Wayne University, the dean of the Dental School of the University of Detroit, the secretary of the Michigan Board of Registration of Osteopathy, a representative from a research laboratory within the State of Michigan and sub- ject to the control of the Federal Security Agency, and two member representa- tives of the State federated humane society, is hereby authorized to regulate and to promulgate rules and regulations controlling the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases, the advancement of veterinary, dental, medical, and biological sciences, and the testing and diagnosis, improvement and standardization of laboratory specimens, biologic products, pharmaceuticals, and drugs. Such rules and regulations shall be adopted in conformity with the laws of this State. Sec. 3. The State commissioner of health is hereby vested with the adminis- tration of the provisions of this act and is authorized to incur such expenses as shall be authorized by the legislature. The members of the advisory committee shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to actual and necessary expenses incurred in performance of official duties. Sec. 4. The State commissioner of health, or his duly authorized representative or any member of the advisory committee, is hereby authorized to inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes, for the purpose of investigation of compliance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder. Such regulations shall provide for such humane treatment of animals as is reasonably necessary for the purposes of this act. 34 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Sec. 5. No person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation shall keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the State commissioner of health. The State commissioner Qf health is hereby required to grant registration for the humane use of animals for experimental purposes subject to compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated under the provisions of this act. The State commissioner of health is authorized to suspend or revoke any registration under the provisions of this act for failure to comply with the rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. The findings of fact made by the State commissioner of health acting within his powers shall, in the absence of fraud or arbitrariness, be conclusive, but the circuit court of the county of Ingham shall have power to review questions of law involved in any final deci- sion or determination of said commissioner: Provided , That application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after such determination, and the said court shall have jurisdiction to make such orders in respect thereto as justice may re- quire. Sec. 6. There is hereby appropriated from the general fund of the State the sum of $1,000 to the State commissioner of health to carry out the provisions of this act. Secretary of the Senate. Clerk of the House of Representatives. Approved: Governor. Cities in the United States in Which Animals May Be Obtained From the Pounds for Research and Teaching Purposes Atlanta, Ga. Augusta, Ga. Birmingham. Ala. Charleston, S. C. Chicago, 111. Dallas, Tex. Denver, Colo. Detroit, Mich. Galveston, Tex. Houston, Tex. Iowa City, Iowa Little Rock, Ark. Louisville, Ky. Memphis, Tenn. Morgantown, W. Va. Nashville, Tenn. Richmond, Va. St. Louis, Mo. Salt Lake City, Utah Winston-Salem, X. C. The Chairman. You would be willing to keep a complete record on the dogs and make the record available to the public for inspection at any time? Dr. Morgan. I have no reason for withholding any such informa- tion. I would be very glad to do so. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. Are you completing your testimony? ■ If so, I would like to ask you some questions. In experimenting on an animal to get the physiological reaction of coming out from under an anesthetic, it would be absolutely necessary to study the reaction that you allow that dog to come out from the anesthetic, would it not? Dr. Morgan. Well now, you just do not let every dog come out from under the anesthetic. Senator Hunt. No, but when you are studying the end result of an anesthetic so you will be able to know the reaction, you must do that, must you not? Dr. Morgan. We have such experiments; however, the animal has not been operated on prior to such work. He simply lias been given the anesthetic which is painless, and he is allowed to come out from under the anesthesia the same as a human. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 35 There is no operation in those conditions. In other words, we do not allow an animal to come out from an anesthetic upon which an operation has been performed. Senator Hunt. Then your study of anesthesia is on unoperated dogs? Dr. Morgan. That is correct. Senator Hunt. You would certainly say that that is not being cruel to the animal? Dr. Morgan. That is not being cruel to the animal. Senator Hunt. If you did operate and allowed the dog to come out from under the anesthetic and this pain, that would be cruelty. But you did not do that. Is that right? Dr. Morgan. In the medical school when students are handling animals, we do not allow an animal to come out from under the anesthetic unless he is killed first, killed painlessly. Senator McGrath. If he is killed painlessly, he does not come out of it, does he? Dr. Morgan. I stand to be corrected. Senator McGrath. What you say is, once you have operated on a dog, he is never allowed to come out from under the anesthetic. Dr. Morgan. Certain research men must, of necessity — there are certain chronic experiments which are performed by experienced people, and in those conditions every care is taken that is known to prevent pain which might occur following the operation, the same as a human must come out from anesthesia in surgery. After all, post operative care of the human must be studied, and postoperative care of dogs must be studied. Senator Hunt. Are you familiar with the method used now to destroy dogs at the pound? Dr. Morgan. Only hearsay. From hearsay I have heard, and I am familiar somewhat with it. Senator Hunt. From your knowledge, would you cause death as painlessly as they do now at the pound? Dr. Morgan. From hearsay, I would say that our method of killing dogs is very humane and without cruelty at all. At the pound I dare say that the method used there is not as painless as our method. Senator Hunt. Would you say without the use of animals for scientific research that the span of life that we now enjoy might not be what it is today, the expectancy? Dr. Morgan. It is a well-known fact that the span of life has been increased because of certain key experiments, plus a group of a good many minor experiments. Those experiments were done upon experi- mental animals prior to that time. I would say that a great portion of this now-known fact goes back to the work done on animals. Senator Hunt. Senator, I have no further questions. The Chairman. Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath. How many institutions in the District of Columbia would be eligible for license under this bill, if it should become law? Dr. Morgan. Well, I think in the bill there — I cannot give you right off the total number, because it includes all the medical schools, which are three; the National Institute of Health; the Bureau of 36 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Animal Industry; the Veterans’ Administration; any Government agency, in other words, that would come under this bill, as well as diagnostic laboratories and hospitals, if they were properly licensed and inspected. Senator McGrath. What does the word “or agriculture” mean in here? Does that mean that dogs could be used to experiment for the purpose of finding out a cure for other types of animals? Dr. Morgan. That is exactly what it means. It means that this is a broad bill, realizing that advances have been made on animal experimentation, not only in humans, in increasing their span of life, but also increasing the span of life and making animals more healthy— horses, cows, sheep, goats, and dogs themselves. We realize that. For that reason we specifically want to see that carried on even further. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Morgan. (The following information was submitted for the record by Dr. C. F. Morgan:) Georgetown University, School of Medicine, Washington 7, D. C., May 27, 1949. Hon. Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman , District of Columbia Subcommittee for S. 1708, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Madam Senator: I was very pleased to hear that the Public Health and Safety Committee of Illinois just passed a vote of 15 to 6 favoring the Illinois pound law. I wish to submit the attached amended statement to my previous testimony for S. 1703, in which is found a discussion of the actual facts of the research investi- gations in the American Journal of Physiology referred to by the opponents of S. 1703. In addition, I should like to offer a telegram from the National Society for Medical Research and a letter from Mr. Phillip S. Gelb as additional evidence, all to be included in the Congressional Record. I wish to thank you for the very fair and impartial hearing for S. 1703. Your charm and manner of conducting the hearing, even in the face of many emotional outbursts, is to be congratulated. Both sides, in my opinion, were treated equally. Very truly yours, Charles F. Morgan. May 27, 1949. * Hon. Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman , District of Columbia Subcommittee for S. 1703, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Madam Senator: The following are my recommendations and comments regarding S. 1703, which I wish to have amended to my previous testimony: 1. The proponents of S. 1703 suggest and recommend that the holding time of flogs be extended from 48 hours to five days before they be released for use in scientific investigations. There is only one objection, and that is the added cost to the District for additional feed for the extra 3 days. The extended period will offset criticisms and will enable pet owners to have ample opportunity to recover their pets from the dog pound. I should like to state once again that we do not want to use anyone’s pet. 2. There may be some people who want to get rid of their pet or excess dogs and who request that they not be used by medical schools and research labora- tories. There should be a provision made to allow these particular animals to be put to sleep in a humane fashion at the pound. 3. A suggestion was made at the hearing that research institutions raise their own dogs. We have found that the raising of dogs at the institutions is imprac- ticable and impossible. This has been attempted in previous years by other institutions, and is also being carried on at the present time by Dr. Mark Morris in New Brunswick, N. J. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 37 I wish to submit a telegram from Dr. Magnus I. Gregersen of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, in which he states that his institu- tion has tried several times in the last 20 years to raise its own dogs, but each time found that the project would require such a large subsidy that it was out of the question. Even though the}’ were one of the largest educational institu- tions in the world, they were forced to drop the^ matter. I would also like to submit a letter from Mr. Phillip S. Gelb, of New York City, in which he states that Dr. Morris, of New Jersey, raises a particular hybrid dog for which he is forced to charge from $175 to $200. He recently sold 30 of^these dogs to the Hoffman-LaRoche Laboratories. Dr. Morris has stated that specially bred dogs for research purposes could never be sold for less than $100 each. It is out of the question, therefore, to raise dogs at the institutions. I agree with Dr. Magnus I. Gregersen of Columbia University that the cost of research is ever increasing, and it would save much money to reprieve pound dogs for medical research purposes. 4. The following suggestion is also offered to perhaps facilitate and expedite the return of pets from the pound to their owners if they are accidentally lost. Advertisements, I understand, may be run free of charge in certain newspapers in the District. Dogs picked up by the pound on the streets may be identified in a ‘‘Found” column, as follows: “Found at Fifteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. — dog, shaggy-haired, female, black body, white face, white paws, etc.” 5. When a medical student is dropped from the rolls of one medical school, he may not enter another medical school. He may enter another university, but not its medical school. This is to correct statements made by the opponents of S. 1703. 6. During the recent hearings, one of the opponents of S. 1703 quoted an investi- gation in regard to the experimental production of shock in dogs (American Journal of Physiology, 1947, 148:98-123). This individual mentioned that in this investigation unanesthetized animals were subjected to trauma, that the animal suffered, and that no good came from the experiment except the produc- tion of vomiting and thirst. I should like to point out the facts in as few wqrds as possible to show that these emanations were not present in this investigation. I talked at length with Dr. Magnus I. Gregersen of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, and we went into great detail about this experiment. Here are the facts of the case: (a) Ether anesthesia was induced in all animals before contusion of the thigh muscles. (b) Care was taken by the investigator not to perforate the skin, or allow external loss of blood or tissue fluid, injury to bone, large blood vessels, or nerves. The muscles were bruised, but only while the animal was under anesthesia. The bruising was of the same type you would receive were you to bump the muscles of your leg against a desk several times, in such a manner that there would be produced no injury to the bones, large blood vessels, or nerves; nor would there be external bleeding or perforation of the skin. (c) It was contended by the opponents of our bill that the animal suffered pain following the production of shock. It was found in the First World War that soldiers who went into traumatic shock were insensitive to pain. Likewise, the animals in this experiment showed no perception of pain: they did not howl; they could walk around and showed response to petting. It is common knowledge that traumatic shock victims do not perceive pain. Let me emphasize again, however, that, in the first production of shock, anesthesia Avas invariably used, because at that time there might have been pain had anesthesia not been produced. (d) As to whether or not any good came from this experiment, let me state to you the actual facts. This work of Dr. Gregersen’s is a classic. It saved many hundreds of lives in this last war because the results ot his work were used long before they were actually published. Dr. Gregersen’s work gave us an objective measurement of the amount of blood that should be used to save the life of a person who has undergone traumatic shock. This work was a basis for the determination of the necessary amount of blood to be used in r transfusion. Previous to his work, individuals in shock received no more than 500 cc. of blood in transfusion, and this did not help. Following his work, sufferers of traumatic shock were given 2 to 3 liters (2,000 to 3,000 ccb of blood, and then their lives were saved. This idea is certainly different from the cry we heard at the hearing when it was reported that all Dr. Gregersen found was that the animals vomited and were thirsty. In reality, and I quote from the American Journal of Physiology, 38 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 1947, 148: 107; “In the 29 dogs in shock, we saw only two instances of spon- taneous vomiting. * * *” On page 105 of this same Journal, it described the bleeding of animals to produce a similar reduction in the blood volume as produced by shock (in shock, it happens to be released into the body tissues), and it states in small print at the foot of that page: “Ether anesthesia was given while the bleeding was performed, so that this series is comparable with the trauma experiments in this respect.” So, even in this case when blood was taken and no trauma induced, they still used anesthesia. This is certainly different from the argument used at the hearing to make us believe that these people were eruel to their animals. The publication in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1946, page 1, has no reference at all to any work done at the University of Virginia. In fact, page 1 refers to work done by Dr. Burmaster of the University of Rochester and on an entirely different subject. 7. I should like to submit a telegram dated May 26 from the National Society for Medical Research, in which they state that the Public Health and Safety Committee voted 15 to 6 for the passage of the Illinois pound law. In view of the above recommendations, we, therefore, again recommend that S. 1703 be passed, for it would solve many difficulties and increase the research contributions from the District of Columbia for humanity and animals as well. Respectfully submitted. Charles F. Morgan, Georgetown University School of Medicine. New York, N. Y., May 26, 1949. Dr. Charles F. Morgan, Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, D. C. From time to time over the past 20 years, we have given serious consideration to the possibility of raising our own dogs for medical research. Each time this is rejected because project would require so large a subsidy that it is entirely out of the question. In the face of ever-mounting costs in medical education, of which research is an essential part, subsidy for raising dogs would require public funds and therefore increase load on taxpayer. Thousands of dollars of valuable research funds could be saved annually by reprieving pound dogs for medical research. Dr. Magnus Gregersen, Dalton Professor Physiology, Columbia Medical Center. Chicago, III. May 26, 1949. Phillip S. Gelb, Committee on Health and Research, Mediqal Society of the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C.: Public health and safety committee 15 to 6 for passage of Illinois pound law yesterday. National Society for Medical Research. May 26, 1949. Hon. Margaret Chase Smith, United States Senate , Washington, D. C. Dear Senator Smith: Both from what I have heard as an observer at the hearings on S. 1703, and at the request of Dr. Charles F. Morgan, I think infor- mation in my possession might prove of help to you in arriving at a thorough understanding of the experimental dog-procurement problem, and its possible solutions. Two months ago, at the request of the New York Academy of Medicine Committee for Animal Experimentation, I conducted some investigation on the idea of raising dogs especially for experimental purposes. To my knowledge, the only individual engaged in this activity now in the Nation is Dr. Mark Morris, a very able veterinarian of New Brunswick, N. J. On a cleared, well-kept, 24-acre area, a few miles out of New Brunswick, Dr. Morris has been raising dogs for 15 years, especially for research purposes. At present Dr. Morris has facilities for raising around 100 dogs. Dr. Morris has developed a beagle-bull terrier hybrid which has many advantages for research purposes. In fact, Dr. Morris’ dogs have only one disadvantage — their cost. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 39 Thirty of these hybrids, at 6 months of age, were recently sold to the ILoffman- LaRoche Laboratories at prices ranging from $175 to $200 each. Even under the most efficient mass-raising conditions, Dr. Morris doubts if specially bred research dogs could ever be sold for less than $100 apiece. Incidentally, Dr. Mark Morris has been and is engaged in a private business. He is a most able dog breeder and businessman, and I am certain that, if it were humanly possible to raise research dogs at any less cost, he would have found the way to do so. As is, though specially bred research dogs have many advantages, if they were to be purchased by the medical institutions in the District of Columbia, it roughly would take almost their entire research budgets just to purchase dogs. A very major factor that must be considered is that in the majority of research projects — experimental surgery, short range, and high mortality research — it would be a waste both of dog and money to use the specially bred animal. Dr. Morris himself is in agreement with this. In short project and mortality tests, the pound dog would prove most suitable. Mv investigations also disclosed that research-dog breeding attempts in the past by the Columbia College for Physicians and Surgeons and the Mayo Institute proved impractical and economically infeasible. I have asked representatives of these institutions, however, to communicate directly with you on this. Xo matter what your decision on this particular bill may be, may I offer my most sincere compliments to you for your utterly magnificent patience, charm, and fairness in the face of the most trying of conditions. The hearings on S. 1703 showed the case for the gracious Senator from Maine to be incontestable. Sincerely, Phillip S. Gelb, Eastern Representative, National Society for Medical Research. P. S. — I just received a. telegram stating, “Public Health and Safety Committee 15 to 6 for passage of Illinois Pound Law yesterday — National Society for Medical Research.” This of course is the law similar to the one 37ou are now considering We will hear Dr. Edwin W. Hadley of Boston, Mass. There are a few witnesses who have come in from long distances, and we may, in Jurying to expedite the hearings, have one come in now and then so as to give them a chance to get away. Dr. Hadley, will you give your name to the reporter and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF EDWIN W. HADLEY, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING MRS. KATHERINE FROST, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Hadley. My name is Edwin W. Hadley. I am an attorney at Boston, Mass., and a professor of law at Northeastern University. I was born and raised in San Diego, Calif. My bachelor’s and doctor’s degrees are from Stanford University. My master of law is from Harvard. I have finished 26 years of teaching and practice. My teaching started in Laramie, Wyo., where Thurman Arnold combined the teaching of property with the mastication of a cigar all in one motion; and continued the teaching at Notre Dame, University of Kansas, Boston University, and Northeastern. I have therefore become something of a citizen of the United States by a variety of connections; and I have not only devoted my life to the study of the practice and teaching of law, but it has been my hobby as well. I have devoted much time to constitutional and administrative law; and, since I started it in 1929 in Boston University, I have taught the graduate course in jurisprudence and legal history. As a result of some years of genuine interest in all legal systems, which has included all of them — Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, and the rest — I am very proud indeed of the Anglo-American legal system; 40 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES and it is a system which is not merely a lot of rules of law and statute law, but it is a system wherein all of the specific detailed rules are based upon deep, vital philosophic principles. Now, the bill that is before this committee is not a provivisection bill or an antivivisection bill. This bill is a proproperty bill, and that is all, nothing more or nothing less. If we would eliminate the emotions from the situation — let us just change the word “animals” to read “all luggage, freight, and express in the hands of a common carrier ready for delivery and unclaimed for 48 hours, and it shall then be forfeited with a specific provision against compensation to the owner and turned over to the laboratories to use the proceeds in experimentation” — the complete unconstitu- tionality of that law would then be perfectly apparent. All you have to do is take the word “animals” and call it “any private property,” and to a student of the democratic common-law legal system the result is simply horrifying. It is not a question of pro- or anti- vivisection. It is a question as to whether individuals, including pharmaceutical houses who operate laboratories for private property, shall obtain that which they have obtained by purchase by means of legalized theft. What would you think if the lawyers should propose that all lost or stolen automobiles which have come into the hands of public authority and have not been located by their true owner for 48 hours should be forfeited, and have the proceeds of those automobiles turned over to the law schools of the District for use in financing their research? You would think, and you would very rightly think, that the professional class who risked lives and much property and led the American Revolution, as they have led revolutions throughout history, had turned to join hands with Red Russia or some totalitarian govern- ment or some absolute monarchy. They have turned back the clock of time so that their ideas were not the ideas that had been worked out in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the American Revolu- tion; but were the ideas of the Louis of France who said Senator McGrath. Let me ask you, what would you think if those same automobiles that came into the hands of public offices, owners unknown, the law said that within 48 hours you must take them down to the common dump and burn them? Mr. Hadley. I would say that they must not do that. I would say that those automobiles must be sold — — Senator McGrath. That is the situation we have here. Mr. Hadley. No; that is not so. In the case of the automobile, the automobile is salable and the automobile should be sold and the proceeds held for the true owner. Senator McGrath. Do you say this dog ought to be sold to the hospitals rather than given to them? Mr. Ha dley. No; it is having sold for use. You see, this respect for private property and for the rights of the individual has followed through all branches of the common law and it finally faced the point that you arc reaching toward. The basic proposition of the common law was, of course, that private property belongs to the owner and that he is a person who is entitled lo have free will and free ownership and to determine what shall happen to it. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 41 The first law of lost property took the form of the very earliest of the pound rules which were first common law rules graduated by statute, the law of estra^^s. There the common law applied to the same rule that it applied to all personal property other than animals. That was that the property must be held for the true owner for a reasonable time, and an average period was 3 months by statutory requirement; that thereafter the property must be sold, not for de- struction, not for experimentation, sold to some person for use and the proceeds held for the true owner. That was as far as the necessities of the moment required the law to go, and it was constantly a recognition of the rights of true owner- ship and his property. Then there arose the question of estravs, which were held for a reasonable time for the true owner, not rushed out any place in 48 hours, and which were unsalable, not normally salable to private individuals for keeping as the true owner would keep it. That arose particularly in the case of animals, dogs and cats, in large urban areas. In that case, the common law, in order to come to a solution, made use of a principle which was one of our crowning triumphs over absolute monarchy, was one of the magnificent basic items of the common law, the doctrine of presumed intention. It runs throughout the law. You find it in the law of torts, in the law of contracts and all its branches, such as sales agency, bills and notes, and so forth. The doctrine that any individual under our common law democratic system is entitled to personal freedom and to property freedom, and basically when he handles his property or makes contracts, the deal should "be given validity and interpreted according to his desire, to his intention. In assistance to the doctrine of intention in cases where the intention had not been made clear and expressed, there arose the doctrine of presumed intention, in which we used the normal, reasonable man who was brought up under the principles of the common-law system; and the law asked what would he in end in this circumstance if he had been asked and made himself clear. Making use of that principle in the pound situation, the law pro- vided that that should be done which the true owner would be pre- sumed to want to be done if he could be asked, if he were available. And up to very recent years, it was the unanimous conclusion of legislators and of the public that, except for perhaps one twisted soul in a hundred thousand, that which the true owner of an animal would want to be done, if he could be found and asked when the animal is not findable by him and is not resalable, is that the animal would be put painlessly to sleep and not that it be strapped to a laboratory table to whimper out its life. On that doctrine of presumed intention, which is a cornerstone of our common law principles of free will and of free intention, all of the pound laws were based. Then suddenly within the last 3 years there arises this startlingly new proposition, and that is that the animal, the lost personal property, which is not found by the owner and which is unsalable, shall be forfeited and disposed of to the laboratories in the teeth of what common knowledge tells you is the presumed intention of the true owner; ana to my mind not only is such a law unconstitu- tional as a lack of due process, if the animal be turned over to private 91703 — 49 4 42 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES individuals, or unconstitutional as a violation of the prohibition against taking private property without compensation if it be turned over to a public institution or one having the powers of a public institution and eminent domain, but the law tears to tatters what from my study and my experience is a very, very vital part of the kind of a scheme of law under which we as the happiest peoples in this world now live. We have gone a long ways down the road to the graveyard of free will and your right to the exercise of free intention; and it is with dis- may that I see us approach close enough so that the graveyard smell is in your nostrils. It is a simple law question, and it seems to me that when any group for their personal use wants to expropriate property without compen- sation and to take not merely inanimate private property but animate private property in connection with which the owner has not only a right and feeling of ownership, but also very commonly a high degree of emotional pleasure and handle it in the teeth of his presumed in- tention, is a reckless and a wicked and an evil thing. That is a matter of law, and it is not a matter of anything else. Thank you very much. The Chairman. We have many witnesses to hear, and the more time we take for this, the fewer witnesses there will be time for. Senator McGrath. Would you apply your doctrine of presumed intent to those cases where animals are deliberately abandoned? Mr. Hadley. Where animals are dcilberately abandoned? Senator McGrath. Yes. Mr. Hadley. No; that doctrine would not apply to a case where an animal is deliberately abandoned, but I have as yet to find any reliable statistics about animals deliberately abandoned, and that abandon- ment in my experience is extremely rare; extremely. Senator McGrath. If we had in the District of Columbia an ade- quate public-notice law, say that the newspapers of the District would carry a paid advertisement once a week telling all the dogs that were turned into the pound and a description of them, and they were not claimed, would you not carry the doctrine of presumed intent to one of presumed abandonment when it became very obvious for anybody who had an animal of this kind to read this list or to come to the pound and to know where they could reclaim their animal, assuming we said we would keep the animals 30 days and advertise them twice or three times in the newspapers, a list of these animals at the pound, waiting to be claimed? Then at that time if they were not claimed, would you not say there was probably abandonment to which the doctrine of presumed intent would not apply? Mr. Hadley. I doubt with even as long as 30 days there would be any presumed doctrine of abandonment, because it is well known that animals which are impounded frequently come from places other than the place in which they are impounded at the moment. In the pound of the District of Columbia, there will be animals from Maryland; there will be animals from Virginia; there will be animals which have escaped from their owners who come from as far away as California. I have in my experience known of youngsters whose dogs were lost, who went from pound to pound in city areas and were 3 weeks and more finally locating their dog. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 43 Of course, I come from a city where the pound is not operated by public authority, but it is operated by an animal rescue league, a charitable corporation, by contract with the city of Boston. There are, however, a network of surrounding pounds, some of them so oper- ated; some of them publicly operated. The difficulty frequently of finding the animals seems to me to indi- cate we could not raise any doctrine of assumed or presumed abandon- ment, and if a person in despair gives up the further attempt to find his dog, I think still my experience is that his presumed desire, if you could ask him, is, “Please put my animal to sleep and do not subject him to experiments. If you want to use animals for experiments/’ — and this is the language of many people who believe in vivisection — “do not use my animal. Buy your own or raise your own.” People whose feelings were for all-out vivisection, people whose feel- ings were for controlled vivisection, as well as those against vivisection, have talked to me ; and over and over again I have found the common single response that “My desire certainly would be that if my pet could not be located by me, if I was unable to find it, I would want him put painlessly to sleep and not turned over to a laboratory.” The answer to me has been unanimous, and I have asked the ques- tion many times over many years; and for three consecutive years have been able to defeat a bill just like this one in Massachusetts. It has been knocked out three consecutive times, and the last time I think will be the last time it will be presented because the defeat was so unanimous in committee and on the floors of both houses. The legislators to whom I talked seemed to realize that. In fact, I thought my final moment of triumph was when I sufficiently con- vinced Dr. John Conlon, who runs the medical propaganda activities for the medical society in Boston, so that he admitted on a public platform at Harvard University that the bill he was backing was in many parts bad and in part unconstitutional. That was surprising to get that admission; and, therefore, even from men like that, when this material is presented, I have never found any tendency to feel that there was an implied abandonment; and if we really were inter- ested in presumed intention, the unanimous presumed intention of the true owner would be that his animal be not turned over to a laboratory. Senator McGrath. Let me ask one more question. Assuming we adopted your theory that the dog is nothing more than personal property, and that the owner came to the pound, as all owners do come to the pound, and said, “I cannot keep this animal any longer. I want you to take it and I want you to find a home for it or want you to dispose of it.” You say that it is the right of that individual under his doctrine of ownership to authorize the pound to turn that animal over to a hospital if he wishes to? Mr. Hadley. Oh, yes; any person has a right to take his animal to a hospital directly or to a collecting agent for a hospital and say, “Gentlemen, I would like to give you my animal for the purpose of vivisection.” That is right. Senator McGrath. He could do that through the pound officer. Therefore, assuming that your constitutional thesis is a correct one, it would likewise be unconstitutional to pass any laws in the United States depriving an owner of a right to do what he wished with his dog. 44 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mr. Hadley. Depriving him of his right to do what he wished? Senator McGrath. Yes. You say the dog is private property and the intent of ownership prevailed Mr. Hadley. As long as vivisection exists, it would be unconsti- tutional not to permit him to turn the animal over for a then legal use. Now, the abolition of vivisection or the abolition of anything, of course, removes from all people certain channels in which their prop- erty may be used. If vivisection exists, it would be unconstitutional to forbid a person to turn over property if he wanted to. The Chairman. You are not opposed to vivisection, then? Mr. Hadley. I am just talking about the pound Senator McGrath. The property right of an individual? Mr. Hadley. That is all; and all the argument about the rest of the picture is beside the point. This is merely a method of property acquisition, and it is to that that I am bitterly opposed. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. Mr. Hadley, you are appearing here as an attorney representing various owners and dog breeders? Mr. Hadley. Owners and dog breeders of New England who are very much perturbed about this matter. Senator Hunt. I assume, of course, you are appearing here in your professional capacity? Mr. Hadley. W ithout compensation, because I am also appearing for myself. Senator Hunt. What about expenses? Mr. Hadley. I think probably I will get my expenses paid by some- body, but they have not been paid yet. I have so far paid my own expenses, and I would be glad to pay them if nobody cared to contrib- ute. And I will take no fee for what I say, because what I say is so deeply my belief. Senator Hunt. In your worn before your legislature, are you paid as a lobbyist by these same people you represent? Mr. Hadley. By nobody; no. I have never received compensation for anything I have done in this field from any person or any source, directly or indirectly; nor have I as yet received any expenses. I am really and honestly convinced as a person who is very devoted to the common law legal system of what I am talking about. I think that we have got a magnificent system of law. I do not see how any fool who has studied anything at all can look at the few frailties that we have, because everything that man does is frail, and compare it with any place else and choose communism or anything else. I am extremely proud of what we have struggled to, because the common law system was the first in history that ever developed repre- sentative government. No previous one ever did. Senator Hunt. Let me interpolate in your remarks. You do not mean to infer that the authors of this bill in any sense of the way have any communistic ideas in mind, do you? Mr. Hadley. No; I do not. I understand these bills are framed by people who have desires. They are filed by consent. I have always found that every member of a legislative body is desirous of putting forward propositions in order to determine all the facts all the theories and philosophies of law applicable, and then come to a result. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 45 I do not partake of the classic sneering attitude toward all legislators or all lawyers by nonlawyers or all judges. It is my belief that each group of men, legislators, lawyers, judges, and ditch diggers, are a group who have their good, bad, and indifferent. And my experience is that legislators are always seeking the way to arrive at the best interests of the public, and in this country they are always very eager to try to keep in key with our common law kind of legal scheme. I am thorough tly convinced of that, and I never doubt that a legislator before whom I appear has that interest, because my experience which has been long has proved it out. Sure, I have run into the legislator who has queer political ideas and who is this, that, and the other, but those fellows do not make the decisions. Senator Hunt. Would you excuse me, please, by saying that your answer is quite sufficient to me, and we have some other witnesses waiting. Mr. Hadley. All right. The Chairman. That you very much, Mr. Hadley. Dr. Blalock. STATEMENT OF DR. ALFRED BLALOCK, PROFESSOR OF SURGERY, CHIEF SURGEON, JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, BALTIMORE, MD. Dr. Blalock. MY name is Alfred Blalock. I am professor of surgery in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and surgeon in chief to the Johns Hopkins Hospital. I wish to thank you for allowing me to say a few words; and in order to try to be brief, I will limit my remarks to two topics. One deals with shock; the other deals with the treatment of heart disease. In the early 1930’s, Dr. Fennister and his group and I and my group found in anesthetized animals that the major cause of shock is the regional and local loss of whole blood and of plasma. That was followed by a great deal of additional work on the use of blood and plasma, and the development of a number of blood substitutes. I think all of you know the role that the increased use of blood and blood substitutes played in the prevention and treatment of shock, not only in civilian life, but in warfare. It was one of the major reasons that the mortality rate and association with war wounds, which was 8.1 percent in the First World War, declined to 3.3 percent in the Second World War. There were, of course, other factors also playing a part. Now, regarding the treatment of congenital heart disease in which strides have been made in recent years, practically all of that has been dependent upon animal experimentation. I would like to speak first about one of these types of congenital heart disease, this being a model of the human heart from which two large vessels arise ; this one going to the lungs and being the pulmonary artery, and this, the aorta, and going to the body, this condition which I am discussing at the moment called coexcitation of the aorta. This main blood vessel is constricted at about this point, so that it is very difficult for blood to get to the lower part of the body. This produces a high blood pressure in the upper part of the body, a low blood pressure in the lower part of the body, and these people 46 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES are very apt to die of intercranial complications and various other sorts of complications. About 6 years ago Dr. Edwards A. Park and I decided in the anesthetized dog to try to bypass such a point of obstruction. That was done by using a branch of the aorta and bypassing the point of coexcitation. That has been used in operations on patients. For example, here is the diagram of a patient with coexcitation of the aorta, and this shows how this vessel has been cut across, has been turned downward, and is being used to bypass the point of coexcitation. Hundreds of such patients have been operated upon by this method and a modification of this method. Excellent results are being obtained. Lastly, I want to say a few words about the treatment of the so- called blue baby, a subject on which Dr. Taussick and I have worked for 6 or 7 years. That work preceded the clinical work, by opera- tions on anesthetized dogs. Cyanosis was produced, and an operative procedure was carried out which alleviated the cyanosis. One may ask: Why use dogs? The answer is that the blook ves- sels at the base of the heart of the dog are practically identical with those of the child. Those of the cat and the rat and the rabbit are not big enough. I woidd like to show you some photographs which were published in a recent issue of Life. Above we see the operation on the anes- thetized dog; and below, the operation on the patient. I think that it is apparent that the vessels are practically identical. As a result of this work — this particular problem required 75 dogs for its solution before the first child was operated upon — in our clinic we have now operated upon more than 800 such patients who come from practically every State in the Union. For example, from Maine, Senator Smith, some names; and from Wyoming we have had thus far only one patient. We have had patients from various countries over Ihe world. But I have talked too long. In closing, I simply want to say that I personally would never have done this work had experimentation not been possible; and I do not believe that any surgeon, even with the principles clearly laid out now, I do not think any surgeon would dare do this operation on a patient without having done it first on the experimental animals. It is a meticulous technique, and it requires meticulous care. Dr. Fisliback asked several children who live in this area to come here for just a moment. The Chairman. Doctor, I would like to ask, before you call the next witness: There is a strong belief, as you have heard me sa}7, that much of the vivisection is done by inexperienced medical students. Will you comment on that? Dr. Blalock. In my experience that has not been the case. Med- ical students never work on dogs in institutions in which I work, except under supervision of the staff; and I should say that relatively little of it. I would not think that 5 percent of the animals that are used in our institution are used by medical students. The Chairman. Would you say that was true largely over the country? Dr. Blalock. Yes; I would. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 47 The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Blalock. This is Margaret Belto. Margaret was 4 years of age. Mrs. Belto. No; she is six now. Dr. Blalock. She was four prior to her operation. Margaret, would you stand up? Senator McGrath. Turn around so the folks can see you. Dr. Blalock. I would rather have you, Mrs. Belto, tell about Margaret, if you would care to; or perhaps the Senators would wish to ask you. The Chairman. All right. Mrs. Belto. At the age of 4, before her operation, she was not able to even walk halfway across the room; and her lips, fingers, and toes were blue due to poor circulation. She was not able to play with any other children, but she can now. She jumps rope; she rides a bike; she goes to school; and is like any other normal child. Thank you, Dr. Blalock. Dr. Blalock. This is an entirely different child that you see there from the child that was brought into Johns Hopkins Hospital. She was totally disabled, truly. She can do everything now; everything. And she goes to school. She will be in the first grade in September. The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator McGrath. You performed this operation, Doctor, as the result of the knowledge that you secured through your experimenta- tion? Dr. Blalock. Yes, sir. Senator McGrath. How long would this child have lived if you had not performed the operation? Dr. Blalock. Senator, I would not hazard a guess. I know that she would not have lived happily, because she was an invalid, could not run and play. But I would not hazard a guess. It might have been a few days; it might have been years. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. Were you the first to develop this operation? Dr. Blalock. Yes, sir. Senator Hunt. Would you have been able to have devised this operation had it not been for your work on dogs? Dr. Blalock. No, sir. Senator Hunt. Do you feel you have saved some human lives by perfecting this operation? Dr. Blalock. I know that we have. I would like to clear up one subject, if I may. I have noticed in the newspapers a statement to the effect Dr. Brock of the Guy’s Hospital in London had said that operations on dogs were not necessary in the development of this operation. That is a mistake, because it so happened that I performed the first successful blue baby operation in Guy’s Hospital; and up to that time experimentation on dogs was not carried out in that hospital. But as a result of the operations which we performed there in August of 1947, Mr. Brock, Dr. Brock, took up the work and has carried it on since. So he profited by the experience which we have had and assisted us in some of the operations. The Chairman. Did you use any other animals in this experiment, Doctor? 48 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Dr. Blalock. Xo. The other animals were not suitable, Senator Smith. The Chairman. Do you use other animals? Dr. Blalock. Oh, yes. We use dogs only when other animals will not suffice. There are two other patients. Might they come in for just a moment? Robert Wildrick and Eugene Golston. Would you want Mrs. Wildrick to make a statement? The Chairman. Yes; if you please. Mrs. Wildrick, can you tell us the story? Mrs. Wildrick. Bobby, until he was two and a half, could not walk. He would not walk a quarter of a block without having a heart attack and passing out, just dropping and being completely out of breath. After his operation, 13 days after he was operated on, he was riding his kiddie car out front, which he had never done before. The Chairman. Are there any questions? Senator McGrath. Do you want to tell us something about his prior condition and the result of the operation? Dr. Blalock. I think the mother can tell it as well as I. Senator McGrath. It is this operation you have described to us? Dr. Blalock. It is this operation. His operation was performed on May 24, 1946. As his mother says, he was two and a half at that time. Eugene, will you give us your name? Eugene Golston. Eugene Golston. The Chairman. Will you tell us about him, Doctor, or Mrs. Golston? Mrs. Golston. Gene was operated on 2 years ago. Before that lie could not walk at all, never walked. The Chairman. How old is he? Mrs. Golston. He is 13 now. He was operated on when he was 1 1 . He never went to school. This is his first year at school. Last week he marched in a parade from Fourth and Constitution to the White House. He plays baseball and basketball. Until 2 years ago he could not even walk. The Chairman. Are there any other questions? (There was no response.) Thank you very much, Mrs. Golston. Dr. Blalock. I have nothing to add. rPhe Chairman. Are there any questions of the doctor? Senator Hunt. It is a great pleasure to know you, Doctor. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Doctor. (The following communication was submitted for inclusion in the record:) The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore , Md., May 23, 19^9. Senator Howard McGrath, Chairman, Committee on the District of Colvmbia. Dear Senator McGrath: Favorable action on the bills, S. 1703 and H. R. 4309, to provide that unclaimed animals lawfully impounded in the District of Columbia be made available for scientific purposes will greatly facilitate medical research in the District of Columbia. A constant and easily available source of supply for animals is as necessary for the promotion of medical research as is the availability of money for personnel and apparatus. Fifty years ago, vaccination against typhoid fever was untried: summer brought a heavy toll from infant diarrhoea; the vitamins were completely unknown, as IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 49 were the hormones; no liver extract for anemia, no insulin for the diabetic; there were no specific agents for the treatment of systemic infections (chemothera- peutic agents) except mercury, quinine, and ipecac; no sulfa drugs, no penicillin, and no streptomycin. Today, as the result of medical research the whole picture has changed. A half century ago, a newborn child had a life expectancy of 49.2 years; today, it has increased to about 65 years. Comparing the mortality from certain diseases in World War I with those in World War II, we find that as a result of medical research in the interval, deaths from all wounds dropped from 8.1 to 3.3 percent ; from meningities, from 38 to 4 percent; from pneumonia, from 28 to 0.7 percent; from dysentery, from 1.6 to 0.05 percent. The medical research responsible for this tremendous change in the outlook of the diseased individual was all based on animal experimentation. Without these experiments on animals, the epoch making discoveries of the last few decades could not have been made. Specifically, the dog is necessary in many lines of medical research on account of its size and on account of the similarlity of its physiological processes to those of man. Thus, experimentation on the dog has resulted in; (1) the discovery of new drugs for the treatment and cure of disease, *e. g., insulin for diabetes, liver extract for anemia, vitamin D for rickets, and the sulfa drugs for infectious dis- eases; (2) the establishment of the safety of new drugs for trial on human beings, e. g., a number of new and valuable anesthetics, penicillin and streptomycin; (3) advances in surgical treatment, e. g., the “blue baby” operation, numerous surgical procedures which were largely responsible for the low mortality of the wounded in the last war; and (4) establishment of correct and accurate methods for the diagnosis of disease, e. g., measurement of blood pressure, heart murmurs. Numerous specific examples could be given of the necessity of animal experi- mentation for medical progress. May I close by again emphasizing that the passage of bills such as S. 1703 and H. R. 4349 is just as necessary for promoting medical research as are men and equipment. I am, very truly yours, E. K. Marshall, Jr., Professor of Pharmacology, and Experimental Therapeutics. The Chairman. It is nearly time for the bell to ring for the Senate to convene. We will hear Dr. Topping. STATEMENT OF DR. NORMAN TOPPING, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, REPRE- SENTING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH Dr. Topping. Madam Chairman, I am Dr. Norman Topping, Assistant Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, and Associate Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda. I have prepared a written statement, but in the interest of saving your time this morning, I would like to speak and just turn in the written statement, if I may. The Chairman. All right. Without objection, it will be incor- porated in the record. (The prepared statement of Dr. Norman H. Topping is as follows:) Statement of Dr. Norman H. Topping My name is Norman H. Topping. I am Associate Director of the National Institutes of Health, which is the research branch of the United States Public Health Service. I am a Doctor of Medicine, member of the American Medical Association and several other professional societies, including the American Society of Tropical Medicine. While I am now engaged in administrative work, up until a year ago my primary professional interest was research in virus and rickettsial diseases. The Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health urges passage of the legislation being considered here by this committee, which would permit 50 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES unclaimed animals in the District of Columbia dog pound to be used for medical and related research. The National Institutes of Health laboratories are located in Bethesda, Md., a few miles outside outside of the District of Columbia. Therefore it is of particular importance to 11s that research institutions within the metropolitan area be in- cluded in the scope of this bill. However, even if this were not true, we would still favor its passage because of its importance to the hospitals, medical schools and governmental research agencies within the District of Columbia. In 1900 the average newborn baby in this country could expect to live only 50 years. The average life expectancy of the newborn today is 67 years. Why has life expectancy in this country increased by 17 years? One of the most important reasons has been the achievements of medical research, particularly in the diseases of childhood, and in the general field of communicable disease. These research gains would have not been possible without the use of experimental animals. From animal studies has come much of the physician’s present knowledge about and ability to prevent or diagnose and treat diphtheria, syphilis, typhoid fever, smallpox, hookworm, rabies, malaria, and many other infectious diseases. From animal experimentation we have learned most of what we know today about preventing or diagnosing and treating diseases such as pellagra, scurvy, rickets, thyroid disease, and beri beri. Our present knowledge of surgery, of general body function and the function of specific organs, stems largely from working with animals. The new drugs such as penicillin, streptomycin and aureomycin, would not now be saving thousands of human lives had it not been possible to test them on animals. Many of the vaccines and antitoxins for such diseases as rabies, yellow fever, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, typhoid fever, cholera, and meningitis would not be available today were it not for animal research. Furthermore, the safety, purity, and potency of these biological prod- ucts could not be maintained for even one month were it not for the constant testing on animals in the laboratories of the manufacturers. The National Institutes of Health has played an important role in many of these advances in saving human lives. Dr. J. J. Kinyoun, who founded our institution back in 1887, made the first bacteriological diagnosis of cholera in the Western Hemisphere. One of the greatest contributions of research to human welfare was the discovery by Joseph Goldberger of the cause and effective treatment of pellagra. Incidentally, Dr. Goldberger contributed to the welfare of dogs by discovering that black tongue was due to nutritional deficiencies identical to those which caused pellagra in man. Dr. Alice Evans discovered that brucellosis and undulant fever in humans and Bang’s disease in cattle were caused by the same organisms. Dr. Edward Francis outlined virtually everything that is now known about tularemia. Much of our present knowledge of typhus and of Q. fever has growm out of the work of Dr. IE E. Dyer, the present Director of the National Institutes of Health. Armstrong isolated the virus which causes epidemic encephalitis; was the first to transmit the poliomyelitis virus to rats; and discovered the virus of lymphocytic choriomeningitis. A vaccine effective against Rocky Mountain spotted fever was developed by Dr. It. It. Spencer. Typhus vaccine was developed by Cox. Before leaving the laboratory bench for an administrative desk, I and other workers at the institutes developed a serum for the treatment of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and managed to isolate at least one of the viruses that cause the common cold. Dr. William II. Sebrell, now' director of one of the several special institutes which comprise the National Institutes, identified the cause of ariboflavinosis, a nutritional disease, and w'orked out an effective treatment. Dr. Trendlev Dean, now director of our Institute for Dental Research, demonstrated that fluorides in drinking water influenced the incidence of dental caries. There has been much more work at the National Institutes of Health of immediate practical value to the health of individuals and the public generally. That which has been cited proves the point which I started out to make — that the National Institutes of Health has played its part in the research discoveries that have helped to add 17 years to the average life expectancy of every newborn baby in this country. Much of what we have accomplished would not have been possible without the use of animals, including dogs. Goldberger, for example, used scores of dogs over a period of many years in his pellagra work. Without a plentiful supply of these animals, he could not have attained his remarkable results. It should be noted that the accomplishments I have described thus far have been mainly in the field on infectious diseases and diseases due to metabolic or IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 51 nutritional defects. This has been largely true throughout the world of medical research during the past 50 years. This is one of the reasons why practically all of the gain in life expectancy has been confined to infants and adults under middle age. During the past 50 years only 2)4 years has been added to the life expectancy of people who are 40 years old as compared to the 17-year gain for the new born. The net result is that our population is aging. More young people live longer. In 1900 only 18 percent of the population was 45 years old or older but now over 26 percent are in the middle and older age groups. It is estimated that in 1975 more than one-third of the population of this nation will be past 45. This phenomenon is illustrated by the increase in deaths due to the diseases common to the middle and later years of life. In 1900 the death rate from cancer was 64 per hundred thousand population: In 1948 the rate had more than doubled. Over the same period, deaths due to diseases of the heart, kidneys, and circulation rose from 333 per 100,000 population to 466 per 100,000. Today, cancer and diseases of the heart, circulation and kidneys are responsible for 60 percent of all deaths as compared to 23 percent in 1900. The Congress was thinking of this problem when during the past few years it gave special mandates to the Public Health Service to investigate cancer and heart disease. The Congress created a National Cancer Institute and a National Heart Institute and added them to the National Institutes of Health. Recog- nizing another very serious problem, Congress also created a National Institute of Mental Health. This newest part of the National Institutes of Health will help combat the growing menace of mental disease and emotional maladjustment. The size of this problem is only partially represented by the 600,000 patients in the Nation’s crowded mental hospitals. Increased rates for juvenile delinquency, divorce, and crimes of violence are other indications of its seriousness. In addition to creating these new research organizations in chronic disease the Congress through its appropriations function has clearly indicated that it wants the National Institutes of Health to continue the work that still must be done in the fields of infectious disease and in fundamental biological research. In addition, Congress created a Dental Research Institute. In no way has the intent of Congress been made more apparent than in its authorization of the clinical center now under construction at the National Institutes of Health out at Bethesda. This will provide hospital facilities where the laboratory scientists and the bedside doctors and surgeons can work together in the closest possible scientific teamwork for the solution of some of the mysteries of chronic disease in human beings. If animals have been necessary for our research work in the past, they have become doubly necessary now. If dogs have been prerequisite to successful research in the past, they are much more than doubly necessary now that our emphasis has shifted so strongly to the study of chronic disease. Almost without exception, the recent advances that have been made in cardiovascular-disease research have been possible largely through the use of dogs. In developing treatment for congenitally malformed hearts and vessels, the saving of literally hundreds of babies’ lives by the techniques of Doctors Blalock and Taussig, of Baltimore, is a dramatic example of how careful medical research with the dog means dividends in human lives and happiness. In surgery gen- erally and heart surgery particularly dogs have been and will continue to be a fundamental necessity of the research that precedes application of new techniques. An outstanding example is the operation involving the ductus arteriosus performed by Dr. Robert Gross, of Boston, and others. The success of these surgical techniques has given impetus to many stratagems on which researchers are now working; various methods of loosening stiff and constricted heart valves; replacement of faulty parts with pipes and valves of plastics; the use, during operations on the heart, of substitute “mechanical” hearts and lungs; and blood* vessel grafting and transplanting. The striking new operation for coronary thrombosis developed by Dr. Claude Beck, of Cleveland, which constructs a new blood supply line to a patient’s heart out of a grafted vein from his arm, has already saved human life and may prove to be an extremely important operation for persons stricken with heart attacks; it was evolved only because of experimentation with dogs. In all the three most important brackets of heart disease — the rheumatic, the hypertensive, and the coronary — much has been similarly learned and is being applied today. And, if further progress is to be achieved, medical research involving wise use of dogs in these fields must be carried on. Today’s note- worthy gains for human health are but small compared to the advances which 52 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES lie not too far ahead. Of actual human value today, however, are developments such as the use of anticoagulants in certain heart-attack cases, the prevention of recurrent attacks of rheumatic fever (that may cause serious heart injury) by the use of sulfa drugs; low sodium diets and certain surgical technicjues in high blood pressure; and penicillin therapy for bacterial endocarditis. These and many other research developments promise much in the fight against heart diseases. Extensive research in kidney function and other problems of the ageing process which are associated either directly or indirectly with the whole problem of heart and circulatory disease are about ready to begin at Bethesda. Much of this is predicated upon availability of dogs as the most suitable experimental animal. In the past, most cancer research has been of basic types for which mice are better adapted than dogs to the needs of the laboratory. Now, however, many basic discoveries are near the point of clinical application upon human beings. For this purpose large animals are indispensable. We cannot tell, for example, from the reaction of a mouse how a human will react to certain surgical, chemical, or radiation treatments. However, experience has shown that we can often determine from the reaction of a dog, approximately what the effect upon the human patient will be. The two basic methods of treating cancer at the present time are surgery and radiation. In the development of both these methods, research on dogs has been important. The surgical method for removing portions of the stomach, as is done with some gastric cancers and gastric ulcers, was worked out on dogs before being tried on human patients. This one operation has already saved many thousands of lives. A more recent example is the so-called Huggins treatment for prostatic cancer, one of the most baffling forms of the disease. Dr. Charles B. Huggins, of the University of Chicago, a former member of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, undertook his preliminary studies on dogs. Prostatic cancer is very rare among other animals but is frequently found in old dogs. Dr. Huggins, incidentally, hoped to find a method of treatment which would relieve the dogs’ sufferings as well as those of humanity. He was able to show that prostatic cancer could be controlled at least to some extent by the administration of female hormones or by surgery. The Huggins treatment in human patients has often resulted in marked and prolonged remissions of the disease. Radiation, the other basic treatment for cancer, can also be a cause of that disease. Following experiments at the National Cancer Institute on injury by chronic irradiation in mice, studies with dogs at the University of Rochester medical school have indicated alterations in the sperm and other important findings which have thrown new light on the effect of high-energy radiation upon human beings. In this example the larger animals carried forward the work begun upon the smaller. Clinical experience had long indicated that a substance used in the dye industry r beta-naphthylamine, would produce cancer in humans. Efforts to prove the fact were unsatisfactory until Dr. W. C. Hueper of Georgetown University and the National Cancer Institute produced tumors of the bladder in female dogs by prolonged administration of the drug. Repeated experiments with other animals had failed to give conclusive results. Since the results of this work were made known, the dye industry has taken steps to eliminate exposure of workers to this chemical. This experiment has already saved lives and will save others in the future. As to the work now under way at the National Cancer Institute laboratories, I should like to mention research in progress for several years by Dr. Morris K. Barrett into the predisposing factors in gastric cancer. The dog’s stomach more nearly resembles that of man than do the stomachs of most laboratory animals. In our Bethesda laboratories Dr. Barrett has operated on dogs so as to obtain an opening which permits direct observation of the interior of the stomach. The operation does not hurt the dog, it does not even know that it has this opening, and it leads an almost normal existence. Stomachs of humans and dogs have a similar mucous lining which quickly renews itself in case of damage. Close observation can determine if certain foods entering the stomach damage the mucous lining. Already, studies of this kind have eliminated as false some of the clues which have been advanced as a cause of cancer. Dr. M. J. Shear and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute have been testing upon animals more than 1.000 chemicals for possible value in the treat- ment of cancer. Out of each 100 tested, only four or five show any effect. Most of the tests have been made against mouse cancers, but as the more promising IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 53 chemicals approach the stage of clinical use, it is essential to try them on dogs. Some of these experiments have reached this stage. Without a continued, dependable supply of dogs, cancer patients would be deprived of the fruit of many years of research. Some of the work being done with dogs at Bethesda is for their own benefit. Dr. Willard Eyestone, a specialist in veterinary medicine, is working in coopera- tion with the" Naval Medical Center across the highway, on bone tumors in dogs, using radioactive isotopes. Future research depending on an adequate supply of laboratory animals will carry forward all these various lines and open new fields. Dr. Hueper, whose previous work in environmental and occupational cancer has been cited, has opened at Georgetown University the country’s first laboratory for the study of environmental cancer — a broad subject which gives promise of saving- thousands of lives. He will use many dogs to test various compounds used in industries in order to discover those that can cause cancer in workers or users of the product. An ever increasing need will develop for dogs to serve as the indispensable bridge between the research laboratory and the human patient. The role of animals in research into the cause, treatment, and prevention of mental disease is not, at the moment, so clear-cut as in the case of heart disease and cancer research. Important work has already been done in relieving through brain surgery some of the more intractable types of disturbed mentality. Experi- ments with both large and small animals have already made important contribu- tions to our basic knowledge of how the nervous system works, and of habits and reactions. It is safe to say that mental disease research must be vastly increased if important gains are expected. It is certain, therefore, that the research program Congress and the Nation expects of the National Institute of Mental Health will require its quota of animals, including dogs. At Bethesda within the National Institutes of Health are two research organizations which are descended in a straight line from our very beginning. These are the Microbiological Institute and the Institute of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Their laboratories work mainly in the fields of infectious disease and metabolism and in the basic biochemical and biophysical research that is essential to all branches of medicine and public health. Within the Microbio- logical Institute is located the Laboratory of Biologies Control which since 1902 has had legal responsibility to conduct the essential research and administer the regulations for controlling the purity, safety, and potency of biological products used in this country. At present, regulations of this laboratory require animals to be used in testing 86 varieties of serums, vaccines, antitoxins, antigens, arsenical preparations allergenic extracts, toxins, venoms, and tuberculin preparations. While no dogs are presently being used, it is essential that a plentiful supply be readily available for use should an emergency research problem in biologies work arise. While animals of various types, including dogs, are used in almost every aspect of the research program for infectious diseases, dogs are absolutely essential to further advances in nearly all of the tropical and parasitic diseases. As an example, consider the work that was started during the early years of the war on the tropical diseases, elephantiasis and schistosomiasis. Elephantiasis is a dread disease which causes parts of the body to become of enormous size, a diseased leg, for example, sometimes growing until it weighs as much as the rest of the body. At the beginning of the war no satisfactory treat- ment was known for this disease. At the same time it was known that a native American mosquito was capable of transmitting the infection, and therefore the specter of this disease becoming established in the United States confronted us. It was found that dogs were the only animals that, could be used for research in this disease. Scores of chemicals were tried out on dogs infected with the worms that cause the disease. Two were found effective. Thousands of soldiers and sailors infected with the disease were treated and cured. Schistosomiasis is a serious disease of the intestines, bladder, and liver, caused bv a minute parasite which is harbored by certain tropical snails. Thousands of our men were exposed and infected. The known methods of prevention and treatment were unsatisfactory. It was possible that the disease could be brought back and become established in this country. Dogs proved to be the most satisfactory experimental animal. They helped us to develop more effective treatments and better methods for preventing infection by those exposed. Dogs also helped us, after long search, to discover that a snail found in many parts of the country could serve as intermediate host to the parasites. Incidentally, that species of snail was found to be very common in the Potomac river. Dogs 54 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES also helped us find several chemicals which would kill the snails, so providing the comforting assurance that the disease need never become established in this country. Amebiasis is a debilitating, often disabling, and sometimes fatal disease that is widely prevalent in this country. One form is known popularly as amebic- dysentery. Surveys of local rural areas in the South often reveal that as high as 10 percent of the population has amebiasis. There have been serious out- breaks in cities, too — at the Chicago World’s Fair, for example. Both diagnosis and treatment of this disease by presently available methods are unsatisfactory. Our laboratories are working to develop a simpler and more effective diagnostic method, and more effective treatment. There is reason to hope we may succeed. But if we do, it is imperative that we have an adequate supply of dogs. Leptospirosis is another serious tropical disease about which much knowledge needs to be gained and can best be gained with the aid of the dog. More knowl- edge about this disease is essential not only for the benefit of humanity in general, but as insurance that it will never become prevalent in this country. I will mention just two more lines of research of very great importance now in progress at our laboratories which require an adequate supply of dogs for their successful prosecution. Animals other than dogs are much less satisfactory. One of these lines of research is a search for the cause of diabetes. This is par- ticularly important because we are now nearing the limit of the production of insulin; unless further knowledge of the cause of diabetes is obtained, it will become impossible to treat all diabetics. The other line of work is a study of the diseases of nutritional deficiency or of combined deficiency and metabolic diseases such as certain of the anemias. Increase of knowledge concerning the specific causes of these diseases is badly needed. I could mention many other diseases which we are now investigating, or may suddenly be called on to investigate. The main point I want to emphasize is that dogs are essential if we are to carry out the legal mandate of Congress that the United States Public Health Service “ shall conduct * * * research, investigations, experiments, demon- strations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man * * * ” The greatest research activity of the National Institutes of Health has come in the last 5 years. That activity is still increasing. With the completion of our construction program and the beginning of a full scale investigation of the chronic diseases, it will increase a great deal more. We must have hundreds of dogs for this work. Dogs of various types, sizes, and ages. We now have to go through a cumbersome, expensive, and unsatis- factory process of advertising and bids. Sometimes we get satisfactory bids, sometimes not. Sometimes we can get the exact types of dogs we need, sometimes not. During the past 5 years we have managed to obtain 602 dogs at an average cost of $5 each. With the growth of medical research in the Washington area, and in the whole eastern part of the country, there is no assurance that we will be able to get enough dogs of the right sort to carry out our work if we are compelled to rely solely on the commercial dealers. In the meanwhile, thousands of unclaimed dogs are uselessly sacrificed each year at the District of Columbia pound. By every rule of reason and of concern for humanity, those dogs should be permitted to do their part for the relief of human suffering and the lengthening of human life. The scientists at Bethesda are not cruel monsters. Many of them are men and women who in the evening go back to homes where a pet dog is a loved and respected member of the family. In our laboratories, we handle all laboratory animals with the necessary care and attention. We do this not only because of natural instincts and training, but also because it is the best scientific procedure. Strict rules regarding the humane care and use of experimental animals have been enforced for a great many years at the National Institutes of Health. The}' will continue to be enforced. A copy of these rules is offered for the record. We are hard pressed at the moment for adequate space. The animals are crowded in some of the laboratories. So are human scientists and their helpers. In spite of our temporary lack or elbowroom, we welcome visitors now as we have always in the past. Anyone who wishes may, at any time during working hours, visit the animal quarters o- any laboratory where work with animals is going on. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 55 We are just as proud of our animal helpers as we are of our record for research that has helped prolong human life and reduce human suffering. That research would not have been possible without dogs. Further accomplishment will be seriously hampered without dogs. The Chairman. All right, doctor. Dr. Topping. I have in this prepared statement, Madam Chairman, presented the programs in research of the National Institute of Health. That includes the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart Institute, the National Institute for Mental Health, the National Dental Research Institute. I am sure you will all recall the passage of those bills in the last few sessions of Congress. I would like to speak for just a moment, beside the written statement that I have made, to the point that the Federal Government through the Public Health Service is making a tremendous effort in medical research. It is making also a tremendous effort in medical research through the Army, through the Navy, through the Veterans’ Administration, and other organizations. In the District of Columbia and the immediate environs are some of the most important agencies for medical research in the country. Most of them, a lot of them, are sponsored by the Federal Govern- ment, financed by the Federal Government. Besides that, there are the three medical schools — George Washington, Georgetown, and Howard University. There is the finest medical library in the world in Washington, the Surgeon General’s Library of the Army. There is the fine National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. There is the Army Medical Center at Walter Reed. There is the Bureau of Animal Industry in the Department of Agriculture. These various organizations within Washington I have listed here. They are being supported by Federal funds. I am sure that you three Senators will recall the long debate on the appro- priation bill for the Federal Security Agency on the floor of the Senate, with the amendments that were made over and above the appropriations that were made in the House and in the Senate committee for medical research. The point that I would like to make is that with the great effort that the Federal Government is expending in time and money and in all the facilities that are being built, that it is also necessary, in order to fully utilize those funds in that effort, that every single thing be done that possibly can be done to support the effort, in finding the cause and cure of cancer, in finding the cause and cure of heart disease, and mental health. I think, then, that we must recognize that dogs are a part of the total picture in the animals that are so necessary' — that Dr. Blalock has explained to you — that are so necessary in medical research. If that is true, and the rest of the witnesses I am sure can prove it to you, then this bill is necessary, that the District of Columbia and its environs, with all of the opportunities that we have here, can truly become a real medical center of the United States. With the Federal money that is going in, it seems it is almost necessary that this bill be passed to insure that part of the cog, just one of the small cogs of the total teaching and total medical research effort, can be fully utilized in the production of our knowledge, the increase in our knowledge, that we can go forward with medical research as we have in the past. 56 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES I would also like to present to you this morning a copy of a letter, Senator McGrath, that the Surgeon General sent to you, which authorizes me to speak not only for myself this morning, but for the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, urging you to seriously consider the passage of this hill so necessary in the advance in medicine in the United States. Senator McGrath. No questions. The Chairman. Do you have any questions, Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. No. It was a very good statement, doctor. The Chairman. Thank you very much, doctor. The letter which you presented will be incorporated, without objection, into the record. (The letter from the Surgeon General dated May 20, 1949, is as follows:) May 20, 1949. A. L. Wheeler, Clerk, Committee on the District of Columbia, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Wheeler: Thank you very much for your letter of May 17, inviting me to appear before your committee on May 24 to testify on S. 1703. While I will not be able to appear personally on that date, I understand a separate invitation has been sent to Dr. Norman H. Topping, Associate Director of our National Institutes of Health. Under the circumstances, I am sure Dr. Topping can speak for the Service, as well as for himself, in support of this bill. I am enclosing a letter addressed to the chairman of your committee, author- izing Dr. Topping to express the viewpoint of the Service on this bill. If you believe it advisable, the attached letter could be incorporated into the record of the hearings, in lieu of any statement on the bill itself. Sincerely yours, Leonard A. Scheele, Surgeon General. The Chairman. Mr. Richards from Chicago, 111. Will you give us your name. STATEMENT OF C. E. RICHARDS, CHICAGO, ILL., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ANTIVIVISECTION SOCIETY Mr. Richards. My name is C. E. Richards. I represent the National Anti vivisection Society. I am here briefly to put our organization on record against this bill. Representative Miller seemed rather surprised that people outside of the District of Columbia were interested in this measure. I should have reminded him, if I had had the opportunity — but 1 do not think it is necessary to remind you — that all of the property in the District of Columbia belongs to the people of the United States. I think that takes care of the fact that people in California are interested in it. A statement was made that we have anticruelty laws. They do not applv to vivisection. Everyone knows that. Many States have specific examples against application of these laws to vivisection. Senator McGrath. What is the situation in the District? Do you happen to know? Mr. Richards. No, I do not. Senator McGrath. You are not a doctor, are you? Mr. Richards. No, I am not. 1 do know this, however, that in all cases where vivisectors have been brought to a court on a charge of cruelty, those cases have been dismissed not because of the acts IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 57 that they committed, but because of a definition and interpretation of the word “cruelty.” There must be an intent to be cruel. I do wish that in all the testimony given before this committee someone would stop and ask one doctor, “Let us say that you were not cruel; but did the animal suffer?” That is the point. Of course, they were not cruel under the dictionary definition of cruelty. Senator McGrath. I do not intend to be argumentative with you. I am very anxious to get your side of this argument, and I want to cooperate in getting it. But under the definition of cruelty, the pound officer could be prosecuted because the animal suffers when he puts an animal to death. Mr. Richards. No, he has no disposition to make that animal suffer. There is the point in cruelty. Senator McGrath. Does a research technician have a disposition to make the animal suffer? Mr. Richards. No, that is why he is not guilty of cruelty. But animals do suffer, nevertheless. Senator McGrath. If you make cruelty the test of the subject of prosecution, both the technician in the laboratory and the pound- keeper would be subject to prosecution. Mr. Richards. That is the point exactly. That is why you •cannot convict them under any existing law, no matter how much an animal may suffer. What would be mere discomfort to a vivi- sector in anything done to an animal, might be extremely cruel to you or to me, because we have a different definition in our mind of what cruelty is. To prove that point, here is a letter from Dr. Edmund W. Sinnott, director of the Yale University Sheffield Scientific School. This happens to be the original letter. It is addressed to Mrs. C. H. Stine, and this is what he says: Thank you for your letter of February 20 — that is 1948 — The problem of the use of animals in research laboratories is always a vexing one and there is no question but that many of them do suffer. I submit that for your record. The Chairman. Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record. (The letter from Dr. Edmund W. Sinnott, Yale University, dated February 24, 1948, is as follows:) Yale University, Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven, Conn., February 24, 1948. Mrs. C. H. Stine, Lowville, N. Y. Dear Mrs. Stine: Thank you for your letter of February twentieth. The problem of the use of animals in research laboratories is always a vexing one and there is no question but that many of them do suffer. In most laboratories every effort is made, however, to prevent as much of this suffering as possible and, I think, successfully. Of course, we must remember the very terrible sufferings which human beings continue to have as a result of many diseases which have not yet been conquered by medicine, and we should balance this against the sufferings of animals. We can often grow sympathetic over the poor beasts, but too often, I am afraid, we fail to remember the even greater 58 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES agonies of those for whose relief these animals are in pain. Therefore, I should he much opposed to any plan which might limit our use of animal experimentation in medicine, a goal to which many well meaning hut somewhat thoughtless people are now devoting themselves. With best regards, I am Yours very truly, Edmund W. Sinnott. Senator McGrath. Wliat does he say about the necessity of using animals? Mr. Richards. He very definitely says Senator McGrath. They are necessary? Mr. Richards. Oh, yes, of course; but there is an admission that animals do suffer. Senator McGrath. Does that not bring us to a dilemma, if they are necessary and they do suffer, some animal has to suffer. It is just a question of whether the animal that comes from the pound or the animal that is stolen on the highway. Mr Richards. It is a question of who determines whether it is necessary or not. If you will recall, Senator, when they cut off the supply of rubber from China or from Java, they said we could not win the war if the rubber supply was cut off. But we went right ahead and found an adequate substitute for rubber. As I recall, we did win the war. Senator McGrath. You as a layman are testifying now that if we did not permit experimentation on animals, that some other way would probably be found to cure these human diseases? Mr. Richards. That is my belief, yes. Senator McGrath. That is your belief as a layman. But the man whom you bring forward here as your witness does not agree with you. He says that they are necessary. Mr. Richards. But that is not the question I raised in the first place. Senator McGrath. Let me ask you this: Are you able to produce any witnesses for us, medical witnesses, who will contradict the testimony that we have received from these doctors? Mr. Richards. Thousands of them. Senator McGrath. Doctors? Mr. Richards. Yes. Senator McGrath. Are you going to produce some? Mr. Richards. We will produce evidence from the scientific journals themselves that there is much suffering in laboratories written by doctors. Senator McGrath. I am not speaking about suffering. I am speaking about the question of the necessity of use of these animals if we are going to make progress in the field of human diseases. Are you going to produce any medical testimony to say that dogs and cats and other animals are not necessary? Mr. Richards. I am not, no, because that is not within my province. But other witnesses undoubtedly will. Senator McGrath. Do you think there is a school of medical people who feel that it is not necessary to Mr. Richards. I can tell you that the National Anti-Vivisection Society has something over 400 medical doctors as its members. Senator McGrath. We would be interested in knowing about that. Mr. Richards. That is true. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 59 Senator McGrath. Do you have any of the doctors appearing* before us? Mr. Richards. I do not know. I am just one witness who was rushed in to give a little bit of evidence. The main thing we are concerned with, rather I am concerned with, is to give you a picture of what has happened in Chicago and what I think is "almost certain to happen in Washington. It is just this. Some months ago we conducted a poll — I know that polls are not in very good repute in Washington today, or any place else — ■ but we did it as honestly as we could. We put some questions to 13,564 persons. These questions were worded, and I think honestly, to get a yes or no answer. Here is the result: 89 percent of those people knew what vivisection was. Senator Hunt. Excuse me. Would you mind to read the question? Mr. Richards. I will get to it in just a moment, the question. Senator Hunt. I would like to have the question before I get the results. Mr. Richards. One is: Do you know what vivisection is? Eighty- nine percent of the people knew what vivisection was; five percent apparently never had heard the word; and another six percent had notions so vague that they were not questioned further. Then our next question was: If you knew that the dog pound was holding dogs and sending them to laboratories, would you send any dog there? Eightv-nine percent of those who knew what vivisection was, 67 percent favored it; 23 percent said they were opposed to it; but 94 percent of the people who replied to that questionnaire said they would not send the dog to the dog pound if they knew that that dog was going to the pound and then to the laboratory. The result of all the agitation in Chicago has been that the number of dogs going to the medical schools from the Chicago dog pound has dropped from 10,000, 3 years ago to 4,000 last year. Senator McGrath. How are the medical schools in Chicago getting dogs now? Mr. Richards. Trucking them in from out-of-State dog suppliers. Senator McGrath. Are you not just as much interested in those dogs as you are in dogs that are in a pound? Mr. Richards. Yes; we are. We are absolutely and completely opposed to the practice of vivisection, the organization I represent. But this bill does not attempt to ban vivisection. It does not attempt to stop the doctors from getting dogs in any way they see fit. So I see no point in arguing the question whether vivisection is good or bad. The Chairman. That is the question we are most interested in and want to get all the information we can on. Mr. Richards. I was not so informed. I was informed that we would stick to the provisions of Senate bill 1703. The Chairman. You may proceed, if you wih; Senator Hunt. May I ask the witness a question? The Chairman. Yes, Senator Hunt. Senator Hunt. What point are you trying to make? Mr. Richards. I am trying to make the point that if you pass this bill, the people of Washington will no longer call the pound when they have a stray dog. They will turn that dog loose on the streets; and 60 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES instead of having a stray dog situation here, you will have a strav dog problem here. 1 suppose that 9 persons out of 10 approve of capital punishment, but I doubt very much if any one of those 10 would be willing to throw the switch. Whether it is good or bad, vivisection is still a dirty business. The average person wants no part of it. Senator Hunt. May I ask you, you saw these three kiddies here today. Mr. Richards. That is right. Senator Hunt. From the testimony given, we can only draw one conclusion: That they either would not be alive today or "they would be invalids. We also heard the doctor testify that that operation could not have been perfected on any animal excepting a dog. Are you taking the position between human lives and dogs? Mr. "Richards. Not at all. Senator Hunt. You certainly are doing nothing else but, in the position you have just taken. Mr. Richards. You are interpreting my remarks to suit your own views. Senator Hunt. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am just inter- preting what you said. Mr. Richards. If Dr. Blalock were still here, I think he would tell you that Mr. Brock — English surgeons are not called doctor, by the way — developed exactly this same operation. He would also tell you that since 1876, animal experimentation for the purpose of acquiring manual dexterity has been forbidden in England. He said to you that even with the outline he had already made, no doctor would dare perform this operation. You will recall that state- ment. Then on top of that he told you that Dr. Brock was now performing the same operation. But Dr. Brock is not permitted by law to work on a dog. Senator Hunt. Did you not understand him to say he learned the operation from him when he was over there in his hospital? Mr. Richards. Working on human beings, exactly. Senator Hunt. Using the knowledge he gained through dogs. So the doctor in England got the knowledge indirectly from the operation on dogs. Do you not know that the death rate in England is con- siderably lower than it is in the United States? Mr. Richards. Lower? That is an excellent point for the British surgeons then, who do not use dogs. Senator Hunt. My statement is absolutely wrong. The death rate in the United States today is 10.7 per thousand. In England it is nearly 13 per thousand. Mr. Richards. The members of the National Anti-Vivisection Society are now and will be continually opposed to this bill and all such other bills. One doctor told you that Minnesota had passed such a bill. He carefully refrained from telling you that three other States had killed such bills — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois; and in two of those States there was a full public hearing on exactly the same sort of measure that you have here today. The Chairman. Do you know how many States there are having antivivisection laws? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 61 Mr. Richards. None, except the State of Maine, which I believe prohibits the use of public money for vivisection, a law passed during the time Governor Baxter was in. Senator McGrath. Are there any States that have laws that specifically prevent their public offices from turning over stray dogs to hospitals? Mr. Richards. State laws? I believe not There are some muni- cipal ordinances. Senator McGrath. I suppose you would not know how many pound officers there are around the United States that do turn these dogs over for Mr. Richards. I have not the faintest idea. Senator McGrath. Has your association ever tried to determine the extent to which the action of pound offices makes it necessary to have specific legislation on the subject? Mr. Richards. We know fairly accurately the number of pounds in the United States which do not turn over dogs to laboratories. Senator McGrath. Could you give us figures on that? Mr. Richards. Yes, there are about two hundred and six-some- odd pounds that destroy their dogs. I think there are only about six that permit municipal — that is six municipal pounds — that permit dogs to go to laboratories. Senator McGrath. How many pounds are there in the United States? Mr. Richards. It is impossible to answer that. Probably every small town has something they call a pound. Senator McGrath. In other words, 206 out of the total number which may run into the thousands? Mr. Richards. Those are large cities on which we have had occasion to check. The Chairman. I would just like to make a little statement. We are always concerned with the stopping of suffering; that is, the mem- bers of your society are, of course. That is the basic aim of the medical profession. We have charitable organizations that look after and care for human indigents wffio cannot and do not take care of themselves. Do we have the same thing for stray dogs who cannot care for themselves, and is your organization doing anything by way of recommending procedure? Mr. Richards. No. We leave that entirely to the American Humane Association and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Our organization thus far is strictly an educational society. It is our job and our purpose to convince people that by bringing a suffi- cient pressure, doctors eventually will eliminate vivisectoin themselves. We know that. We do not expect to eliminate vivisection by law. We think that as medicine progresses, they will find a way to get rid of it. As a matter of fact, it has been done in three or four specific instances already. At one time certain drugs had to be tested on animals. Three of these drugs today can be tested by a chemical analysis. That testimony, I believe, will be put in the record by other witnesses. E. R. Squibb & Co. used to test digitalis on cats to determine how many units would throw a cat into convulsions. 62 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Then some smart boy came up with the idea of testing it in another way, perfected it; and now they no longer use cats. The Chairman. Did that not come out of the experiments on cats? Mr. Richards. No, it did not. It came out of some chemist’s laboratory, as most of our good things have come from. The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Admiral H. L. Pugh. STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. H. L. PUGH, DEPUTY SURGEON GENERAL OF THE NAVY Admiral Pugh. I am Admiral H. L. Pugh, Deputy Surgeon General of the Navy. I am appearing as a representative of Admiral Swanson. I have here a statement which would require about 10 minutes, but I will submit the statement for the record and will read a few paragraphs from it. The Chairman. Your statement will be incorporated in the record. (The statement submitted by Rear Adm. H. L. Pugh is as follows:) Statement by Rear Adm. H. L. Pugh, Medical Corps, United States Navy, Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery The use of animals for scientific purposes, and particularly for medical research, should require no defense. Within the provisions of statutes of this type, lies the future of medical progress, and the very health and welfare not only of residents of the District but of all mankind. The defeat of such a measure tends to dim the candle of medical research, thereby impeding scientific progress throughout this great Nation, and will slowly but surely cause us to drift back to a state of ignorance and fear and prejudice characteristic of the Dark Ages. For medical progress will come to a dead halt without the use of experimental animals; the war against cancer, heart disease, infantile paralysis, and many other fatal diseases will be lost. Because of the unavailability, in some municipalities, of impounded animals for scientific purposes, animals are exterminated in numbers entirely adequate to meet the needs of all the laboratories engaged in scientific investigation. As a result they must be purchased from dealers. Research institutions have no way of evaluating the integrity of such dealers, and it is certain that many stolen pets come to laboratories through these channels. As the results of these im- practical regulations, a “bootleg” business has been fostered. The bill now under consideration eliminates, to a substantial degree, the objections to the present methods of procurement, and makes it possible to obtain healthy animals for scientific purposes shortly after they have been im- pounded, when they are more apt to be in a satisfactory state of nutrition and general health. The program provided by the bill permits of an adequate super- vision of the using facilities by the health officer, which in itself is a most whole- some advance in the public interest. Many people who do not have deep-rooted feelings against the use of animals in research wish that the use of dogs could be avoided. This feeling is admittedly based on emotional rather than logical considerations, but is an understandable one. The size, the anatomical structures, and the physiological mechanisms of the dog make him the only animal suitable for certain types of work. That lifesaving biological, insulin, was developed through research on 30 dogs, yet today and every day it is estimated that insulin is saving 500,000 men, women, and children from certain early death. Ask any severe diabetic the debt he owes to those 30 animals. Thousands of patients with pernicious anemia are now alive and well and able to earn a livelihood thanks to liver extract which was discovered by medical research upon a number of dogs who were bled until they were anemic and then given the magic fraction in liver which kept them alive and restored them to health, without the loss of a single animal. The principle of the iron lung was developed at the cost of 24 homeless cats lawfully impounded and made available for scientific purposes. But for the aegis of supervised medical research we never would have had knowledge of the sulfa drugs, of plasma, and of penicillin whose lifesaving qualities IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 63 were repeatedly and extensively demonstrated throughout the last global conflict. Today, the march of modern medicine continues a pace as witnessed by the advent of the newer antibiotics streptomycin, aureomycin, and Chloromycetin. And the field is far from exhausted, provided the law continues to uphold the principle of scientific inves igation on laboratory animals. During the Civil War, 100 percent of all combatants who sustained perforating wounds of the abdomen died of peritonitis. During World War II 80 percent of such casualties recovered. Penetrating injuries of the skull claimed 95 percent of their victims before Dr. Harvey Cushing developed brain surgery, based on animal investigation, to the stature of a science and reduced the mortality from wounds of this type by 85 percent. At the turn of the crntury, 60,000 babies were strangled to death by diphtheria every year until animal experimentation led to the discovery of antitoxin and, later, the development of diphtheria toxoid to prevent this otherwise highly fatal disease. Similar investigations have led to the discovery of vitamin K (standardized on mice and rats) which prevents postnatal hemorrhage in the newborn and to the Rh factor (discovered in the rhesus monkey) which formerly caused many stillbirths and produced severe and even fatal reactions from blood transfusions because it was unknown. The fact that hundreds of drugs and procedures are tried on animals and dis- carded for everyone that goes on to a clinical trial is adequate demonstration of the danger that would be incident to testing new methods originally on human patients. Elimination of the animal stage of medical research would almost pre- clude any great advances in medical knowledge and treatment. Wartime research in which dogs participated led to the saving of lives and limbs of our men who fought the war aboard ship and ashore. You will remember that during the early days of the war in the Southwest Pacific, malaria threatened the life and health of our men and even the success of some military operations. The antimalarial drugs available left much to be desired for the treatment of certain forms of malaria. Specifically there was need for better remedies to save the lives of the victims of a malignant cer.ebral form which affects the brain causing rapidly developing unconsciousness and death unless prompt treatment is given. A study was undertaken to determine whether or not some of the newer drugs being investigated under the sponsorship of the National Research Council could be used intravenously with less danger and more effectiveness than quinine and atabrine. A series of dogs first participated in this studv in order to determine approximately the dose suitable for man. Following this it was possible for the scientist and his coworkers who conducted this research to subject themselves to intravenous injections of these drugs in dosages calculated to be approximately correct from the observations made during the work with the dogs. It was thereby determined that this drug could be given to man intravenously with significantly less danger than quinine or atabrine. Without the dog this progress in the search for better antimalarials could not have been made at that time. Indeed, animal experimentation has brought untold benefit in the form of lessened suffering and longer life to many millions of animals as well as to hundreds of thousands of human beings. No longer need dogs die from hookworm infesta- tions, from rabies or from distemper; nor hogs die by the hundreds of cholera; nor cattle abort from Bangs’ disease and thus gradually eliminate whole herds. Experimental animals are better fed, better housed, and treated with greater consideration and kindness in medical schools and scientific laboratories than they are in most households. Many of our animal houses are air conditioned for the comfort of the experimental animals, while the investigators must sweat it out in their unconditioned laboratories. The statement that unnecessary cruelty attends animal experimentation is utterly without foundation. The actual facts are that 95 percent of experimental animals undergo no greater pain than does the diabetic taking his shot of insulin or the infant or preschool child receiving an inoculation of diphtheria toxoid or smallpox vaccine, because 95 percent of all laboratory animals are used to stand- ardize serums and vaccines and to purify biological products prior to human ad- ministration. The remaining 5 percent which are employed for experimental medical and surgical procedures and for teaching purposes receive the same careful preoperative and postoperative care and the same anesthesia given to human patients. But suppose no animals were available for such purposes and the young surgeon had to learn surgical technique by trial and error on human beings. Would you want such a surgeon to operate on you or some member of your family? 64 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES For both humanitarian and scientific reasons anesthesia is used in every situa- tion in which it would be employed in human beings, and when anesthesia is not used the greatest of care is employed to prevent the animal from experiencing pain or fear. Everyone is in favor of kindness to animals. This is a basic tenet of human decency which is respected and revered by medical students, interns, research workers, and laboratory scientists all over the country. Any investigator who inflicts needless pain on any animal is subject to fine and imprisonment for ! violation of humane laws that prevail in all States, and rightly so. But the painless sacrifice of an animal’s life for the welfare of mankind can never be i construed as a misdemeanor. The city of Chicago has an ordinance which permits recognized medical schools , and licensed laboratories free access to homeless* animals sentenced to death in the city pound. Yet, in San Francisco, Cleveland, New York, and Boston i local ordinances prohibits their universities, city hospitals and research institu- | t.ions from using lawfully impounded, unclaimed animals for scientific purposes. As a result, 33,000 such animals in Boston alone are rendered into soap or fertilizer or both, each year. Which shall it be — soap and fertilizer — or salvation from cancer and freedom from disease? Admiral Pugh. The use of animals for scientific purposes and particularly for medical research should require no defense. Within the provisions of statutes of this type lies the future of medical progress, and the very health and welfare not only of residents of the District, but of all mankind. The defeat of such a measure tends to dim the candle of medical research, thereby impeding scientific progress throughout this great Nation, and will slowly, but surely, cause us to drift back to a state of ignorance and fear and prejudice character- istic of the Dark Ages. For medical progress will come to a dead halt without the use of experimental animals; the war against cancer, heart disease, infantile paralysis, and many other fatal diseases will be lost. Because of the unavailability, in some municipalities, of impounded animals for scientific purposes, animals are exterminated in numbers entirely adequate to meet the needs of all the laboratories engaged in scientific investigation. As a result, they must be purchased from dealers. Research institutions have no way of evaluating the integrity of such dealers, and it is certain that many stolen pets come to laboratories through these channels. As the results of these impractical regulations, a “bootleg” business has been fostered. Everyone is in favor of kindness to animals. This is a basic tenet of human decency which is respected and revered by medical students, interns, research workers, and laboratory scientists all over the country. Any investigator who inflicts needless pain on any animal is subject to fine and imprisonment for violation of humane laws that prevail in all States, and rightly so. But the painless sacrifice of an animal’s life for the- welfare of mankind can never be construed as a misdemeanor. For both humanitarian and scientific reasons anesthesia is used in every situation in which it would be employed in human beings, and when anesthesia is not used, the greatest of care is employed to prevent the animal from experiencing pain or fear. The city of Chicago has an ordinance which permits recognized medical schools and licensed laboratories free access to homeless animals sentenced to death in the city pound. Yet, in San Francisco, Cleveland, New York, and Boston, local ordinances prohibit their IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 65 universities, city hospitals, and research institutions from using lawfully impounded, unclaimed animals for scientific purposes. As a result, 33,000 such animals in Boston alone are rendered into soap or fertilizer or both, each year. And it seems to me that the question here boils down to which shall it be: soap or fertilizer, or salvation from cancer and freedom from disease? The Chairman. Admiral, thank you very much. I personally know of many of your accomplishments in the Naval Bureau of Medicine, and I saw many of the things that have been done in the Pacific when I was out there, and I do appreciate having you come in and tell us this very much. Admiral Pugh. Thank you. I would say this, that to cause suffering to an animal vitiates or nullifies the object of the experiment in many instances. If you hurt him or scare him, you do not get the result you are looking for, and it is absolutely essential to keep that animal from suffering. I will say this, that we have the finest animal house in the Nation, if not in the world, at Bethesda. It is air-conditioned, and you may go out to see it, any of you, or any member of any society or com- mittee; and they will agree that those animals live under more com- fortable conditions insofar as the temperature and ventilation is concerned than many of the doctors who work upon them. The Chairman. Admiral, I have been out and been through and have seen some of the things you are carrying on. I also visited the little laboratory that you have out in Cairo, and I wonder if the public realizes or knows anything about the work that you are doing which could be of very great assistance in future wars, especially if they came in the Middle East? I am not talking for or against this bill. I am simply talking about the accomplishments of the Navy in the past few years. Senator, do you have any questions? Senator Hunt. No, I have none. The Chairman. Thank you ever so much. The committee will recess until 2:15 this afternoon. (Thereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed until 2:15 p. m.) (The committee reconvened at 2:15 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.) The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We will proceed with the hearing on S. 1703. For those who were not in here this morning, I would like to repeat that we are trying to get all the information that we can from all who have had anything to contribute. We are asking that there be no demonstrations made, both because it interferes with the testimony and it requires time that we need to give the witnesses. We have a long list of witnesses. We want to give everybody a chance who has anything to contribute. But we hope if it is repeti- tion, you will permit us to extend your statements in the record of the hearings, that we may study them before we act on the bill. We will hear first from Mr. Robert F. Sellar, president of the American Humane Association. 6G IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. SELLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION Mr. Sellar. I have changed my statement three times now in the interest of brevity, and I think I boiled it down to what is considered essential. I will hope to be able to get it all in the record. I will eliminate who I am, who I represent, except to say that I represent the humane movement in the Western Hemisphere to a very large degree. There are 600 humane societies in the United States proper. We have a society in Hawaii, Alaska, Mexico, many in Canada, and one in Cuba. I have a roster here which would support my claim that I represent that group in case you should want it. I have just returned from a tour of the Middle West, where there has been an epidemic of bills similar to Senate 1703, all seeking to force from dog pounds and animal shelters for scientific experimenta- tion the surrender of animals, most of them pets which have endeared themselves to their owners to the point where they are considered members of the family circle. Filled as I am with the viewpoint of this multitude that I contacted individually and with groups, I find it a little hard not to speak at length on what it means to lose a pet or to have it die from natural causes, let alone his forceful seizure and subjection to excruciating pain and agony preceding its death. You have been told that the commercial laboratories and medical laboratories are seeking dogs which will be destroyed following a retention of from two to a dozen days ; that they will be anesthetized as carefully and tenderly as are members of the human family when facing a surgical operation; that if used in a study which necessitates survival, they will be given post-operative care such as is given to human patients; that if used for the purpose of acquiring or teaching or improving surgical techniques, they will not be permitted to regain consciousness. In every hearing I have attended, doctors of the highest standing have made it appear that no pain or suffering is involved. May I state right here, however, that as compared with most of these doctors that I have been in contact with for the past weeks, the doctors who appeared here this morning have been more fair and more prone to keep down to the limits and to represent the thing more clearly than any other groups. 1 have been visiting medical laboratories, research laboratories, for over a period of 32 years; and I am prepared to speak under oath or anywhere else, if necessary, that, except with rare exception, the conditions in laboratories as represented by scientists are not true. Y\ hat was it that defeated the Sherman Miles bill and stripped the Nolen-Miles bill in Massachusetts of its surrender provisions? A recess study commission was appointed by the Governor, the senate, and the house of representatives and they visited medical schools and laboratories over a wide area and found that actual conditions and practices refuted the claims made by these men. Speaking as a practical animal man, realizing that the same degree of sanitation maintained in the care of human beings cannot be expected when dealing with animals, I charge in all honesty that the conditions under which many laboratory animals are kept prior to IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 67 and following operations are deplorable and inexcusable. You will find this hard to believe, but it is true. I would, if I had not been so close to the situation. There are exceptions to this, as there are to most general situations. Many animals are anesthetized and not permitted to regain con- sciousness, and the success of many studies demands post-operative care of high degree. But in stressing these claims, the proponents of this bill should not be permitted to create the impression, as they have done everywhere similar bills have been introduced, that acute and prolonged suffering such as you would not submit your own pet to, is the exception rather than the rule. Nor do I feel you would condemn your neighbor’s pet to a fate worse than a merciful death; and if that is true, you will hardly feel that you can support the bill before you because practically every so-called stray is an owned dog; and to carry the theme just a little further, is not the occasional homeless ownerless dog entitled to the same merciful consideration? Call that pure sentiment or whatever you will. It makes sense to millions of our fellow citizens actuated by humane principles who would like to be registered in opposition to this bill. The proponents of the bill would have you believe that advancement in medical science would cease if an unlimited supply of animals, principally dogs, is not constantly available. That claim was made during the Massachusetts hearings, but careful questioning on the part of com- mittee members brought forth the information that no handicap had been experienced up to that time, but that $5 per dog was too much to pay. That would certainly be true if the experience of a Chicago scientist is common to all who use pound dogs in their operations. He stated that while connected with Washington University, he used dogs purchased from the St. Louis pound for $5 each and that in making extensive studies, it was not unusual to be forced to discard 19 out of 20 animals because of the development of distemper and other ailments which rendered them unfit for his purpose after his projects were well under way. That means he was paying $100 for the one surviving dog he found suitable for his purpose. On the other hand, he stated that no such difficulty was experienced while he was working at Johns Hopkins University where dogs were raised for prolonged study projects and were never exposed to contagious disease. Dogs such as these 19 are what the laboratories would be getting under the provisions of bills such as we are considering today. Aged, diseased, and injured animals make up the bulk of those destroyed in public pounds and Humane Society shelters, and they are admittedly not suited to the needs of scientific groups and individuals. Young healthy animals for the most part are claimed by their owners — some almost immediately and others after the expiration of from 1 to 4 weeks. Those not claimed are placed in new homes with the understanding that they will be restored to their original owners whenever located. Various reasons contribute to what we might consider neglect in failure to search promptly and vigorously for a lost animal. Sickness, absence from home, the assumption that he will eventually find his way back, and many other circumstances enter the picture, delaying reunion between a pet and its owner or keeper, and, during this time, 68 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES under the provisions of a law such as is being promoted here, it would in all likelihood wind up in a laboratory from where there would be no return. I am not professionally qualified to pass on the merits or demerits of vivisection, nor is this the time and place for such discussion. These bills deal exclusively with the supply of animals to fill claimed labora- tory needs, and I am qualified to touch on the waste and unnecessary sacrifice of animal life on the altar of scientific research. About a year ago I visited the medical school in Louisville, Ky., which for years has enjoyed the reputation for caring for animals prior to, during and after surgery better than any other school in the whole country. There were six groups of four students each, and to each group was assigned a dog. In every case, the dog was seized and forced to the floor and a cloth thoroughly saturated with chloroform, or ether, was held tight against its nose. Unconsciousness followed a period of pitiful struggle and strangulation. Each animal was then placed on a table and a circular piece of bone about an inch in diameter was cut out of the skull and an electrode was inserted into the brain. The one and only purpose of this project was to demonstrate that a shock or injury to one side of the brain produces a contraction of muscles of the legs on the opposite side. That is a crude explanation of cause and effect, but nothing new was demonstrated. Everyone who has had a broad experience with in- jured animals has known of this phenomena, or whatever else you want to term it, for years. Why was it necessary to sacrifice six ani- mals to demonstrate a known fact? Why was it necessary to sacrifice even one when the textbooks already contained the information? Each one of these students must be trained to administer anes- thesia. That being the case, and if it was felt necessary to use sLx dogs instead of one, why was not each animal carefully placed upon a table and the same careful technique followed as in the case of operations upon humans? Undoubtedly many more animals were and are being used in training in the use of anesthetics. Waste and more waste and sacrifice of ani- mal life in the face of the claim that laboratories must have all of those that are unfortunate enough to land in public pounds and privately operated animal shelters. A few years ago I attended a meeting of doctors and surgeons and was much impressed as was everyone present by the showing of motion pictures depicting operational technique. If animals must be used, it seems sensible to suggest that the media of motion pictures be utilized to the fullest extent toward the end that less instead of more animals be used. Two bills similar to Senate 1703 were introduced in the Massachu- setts Legislature. The Sherman-Miles bill was defeated. The Nolen- Miles bill, stripped of its seizure provisions, is resting in committee. A bill of like character has been referred back to the committee in Pennsylvania. The Minnesota Legislature passed its pound bill without contest, simply because no opportunity was given for the people to be heard. Every effort will be made, however, to bring about its repeal. According to the latest information which has reached me, the Oklahoma bill is up for its third reading in the senate, but there are good reasons for feeling it will not pass. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 69 The Wisconsin bill is still in committee. The California measure is still pending, but it contains no com- pulsory surrender provision. The Illinois bill was killed in committee, simply because the people were given an opportunity to be heard. Since public sentiment in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, California, Illinois, and in other places is so pronounced in opposition to bills similar to the one before this committee, isn’t it logical to assume that the voice of America, could it be given an opportunity to be fully heard, would be registered overwhelmingly in opposition to this measure in Washington, D. C., the heart of the Nation? Most of the humane societies which I represent have been operating over a period of from 50 to 75 years. The membership of these and the general membership of the American Humane Association is composed of many of the most ardent antivivisectionists in the country. On the other hand, we have probably a larger group who feel that reasonably limited and controlled animal experimentation is necessary. They are all of one mind in the matter of the common everyday practices of cruelty which take place in the home, on the streets and highways, in the stockyards, in motion pictures, on the farms, in pet shops and many other places. In common with all right-thinking men and women, and this in- cludes many doctors and scientists, they abhor the need, or claimed need, for the suffering of animals used in laboratories, and let me em- phasize this above all else: They are preponderantly opposed to these animal seizure measures. I cannot overly emphasize the contribution these societies make in the interest of public health and safety. Every dog on the loose for even a few days is a potential rabies menace, although the fox is admittedly the principle carrier as far as livestock is concerned. Most of the men who have been making an intensive study of rabies and its control, agree that this control is best effected, first, by gathering up the so-called strays such as is practiced by animal pro- tective organizations the country over; and, second, by vaccination. Dogs that are unwanted, ill, or exhibiting strange symptoms, are brought to humane societies for placement in new homes, treatment, quarantine, or to be humanely disposed of as the individual situation seems to warrant. People bring these animals to us because they rightly feel their wishes will be carried out. Do I need to point out the change in attitude which would follow the enactment of measures such as Senate bill 1703? Unwanted dogs, and cats, too, would be turned loose to shift for themselves to prey on domestic fowl and wildlife, on the assumption that any fate is to be preferred to the suffering they would have to face in the medical schools and commercial laboratories. I have talked with many professional conservationists on this phase of the question, and they agree that such a situation should be avoided at all costs. I ask you members of the Committee on the District of Columbia for the repudiation and defeat of Senate bill 1703, and I thank you for the courtesy extended in listening to me. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sellar. Do you have any ques- tions, Senator? Senator Frear. No. The Chairman. I want to thank you very much for the comment concerning the testimony given here this morning. The objective of 70 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES this committee is to get all the information we can on this subject that we are discussing; and if we succeed in that, I think the committee will have contributed something, at least. I am very much interested in your societies. I know some of the excellent work that you have done, and as I said this morning, the basic aim of the medical profession, as is with us all, is to stop suffer- ing as far as we can. I again repeat what I said this morning, that we have charitable organizations that look after and care for our human indigents who cannot care for themselves. I am wondering what your society is doing, if anything, in the same way for stray dogs? Mr. Sellar. Well, we give them every care that they need in in- dividual cases. We treat the animals belonging to the poor in our clinics free. We, of course, specialize on the collection of dogs, as I have indicated a minute ago. And we are interested from a public health and safety standpoint as well as from the humanitarian aspects of our work. But there is no care that is required on the part of animals, either owned animals belonging to those who are unable to pay for veteri- nary care, or of the animals that are owned by people unable to pay any sums of money for their care, that humane societies do not take care of. The Chairman. Does your organization recommend legislation from time to time along these lines? Mr. Seller. We do, both the State and the Federal legislatures. The Chairman. As far as I know, the stray dogs are picked up and put to death in a gas chamber. Certainly we do not do this with human beings. Do you have any recommendations as to what can be done with the pound dogs other than putting them into the gas chamber? Mr. Sellar. We are experimenting right at the present moment with a chamber that will produce atomospheric conditions similar to that attained by fliers when they get miles up in the air. They were experimenting on that out in Los Angeles, and I think by October we are going to find that we are going to have a method of taking animal life that will be stripped of all care. This morning they referred to the use of dogs. No death is pleasant to witness. But the use of carbon monoxide, as is being used by humane societies from coast to coast, the use of electricity as is being used by some of them, reduces the suffering to the least, to the mini- mum. But we are constantly striving for a better means, and I think that this s37stem we are working with now is probably going to bring the answer to a question that has bothered us for many, many years. The Chairman. Does your organization have any recommendation to your members as to going to dog pounds and finding out what there are for dogs there and placing them in homes where they could get care and a little attention that we want them to have? Mr. Sellar. We are constantly urging them to do just that. The Chairman. Do you make any recommendation as to watching the newspapers and the lost and found columns? Mr. Sellar. Yes, we ask people to advertise in some such manner as this: “Lost your dog? Cat? Don’t give up. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 71 “Your dog won’t give up. Go to your local humane society. Go to your local dog pound.” Urging them through the paper and every other way to go to those places where stray animals are picked up. The Chairman. Would vour organization be willing to take full responsibility for all dogs that the dog catcher places in the pounds over the country and see that they are placed in good homes, rather than killed? Mr. Sellar. There is nothing we would like better. The Chairman. Have you made any attempt at that? Mr. Sellar. Yes, a good many humane organizations do just that, conduct that pound work. They do it in Boston, Philadelphia, and California — San Francisco, to be more exact — wherever the work can be turned over to a humane society, we do it and operate it at a great loss in the majority of cases. In Boston, for instance, they are doing it for $4,500 a year, when it has been demonstrated that the city, to take over that work, could not do it for less than $100,000. That is quite a factor. The Chairman. How are your activities financed? Mr. Sellar. By dues and memberships, principally. The Chairman. Contributions? Mr. Sellar. Contributions of all kinds. The Chairman. Do you have a report that you get out, an annual report or a monthly report? Mr. Sellar. We do. The Chairman. I would be pleased to receive one. Mr. Sellar. I will see that one is sent to you, Senator. The Chairman. Do you have any record as to the number of States that have specific laws prohibiting vivisection? Mr. Sellar. No, it is not in here. The Chairman. If you have it, will you send that for the record? Mr. Sellar. I will, if it is available. The Chairman. The number of States having specific laws pro- hibiting vivisection; also the number permitting vivisection for scientific purposes. Thank you very much, Mr. Sellar. (The information requested above .has not been supplied.) The Chairman. Is Irene Castle here? [There w*as no response.] Mr. Owen B. Hunt? STATEMENT OF OWEN B. HUNT, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ANTIVIVISECTION SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA Mr. Hunt. My name is Owen B. Hunt. I am a member of the board of directors and representative of the American Anti-Vivisection Society for the City of Philadelphia. The Chairman. Do you have a statement? Mr. Hunt. Yes, I have a prepared statement. It is short, and I have attached hereto some evidences of torture, cruelty, and barbarous treatment of animals taken from the American medical journals, not from the files of the American Anti-Vivisection Society or SPCA. The Chairman. Are the references with them? Air. Hunt. With them. The Chairman. Complete? 72 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mr. Hunt. Yes, number, age, everything else. 1 might state for t lie benefit of the record I was the author of the group hospitalization law in Pennsylvania, now known as the Blue Cross. So I have a close association with hospitals as well as against the practice of vivisection. Like my colleague, Mr. Richard stated earlier, it is clearly under- stood that my society is unalterably opposed to vivisection. It works constantly to educate the public and to indoctrinate the belief that vivisection is morally wrong, and it will continue to do so. Our society was founded in 1883, and our fight against the cruel prac- tice of vivisecting animals has never changed and never altered. Since the failure of passage of Senate bill 1703 would not in any way alter vivisection in the District of Columbia, I will take but a few minutes of your time to stress one point, that of cruelty connected with vivi- section. The medical profession continually argues that all animals are anaesthetized before any experiment is performed. Nothing could be further from the truth. So as to expedite matters for the committee I have prepared a series of cases of cruelty, not taken from the files of the American Anti-Vivisection Society or the SPCA, but from a number of American medical journals. The members of the committee, if you can find time to read at least half a dozen of the cases submitted, can then judge for yourselves whether or not there is cruelty practiced in vivisection. I particularly call you attention to case 1998, page 1, taken from the Journal of Biological Chemistry, October 1946. I heard the doctor testifying here today that it went back 30 years ago; during that time about 30 years ago there was some cruelty practiced, but not now. I call your attention to the fact that this was taken from a journal of medical science published in 1946. Tests made in the biochemical laboratory of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Here is an instance where any number of dogs possibly ranging up to 46 were subjected to the cruel and torturous treatment of poisoning by non- lethal and lethal doses of mustard. The report states that a large number of animals in good condition were used in the experiment, evidently not the strays that were picked up in the back alleys, but somebody’s pets that were unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of, in all probability, juvenile delinquents, who for the sum of 50 cents or $1 turned these animals over to the laboratory representatives. The hair of their bodies was removed by shaving, and then the bare skin was exposed to high concentrations of mustard vapor. Other animals in the same test had this same type of dose injected intra- venously. Many of the animals lived through this horrible torture as long as 5 days. Not one word in the report about anesthesia. How many hundreds of times has this same experiment been carried out in animal labor- atories all over the world during the past century? What was learned from this experiment that has not been known to the medical world for 100 years? Yet the medical world is before you today asking the most august body in the world, the United States Senate, to put their stamp of approval, not alone on this type of inhuman animal tieatment, but to help the doctors to procure the dogs without cost. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 73 Permit me to cite one more case on page 2. This experiment was made at Columbia University in January 1947. Notes taken from the American Journal of Physiology, volume 148, pages 98-123. Here 30 dogs were placed on their backs in a trough shaped animal board. The animals were anesthetized by the drop method. Then they were beaten with a rawhide mallet. From 700 to 1,000 blows were administered. I particularly call your attention to the report that states that most of the animals were beaten to death, but it states further that despite the administration of anesthesia, the element of feel was not entirely eliminated. However, the report goes on to further state that when the beating* stopped, the administration of ether was discontinued and the clinical condition of the dog studied until it died or it was apparent that the dog was recovering. Twenty-five percent of the dogs in this experiment died in a period between 50 minutes or 9 hours and 21 minutes. One of the dogs was kept 5K hours in the animal cradle without water, and when water was given, it drank incessantly. Two of the animals were kept in this agonizing torture until the following day and then brought back to the laboratory and placed on the animal rack and expired from fright. Yet, despite the repeated protest of the doctors that all the labora- tory experiments are painlessly administered, here we have under their own written testimony positive evidence of torture, cruelty, and abuse of the most unbelievable nature. What was learned from this ignoble experiment that has not been known to the medical world for the past 500 years? Was it necessary to mutilate the legs of 30 live dogs for a period of 9 hours to find out that trauma causes thirst? The only thing I can find in the report of the student that conducted this experiment was that he was looking for the results of trauma in the form of vomiting, that trauma causes thirst and vomiting. That was all that was in that report. Now, on page 121 of the Medical Journal, the report goes on to state that the same experiment was carried out on several dogs with- out the application of anesthesia. That is in the notes. Has there not been enough of human beings maimed and wounded on battlefields all over the world during the past 500 years to find out that trauma produces thirst. Were not enough of human beings injured in industrial accidents during the last 200 years for the doctors to know by this late hour that severe injury or fracture of the bones produces vomiting. Members of the committee, I plead with you on behalf of the dumb animals who cannot speak for themselves and whose cries from the torture table produce only the wailing echo of their own voices, to keep Senate bill 1703 in committee. The Chairman. Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath. No questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunt. We must ask again that there be no demonstration. It is simply taking the time away from the witnesses, and we are only meeting today and tomor- row. Unless we get through, we have to discontinue the hearings. So I think perhaps you would prefer to have the witnesses heard, rather than the demonstration. That can come in other ways. Now we will hear from Mr. Culver. 91703—49 0 74 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES STATEMENT OF DELOS E. CULVER, REPRESENTING THE FEDERATED HUMANE SOCIETIES OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Culver. My name is Delos E. Culver. I represent the Federated Humane Societies of Pennsylvania, with 36 affiliates, and a membership in good standing of slightly in excess of 1 1,000. Madam Chairman, my total statement will take probably not more than 5 minutes, probably less. But in view of the fact that it does touch briefly on some of Dr. Hadley’s statements this morning, I am going to ask your indulgence to permit me to make it. It is a very brief statement. The Chairman. Go ahead. Mr. Culver. The 11,000 members of the Pennsylvania Federation are unalterably opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it because we believe — we know in our specific case — that it represents outright confiscation of private property. The animals which we take into our shelters throughout the State during the year are animals which are either brought to us by their owners or which we pick up on call with our ambulance to the home of the owners. These are animals which for some reason or other their owners are no longer able to care for or keep. They turn these animals over to us with two specific purposes. It is very definitely stated either that we get them a good home, or put them painlessly to sleep. At the time they turn these animals over to us, they must sign an ironclad contractual agreement relinquishing all title and right of ownership and imbuing that title and right of ownership in us. Therefore, if any organization or institution is empowered by law, either State or Federal, to walk in on our property and take those animals away from us, or demand that we turn those animals over to them, they are confiscating our private property just as much as if they demanded that we turn over our ambulance or other equipment. I can safely say that if this law wTere a Pennsylvania law and was enacted as such, every one of the 36 affiliates of the Pennsylvania federation would close their doors, because in the first place we are not empowered by our charter, which is granted by the courts, to act; and we would not even if we were, as a collection agency for either the medical profession or any other interests. That is all. The Chairman. Any questions, Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath. This particular act is directed to the pound, which is a public institution. You represent these private humane societies. Mr. Culver. The federated societies of the State of Pennsylvania, which represents 36 separate organizations throughout the State. Senator McGrath. Do you know why we do not have a pound here operated by the private humane societies? It has been my observation that where they are operated that way, they are much better handled than by public authority. Do you know any reason why we do not have that here in the District of Columbia? Mr. Culver. No; I am sorry, I do not. Senator McGrath. Do you know of any efforts that have ever been made by these humane societies to establish that sort of a system in the National Capital? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 75 Mr. Culver. I do know of public pounds that have been operated by municipalities throughout Pennsylvania that have been horribly mismanaged, and in which there were a great many abuses practiced on the animals, until private humane organizations stepped in to have those abuses stopped. I do not know, Senator, whether you are familiar with the charters which the courts grant to private humane organizations or not; but they restrict very specifically the activities of most humane or- ganizations. Senator McGrath. In what way? Mr. Culver. Insofar as the disposition of animals. We are charter- ed primarily for the prevention of cruelty to animals that cannot be placed in good private homes. We are not empowered in any sense to either give or sell animals to institutions regardless of what the purpose may be. The terms of this bill follow very closely the terms and the terminology of most of the State bills, particularly our bill in Pennsylvania, which demanded outright that we turn over to any accredited representative of a medical institution one dog or all the dogs in our shelter at the time or at any time that representative called for them. Now, I repeat, by virtue of a contractual agreement which we enter into with the owners of the dogs at the time we accept those animals, they are our private property. Senator McGrath. I do not think there is any question about that, so far as the private organization is concerned. The legisla- ture cannot confiscate that property. But a different legal situation is presented when you are dealing with a public pound supported by public funds. Then the legislative authority probably does have a right to say what disposition is made. Mr. Culver. Perhaps it does. I am not in position to speak for public pounds. Senator McGrath. Would you put into this record a copy of the Pennsylvania charter under which you operate? Mr. Culver. I will be glad to send you a copy. I will be very happy to. The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Michael Moukhanoff. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOUKHANOFF, PRESIDENT, INTER- NATIONAL CONFERENCE AGAINST VIVISECTION Mr. Moukhanoff. My name is Michael Moukhanoff. I am president of the International Conference Against Vivisection, repre- senting over 85 societies both here and abroad. If you will permit, I will read you a short statement presenting the feelings of our membership on this bill. The Chairman. You may proceed. Mr. Moukhanoff. In the name of the thousands of members of these societies scattered all over the United States and various coun- tries of the world, I wish to express that in the opinion of those count- less members and my own, this bill, which we are discussing, is in its essence inhumane. It is proposed that any animal, lost, abandoned, bereft, thrown out alone in this world, be destined to receive for his misfortune not 76 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES merely the penalty of death, which in some instances may be merci- ful, but that in addition it be subjected to intense suffering. This is fundamentally inhumane, frightfully unjust and immoral, however you may wish to iook at it. We are concerned today, but indirectly, with the merits or demerits . of vivisection. But the fact remains that it is proposed to surrender the animals whose fate has landed them in the Federal pound, to an institution where they will be subjected to protracted, excruciating pain, in plain words, to torture. Do not wince at this ugly word, for in whatever scientific cloak you may dress the term of animal experimentation, it remains nevertheless in its brutal reality unmitigated and refined torture. European countries in many instances have recognized the fact, and despite the efforts of the experimenters the practice is being restricted or minimized, through the efforts not only of private groups and societies, but often by the governments themselves. I lived for a number of years in France and witnessed the efforts of the French Government, the under then leadership of Poincare, to restrict animal experimentation. Government regulations prohib- ited the indiscriminate delivery of animals from the pounds to lab- oratories and these had difficulties in obtaining animals, at least in large numbers. As a result, experiments were indulged in somewhat sparingly. The same goes for England, where vivisection, although taking place under certain conditions and regulations, other forms are definitely prohibited, such as operations to acquire skill and dexterity. Today the United States leads the world in laboratory animal torture. No fewer than 400,000 dogs are vivisected annually in the United States and the total number of all species of animals exceeds 6,000,000 annually. A record. But is it one to be proud of? Why is this so? Because vivisection is cheap to perform. Animals have been more or less easy and cheap to procure. Therefore, the attitude; why restrict the performance? Do you wish to make this procurement still cheaper, still easier? The attitude would be: We have lots of dogs, they cost us practically nothing. Why not cut them up? What’s the difference? The supply is unlimited. Congress has delivered to us all we can possibly use, and more. Callousness already exists. Do you wish to encourage it by passing this law? Countless experiments are repetitious ones, proving nothing new, achieving nothing new. An unlimited supply of animals tends to this casual attitude, to this needless repetition. A large supply of material only encourages the tendency to indulge in this cruel practice. In every civilized country the conception of humane endeavor has steadily grown. Every civilized country has built up a system of humane education, a network of humane organizations. These have had recognition, respect and encouragement. Civilization itself and its achievements are measured not by its expressions of brutality or callousness, but rather by an increasing capacity for compassion and mercy. Cruelty and brutality, if to a certain degree inherent, can be encouraged or discouraged. We have seen the effects of encouragement in Nazi Germany. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 77 We see it in the Soviet Union today. Of all the “civilized” countries in the world, only one has no humane societies, has no humane move- ment: Soviet Russia. Gentlemen, are you going to tear down, little by little, that which has been built up by a humane impulse? Are you going to destroy that which has already been achieved in this direction and put the United States in the category of the Soviet Union? This is a vicious bill, for provisions are even made to see that no kindly impulse or feeling of compassion shall interfere with the steady delivery of the unfortunate creatures to the laboratories. Provision is made that should the poundmaster, or anyone else, wish to try and save some of the pound inmates from the torture chambers they will incur for themselves the penalty of fine and imprisonment. No kind-hearted or compassionate man could hold the job of pound- master, for no man with any sense of justice or compassion could stand there and day in and day out deliver countless innocent victims to be mutilated and tormented. From the moment an animal enters the pound he is already in a sinister atmosphere of cruelty and brutality. It would be hard for any man except a toughened, hardened individual to hold this job. Gentlemen, are you paying a premium on brutality? The pound, still an imperfect solution, was founded from a sense of benevolence. This evidenced the development of humaneness. The projected utilization of this institution as a supply depot for vivisectors is a flagrant retrogression and can only be achieved in defiance of all ethical values. In closing let me say this: It may be in the minds of some that the issue as envisaged by those opposing this bill is unnecessarily dram- atized. Without going into any detail, I say that this is not so. Were the bare facts of all that takes place under the term “vivisection” made public, I am ready to state, there could be from that moment on no more room for argument. When I have used the word “torture” I have meant torture. I do not believe that humanity as a whole, ruthless as it shows itself at times, could countenance the agonies deliberately inflicted on defense- less creatures which numberless experiments involve. This is not a random statement. Each and every person present is at liberty to verify it for himself, not from what we, the antivivisection- ists say or claim, but from the official medical records and reports. If there is still so much cruelty in the world today, even in civilized countries, it is largely from an insufficient education to kindness. We have deplored the cruelty and brutality shown by the Nazis in Ger- many. That attitude was the result of specific education, education to cruelty. Humaneness and humane education have been the steadily increas- ing aim of all persons with vision and a sense of the relationship of man to man, and man to beast. This has been the foundation of the humane movement. Are you going to destroy something which has been achieved by all those who have been building up the humane movement? Are you going to put a blot on the Capital of the Nation, where, if you pass this bill, an important achievement to the humane movement will be wiped out? 78 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Do you wish to assume the moral responsibility of putting Washing- ton on record as the only capital of a modern civilized country directly legislating against humane endeavor? Gentlemen, are you willing to bring this about? The Chairman. Any questions, Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath. I do not believe so. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Moukhanoff. Maj. Gen. Malcolm Grow, Air Surgeon? The Chairman. (No response.) The Chairman. (No response.) The Chairman. Is General Grow here? Mrs. Alma Opal. Is Mrs. Opal here? STATEMENT OF MRS. ALMA T. OPAL, PRESIDENT, ANTIVIVL SECTION SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mrs. Opal. I am going to read this in order to be brief and save your time. Madam Chairman and members of this committee: We, the Antivivisection Society of the District of Columbia, are opposed to Senate bill 1703 for humanitarian reasons. We are highly appreciative of this opportunity to place certain facts before this honored body of the Government of the United States. Your task is not easy. We wish to be cooperative in every way so that the will of the people can be expressed through you without fear or bias. People have a right to be right or wrong. We are in agreement with the animal welfare and humane societies that this bill is uncon- stitutional in that it is an infringement of personal property rights. It is also wrong from the standpoint of good economics in govern- ment. Since the District of Columbia derives approximately $105,000 tax money from dog owners each year and the cost of operating the pound is around $33,000 per year, we feel that this profit entitles the taxpayer who has no vote the finest service the District pound can offer. Under no circumstances should the pound become a pick-up station for the medical laboratories. Present helpful public relations must be maintained. If this committee is interested in improving the relations between the pound and the people still more, we suggest that this department be placed in the hands of a bona fide society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, operating under a semiofficial contract with the Government. We know there would be a further saving to the rank and file citizen and humanitarians would then have absolute authority over the animals. I proposed such a plan last year when testifying at the joint hearings on Senate 1968 and H. R. 4902, bills concerning with the home rule and reorganization for the District of Columbia. A bill is now being prepared in both the House and Senate along these lines. This society contends that useless, cruel animal and human experi- ments are the highest in the history of this Nation. Using the pro- ponents’ own data, heart disease, cancer, and other diseases are in- creasing at an alarming rate. The demand for more hospitals includ- ing mental hospitals is tremendous. We should note at this point that the health of the Nation has been primarily in the hands of the IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 79 allopathic and serologic branches of medicine. These two branches are guilty of more animal torture than all the other branches of medi- cine put together. Since these two groups are in the driver’s seat, they should be charged with failure to promote the health of the Nation in proporiton to the great support they have had from the people. As a group they do not have a good health record personally. According to a survey dated 1945, made on a scale of 100,000 white male population, deaths totaled 57.8 percent. That of the doctors was 67.31. This is setting a poor example. The so-called great benefits of animal experimentation seems to be doing the doctors themselves little good. And worst of all, the doctor bills are the highest in the history of the Nation. We would like to explain to this committee why there are seldom any doctors of the aforementioned branches of medicine on the side of us humanitarians; and may I add there are seldom any veteri- narians. I shall go back to a survey published in many newspapers in 1932. This survey showed that 34 percent, or 1,238 out of 3,632 regular physicians replying to a questionnaire on vivisection sent to all members of the American Medical Association declared themselves opposed to vivisection and animal experimentation generally because of inaccurate results. Now, why have we not heard from this minority? We think one of the members of this committee has the right answer for this undemo cratic timidity. We quote from the Pittsburgh press: Senator J. Howard McGrath, Rhode Island Democrat, said the American Medical Association is conducting a “medical dictatorship at its worst.” It seems appropriate that at this time we should also quote Dr. Morris Fishbein of the American Medical Association. In a lecture before the Philadelphia County Medical Society, Dr. Fishbein said that science had not learned to prolong life ; that the plan of the best medical men of today was that of the “wise men of Salerno” — Dr. Quiet, Dr. Diet, and Dr. Merryman. Salerno had a famous medical school employing natural methods back in the Middle Ages. We appreciate this priceless honesty of the moment for it means that cruel, inaccurate animal experimentation is of no use to mankind. The following is a very brief summary of data received a day ago from a German chemist who is also a doctor of natural science. I am not permitted to make this man’s name public. However, should this committee wish to confer with this learned chemist behind closed doors, I will give this committee his name. This is a brief dissertation, but don’t mind; I am going to stand up and read: It is a generation ago since Robert Koch surprised the world with the knowledge of the active force of the bacterias. The suffering world hoped to be cured from such diseases as tuberculosis with the discovery of the tuberculosis bacillus.- This was the beginning of the so-called specific therapy which needed human and animal bodies for its working method. On account of the rapid increase of tuberculosis, cancer and heart disease and other ailments, we have arrived now at a time where the success or failure of the serologist must be faced. Question 1: In view of the increase of these diseases, is there any justification: of the continued torture of millions of animals? 80 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Question 2: Can the medical world with a clear conscience refuse to honor other methods of research? Question 3: Is there another way? The preference of the serologist in medical research' is easy to understand since this so-called great discovery came at a time when natural science, showing a connection of physico-chemistry to medicine was just in its infancy. There is no doubt that the serologist has had some success just as every medical method has had some success. But, the question must always be raised whether recovery was due 1o the so-called cure or the self-resistance of the body. In spite of this relative success, it is now certain that serology is 80 years more or less behind the times. There is an undisputable, uninterrupted chain of errors. The hopes of humanity have not been realized. On the contrary, the enormous increase of cancer and tuberculosis is real proof that the way of the serologist is wrong. It is to be regretted that there is not more open-mindedness in this day of physio-chemistry, in the new day of elec- tronics or the quantum theory. The explanation for this is that the vivisector and the serologist are used to thinking in a clinical way and they transfer this manner of thinking to their research. Further, it is to be stated that the serologist never was a pure scientist. This branch of medicine does not employ basic knowledge of mathematics, physics or chemistry. It is highly speculative and far too easy to be called thorough, and to be relied upon. Serology is based on three main conceptions: Gene, antigene, and antibody. Textbooks plainly state that these conceptions are absolutely unknown and repre- sent supposition. Chemistry refuses to acknowledge this slipshod way of working. A chemist, having an unknown quantity, does not work with it until it is analyzed and isolated. In contrast to pure research, the serologist works with unknown liquors which are a mixture of many different antibodies. This is the reason for failure. Not facing this fact shows the mental and spiritual laziness of the vivisector and serologist. We are compelled to add to this indictment the crime of endless cruelties to dumb animals. In view of all this speculation, the serologist resorts to blowing a trumpet over winning the smallest case in order that profits may continue. Almost every day we hear of a new serum. If only a small part of this sera were effective, health records today would show great improvement. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the method should be changed. I have much statistical evidence on the total failure of tuberculin. I assure you it will be a pleasure to work with your society. That is the end of the dissertation. To this democratic committee, I respectfully address one more remark. This remark can be found in all the sacred books the world has any knowledge of. This is it: Forgive them, for they know not what they do. The Chairman. Mrs. Opal, how many members do you have in your society? Mrs. Opal. Five hundred and seventy-five. The Chairman. Do you operate entirely under the dues? Mrs. Opal. Yes. The Chairman. Are your officers paid? Mrs. Opal. None of them. The Chairman. The question that we are thinking about is the dogs and the treatment at the pound. As far as I know, they are taken over there and put to death in a gas chamber unless someone claims them. Is your society doing anything about the stray dogs that are being put in the pound waiting there for death? Mrs. Opal. They are primarily the antivivisectionist societies that sprang up to spearhead legislative action that was more or less dor- mant in the humane societies. But, of course, many of our members — in fact, the majority of our members — are also members of humane societies. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 81 Therefore, directly or indirectly, we are all in the same work. The Chairman. What I am trying to get at in my question is: is your society or are the members of your society doing anything to return some of those dogs to their homes or finding them homes rather than permitting them to stay there to die by gas? Mrs. Opal. Yes. I could point out right in this room at least 30 people who work actively at that. The Chairman. Are you accomplishing anything? Are you find- ing homes for the dogs? Mrs. Opal. Yes. The Chairman. Are you finding the proper homes for the dogs? Mrs. Opal. Yes. But I think one fallacy is that we do not adver- tise enough. The Chairman. Are there any questions? Senator McGrath. The only money you have to operate with is the money that you get from your own members, is it not? Mrs. Opal. That is right. Occasionally a small legacy may come in. But the society was reorganized a year and a half ago, and I think I can safely say we operate on dues. Senator McGrath. No further questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Opal. (The following information was submitted for inclusion in the record:) Animal Protective Association, Washington 20, D. C., May 27, 1949. Re S. 1703. Hon. Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee of Public Health, Education and Recreation of the District of Columbia, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Senator Smith: Not being able to even mention the work of the Animal Protective Association for dogs (and other friendless animals) during the hearings, May 24 and 25 on Senate bill 1703 (Pound bill) because of the unintentional omission by the president of the Washington Humane Society of notifying us of the meetings he was having with the Federated Humane Societies of District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, and assuming that the District of Columbia Antivivisection Society headed by Mrs. Opal and of which I am a director, alone were preparing material for the hearing, and barely being able to manage at the very last minute to get listed in the animal shelter group, I feel constrained to take advantage of your offer to receive informative material for your study of this 'legislation, and to ask that a copy of the letter of May 18, 1949, which I wrote you (and a similar one to your colleagues of the subcommittee) be allowed to be inserted in the extension of remarks in the hearing records. I therefore enclose a true copy of this letter.' I found that one or more representatives of the Animal Rescue League, Humane Society, and other smaller organizations beside the lawyer who was supposed to represent the whole Federation of Societies, Mr. Watson, had prepared papers and either spoke a few words or passed them in, although I was led to understand that the lawyer would make remarks for us all. I therefore feel doubly passed by and for this reason I beg that my letter of May 18 be considered as containing the gist of what I would have spoken. This present letter refers to some points which I did not know were going to be brought up at the hearing. First I wish to express my appreciation of the interest in animal protection which I feel the subcommittee showed by many of the questions raised. I especially appreciate your very intelligent questions as to any plans that we might have in mind for humane supervision of the Pound to provide future safe- guards for the inmates against being forced to be surrendered for experimentation. I was very glad you raised this question. Although it was first asked of an out-of- town speaker, it did open the way for another one of our speakers, Mrs. Opal, I 82 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES believe, of the Antivivisection Society of the District of Columbia to inform you of the bills already introduced into the House and Senate providing for a main SPCA to replace the Pound, to be supported by the same funds as support the Pound, but to be supervised under contract, by a board of local officials repre- sentative of phases of the work carried on by the present animal protective, shelter- ing and antivivisection organizations. I would not expect you to have a clear idea of the work of these societies and their present set-up, but I feel such information and some ideas of our reason for asking for a bona fide SPCA to replace the antiquated idea of a pound should be of much value to you in arriving at a fair decision for both the present pound bill, and in case you are on the committee when the SPCA bill is discussed. As stated in my hastily written note which I passed in between sessions on Wednesday I believe I can enlighten you considerably on this matter because I am a Washingtonian. I have not only seen the progress and lack of progress in humane work in the District and surrounding Maryland and Virginia, but I have been and am in the thick of it. I am almost a charger member of the Animal Rescue League but was forced to part from them and form my own animal shelter (when myself only a modestly paid clerk in the Agriculture Department) to meet a great emergency in 1930, which for some reason they could or would not meet — of rescuing the hundreds of pitifully abandoned stray and pet animals, mostly cats, when old Pennsylvania Avenue and surrounding Northwest and Southwest sections of city were being vacated and wrecked to make way for the new Federal triangle and District Government buildings. So I have been in the very middle of slum clearance rescue work and our organization was the only one doing this work. With slum clearance starting up again our part-time agent and her husband are again on the job, although at times working without personal compensation, only food and gas expenses. We rightfully should have a small appropriation from Congress or the city government for this work. Of course we entered into the other phases of animal protection and rescue, but this slum clear- ance rescue work has always been of prime importance and will always be con- tinued someway. Another reason we hope and pray your committee will kill the Pound bill is that unfortunately circumstances over which we have no control will soon force the Animal Protective Association from its lovely wooded area in the far Southeast (Congress Heights) because of the area being built up rapidly into apartments containing hundreds of people. As this property belongs to me personally but was given for the use of the APA and with building prices so high, I see no way at present, even after selling part of the land, to rebuild elsewhere for the APA especially for sheltering dogs, and my own sources of income aside from what little real estate I possess, are few and cannot support the work as it has been to make up deficits which the association experiences outside of membership dues and donations. We were advised not to be in the Community Chest some years go. Needless to say we shall be in agony over the situation wondering where the poor friendless dogs that would have come to our shelter and that the Animal Rescue League cannot entirely care for, will land if the only other place is the Pound from which they must be surrendered to the merciless vivisectors. Therefore closely following this letter I am sending you some data on the development of animal protective work in Washington and vicinity and of the ideals that should be attained, which might be illustrated by the situation in Baltimore, an enlarged plant to replace the old Pound, on city property, the quarters up to date and comfortable for friendless animals, supervised by a humane board as stated above and the word “Pound” replaced by SPCA. This word “Pound” has always struck terror to the hearts of small boys who have lost their loved pets. Instead there should be a friendly place seeking to educate people to prevent cruelty and loss and to present the highest principal of Chris- tianity toward God’s creatures. In closing I should like to say I try to be a consistent Christian. I am a Presbyterian, a vegetarian, an out and out antivivisectionist and when I do feel need of a doctor I have a splendid naturopath, Dr. T. M. Schippell, 1329 Sixteenth Street NW., a lady doctor, who gets at the root of things and without blowing a trumpet has effected remarkable recoveries from cancer, polio, and many of the other troubles for which the doctors are so loudly calling for dogs and more dogs. I would not trust myself in the hands of an allopathic doctor nor that of any children, were I married. I believe in the ways of the Great Physician and I feel sure the allopathic profession are not going the ways He would have them go did they seek His guidance. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 83 I was most glad the old gentlemen at the hearing asked for a moment of prayer for the committee’s guidance. I should have mentioned that myself had I been allowed to speak. I wish that your committee might learn some of the ways of the naturopaths. Dr. Schippell publishes a magazine, The Herald of Health and Naturopath, and many wonderful facts of the real causes of diseases can be learned from it. I think jou would be greatly enlightened as to the real ways of successfully treating human ills if a conference might be had with Dr.- Schippell and her magazine editor, Dr. Gartenmeier. They both may be reached at her office given above. She is a very busy woman but would gladly confer with you. I also wish to ask if you have ever realized how much vital connection there really is between American waste, waste of soil and vital food elements — and the increasing diseases for which the doctors want to experiment on animals. For the last 2 years I have been subscribing to a little magazine called Organic Gardening and I was perfectly surprised to learn of the terrible depletion of our soil, the harm of chemical fertilizers and sprays, and the right ways to get back true soil fertility by conservation and humus for the proper w^ork of the soil bacteria and earthworms. We are so terribly wasting the riches God has given us. If human beings would eat whole foods instead of refined devitalized ones, tend more towrard strict vegetarianism, to which the Bible states we are to return, and would obey the Great Physician’s laws of health and nature’s true remedies, the doctors would not be calling for our pound dogs or any other creatures for their ridiculous, in many cases, and always uncalled-for experiments. This may seem an extreme statement, but I believe it, for where there is a will there is a wTay, and we have but to will in God’s way and we shall find the remedies and blessings. Besides we have no right to cause any suffering, mental or physical, to any creature of God’s humbler creation, for attempting to find remedies for the ills we bring upon ourselves and offspring because of our willful disobedience to God’s commandments and will for our lives upon His earth. You will be surprised how all these things enter into the demand of the allopathic doctors for animals to torture. In closing I am quoting a paragraph from a letter of one of the best Bible teaching Presbyterian ministers in this city and for many miles around, Dr. James H. Miers of the Fourth Presbyterian Church (I stem from the old First Presbyterian Church where my father was an elder and upon whose site the new Municipal Center parkway stands (one side of it) the other side on site of my grandmother’s house where I was born) I rely a great deal upon Dr. Miers, rather than upon the view of the National Presbyterian Church into which our church and another through merger finally emerged. Dr. Miers has come out stoutly against vivisection, because it is not Christian, but even I was surprised at the last sentence of the paragraph I am quoting, but he is certainly right. I regret to state here that I have placed his original letter in some personal file and cannot remember where just now and the carbon copy of the excerpt I must have left at the house of our treasurer where I went between sessions to prepare the note I left Wednesday evening to you. I cannot now delay to look further for this, but as Dr. Miers himself has sent you a statement of his opinion, you have no doubt seen it in some form. Mrs. Opal of the Antivivisection Society, upon hearing his opinion expressed to me, asked him to appear and speak. He felt he could not possibly undertake another thing, but gladly sent in the letter. He did appear one day at a former hearing on the Lemke dog exemption bill as I saw him myself so I know his interest is real and there is another Presbyterian minister, Reverend Purcel of the Congress Heights Presbyterian Church whom I asked to write as he also wrote in favor of the dog exemption bill formerly. Hoping I may be able to clarify further, if needed, the needs of our Nation’s Capital for being the upright example it should be for Christian humane education of our young people to follow God’s laws of mercy and health, as we seek to teach our own group of Junior Animal Protectors or in any other way to serve you now or in the future, and thanking you again for what I felt was a real interest in the rights of poor voteless citizens of the District of Columbia. Sincerely, Virginia W. Sargent. 84 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Annual Report of Animal Protective Association, 1948 ANIMAL RELIEF DEPARTMENT The year started with the rescue of two more pups found in a nest in the woods. Four of the same litter had been discovered by some children before Christmas. Kay Gibson and Audrey Stokes spent 3 hours digging under roots of trees to the tunnel so cleverly constructed by their poor stray mother. The children had been feeding her and always wondered where she went when she disappeared. As the location was not far away, this mother dog discovered her pups in the kennel yard, and the girls saw her licking them through the wire fence — when she trotted away, apparently satisfied that her offspring were in kind hands. These English sheepdog type pups were placed together in a good home after several months of care. Two puzzling cases of injured dogs occurred: One Sunday a man and boy arrived followed by a small female so sore and hurt that they feared to pick her up. Investigation revealed a dozen wounds caked with blood, and the little dog was almost blind. It appeared that she had been attacked by some large foe. After attention from our veterinarian, and some weeks of reassuring care and petting, she gained health, confidence, and beauty, and turned out to be a Schipperke. She acquired a wonderful home with one of our members and is very happy with her pal — a yellow cat. Two weeks later a small collie was found chewed up in similar fashion. “Bozo” came to us in the winter. A lady managed to catch this timid hound after coaxing him with food for 3 weeks. Months of patient kindness have restored Bozo’s confidence. He has developed a distinctly compelling personality. But we do not give out dogs for hunting where they are too often neglected and maltreated. The right home has not been offered. Bozo is still with us and may refuse adoption. “Kessie” a big shepherd police pup was found lying stunned on the edge of a broad, hot highway in Delaware. When lifted into the car, the dog was found to be weak from starvation. As Miss Sargent was on her way to a Bible conference in Keswick, N. J., she took the dog along. With sleep and food, he gained enough strength to stand up, but a more forlorn looking pup Miss Sargent had not seen for many months. He attracted much attention and soon began to wag his tail. But exercising him became a problem, so Miss Sargent delayed her spiritual refresh- ment and returned home. This “evangelistic pup” grew into a strong, heavy- coated fellow. In the late autumn a young couple begged for him and he obtained a fine home. There was “Peter Rabbit,” an unwanted Easter gift. He was established in our hutch and is lord and master of it yet. His appetite is enormous, but fortunately he is a vegetarian — which we wish all our inmates were. “Minnie Mouse” was found in a pet shop awaiting the fate of vivisection. The proprietor stated that he did not object to selling her to a laboratory so long as he was paid. Miss Sargent purchased “Minnie Mouse” and took her home in a cat carrier. Though white, she soon gave birth to two brown babies. She was protected from feline appetitites, pampered and fed and consigned to a safe place. Two hamsters were acquired from a home where they were not wanted. They resemble a cross between a guinea pig and a rabbit and are becoming alarmingly popular with animal experimenters as they are cheap and breed often. We understand that these creatures come from South America. They nap during the day, and come out to eat, play, and fight after dark. The little mothers sometimes eat their young and the small fathers run away — which at least saves them from the medical schools. These two found a wonderful home. Cruelty to a horse came to our attention before Christmas. It was reported by the Norwegian Embassy that the poor animal was being beaten up hill on Massa- chusetts Avenue. When Miss Sargent contacted the horse, he was coming down hill pell mell — being pushed by the wagon which had no brake. The horse was thin and in bad condition. She visited the stable, ordered a brake put on the cart, found a mare there also needing attention and turned the case over to the Animal Rescue League Horse Committee and the Humane Society. Leona was directed to include these faithful animals in her Christmas treat of oats, molasses feed, carrots, and apples. Early one morning a little white pup was discovered lying on the side of the street in great pain. He had been run over and a bus driver had lifted him out of the traffic. Both legs were broken. He was taken to our veterinarian and put out of his misery. A small cat was found deserted in a bus terminal. She was almost blind with diseased eyes. About 90 percent of the cats taken in were IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 85 strays dropped and temporarily sheltered by kind people until we could get them. A picture appeared in the Times-Herald of a cat and her family housed in a hole in a tree. These were rescued to prevent their being distributed among irrespon- sible people. Two of the kittens were given to a boy and girl especially interested, and their names were added to our list of junior animal protectors. Right after Labor Day, Leona and Jesse Thompson our part-time helpers, made their annual trip to Colonial Beach to gather up the cats left behind by summer visitors. There is no animal shelter there, and an old colored woman collects them, feeds them, cares for them at her house until called for. Food is left with her for the next bunch of cats. Who will take in these homeless creatures when this kind old woman passes on? The stray and abandoned dogs and pups were mostly females — and some of the most pitiful were brought in by Leona. Several times Miss Sargent rushed to the aid of dogs struck by cars. Others were brought in by weeping owners. The number of dogs taken in this year is lower than in 1947 — perhaps because of the suspension of the phone at times made necessary by insufficient help to care for more animals; but the cost and work for 311 dogs and pups was considerable. Many were kept a longer time than usual as they were placeable and 51 obtained promising homes. The most attractive kittens came in midsummer when people are not in the mood for adopting pets. From the 1,012 cats and kittens received, only 23 were placed. Other animals finding refuge with us were 2 rabbits, 1 mouse, 3 crippled birds, 1 injured squirrel, 11 Easter chicks, and 2 hamsters. Slum clearance is starting. The wrecking of old buildings always leaves home- less scores of pet and stray cats that have lived in these houses. Bereft of shelter, food and owners they still cling to the ruins of familiar surroundings, though bewildered and terrified. Funds are needed to finance Leona for these trips of rescue, which are one of our most important services. Anything donated toward this phase of our relief work will be allocated to this particular branch. During the winter months both woods and city birds were fed. The radio and press were urged to appeal to the public to share their bounty with hungry crea- tures. The first part of 1948 was cold and stormy. Miss Sargent lived over the kennels to be near her charges and reduce expenses. She went out in storms to get injured and lost animals reported to her. Several times her car stuck in the snow or on the side road up hill to the kennels. The oil bills were a nightmare, but animals have to be kept warm to prevent illness. In March high winds blew down pine trees across the road to the kennel house and a man haci to be hired to clear the way. There were problems of cats up trees. We had the equipment but no man to send, and difficulty in getting the cooperation of the file department. But every effort was made to effect a rescue. Much time was donated to giving advice over the telephone about the proper care of animals. Miss Sargent discouraged attend- ance at rodeos and circuses pointing out their cruelty, and also the unnatural con- dition, of captivity at any zoo, stating that the rights of animals should be the outstanding consideiation. CHRISTIAN HUMANE EDUCATION In January great effort was made to introduce a bill prohibiting Easter traffic in baby chicks, ducklings, and bunnies. This selling of live toys for children to maul is illegal in many States. The District having no vote, we were dependent upon congressional action. We appealed to Senator Capper; but he was too busy and soon resigned. We circularized dime stores, pet shops, and markets begging them not to handle the little creatures. But many refused humane cooperation and we saw dyed chicks displayed in several stores. In pity Miss Sargent bought some chicks and placed them in a country home where they would be in natural surroundings. Legislation to outlaw this cruelty is still to be accomplished. During Humane Week Miss Sargent conducted a quiz on Animals and Birds of the Bible for girls and boys between 9 and 13 years. An encouraging number responded, but many fell by the wayside. Margaret Shipe of Second Street NE. won the prize of a Bible. As usufI posters were given out to schools and play- grounds. These are published by the American Humane Association with a message to last the entire year. Humane book displays were requested at libra- ries. The shelter was open to children visitors on Humane Sunday to teach lessons of kindness, to view the grateful mascots and stray refugees. The list of Junior Animal Protectors is increasing. They are listed and get periodic mail from us. Those 18 years old and over are invited to become adult members. It has become increasingly hard to ge^ time ovei the radio. We have tried to interest certain stations in some script sent us by a humane organization, but 86 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES have not succeeded. “Spots” are all we are promised sandwiched in between pro- grams given by their own announcer. We have a short film sent us by the Ameri- can Humane Education Society called Out of tne Heart which Miss Sargent has reviewed and endorsed which we hope to use. But there has been too much work for so few hands, and so many animals to save from the procurers for medical laboratories, that nothing has been done with it yet. The antivivisection cause has also kept us busy. Bill H. R. 4238 has been introduced in the House to give all unclaimed animals from the pound to medical schools and laboratories for experimentation. Write Representative John L. McMillen, chairman of the District of Columbia Committee, House Office Building, to vote against this bill. Among our blessings are two legacies left us this year for which we are very thankful; one from Miss Julia Webb and one from Mrs. Anne Cullen, which made it possible to keep the shelter open this winter. Much had to be spent for repairs to make the place safe and usable for limited service. The roof, plumbing, furnace, electric cooking stove and refrigerator as well as the dog and cat pens all required the attention of mechanics. Miss Sargent had to arrange a loan from the bank and even this did not cover the expense of all the outdoor work toward which she and Miss Weber personally donated. However, our membershio has increased. In 1944 dues and contributions amounted to only $1,254.91. This year the figure is $2,220.19 not including the legacies. But we still need more, especially monthly donors in order to employ regular kennel help foi cleaning the pens, feeding the inmates, going for unwanted and injured animals, and for the geneial overhead. We receive no Government nor community chest support, and the population of dogs and cats and other animals is ever on the increase as the number of residents grows. Those who have not aheady sent in their annual dues may mail them to our secretary-treasurer, Mrs. H. D. Albin, 20 Svcamore Avenue, Takoma Park, Md. Make checks pay- able to Animal Protective Association. We greatly appreciated the help given us last summer by Mrs. Briggs and her son Jack. Mrs. Briggs came from the office almost everv evening and fed the animals, while Jack made a faithful daily appearance, hosed out the pens and exer- cised the dogs. Neither Mrs. Briggs nor Jack would take anv pav. Jack has gone to college and Mrs. Briggs has moved farther away. Miss Wever, one of our vice presidents, constantly aids, after her office hours, in taking in the forlorn cats and making them comfortable. We are always encouraged by notes and letters from appreciative persons. Sometimes the kind words come in the form of verse: a tabby’s tune I met a homeless tabby cat, With glowing yellow eyes. As near a woodsy road she sat, I said with some surprise, “How can you purr such happy song? And lift your little head, When you have been a stray so long?” But this is what she said, “I am Virginia Sargent’s guest And here I want to stay Because I’ve found she treats me best At her kind A. P. A.” And many a homeless dog and cat, And hungry bird nearby Sings of Miss Sargent just like that And gladly tells you why. — Dolly Elligson. The Boy Scouts of Den 1, Pack 34, of Anacostia wrote us this: “Our memory of our visit to the animal shelter is a very pleasant one indeed. You have our respect and admiration for the work you have chosen to do.” One of these boys the year before helped to rescue a white rabbit from under a car where it had been chased by a dog. The little creature was terrified and very thin from starvation. Our annual meeting will be held on Fridav evening, Aoril 29, 1949, at 8 p. m. in the Methodist Building, 110 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D. C. Please come and encourage us by your presence. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 87 SOME LITTLE SOMETHING Sometimes I wonder how people can live Without the dear friendship that animals give. Some little something, no matter how small, To love you is better than nothing at all. Some little kitten; a stray, humble thing. Or some little bird with a droop to its wing. Some little something, no matter how small, Isn’t it better than nothing at all? Feed the lame bird and bind up its wing, Soon it will perch on your finger and sing. Tuck the starved kitten under your chin, And hear it purr “thank you” for letting it in. So many tables and so many scraps, So many timid paws begging for laps, Some little something, no matter how small, Isn’t it better than nothing at all? — Author unknown (Material for this report furnished by Miss Sargent; written up in condensed form by Mrs. H. D. Albin, secretary.) Animal Protective Association, Washington 20, D. C. — Treasurer’s Report for 1948 Received from monthly donors, membership dues, contributions $2, 220. 19 Legacy from Mrs. Anne H. Cullen 1, 500. 00 Legacy from Mrs. Julia Webb 100. 00 Total 3, 820. 19 Disbursements : Repair of dog and cat pens 114. 28 Food for the animals at the kennels 1, 381. 31 Repair of electric stove, refrigerator, etc 179. 60 Repair of car 278. 97 Repair of furnace 475. 00 Repair of roof of kennels 130. 50 Repair of plumbing 167. 75 Stationery, stamps, mimeographing 109. 05 Ads for homes for animals 53. 36 Fuel oil 457. 84 Labor 372. 30- Gas and oil for car 80. 77 Phone 150. 42 Electricity for cooking and lighting 124. 36 Veterinary services and medicines 141. 18 Miscellany 246. 13 Taxes and insurance 342. 02 Total expenses 4, 804. 84 Deficit paid by Miss Sargent 984. 65 Balance in bank Jan. 1, 1949 710. 27 88 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Animal Protective Association, Washington 20, D. C., May 18, 1949 . (For insertion in extension of remarks against Senate bill 1703 and presented Friday, May 27, 1949, for such insertion. See letter of May 27 to Senator Smith explaining request for such insertion.) Re Senate bill 1703. Hon. Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee of Public Health, Education and Recreation of the District of Columbia, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Mrs. Smith: As a God-fearing Presbyterian, a real Washingtonian, a District of Columbia home and property owner, as owner and taxpayer of three pet dogs, also as conductor of the Animal Protective Association and lover of all God’s creatures, in special behalf of those trusting friends and helpers of mankind since the dawn of history, dogs, I am begging you to oppose strenuously the McGrath Senate bill 1703, which demands that unclaimed dogs from our District of Columbia pound be turned over to various medical, scientific, educational institutions, laboratories, etc. for any sort of experiments they seek to make within the provisions of the bill. These experiments will include "practice” experiments by students, which strongly inculcate into them a cheap value upon the lives of God’s creatures. Too often in later years these indifferent tendencies culminate in crimes against human beings. The friendless dogs of the District pound have landed there through no sins of their own, but through carelessness, neglect, and/or circumstances of their owners. Why should they pay the penalty of these circumstances? The District of Columbia taxpayers have no vote, but many of us do own and love dogs. The pound is run, at least partly, by taxes we pay to own our dogs and help protect others. Also the same taxes help pay our Commissioners who have been appealed to by medical groups. Should their demands be granted over our protests, it would certainly be another case of taxation without representation. I have examined Senate bill No. 1703. It is cold-blooded and merciless in the extreme. For years three institutions in the District of Columbia have given humane refuge to friendless dogs and other creatures, the Animal Rescue League, 70 O Street NW., dependent upon the community chest; the Animal Protective Asso- ciation, 3900 Wheeler Road SE., relying upon personal memberships and donations of friends of animals; and the District pound. The latter, a municipally and Federally supported institution, is not in the same category as a guaranteed humanely supervised animal refuge. At present the poundmaster is empowered to dispose of the inmates at his discretion. Providentially, Mr. Frank Marks is too much of a dog lover to surrender them for experimentation. He should be encouraged in this protective oversight and be especially urged to place the most humane restrictions on the placements of females that they might escape careless homes liable to turn them and their progeny out again upon the streets. He should be allowed to extend hope of recovery of lost pets to grieving owners, and to offer others to kind, suitable new homes; or if of a type not to be appreciated, they should at least be granted a merciful death. This is the protection and these the opportunities which the really humanely supervised but understaffed and poorly financed other two agencies extend to their fullest capacities. The McGrath bill (S. 1703) would impose upon the rights of pet owners, of those with humane tendencies, and would seek to force a kind poundmaster into betraying the trust placed in him by the public. It would sanction more degrading of students by making their material more plentiful and cheaper, hence would multiply the cases of the already disgraceful postoperative lack of care of their victims. Vivisection is a moral wrong, a blot upon professed Christianity. Vivisectors pick out the most docile, trusting domesticated creatures, render them more helpless to defend themselves and proceed to perpetrate upon them their un- restricted theories and fancies. To subject the dog, of the most acute capacities for both mental and physical suffering, to such, is indeed a shameful travesty upon our boasted “land of the free, and home of the brave.” Doctors, researchers, laymen should have enough faith in the Great Physician, Jesus Christ, to seek His divine guidance, be it granted through prayer, wholesome methods of nature, of which He is the Creator, or through such as the old-fashioned kindly, faith-filled doctors, who spent more time accurately observing patients and prescribing according to the laws and remedies of nature than depending upon researchers and IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 89 tortured animals in laboratories near and far. In the end, the real test of an anticipated remedy must be upon man himself for the ills he brings upon himself and his offspring. The words “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful” (Luke 6: 36) and “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up (James 5:15) are as true today as when Christ walked this earth I appeal to you therefore, Mrs. Smith, a woman, like myself, of the sex that should be tender-hearted toward the helpless, to oppose this merciless Senate bill 1703, and in the name of the Creator who made us all, use your power to spare creatures who cannot plead for themselves, and especially those sought-after ones, dogs, and the dogs just now of our own District of Columbia pound. God’s own blessing will be upon you. In their behalf, in the Saviour’s name, Sincerely, Virginia W. Sargent, President. P. S. — If you could be in the midst of so many abandoned, given-up, homeless canines, trying in so many pathetic, inarticulate ways to express their gratitude and happiness for the love and protection of them at the Animal Protective Association as I have been here for the last 12 years and elsewhere for around 35 years, you could never let one go for experimentation from anywhere, no matter how badly the doctors want them and for whatever. You would surely insist upon the better way of curing human ills and the God-way. V. W. S. (Mav 27, 1949.) Dr. Churchill, Massachusetts General Hospital? (No response.) The Chairman. Dr. Shell? (No response.) The Chairman. General Bliss? (No response.) The Chairman. Admiral Swanson? (No response.) The Chairman. Dr. Woodard? Just a moment Mr. Woodard. We will take these from Boston first. Mr. Kirkland. Is Mr. Joseph Strickland, of Boston, present? The Chairman. The committee plans to adjourn at 4 o’clock and go on tomorrow, so all we can get in will help the program tomorrow. Mr. Strickland, will you give your name to the reporter? STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. STRICKLAND, INVESTIGATOR, NEW ENGLAND ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY Mr. Strickland. My name is Joseph Strickland, Madam Chair- man. I have been a full-time investigator for the New England Anti- Vivisection Society for the past 15 years. I would call attention to the committee that I testified at the Lemke hearing and the record, of course, will give adequate information of some of the results of my findings. I am here today merely in the interests of the New England Anti- Vivisection Society to get its viewpoint placed on the record. My testimony will only take about 6 minutes, but I do crave your indul- gence in that respect. This society, meaning the New England Anti- Vivisection Society, is one of the oldest, largest, and most highly respected and influential organizations of its kind in the United States, with headquarters in Boston. The society is organized as a public charity under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its membership is drawn from people in all walks of life, and from every part of the countrv and 91703—49 ■7 90 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES includes today, and has always included, many men and women of prominence and distinction in both public and private life, including among others high churchmen, prominent public officials, judges, law- yers, doctors, educators, authors, editors, and publishing personnel, librarians, and business men and women. Many of these distin- guished people reside in the District of Columbia. A letter to this committee from one I would like to add as a part of this record. I don’t think I need read this because you can have it. It is from Bascom Timmons. The Chairman. Without objection it will be included in the record. (The letter from Bascom N. Timmons, dated February 3, 1949, is as follows:) Washington, D. C., February 3, 1949. Hon. George R. Farnum, New England Anti-Vivisection Society , Boston, Mass. Dear Mr. Farnum: As one who has always had a horror of the scientifically measured agonies of animal vivisection I want to express my appreciation of your great work. As a newspaper man for more than 40 years, whose assign- ments have carried him into every State in the Union and into perhaps every phase of newspaper investigation and writing I say without hesitation that the most diabolical cruelty I have ever known is the mutilation of trembling little animals through vivisection. Hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs are maimed, tortured, and put to death every year in reckless, cold-blooded animal experimentation. Tens of thousands of them were loved pets torn through theft from the intimacy and care of a home and condemned to the unspeakable anguish of the vivisection room. If it is conceded — but I do not concede — that there is the right of one part of creation to inflict torture on another part what great, worth-while thing has it proved? Has it done anything to lessen the toll on the human race from heart disease or apoplexy or cancer? Certainly the great discoveries such as the sulfa drugs and penicillin were not born of the dying convulsions of helpless, trusting animals and owe nothing to vivisection. Keep up your fight for a cause wrhich is winning recruits every day. Vivisec- tion is condemned by some of the wrorld’s greatest physicians and surgeons. Yours sincerely, Bascom N. Timmons. (Editorial Postscript. — The writer of this scorching indictment of vivi* section is head of his own Washington bureau serving over 20 important news- papers throughout the country, and is the author of Garner of Texas recently published by Harper Bros.) Mr. Strickland. We denounce this bill first as involving an outrageous betrayal of Christian principles; second, as reflecting an indifference to the moral, and probably the legal rights of owners of private property. • I say probably. Third, as a shameless proposal to ride rough-shod over the sensibilities of human people. Fourth, as a ruthless attempt to make the Government an accomplice of the experimenters and an accessory before the fact to their revolting and debasing practices. I have made hundreds of visits investigating what goes on in the experimental laboratories, and know whereof I speak. But you do not need to take the word of a fact-finding antivivisectionist. All that is necessary is to read the accounts of the experiments with which the medical journals abound — although these are often couched in highly technical language which screens the shocking facts — and further, study the pictures with which they frequently have been illustrated. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 91 In all fairness, I must say, very frequently there is a great tendency to misinterpret things of this nature, something I wish to go on record as saying that I have never done. There is a danger. We further say that enactment of such a bill as that before you would make the. public no less than an accomplice in this evil. Nobody can deny that the major objection to this bill is the horrible fate that awaits the animal when he is taken to the laboratory. Massachusetts has proclaimed through the action of its lawmakers, that the thought of permitting the vivisectors to obtain impounded animals was utterly repugnant to its conscience and the humane spirit of its inhabitants. The Committee on Legal Affairs to which the so-called Miles pound bill was referred just a few months ago, was literally inundated by protests against its passage, and unanimously reported against it.. This report was adopted by both houses of the legislature without a dissenting vote. Pound bills as such died in Massachusetts. Madam Chairman and members of your committee, we appeal to you to follow this humane precedent and keep the record at the Nation’s Capital unblemished. The New England Anti-Vivisection Society declines to compromise with anything it deems fundamentally wrong, and on behalf of its president, the Honorable George B. Farnum, former Assistant United States Attorney General, X so record it. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Strickland. Any questions? Senator McGrath. How many States have passed laws making these dogs available from pounds? Somebody testified here that Maine passed such an act. Is that correct? Mr. Strickland. Just recently. I am very glad you asked that question, Senator, for this reason: I believe at the Library of Congress some years ago they tabulated this whole legislative situation through- out the United States. I know I have a copy, and if you cannot find it, I will be very happy to send it. Senator McGrath. I am sure we can get it. Mr. Strickland. Yes, I am sure it is available here. I know Mr. Lemke will bring it to your attention. I think the Library of Congress has it. Senator McGrath. You do not happen to know offhand how many States have taken such action? Mr. Strickland. You mean recently? Senator McGrath. How many States permit it now? Mr. Strickland. You mean permit vivisection? Senator McGrath. How many permit it? Have any States taken action to specifically prohibit it? Mr. Strickland. No. As a matter of fact, none, with the exception that some States have forbidden the use of vivisection in high schools, Maine and Massachusetts particularly. But there is no legislation on the statute books forbidding vivisection. Senator McGrath. No more questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Strickland. Mr. Strickland. Thank you. The Chairman. Mr. Cunningham. 92 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES STATEMENT OF JAMES F. CUNNINGHAM, WASHINGTON ANTI- VIVISECTION SOCIETY Mr. Cunningham. My name is James F. Cunningham, 6002 Sycamore Road, Baltimore, Md. I am a special investigator formerly with the Maryland Anti- Vivisection Society, and the Animal Protec- tive Group ol Maryland, and I am now connected with your local society here. My job has been principally running down dog thieves or procurers, and I have done that quite extensively. I have been fairly successful at it. But you close them in one place arid they open in another. We know the method these dog thieves operate under. Principally what I want to bring up is, there is no scarcity of animals. We know that from facts. The same doctors who testified here this morning can call up Landis of Hagerstown, Scherer of Hershey, Pa.r and Anthony of Littlestown, Pa., the Brendel Animal Farm of Littlestown, Pa., Arnold of Hanover, Pa., and within 2 hours, if they want, have 1,500 dogs. Senator McGrath. Do you regard these organizations as legitimate operators? Mr. Cunningham. No; they are not. Senator McGrath. They are not? Mr. Cunningham. They are not. Senator McGrath. They get their dogs by Mr. Cunningham. Various ways and means. They are very smooth, the way they get them; and unfortunately, I visited many of the hospitals, in fact, I have a letter right here signed by Dr. Blalock, who I respect very much — he testified this morning — where they admit of the terrible condition, not in so many words, that these animals were in. Senator McGrath. May I ask you this? Assuming we approach for the sake of argument to achieve the lesser of two evils. Is it better to provide these dogs to hospitals that are going to get them anyway through a legitimate source, or is it better to continue to have them provided through the illegitimate source? Mr. Cunningham. 1 tell you, Senator, I would say no, for the simple reason the medical profession, as you know the way they are fighting President Truman’s health bill — they have great maneuvers. They prophesied 2 or 3 years back that they would get these dogs. They would get them. They would force it through, they would get them through congressional methods and so forth to get them. If you give them to them in Washington, they are licked all over the rest of the country because they will follow suit. But I definitely tell you, there is no scarcity of dogs. Senator McGrath. You would prefer, then, from the point of view of your organization, to fight the evil of doing away with these illegitimate dog farms than to have legislation on the statute book which made it permissible to get them through some public authority? Mr. Cunningham. Yes. Senator McGrath. And you think that that is the position of humane organizations? Mr. Cunningham. I really believe, yes, because we have been very successful in doing that. I can quote you three cases. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 93 Senator McGrath. What steps do you take through your organi- tions to prosecute these farms for their illegitimate practices? Mr. Cunningham. Of course, I have three cases here. They are very brief. Senator McGrath. That is all right. Take your time. This is the information we are very anxious to know about. Air. Cunningham. Of course, most of these deliveries are pretty hard to catch up with. They are made around daylight, or around midnight, at night. We know that the Pennsylvania Railroad engineers are riding dogs in to Washington from Maryland now. At least, they were in 1947, as they gave me an order as an investigator, which I will let you read, to deliver 40 cats a week to the university — to George Washington University. We tracked that down from the ad as you will note from the top there. That was an order given to me. Senator McGrath. From whom? Who gave you the order? Mr. Cunningham. His name is right on there. I have several of them in my files. If I knew this testimony was going to be permis- sible, I would have brought them over. Senator McGrath. Just to get a continuity of the testimony Mr. Cunningham. You can keep that, if you want to. Senator McGrath. I just want to get it straight. You represented yourself to the university as being able to produce animals? Mr. Cunningham. No, no. I represented myself to this procurer that I was a big supplier of animals, and he was a little short of animals at that time. My trucks were going into Washington, and it would not be a repetition of travel, and I would make his delivery for him. In other words, we want to get these fellows in writing. We suspect them from their ads. We can pick their ads. I have a half dozen right here in the Washington papers. They are practically all procurers. The Chairman. May I see one? Senator McGrath. Read one of those ads, will you, that you know to be an ad of a procurer? Mr. Cunningham. Yes. Let me read this ad here for you. This we definitely know: Wanted: Cats and kittens, over 6 weeks; reasonable price paid; HI 0944-J. This appeared in the Washington Star, and of course we called on this gentleman and he referred me to his Baltimore representative. This representative called me at my home and he said, “I represent Mr. Fellows in Baltimore” — this is big business, this supplying of animals. Of course, we proceeded Senator McGrath. I may say that because I felt it was big busi- ness, that the evils that flow from this big illegitimate business ought to be corrected, that there may be an approach through this medium. Now maybe this is not the approach. Mr. Cunningham. I would agree with you in a sense, but it is surprising the way we have been bringing them up. The Chairman. Do you have any recommendation, Mr. Cunning- ham, as to how we can get at this? Mr. Cunningham. You mean to get at the procurers? The Chairman. Yes. 94 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mr. Cunningham. Yes, definitely, very simply. You have an animal statute on the books now, I believe, that prohibits the trans- portation of highjacked cattle or stolen cattle over the State lines. Now, if we amend that and write in also dogs and cats, then thieves vTill not take hot stuff over the State lines. Senator McGrath. Has any such amendment to the Federal statutes ever been proposed? Mr. Cunningham. No, it has not been proposed. Senator McGrath. What has been happening to these humane societies? What have these humane societies been doing in this field? Mr. Cunningham. I have only been in this type of work for the last two and a half years, but T can see many things that have been neglected for years. These bills should have been passed 25 years ago, but unfortunately they have been lax in their methods of operation. I operate a large real-estate company, and we could not operate business the way many of these societies are operating. They mean well, but they do not have the initiative to go out and get it. There is another simpler method where we could request or demand, pass a law, that we can stop the selling of stolen dogs. Every insti- tution demands, when John Smith delivers a load of dogs, that John Smith produce a bill of sale signed by a notary public for one fox- hound, brown and white male, about 3 years old; one collie, sable and white — that would stop it overnight, because thieves will not sign bills of sale. Senator McGrath. Did you hear the testimony this morning of the representative of one of the hospitals that they did get a bill of sale for every dog that they purchased? Mr. Cunningham. I wish that I could have brought along what they call a bill of sale. It happened in Pennsylvania; it looks like a petty cash ticket — Received, $2 for one dog. This dog is my property. Now these same procurers, Brendel in Littlestown, Pa., was the one who specialized in getting out that receipt. If he will buy four dogs from one man and take four receipts, he knows right well that that man is not raising four dogs. It is just a cover; that is all it is. I believe Georgetown University here in Washington said that is the kind of receipt the}7 get. That is all they get. Senator McGrath. Are there not people who raise dogs solely for this market? Mr. Cunningham. No, that would be too expensive to do that. Johns Hopkins many years ago — not so many years ago — had a farm called the Red Top Farm in Maryland. They started raising dogs. Well, of course, when they began to use a puppy around 6 or 7 weeks, which of course they do, that was not expensive. But when they get to use a dog that has got to weigh around 35 or 40 pounds, it takes about a year and a half to bring a dog to the weight where they can use him, because they definitely tell you that most of these dogs have got to be able to take it. Senator McGrath. In other words, they have got to be full- grown and mature? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 95 Mr. Cunningham. They have got to be able to take it, yes, full- grown. They generally specialize in what they will have to get. If this was in October or November, I would love to take the committee through and show you real facts. You would see some of the most beautiful foxhounds, rabbit hounds, Llewellyn setters, bird dogs — and up at Hopkins last year I believe it was, one of the most beautiful St. Bernards was nothing but skin and bones. I bred dogs for 25 years. I know dogs. I am not running away from what you have in your mind, but 1 thought I would like to get this in. I know of one particular case of a gorgeous Irish setter. I made an investigation up there. Of course, the fortunate part in my case, they never knew me. They never knew me, and of course I could get in and out of there. This dog was in such terrible condition that it was laying up against the wall. That is the only way it could stand, and the attendant up there said that dog should have been destroyed 3 months ago. He said, “They are using it over and over, and do not let them tell you that they use a dog and then after they are through they put them out of the way. They do not do that.” But the principal thing that I wanted to testify is, there is no scarcity of dogs. They can get them. Senator McGrath. I was going to ask him if he has a list of all known procuring farms in the Washington area. Mr. Cunningham. I will be glad to send them to you. Senator McGrath. I would like to put it in this record. Mr. Cunningham. I will be glad to send it to you. It may take me a few days to get them. (The above-requested information has not been supplied for the record.) The Chairman. Do you have any other recommendations except the amendment about going over State lines that would assist in stopping this selling of dogs? Mr. Cunningham. Well, I think if we could pass a law that the medical societies — we cannot stop them from vivisecting. We know that. We probably will not live long enough to have that happen. But we can demand — I think we can pass — a law that if the medical society goes to buy a truckload of dogs — and they buy them in truckfuls; they do not buy them in twos and threes — when they drive up to the door, Scherer, Anthony, what have you, “All right, I got 60 dogs on here.” “All right. I want 60 bills of sale for each particular dog, not one for the group.” That will stop it overnight. Senator McGrath. What is the market price of a dog at the present time? Mr. Cunningham. Well, I understand that some of them are bringing as high as $30 apiece. So the $2 day of dogs is gone. Those were the days when they used to carry them in the potato sack over their back, when the colored boys grabbed them on the lot. The Chairman. What are kittens bringing? Mr. Cunningham. I would say kittens would bring now — there is quite a lot of experiments on kittens. I would say kittens would bring around $2 to $2.50 apiece. Grown cats will bring $5, $6, or $7. It all depends on how bad they need it. 96 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES I had an incident. It would be very interesting to you folks. Then I will finish. I contacted a certain engineer of the Pennsylvania Railroad on the Baltimore side, and he was telling me that, “Well now, I am a little short of cats right now. 1 made two good-sized deliveries in the last week, but I have two cats up at the Union Station in Baltimore that have kittens, and I want to leave them about 3 or 4 more days with the kittens. Then I can take the mother cat away from the kittens and the kittens will be able to survive themselves until they grow up a little longer, and then we can deliver the cats to you.” That is the type of individuals that have been selling to hospitals. When they will take a mother away from young kittens Senator McGrath. You were telling us the history of one case here, and I think I interrupted you with a question. Have you finished that story? Mr. Cunningham. You mean about the case we had in Baltimore? Senator McGrath. Yes. Mr. Cunningham. We had the University of Maryland case there where it was in May 1948. Henry Bergann of 1412 West Pratt Street, I gave Henry Bergann a position in one of my buildings in order to get information from him; but I did not do that until after I had found out that he was convicted and caught. He was employed by the University of Maryland as a laboratory assistant, cleaning up or feeding the dogs or what have you. I believe he was getting around $80 a month and his meals. He asked for some more money, and they said, “Well now” — this is testimony, this is in criminal court — “We cannot give you any more money; but if you want to go out and pick up some dogs and bring them in to us, we will pay you so much apiece for them.” Henry Bergann goes out, and the University of Maryland fur- nishes him with a carrier, and he goes up to Falls Road, and there is a little girl walking along with her dog on a lead. He grabs the dog off the lead, a little fox terrier, throws it in the carrier, and jumps on the trolley car. Fortunately someone happened to see the little girl crying and a motorcycle policeman happened to be going by a block or so, and they told the motorcycle policeman what happened, and he headed off the car and he had him arrested and they took him off there. He was fined. I think he served 30 or 45 days in jail. He did not have any money. He was married and had a couple of children. Judge Dickenson had that case. He served 30 days in jail, and Judge Dickenson found — I believe it was Albert Kellihner, who was con- nected with the University of Maryland — guilty, and Bergann also, for the University of Maryland furnishing the carrier. Then we had another case, I believe it was in November, by the name of John Scherer Tuck. This Scherer holds a very responsible position with the Hershey Chocolate Co. They were delivering a group of dogs. I see Mrs. Scherer is here from Baltimore. I would rather let her tell you about that, because I do not want to take any of the glory away from the wonderful job they did. They took these dogs right off the elevator of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, something that was never done before; and 3 or 4 days afterwards these dogs were in terrible condition and more than half of them had died. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 97 Unfortunately he was acquitted. Senator McGrath. She can tell that story. Mr. Cunningham. Yes, Mrs. Scherer is present. The Chairman. We will call her tomorrow when we get to that. Are there any more questions, senator? Senator McGrath. No more questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. (The following letter was submitted for the record by Mr. Cunning- ham:) Baltimore 12, Md., May 25, 1949. Hon. Margaret C. Smith, Senate Building, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator: I wish to thank you and your committee for the courtesy of allowing me to testify before your important body yesterday, May 24. Pursuant thereto and in addition I wish to supply the following information which, I believe, was omitted on my part but is of vital importance and necessi- tates this letter to you as you shall probably wish to pass same to your associates on the committee. In Life Magazine of February 1949, opposite a complete page of photographs of numerous types and breeds of dogs, is a definite statement that there are 1,000,000 registered dogs in the United States. This means “registered show dogs,” not merely licensed dogs. In this same publication, it is revealed that there are approximately 20 million dog owners and approximately 7 million cat owners. With these figures before you and the gentlemen on the committee, it is need- less to mention the importance of this bill with the direct concern (gratitude or scorn as per outcome) of 27,000,000 people. Most courteously yours, James F. Cunningham, Special Investigator for the District of Columbia Antivivisection Society. P. S. — After testifying yesterday, I deeply regretted to learn that some spec- tators in the hearing room were under the false impression that I was in favor of pound dogs being turned over to the medical profession, in preference to their using house pets that may be illegally procured. In view of this misunder- standing, I herewith repeat that I am definitely opposed to turning over pound dogs, as per the bill in question. I am sure, however, that I made myself clear to you and your committee. My remaining hope is that this bill will not be passed. Thank you. The Chairman. We will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning after we hear the next witness. STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER M. BOOKER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, HOWARD UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D. C. Dr. Booker. My name is Walter M. Booker, associate professor of pharmacology of the Medical School of Howard University, and chairman of the committee on research promotion of that institution. I have a statement here prepared, which will require about 5 minutes to read. Honorable Senators, I come before you representing Howard University, an institution which for more than three quarters of a century has dedicated itself to the training of men and women in the liberal arts, the sciences, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, engi- neering, and the fine arts. The Congress of the United States, by its increased appropriations in the last one or two decades, has made it possible for us to reach the level of a small, first-class university, where students receive good, up-to-date training, at the hands of scholars from the best universities of this country and abroad, men and women who have 98 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES devoted the best portions of their lives toward making a better physical and spiritual world in which to live. In just a few minutes, I want to point out to you the status of teaching and research in the preelinical and clinical sciences at Howard University Medical School and what bearing the bill now before you has on these branches of medicine. The use of living animals in the teaching and research laboratories is an unalterable necessity if we are to continue our search for the truth in medicine and the biological sciences. Frown upon or wink at animal experimentation arid we go back to the age of the “body snatchers/’ to the age when “strong men” anesthetized patients for physicians and dentists by a severe blow on the head, and when pathologists were forced to steal and slip around in order to honestly look for “the cause of death” at the autopsy table. A very few people may doubt, although a considerable number may not know, that medical progress comes as a direct result of basic science research, using animals — dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys. While some few things may be done on patients before trial on laboratory animals, in the vast majority of medical and surgical maneuvers and of therapeutic procedures, it would not only be foolish and backward, but actually criminal to use humans before techniques and procedures, as well as reactions, are known first on animals. It is, therefore, as simple as this with us: License laboratories for using unclaimed animals at the pound — instead of permitting destruc- tion of those unclaimed animals — and thereby, implement the con- tinued strides medical and natural sciences have made and are now making; strides which have resulted in the diminution of the incidence of many diseases and the death rate from those and other diseases, with the consequent increase in our life expectancy. We make a plea to you to implement our work by making it possible for us to obtain more animals, for as it now stands our teaching and research laboratories experience great strain brought about by the shortage of laboratory animals (particularly dogs and cats) and by the high cost of the animals which we of necessity bring from afar. The research grants-in-aid which we obtain from governmental agencies, such as the National Institute of Health and the Cancer Institute, and from private sources are heavily burdened by animal costs. The use of unclaimed animals from the District pound would markedly lower these costs and free a good part of the research budget for much needed apparatus and technical assistance. If there is doubt among you as to the care and handling of animals at our institution, I invite your attention to the rules and regulations regarding not only the housing, feeding, and general welfare of the animals in our animal quarters, but, as well, the handling of animals in the laboratories by students and by staff members. These rules and regulations will be entered into the record of these hearings before closure. In summary, I cite you work either completed or now in progress at our institution: On barbiturate poisoning and treatment; on fluid balance and shock; on the blast syndrome; on edema, protein sub- stitute and experimental surgical procedures; on cancer; on pentothal anesthesia; on studies in vitamin C metabolism, intra-abdominal pressure; and so forth. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 99 All of these pieces of work have been done or are being done on animals, mostly dogs; and from each, something worth while has been learned, to the contrary, notwithstanding previous testimony on this point, having great value on the problems that face the physician at the home bedside and/or in the hospital, and on the problems that face the dentist. Over against this — and I want to be very clearly understood in this connection — I challenge the opponents of this bill to point out one bit of information or good that has been derived from gassing an average of 10,000 unclaimed dogs and cats a year at the District pound. So I say to you, gentlemen, and ladies, Madam Chairman, the case is clear: Thousands of dollars are yearly granted us by private and governmental agencies for research, and the Congress appropriates to our medical school thousands for teaching medical science and the allied sciences. We beg of you to aid us in our quest for the truth by making more animals available. Legalize the use of unclaimed from the District pound, so men can work with the knowledge that they have your confidence in their efforts to improve man’s lot here on earth. The Chairman. Thank you, very much. There is a strong belief that much of the vivisection is done by inexperienced medical students. To what extent do experienced doctors supervise and control this at Howard University? Dr. Booker. Every laboratory in which there are students in formal class work; every laboratory is supervised very closely by instructors and professors of the departments concerned. At the beginning of all the courses where animals are used students are given specific instruction on the care and the handling of animals. In the instances of research laboratories, all research is supervised by staff members, and the research assistants who work with these staff members are quite aware of the necessity of care in handling of animals. They are sympathetic with our aims and ambitions in treating animals correctly as laboratory experimental material. The Chairman. Thank you, very much. Any questions, Mr. Kirkland? Mr. Kirkland. Could I ask you just one question, Doctor? You have several of your associates here. Is there anything, in addition to your testimony, they can give? Would they care to file a statement or appear tomorrow? Dr. Booker. Statement will be filed by Dr. Charles Drew, who contributed much to our knowledge of plasma and blood bank. I heard testimony here regarding England. I would like to say that Dr. Charles It. Drew was one of the outstanding contributors to the development of techniques and procedures in the blood bank. Mr. Kirkland. Is he available to testify tomorrow? Dr. Booker. He will be available. Dr. A. H. Maloney, the head of my department, was instrumental in developing an antibarbiturate drug, and he will be available, if you so desire. I would like to tell you more about the use of animals in drug standardizations: There has been a great deal of testimony to the contrary here today. Insulin, digitalis, for instance, and I would like to correct the record here. The cat unit is still acceptable in the matter of digitalis. The only reason there is a tendency to move away from the cat unit: Cats are 100 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES still used to assay digitalis. But there is a strong effort, and we find it too much to our advantage, to get the purified digitalis substance, so we can talk in terms of miligrams rather than in cat units. And the purer we get our material, the more available it is for intravenous injections. That, I would like for the record to show in countertestimony, which can be supported in the best pharmacological circles in the country. The Chairman. How many medical students do you have at Howard? Dr. Booker. We have about 285. The Chairman. Thank you, very much. The committee will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, meeting here at the same place. (Whereupon at 4 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, May 25, 1949.) IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1949 United States Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington , D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in the District of Columbia Committee room, Capitol Building, Senator Margaret Chase Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) and Hunt. Also present: James R. Kirkland, counsel to the full committee. The Chairman. The committee will come to order.* We will con- tinue the hearing of yesterday on S. 1703. I would like to repeat that there is still a long list of witnesses. This is the last day of the hearing. We are most anxious for everyone who has anything to contribute to be heard. I hope there will not be any demonstration so we can use that time in hearing the witnesses. At the end, if there are any who want to present a prepared state- ment for the record, we will be very pleased to accept them; and every- thing will be thoroughly briefed and studied before any report of the bill is made. Because of the death of the former Secretary of National Defense, the Honorable James Forrestal, and the funeral services this morning, we are going to recess out of respect at 11:15 and return at 2 o’clock. Again may I say that, unless someone has something new to con- tribute, will you please express yourself for or against the bill and let us extend your remarks in the record, rather than taking a long time to present that which has already been presented. Remember, we do not want to shut anyone off ; we want everything there is. But we do want new testimony. We will hear first from Dr. George C. Ruhland, District of Columbia Health Officer. STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE C. RUHLAND, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH OFFICER Dr. Ruhland. The name is George C. Ruhland, District Health Officer. I wish to say that so far as bill 1703 (S. 1703) is concerned, I am in favor of that bill. I want to call attention to certain provisions in that bill which apparently in the argument, as far as I was able to listen to it yesterday were overlooked. They are these. If this bill would go into effect, there still are pro- visions that could safeguard and would safeguard, 1 should say, the humane handling of animals, because it says in section 2, in the first 101 102 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES place, the Health Officer must pass judgment on the institutions to see that they are fit and proper agencies to receive dogs. Furthermore, in section 5 it says: Subject to the approval of the Commissioners, the Health Officer may promul- gate such regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, And in section 7, it says: Any person who violates any provision of this Act or any regulation promul- gated thereunder, or any person who wilfully fails to execute any duty imposed on him by this Act * * *. I think that language makes it clear that it is the intention of those who drafted this bill that they want reasonable control over the practice. I want to say right here that as Health Officer, and incidentally as also secretary of the Commission on Medical Practices, I am not impressed by titles; but I think I could give guaranty and refer you to the record that we would impartially enforce control measures. In this connection, I think I might bring to the attention of the committee the action by the Commission on Medical Licensing with regard to a person who claimed the title of M. D., a medical man; to prove that we are not embarrassed by the title M. D., but also to illustrate that procedure to deal with humans as guinea pigs is a very, very unfortunate matter. The person I have in mind was a person by the name of Henry Julius Shyerson, who traded on the vanity of mankind by advertising that he was the world’s outstanding plastic surgeon; that he could make the legs of women more beautiful if they would yield to his operation. He proceeded to operate upon a poor woman by the name of Haddon in Chicago, with the consequence that both legs had to be amuptated above the knee. That is practicing on humans. The man fortunately was finally caught up with. He tried to crash the Washington practice, which we denied; though he came fortified by persons of impressive stature here in this community. But finally he was sentenced and put into jail, where he should have been. Senator, may I presume a little bit on the fact that I am an old man. I think testimony was given yesterday that the medical pro- fession by and large was paying the penalty of its own philosophy. Well, I am now threescore and ten, and am yet able to devote myself to my duties. I should like to have that for the benefit of those who presented statistics yesterday or claims that the medical profession had outlived its usefulness and a new deal was in order. I say a person should have the benefit, as undoubtedly the committee will want, that the medical profession has not functioned so entirely without benefit to mankind. For the District of Columbia specifi- cally, although the National Board of Health can also testify, I should like to submit that the vital statistics showT that the District of Columbia has a lower death rate now from all causes than the Nation as a whole, 9.9. Furthermore, that in spite of the statistics which wTere presented yesterday, the death rate from tuberculosis was reduced in the District of Columbia within the past decade by 50.3 percent for the whites, and 47.5 percent for the colored, or for the entire population, 47.7 percent. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 103 That the infant mortality rate per thousand live births was from 1935 to 1948 reduced for the whites, 53.3 percent; for the colored, 66.9 percent; for the combined population, 59.8 percent. Maternal mortality was reduced for the whites, 95.2 percent; for the colored, 82.7 percent; and for the combined population, 88.5 percent. Furthermore, when you go into the matter of the reduction of pre- ventable diseases, I call attention to the fact that the District has been free from a death from smallpox for over 40 years by the appli- cation of vaccination, which Jenner gave us some 200 years ago. Diphtheria in the District has been reduced by 63 percent ; influenza by 98 percent; meningitis by 33 percent; scarlet fever by 100 percent; tuberculosis, 39 percent; typhoid by 67 percent; whooping cough by 96 percent ; pneumonia by 55 percent. Let me add here that I mention these as preventable diseases, and they are diseases that are influenced by the newer therapy which the medical scientist has been able to give us by means of so-called animal- research work called vivisection. I was impressed yesterday that the term “vivisection” was rather loosely used. I am impressed that a great many good people here sincerely are disturbed, thinking that here is the most brutal, in- humane procedure, cutting up dogs alive. Well, let me assure you that the medical research uses animals for various research purposes without cutting them up. These achieve- ments that I recite here are not by cutting. The operative procedure which Dr. Blalock presented yesterday, I think, is an illustration of the necessity and the wonderful achievement that can be had if a scientific person can devote himself to the study of defects in health that can be corrected. I am astounded that tears should flow at the recital of imagined cruelty to animals, but not one tear for the little kiddies whose lives were saved and prolonged. It is astounding the contrast of human nature. Here we agonize over alleged cruelties to animals, and yet think nothing of eating the lamb chop for which a pitiful little lamb had its throat brutally cut. I think if is a strange contrast in the behavior of human nature. If we are to be stopped in using animals, and I submit cruelty to animals might conceivably mean the guinea pig, the rabbit, might mean the sheep we have grazing here near the Municipal Center Building, whose blood we use and must use to make examinations to determine syphilis; and yet that method has reduced already the intake of those unfortunates who, because of unrecognized syphilis, become permanent residents at St. Elizabeths. So I cannot really say in the interest of humanity that we should cry out against the use of dogs. Religion was referred to yesterday, and on that basis I take liberty also to refer to religion. May I refer our good friends who are religious and who may possibly believe in the use of the Bible that in the first chapter of Genesis, verse 26, I believe, it is stated that animals are for the use of man, and I submit that the use of animals even in this connection may be a legitimate use. We do not want cruelty, not at all. If I should be made responsible under this act, I will see to it that no wanton cruelty will be inflicted upon dogs or any other animal. But I do think that human life should rate a little higher than that of animals. 104 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Thank you. Senator Hunt. Doctor, will you send to my office a copy of the list of reductions in the death rate on these various diseases? Dr. Ruhland. 1 will do that. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Ruhland. Mr. Marks, Poundmaster for the District. STATEMENT OF FRANK MARKS, POUNDMASTER FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Marks. My name is Frank E. Marks, Poundmaster for the District of Columbia. I have nothing much to say except the presen- tation of my views. The Chairman. That is exactly what we want. Mr. Marks. For the year 1948 we handled 7,999 dogs. Of these dogs, we captured 4,631 dogs. When I say “captured/7 I mean stray dogs that we picked up in the streets and loose dogs running at large. The Chairman. Who picks those up, Mr. Marks? Mr. Marks. Our truck. The Chairman. Just patrolling around picking them up as you see them? Mr. Marks. Yes. We have connections with the Police Depart- ment, and we get our calls through the police and also our wagons patrol the streets. Now I want to bring out that, of these 4,631 dogs, 2,001 were redeemed and put in homes. The Chairman. That is about 40 percent? Mr. Marks. Fifteen hundred of them were injured in the streets; had serious injuries, such as broken backs, legs, sides torn off by trucks, and we put them immediately to sleep. Then, 1,130 showed signs of having bad cases of distemper and mange. They were also put to sleep. Now, we collected 2,996 dogs, turned in by owners that we col- lected at their homes and some were brought into the pound. The Chairman. Is that because they wanted to get rid of them? Mr. Marks. Yes. Two thousand of them were 1-day old puppies not having their eyes open. They wanted them put to sleep. The balance, on request by the owners, was put to sleep on being too old to navigate and blind, and several of them were turned back to the owners by veterinarians that were too sick to be cured and sent to the pound by request to be destroyed. That is my story. The Chairman. Are you a veterinarian? Mr. Marks. No, ma’am. The Chairman. Do you have some questions, Senator? Senator Hunt. Do you work on a straight salary? Mr. Marks. Yes, sir. Senator Hunt. Would you explain to us what methods you use in destroying the dogs that it is necessary to destroy? Mr. Marks. Yes, sir. We destroy the dogs by gas. Senator Hunt. What gas? Mr. Marks. Monoxide gas. I want you to know that this system that 1 have, I inherited from the Health Department; prior to my taking over, the Health Department had charge of the District pound. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 105 The Chairman. How long have you been there? Mr. Marks. Thirteen years. The Chairman. How many people do you have with you? Mr. Marks. There are 11 besides myself. The Chairman. Do you have any veterinarians? Mr. Marks. Not for the benefit of our dogs, but they send down every day. We get in quite a number of sick dogs, and those are the dogs that are held in quarantine. They have to be there for 10 days for the benefit of the doctors that examine them for the Health Department. The Chairman. Do you find many with rabies? Mr. Marks. Well, to be honest with you, in our pound since I have been operating, we had 1 year during the epidemic — I do not believe we had four cases of dogs that acted as though they had rabies, in my mind. Of course, I am not a doctor; and I only go on my practical experi- ence from the number of years I have been handling dogs and owning dogs of my own, all my life. Senator Hunt. Would you describe the death chamber for us? Mr. Marks. Well, my death chamber is about 5 feet high and I would say 7 feet long. That is guessing close, and 4 feet wide. Senator Hunt. By what method do you put the gas into the death chamber? Mr. Marks. By regular engine, like an automobile engine. Senator Hunt. How many dogs do you destroy at one time? Mr. Marks. Two. Senator Hunt. Is that your usual practice, two at a time? Mr. Marks. Yes, sir. We put two in the box, and it takes, from what I have observed, probably three and a half minutes, and the dog is dead. In two and a half minutes he lies down and falls off to sleep. I figure in about three and a half minutes the dog is dead. Senator Hunt. Does he go into any muscular spasms during the death? Mr. Marks. No, sir. We have a window in our death chamber that you can come down there and view it and see for yourself, if you like. The Chairman. You must be having dogs in there all the time if you only destroy two at a time, Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks. Well, we destroy two at a time; sometimes we destroy more than two. But we only put two in a box at a time, and when they are dead we put two more in, about every 4 or 5 minutes. Some days we destroy as many as 25. Some dajn we destroy 8, 10' — it depends on how many we bring in. The amount of dogs is varied that we bring in. Senator Hunt. If you had a dog picked up and delivered to your custody and you could see that that was a valuable dog, or if for some reason you thought that dog was a pet, even though it might not be a valuable dog, would you make any effort to hold that dog longer than the 48 hours hoping to find the owner? Mr. Marks. I absolutely do, and I do find the owners. I find the owners of a majority of those dogs. You can almost tell when a dog is a pet by his actions, just like a good child and a bad child. The Chairman. What happens on Sunday, Mr. Marks? Do you have someone there all day Sunday? 91703 — 1C 8 106 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mr. M arks. We have men on duty Sunday to clean up and feed and take care of emergency orders. We do not pick up anything on Sunday. The Chairman. Does the 48 hours include Saturday and Sunday? Mr. Marks. We work only 40 hours, but we alternate The Chairman. I moan the time the dogs are kept before they are disposed of. Do you include the Saturday and Sunday? Mr. M arks. Well, we do not dispose of healthy dogs. It is not necessary. We find homes for them. The Chairman. How long do you keep those dogs? Mr. Marks. I have kept dogs there as high as a week, and there are lots of those dogs that we get in that belong to people that are touring through the city. They jump out of their cars and they live in New York, and if they have a tag on them or license or any way of identification, we write to the collector there and get the name of the owner, and we contact those owners. We have returned many a dog like that. The Chairman. Do many dogs come in without tags? Mr. Marks. Yes, ma’am. The newspapers have been very kind and generous with me. They have been advertising dogs for me with large pictures and gave me quite a lot of space in their papers to help me to find the owners, which I have done. During around Christmas time, if we get in a lot of puppies, the papers put on a Christmas gift exhibition to give children dogs. We have also had children down there with their mothers or have had a mother down there that said the child would not eat, they could not do anything with him; and they came down there to get him a dog and took it home, and the child brightened up. The Chairman. There are rumors that dogs are sold from the pound. Would you comment on that? Mr. Marks. Rumors that The Chairman. That the dogs are sold. That you sell dogs and get something out of that. Mr. Marks. That I do? The Chairman. That the pound does. Mr. Marks. Oh, yes; we charge $2 for every dog that goes out. That is the law. That is the part that I carry out there. We have $2 for every dog that goes out of there. The Chairman. Is there any way for dogs to slip away from the pound? Mr. Marks. No, ma’am. The Chairman. What about feeding them when they get in there? What is the practice? Mr. Marks. We feed them very well. The Chairman. What do you feed them? Mr. Marks. Meat. The Chairman. How often? Mr. Marks. Every day. We buy 10,000 pounds of horse meat. We have a contract, and we use horse meat; and we also get the scraps and bones from the Zoo and from Gallinger Hospital, and we cook it. All our meat is cooked. We have a little kitchen down there where we fix up everything for them. The Chairman. You do not mix anything with it? You just use the meat? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 107 Mr. Marks. That is all. The Chairman. What would you say the annual income from the selling of dogs is? Mr. Marks. I have a break-down. I turn in for the redemption and so forth about $5,000 a year. But we also sell anywhere between eight and nine hundred tags. Of course, I will not let a dog go out in District of Columbia unless you buy a license for the dog, too, which means $5 — $3 for the license and $2 for the dog. Now, then, people who live in Virginia and Maryland and all around in the metropolitan area, of course we cannot sell them the license in the District. But we have a form which I inherited from the Health Department that they used before I came here, and I am still carrying it on. If you will read that, that is what they sign when they live in Mary- land and Virginia, or any out-of-town place. They have to give us identification, too. That is the form that was gotten up by the Health Department, and I have been using it. I have not changed my system since I have been there. Everything I do is just like the Health Department did. The Chairman. Mr. Kirldand, there is an affidavit that has been given to us. Will you read it and have Mr. Marks comment on it? Mr. Kirkland. Mr. Mullin is present, I think. The Chairman. Is Mr. Mullin here? Mr. Mullin. Yes. The Chairman. We understand this affidavit has been sworn to, signed by you. Do you want to tell the reporter your name? STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. MULLIN, VETERINARIAN, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Mullin. Eugene F. Mullin, doctor, veterinarian. The Chairman. Mr. Marks, we would like to have you listen to this and then comment on it, please. Mr. Mullin (reading) : Inasmuch as so much publicity, newspaper items, and sob columns has been given to the local Poundmaster praising his humane treatment of and sympathetic attitude toward dogs, I believe it would be no more than fair to examine the other side of the picture, trying to see how far this humane action or sympathy is ex- tended toward the animals involved. My name is Eugene F. Mullin. I am associated with Harold Melman, on the staff of the Southeast Veterinary Hospital at 2238 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. I live at 2128 L Street NW. I am a graduate of George Washington University and have practiced veterinary medicine for 24 years. I have had opportunity to observe the Poundmaster’s practices while serving as veterinary inspector from May 1942 to April 1946, being detailed by the Health Department of the District of Columbia during the recent rabies epidemic to assist in the diagnosis, as well as in the prevention, of rabies in impounded animals. For example, I examined and quarantined dogs with record of biting or other suspicious activity. During the epidemic, Dr. Cumming, Chief of the Bureau of Communicable Diseases, recommended: (1) that all stray and unlicensed dogs be impounded; (2) that the sale of dogs from the pound be stopped during the epidemic; and (3) that unclaimed dogs be destroyed at the end of 48 hours. Poundmaster Marks not only refused to cooperate during this period but gave as his opinion that there is no such disease as rabies, and that I had no right to incarcerate suspected animals. One year later, after two persons died of rabies, the District Commissioner ordered that no dog was allowed to run free, off leash, that no dogs were to be 108 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES sold from the pound, and that all dogs in the District were to be inoculated against rabies. Two months after enactment of this order, rabies cases dropped from 20 to 2 per month. When the rabies epidemic had subsided and rabies was no longer considered to be endemic in the District, sales restrictions were removed and dogs allowed to be sold. Sick, emaciated, and diseased animals were disposed of to anyone willing to pay the fee. Dogs are sold for a $2 fee. District of Columbia residents are required to pay $3 more, to cover license of $2 and an additional $1 fee for antirabies vaccination which is supposed to be administered before each such dog is sold. The Chairman. What is the date of this affidavit? Mr. Mullin. About a week ago. Mr. M arks. What was that last remark? Mr. Mullin. That the order reads that dogs should be vaccinated against rabies before they are turned over to the public. The Chairman. Proceed, if you will, please. Mr. Mullin (reading) : Actually, no vaccination is offered or given and no professional examination of the condition and health of dogs is performed before sale. A notice in the office pointed out to purchasers reads, “All sales are final.” Legally all sold dogs must be vaccinated against rabies and the proper authorities shall see to it that provision is made for such vaccination. No attention is paid to this law by the Poundmaster and his staff. Failure to have this done is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It should be noted that this failure is not only a menace to dog and human health, but is a fraud against the purchaser. At the order of the Poundmaster, all designated dogs must be asphyxiated before he arrives for work in the morning. At the height of the epidemic and during the tenure of the Commissioners’ order referred to above, as many as 100 animals daily were asphyxiated. The method of killing is the same now as it was during the epidemic. A concrete box about 4^ feet in height by 4 by 4 feet is topped by a heavy drop or trap door. Dogs are led two at a time to this vault, being dragged by neck ropes across a yard, swung or hoisted by the neck, and thrown into the chamber, the trap door being so arranged that those in tried in vain to escape or leap out. When no more dogs could be packed through this door, it was held shut by its own weight. Filling the vault takes about 20 minutes. The exhaust from a carbon monoxide generating engine is then admitted into the chamber through a one-half inch pipe, the rate of entrance of the gas being slow because of the narrowness of the pipe. The writhing, frightened mass of dogs are gassed for 20 minutes. By fork and shovel they are then removed from a small door at the base of the vault and loaded, breathing or not, into a large truck assigned for this purpose and are hauled to Blue Plains to be cremated. No professional observer, not even a trained attendant, watched to see if live dogs were among those consigned to cremation. There is no veterinary supervi- sion of the care of impounded animals under the present administration. Neither preventive nor therapeutic procedures are used as recommended by the veteri- nary profession for communicable diseases. Whelping bitches or those already having litters are housed in small buildings adjacent to the office. Pups and other salable dogs also occupy these quarters, which are damp and are always filthy. There are no means available for proper cleaning or sterilization. I should like to contrast the practices cited above with those of medical, vet- erinary, and other laboratories and schools — the 40-minute interval between being thrown into the vault and being taken, living or dead, to cremation, for example, with the few seconds required for intravenous anesthesia. To my own knowledge, dogs and other animals are better cared for and more mercifully treated in hos- pitals, laboratories, and schools than they are in the antivivisectionists’ defended pound of the District of Columbia. I support and urge the passage of the bills now before Congress, H. R. 4238 and S. 1703, which would save some of the doomed animals in the pound to be used under more skillful and more humane auspices for the public good. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 109 The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will have no demon- stration, please. We will call you back. That is a sworn statement signed by yourself? Mr. Mullin. Yes. The Chairman. Mr. Marks, will you please comment on those re- marks, if you will? Mr. Marks. Some of those things I deny. In the first place, during the rabies epidemic, being a public servant, I carried out my orders as I was instructed to do. I have no reason to feel that I did not do the right thing. When they ordered us not to sell any dogs, we did just w'hat they told us to do, and we carried out our orders to the letter. The Chairman. How are the dogs vaccinated before they are sold? Mr. Marks. We do not vaccinate any dogs. I have never been required under any condition to vaccinate dogs. The Chairman. Have you ever requested a veterinarian for permanent — * — Air. Marks. When I sell a dog, I always talk to the people and I request that if they want to really be sure and take good care of their dog, take it to a veterinarian and have him to look it over and see what is necessary. The Chairman. Do you take any of those back after they have been sold? Air. Marks. We sold a lot of dogs that people get them home and find that they cannot manage them, or something of that sort, and they bring them back and we take them. The Chairman. Senator Hunt’s suggestion is very good, that you be given time to read and study the statement that was just read and then present a statement if you wish, for the permanent record of the hearing. Would you like to do that? Air. Marks. Yes. (The statement above-referred to is as follows:) Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Poundmaster, May 27, 1949 . Answer to Statement Submitted by Eugene F. Mullen I deny that I have ever refused to cooperate with Dr. Gumming or any other Chief of the Bureau of Communicable Diseases during any epidemic or at any other time. As a matter of fact, I made the recommendation and helped draft the regulation that no dog was allowed to run off leash. Sick and diseased dogs are not disposed of to anyone. There is no law that I know of that requires antirabies vaccination be administered before any dog is sold. The present regulation provides that dogs shall be vaccinated during certain periods at the expense of the District, and it is not known by me how much of the license fee is allocated to this expense. As for the sign in the office which reads “all sales are final” and “no refunds,” it was there when I took office and has not been changed. Incidentally, my predecessor in office was under the supervision of the Health Department. I deny that there is any cruelty at the pound. The dogs and other animals are destroyed in a humane manner and in a matter of 3 to 4 minutes. Only two to three dogs are destroyed at one time. I deny that the pound or it’s quarters for dogs are damp and filthy. To the contrary they are always kept in a clean and sanitary condition. During my 13- year term I cannot recall any complaints against the Pound or my administration thereof as Poundmaster. 110 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES The pound is open 8 hours daily except Saturday and Sunday, and inspection thereof is not only invited but solicited at any such time. Respectfully submitted. Frank B. Marks, Poundmaster. The Chairman. That seems a very fair way of handling that. Senator Hunt and I had not read the statement before it was presented to you, and we think it is only fair to you to do the same thing. Do you have any other questions, Senator? Senator Hunt. No. The Chairman. I have just one more question. Do you think that you are using the easiest way perhaps or the most humane way, if you can think of it that way, in disposing of these dogs? Mr. Marks. 1 certainly do, and I would like to have someone come down there that is not officially connected; and we would like to demonstrate and show you just what we do. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Marks. Dr. Mullin, do you wish to return with your statement now? You are here in place of Dr. Kelser who came down from Philadelphia yesterday and did not have time to testify, did not have time to stay. We are very sorry to have missed Dr. Kelser. I did not realize he had to go back. If you will proceed, please. Mr. Mullin. That is, give my opinion The Chairman. Your own testimony that you want to offer for the hearing. Mr. Mullin. I would like to support the bill inasmuch as it would be of benefit to education and to humanity. My own interest is for the sake of the animals because so much has been charged against the handling of them and the treatment of them, because I know it is all false. Having been called upon to investigate and examine the differ- ent compounds and pounds where the animals are kept — take, for instance, Howard University. That, I believe, is one of the nicest, cleanest, and most sanitary kennels that can be found anywhere, including the Small Animal Hospital in town. The same applies to Georgetown. George Washington I have not been in. But I do know that dogs are handled humanely and carefully as well as no cruelty is practiced, because if anybody — the people that claim they are with dogs know you can only be cruel to a dog once. From then on he is your enemy, and it is utterly impossible to do anything with him. The way they are handled by the schools and the laboratories, I know it is done for the benefit of the dog and for the safety and for his own feelings. My real reason for disapproving of the hullabaloo raised over the activities of the pound and the Poundmaster, because so many become excited over self-praise and praise administered to him, I do not think he is worthy or deserving; but that is a personal opinion. I do think that the animals at the pound could be better handled, more humanely handled and more humanely destroyed. The present method of destruction would be abhorrent to anybody who ever had to witness it, particularly when the number of dogs to be destroyed is up in the forties and fifties; it just isn’t a sight that the average person likes to see. Senator Hunt. Would you mind to elaborate on how the dogs are placed in the pit? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 111 Mr. Mullin. The pit is located, we will say, about 50 feet from one entrance to the kennel. The condemned dogs are naturally roped, dropped over their neck, and they do not lead vvillingly to the chamber; they have to be dragged. On reaching the chamber, they have to be hoisted to the height of 5 feet, and they are not put down carefully. Their nooses are released and they are dropped. That would hold 25 to 30 dogs in that box. Each time the trapdoor must be closed down to make sure that those dogs that are in there do not leap out while the others are being put in. The idea of destroying two at a time may be at present, but I cannot conceive of it. In other words, you would have one man at the box all day long just destroying two dogs. It is more like a dozen to 15 at a time. The Chairman. Any more questions, Senator? Senator Hunt. No. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Mullin. Mrs. Clark. MRS. BENNETT CHAMP CLARK, MEMBER OF THE ANTIVIVISEC- TION SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D. C. Mrs. Clark. I am Mrs. Bennett Champ Clark. I am a member of the Antivivisection Society of Washington, D. C. I live at 2230 Q Street NW., Washington, D. C. It is a little difficult for me to speak dispassionately on this 48-hour proviso in what I consider a very vicious bill, because I do not think it has been brought out sufficiently that the Pound is not open 48 hours at a stretch. This actually boils down to 24 hours. May I give the committee a slight example of how this would work? Supposing, as many of us do, we go off to the country on Saturday afternoon; we play golf; we stay down there for dinner; the maid goes off ; perhaps I do not get home until 8 or 9 — it might be later at night. Somebody may easily, carelessly leave the garage door open, or the garden gate. My little dog may not have a collar on. My dog* does not sleep in her collar any more than I do. She may wander down to the corner, and one of the legalized thieves will now pick her up by the neck, throw her into the pound. By the time that I come home the pound is closed; and even if I went to the pound then and there and stayed there without food or sleep until Monday morning when it is again opened, it would already be too late. The Government would laugh at me and say, “Lady, try and get your pet back. The 48 hours are up, and it is on its way to the vivisection table to benefit humanity” — in this case the American Medical Association. The testimony yesterday seemed to narrow down to one question on this bill: Is animal experimentation regardless of suffering or torture — and I think we have produced sufficient evidence of torture — justifiable if it increases the longevity of man, and the doctors claim it does, or cure diseases, and the doctors claim it does? In direct contradiction to Dr. Blalock, I quote an excerpt from the British Medical Journal, June 12, 1948: Dr. Brock, a British surgeon, has perfected an operation which cures blue babies. He did not use dogs. His preliminary studies leading to successful operations were entirely clinical, and based upon observation of human patients, supple- mented by postmortem examinations. 112 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Dr. Blalock stated tliat lie went to London; Dr. Brock did not come liere. So, if a correspondence course is all that is necessary, we shall need fewer dogs as time goes on. Or if one doctor can teach another so quickly and successfully, we should need still fewer dogs. Dr. Blalock produced exhibits. Had I known that that was per- missible, and had there been room, I could have produced several hundred exhibits of cures by other methods where the doctors over a period of years steadily failed, in spite of all the experiments to effect a cure. Now remember that vivisection has been going on for hundreds of years; and in the United States alone, as it came out yesterday, 6,000,000 dogs annually are vivisected, and still they have not found a cure even for the common cold, let alone cancer or any of the other diseases. I could produce several exhibits. Sister Kenny, whose methods I know nothing of except the much-publicized and authenticated results proved that she cured vast numbers of people when the doctors failed. She was reviled and insulted by the doctors for daring to relieve suffering and to effect cures by methods other than their own. If these gentlemen are sincerely devoted to the cause of benefitting mankind, it would seem to me that they should welcome any cure, regardless of the method. I do not happen to be a Christian Scientist. I doubt if my faith would uphold me; it might. Yet daily testimony is given of cures where all medical skill failed. People whom the doctors have given up throw away their crutches at the shrine of St. Ann de Beaupre and walk. I do not pretend to know how these things happen. I know they do. Modern medicine, especially since the end of the war states that they are using psychiatric methods increasingly. They have said that actual symptoms of disease from every form of stomach ulcers to destruction of tissue can be produced by bodily poisons produced by tension of the human mind. Now, torturing dogs is not going to help us find the cause of tension in a human mind. Dogs, they tell us, have no mind as we understand the term. Slowly, very slowly, mankind progresses. Squibb’s Chemical Co., one of the best known in the world, and which employs considerable research, has announced that they have given up animal experimenta- tion as too inaccurate, in favor of electronics, which are 100 percent. The blue-baby operation I have just quoted; and now a simple inex- pensive device has been announced as infinitely more, also electronic, accurate way of detecting cancer. A recent news item of the New York Times quoted a well-known doctor saying that he was afraid the results of experimentation in cancer to date were greatly overplayed — the word is his, not mine. I quote the statement of Dr. Bell, vice president of the American Cancer Research Society to the effect that, as regards cancer, animal research is useless due to the difference in bodily chemistry. The large insurance companies who employ tremendous research, state that improved sanitation, better food, more outdoor living, and a better knowledge of health laws, had been the chief contributing factors in longevity. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 113 I might here quote my own family experience to the effect that my own mother’s life would have been shortened by about 41 years, and I should not have been here at all, if she had listened to the best medi- cal advice of her day. Fortunately she had not money enough, and guessed the new accepted cure of lung tuberculosis about 20 years ahead of time, which is roughly plenty of rest in a high, cold altitude, nourishing food, and that is all there is to the cure of tuberculosis of the lungs, no matter how much you pay for it. A few weeks ago we read in the papers shocking statistics of the venereal disease in the District high schools. I do not hear these gentlemen petitioning Congress for a bill to make the teachings of the horrors of venereal disease, not only in this generation but the next, in all schools mandatory. Doctors are not primarily interested in teaching the basic laws of health, though every health farm will, which, if faithfully followed, would eliminate 85 percent of all diseases — unprofitable, but nice for the rest of us. One doctor testified yesterday that a medical student if dropped from any medical school could never get into any other, an arbitrary and disciplinary rule that as far as I know is applied to no other seat of learning. If you are dropped from Harvard, you can still get into Yale or Princeton, if you qualify. Apparently they are their own police state. Disagree with them, and you are through. Yet two recent court cases, one still in the Federal courts, of gross negligence on the part of District hospitals resulting in a claim of life- long injury and loss of health and a verdict of $10,000 for the plaintiff, which would not compensate me; no law touched the hospital and the doctors did not discipline their own. Is it any wonder they dare not testify for us, except in the case of retired doctors, or doctors so famous they can afford to come out against animal experimentation? Incidentally, any lawyer will tell you that it is almost impossible to win a malfeasance or malpractice case because you cannot get a doctor to testify, even in the most flagrant cases. Now we come to a phase of the question which so far seems com- pletely untouched, the question of who is to be the judge of which of God’s creatures is more acceptable in His sight. A childhood friend of mine, former Governor Baxter of Maine, flew the flags of the Governor’s residence at halfmast when a member of his family, he so considered, died, a beloved airedale. We gave the highest honor the country can bestow, the Congressional Medal, for services beyond and above the call of duty. Ladies and gentlemen, the daily newspapers are filled with accounts of such services by these chattels and properties of ours. This think- ing today is considered obsolete and medieval. Let us contrast the dogs with some of our human family. The recent court case of a man who wanted to possess the body of a little child of eight, and attempted to gouge out her eyes alive; such men usually have been turned loose on society several times for similar, though lesser, offenses. How would you think his develop- ment and usefulness to society compared with, say, seeing-eye dogs that have brought a nearly normal life to thousands that might otherwise be shut-ins? Or the dog who gives his life to save a child from drowning? Or the dog who faces the burglar you do not hear, 114 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES or warns of fire in the night? Or the dogs who render valuable service in the war? Would it not be far more normal to use such fiends of the human family, and there are many, for infinitely more accurate research than our friends, the dogs, can offer? I presume these medical gentlemen regard themselves as Christians, and Christianity by the way is based upon the New Testament. That is, I doubt if any of them would care to stand up here and declare that they are not. But they go pretty far from the teachings of Christ, who also healed the sick and who taught if we had His faith, we might all do that which he did. He taught that what ye do to the least of my creatures, do ye also unto Me. If I might trespass on the committee’s time for less than half a minute to read a statement on the lawsuit concerning a dog, which was mitten by a young lawyer, one of the most brilliant minds that was ever in Congress of his day, the late great Senator Vest: Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its clouds upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful and treacherous, is the dog. Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches takes wings and repu- xation falls to pieces he is as constant in Pis love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard him against danger to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside wall the noble dog he found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death. Ladies and gentlemen, I beg you with everything that is in me that this vicious and iniquitious law shall not be allowed to pass. The Chairman. Mrs. Clark, thank you very much. Will you tell me, as I understand it, you are representing the Antivivisection Society of the District of Columbia? Have you personally visited the pound? Mrs. Clark. No, I have not personally. The Chairman. Have any of the members of your society visited the pound recently? Mrs. Clark. That I do not know. I know that Mrs. Ellison, who is not — she is also a member of the Animal Welfare League, has visited the pound. I know that on one occasion dogcatchers came in my street. Unfortunately I was in the bathtub and I could not get -out in time. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 115 But they dragged nets over a little dog whom I know quite well; he belongs to somebody at the corner. He did not have his collar on at the time, and he was yipping at my dog, because I had a small female dog about whom he was calling. The person who had the pound sent right for him. I yelled as loudly as I could to the men who were out with the big nets. I could not catch them. I called up Mr. Marks himself, who was not only helpful and kindly, but said to me, “Mrs. Clark, do not worry. You know that I make every conceivable effort to get a dog bac.K to his people. ” I said, “I happen to know this little dog belongs to people, even if he does not have a tag on; and I beg of you to hold him as long as you can.” He said, “You know I have always done that.” I said, “Yes, you have been a great friend.” The Chairman. Do you disapprove of the use of other animals as you do dogs? Mrs. Clark. I shouldn’t mind rats and mice particularly, I do not think. The Chairman. Do you approve of the method of dog disposal that is being followed now by the District poundmaster? Mrs. Clark. Well, the testimony was somewhat conflicting. Knowing Mr. Marks only through the telephone, knowing of his very great services to us in general, I should believe that Mr. Marks is a very humane man; and I should think as far as he is able to be hu- mane— I do not know whether the pound is so constituted that he may not be able to be humane in the disposal of them. After all, you cannot rebuild pounds. But that would be my feeling about it. The Chairman. Do you or your society have any recommendation as to some changes that could be made? Mrs. Clark. Well, I think we all feel, all the animal rescue people in Washington, feel that if we could do what they did in Baltimore and what they have done in other cities, which is that the pound should belong to the humane societies, and that we should run it, with the city contract, and I think we can run it much cheaper. At least, that is the figures of the city. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. No questions. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mrs. Clark. Mr. David Darrin. Can you get through in 5 minutes? We have 5 minutes left. STATEMENT OF DAVID DARRIN, GRADUATE OF CORNELL UNIVER- SITY, MECHANICAL ENGINEER Mr. Darrin. I have prepared a very extensive statement. The Chairman. It will be included in the record. (The prepared statement of David Darrin is as follows:) Mr. Darrin. Madam Chairman and members of the Senate Dis- trict of Columbia Committee; ladies and gentlemen of the audience and the Nation, sisters and brothers in God’s spiritual family on earth: In view of the basic and critical importance of the subject of this hear- ing, requiring divine aid to a correct decision, is it not in order to request that 1 minute be devoted to nonsectarian, silent prayer — each thinking in his own terms, to the God of his own concept, for 116 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES such aid to a true and right and permanent solution of this problem? Is this request in order? The Charman. Without objection. [Silent prayer.] Mr. Darrin. All organic life consists of the same general interrela- tion of the same three general phases, physique, mind, and spirit. All has been, is being, and shall be created by the same Supreme God, who is neither Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, nor otherwise sectarian, but far be}rond any presently complete human comprehension. Into each individual organism that He creates, He puts a spark of His own spirit, which makes it immortal, eternal, valuable beyond any possible measurement in financial terms. So, in connection with vivisection, we are dealing with the spirit of God, in the helpless, tortured animals, in the vivisectors who are being brutalized by prac- tice of insane brutality, and in the general public which is the final victim of this stupid, vicious, inefficient practice. Let us try to imagine how Jesus Christ might handle this problem, if He were here in person to pass judgment upon this crying evil. He might well ask the vivisectors if their animal victims had done any wrong to anyone, and, knowing that they could not deceive Him, each one would answer, “No.” Then He might well ask if the experiments these torturers had in mind to inflict could possibly be performed without harm or hurt to these innocent animals, and again, knowing that they could not deceive Him, they would each one answer, “No.” Then I can well imagine Jesus ruling that in spite of the fact that the helpless animals were without fault, as He was when He was vivisected on Calvary, and that the contemplated tortures were of a kind to make mere murder seem an act of gentle kindness and of sweet compassion, still the experiments might proceed, but only on condition that each one so operating should do it in complete certainty of its great and essential value for use on human beings. We should then see again what happened of old, when vivisection by the stone test was contemplated. Still knowing that they could not deceive Him, each vivisector would tuck his tail between his legs and slink away, convicted of his insane villainy by final verdict of his own mind and heart. Fellow Americans, fellow citizens of the Kingdom of God on earth, we live in the most critical period in all of our National history, in all world history. We face a fork in the road of human destiny with the choice whether we shall start downward into a final hell of vivisection, sterilization, war, and chaotic extinction, or continue upward into a new era of expanded and intensified security, liberty, and opportunity, new heights of justice, equity, and mercy, new vistas of democracy, enlightenment, and cosmic progress. There must be no doubt as to which course we shall take, by the grace of God, our spiritual Father, which art in heaven. Vivisection is not on trial at this hearing. It has been tried and found guilty of indescribable cruelty, moronic stupidity, prodigal in- efficiency, tried by leading members of the very professions whose criminal riffraff still support it. “On trial here, in the unseen presence of God, are the minds and hearts of the members of this committee, as to what kind of Americans they are, and what kind of Christians. The Chairman. Whom do you represent, Mr. Darrin? IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 117 Mr. Darrin. I do not represent any organized pressure group in this matter. I believe that, as far as 1 tell the truth and right, I represent thousands of District residents, millions of Americans who wish to see this brutal practice stopped, who wish to see the profes- sions of medicine and surgery raised above that brutality. The Chairman. Senator Hunt, have you any questions? Senator Hunt. No. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Darrin. I might make this suggestion: that, if anyone cannot return this afternoon, we will be very pleased to have you submit your statement, and it will be included in the record at this time. The committee will stand in recess out of respect for the Honorable James Forrestal until 2 o'clock this afternoon. We will close this session at a quarter of 4 this afternoon. (Thereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m.) (The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., at the expiration of the recess.) The Chairman. The committee will come to order. As before stated, we are only running through until a quarter to 4 this afternoon. We expect to complete the hearings. It will be a very great help if you people, who have material that has already been submitted, would simply make a brief statement of a minute or so and present the testimony for the record, which will be very care- fully studied by the committee. I am saying this because some people want to be heard, and we are giving 2 days to this subject, and we do not have any more time at present. It may be that there will be a hearing later on, on the House side, and we may have to open one up here after a little time. I very much appreciate the way you have responded to my many requests and hope you will help me finish this. We are having votes on the floor, and 1 will have to leave from time to time, but we will go right on with the testimony. We will hear from Dr. Woodard, first. STATEMENT OF DR. JEOFFREY WOODARD, PHARMACOLOGIST, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION Dr. Woodard. My name is Jeoffrey Woodard, and I am a pharma- cologist in the Food and Drug Administration. I have here a very short statement. I would like to read a few parts of this statement, if I may. The Food and Drug Administration is obligated by law to guard the purity of foods and the purity and potency of drugs moving in interstate commerce. For the purpose of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a food means articles used for food or drink for man or other animals. A drug means articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, Official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them, and articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, miti- gation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, and articles other than food intended to effect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. 118 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES « Now, in order that the purity of foods and the purity and potency of drugs be guarded, it is necessary to employ experimental animals, particularly dogs, in the following general ways: First, to measure the potency of drugs. Certain very active and important drugs cannot be assayed by chemical methods, but require the measurements of the response of living animals in order to deter- mine their strength. Examples of such drugs are epinephrine or adrenaline, or parathyroid hormone, for which the United States Pharmacopoeia specifies testing on dogs. The United States Pharmacopoeia also specifies that various prepa- rations of digitalis, a potent heart drug, be assayed on cats. Secondly, animals are used to determine the purity and suitability of drugs and foods sold for veterinary use. Obviously foods and drugs meant for use by cats and dogs must be tested on cats and dogs. Examples of such items are prepared dog and cat foods, anticonvulsant drugs for animals, medicinal ointments, mange cures, worm medicines, and so forth. Thirdly, animals are used to determine the purity of foods or food components for human and animal use. In order to determine the possible long-term deleterious effects of food-processing procedures or of contaminants in food, experimental animals must be employed. It is obviously impossible to carry out any such tests with human beings because of the long time, large numbers of experimental subjects, and controlled experimental conditions required. For this type of study, it has been found that both rats and dogs are necessary. A good example of such testing was the recent study of an artificial maturing process for flour, normal wheat flour used for baking bread. It was found that dogs were peculiarly sensitive to a toxic agent which was developed when flour was treated with nitrogen trichloride. As a result of the findings upon extensive experimentation with dogs, this maturing process will be no longer used, thus improving the purity of the supply of wheat flour. Incidentally, I might say that the affliction in dogs commonly known as canine hysteria or fright fits was very likely due to this toxic product in flour. The lives of countless dogs in the future will certainly be saved by outlawing the use of nitrogen trichloride. I might also add that those of you in this room who happen to be wearing lipstick are using a product, the ingredients of which have been tested by the Food and Drug Administration on experimental animals. These same lipsticks do not contain certain ingredients because they were found to be harmful when they were tested on animals. These are only a couple of examples. I could give you a lot more, but I think the examples cited serve to show the necessity of the use of experimental animals in safeguarding purity and potency of foods and drugs. In the past, we have purchased experimental animals, particularly dogs, from dealers who have brought them in from long distances. This last year we have used approximately 400 dogs. Of that num- ber, we bought 213. The rest were raised in our own laboratories. In order for the Food and Drug Administration to fulfill its obliga- tions, we have to have certain experimental animals, which this bill would provide. Senator Smith. Thank you, very much, Dr. Woodard. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 119 I want to state that we must hear those who have been promised that they would be heard. Those who came in today asking for time are a little late; and, while we are hoping we will get to you, we probably will not be able to get all of you in. To those people who cannot get to read their statements, I would say to you that we will put them in the record. We will now hear from Dr. Schoening. STATEMENT OF DR. KARL HABEL, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Dr. H abel. Dr. Schoening had to leave today for Mexico City. I am Dr. Karl Habel, from the United States Public Health Service, and I would like to be permitted to take his place and testify. The Chairman. If you would make your statement as brief as you can, we would appreciate it. Dr. Habel. Much has been said by prior witnesses concerning the value of the use of dogs in research which would be of benefit to the medical profession in treatment and prevention of diseases of man. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that much has been done in the past and is now being done, using dogs in research work in the field of prevention and cure of illnesses of dogs themselves. This has been particularly true in the field of infectious diseases such as various parasitic infections, distemper, infectious inflammation of the liver and rabies. Since I do not feel myself qualified to discuss the other infectious diseases mentioned, I shall limit my observations to the question of rabies. Rabies is an infectious disease caused by a virus which has been known and studied since Pasteur’s time. This is contrary to what is said by many people, even up to the present time. The infection is spread from animal to animal or to man through the saliva at the time of an animal bite. In this country rabies is essentially a disease of dogs; only occasionally is man involved. About 10,000 animals each year in this country die of rabies; and, of these, from 70 to 80 percent are dogs. Conservative estimates are made by veterinarians that probably five times this number are actually involved and not reported. Because of the close association of man with dogs, this represents the chief source of possible infection of human beings with rabies. Probably very few of you have ever seen a dog at the time he was suffering with rabies. It can be a pitiful sight. Contrary to popular opinion, the usual manifestation of rabies in dogs is not that of the furious type. More of it is the so-called paralytic type. Usually the first abnormality is a change in the personality of the dog. The pet which ordinarily had been very affectionate tries to stay away from, the family, wants to be left alone, whereas the dog with an inde- pendent type of personality may suddenly become overaffectionate and seek an unusual amount of attention from his human folk. In either case, usually within a matter of hours or at most a day or two, the multiplication of the virus in the brain of the unsuspecting dog causes beginning paralysis of his muscles. First he may have difficulty in keeping his eyelids from dropping; later his lower jaw hangs useless; then, before final paralysis of his limbs, comes the typical difficulty in swallowing. At this state his worried owner often sus- pects that a bone is caught in the throat of his pet and attempts to 120 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES relieve him by reaching down the throat with his hand, thus of course dangerously exposing himself to the rabies virus present in his dog’s saliva. Death for the paralyzed animal comes quickly and surely because rabies, once it develops, is invariably a fatal disease. The protection of the human population from the danger of rabies when that disease is known to be present in the dog population of a given area requires the public-health officials to initiate very strict regulations restricting the freedom of dogs. Quarantine to their own premises, leashing, muzzling, all are measures that must be and are en- forced. However, in recent years a new element has been introduced in rabies-control programs; namely, vaccination of dogs against the disease. Only in the past 5 years have we had scientific proof of the effectiveness of this vaccination. And from where did this proof arise? Directly as the result of research using dogs carried out in Montgomery, Ala., by a group of scientists from the Rockefeller Foun- dation costing many thousands of dollars and requiring 7 years of ex- tensive work. Only by the use of dogs in this work could the rabies vaccines be shown to be of value in protecting dogs against this terrify- ing disease. The Chairman. You mean to say that no other animal could be used for this particular experiment? Dr. Habel. No, but the actual proof of the effectiveness in prevent- ing it in dogs under the circumstances in which the disease is spread in nature from dog to dog can only be proved by experimentation in dogs. By now there are many instances from New York to Georgia to New Mexico to demonstrate the effectiveness of rabies vaccination in dogs. Right here in the District of Columbia as the result of the wisdom of congressional committee approval a rabies vaccination program in dogs has been carried out in the past few years with a reduction of the num- ber of rabid dogs from what was originally a rather alarming figure to practically no rabies at all. This immunological approach to protecting dogs from rabies not only has the backing of scientists and public-health officials but veteri- narians and many legitimate organizations of dog lovers. In New York City the entire rabies-control program for dogs, including vacci- nation, is carried out directly by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. All this benefit to the health and well-being of dogs is the direct result of using dogs in research. Therefore, I suggest that because of this fact that the welfare of the dog himself in the long run will be better served if this bill is passed. The Chairman. Thank you, very much. Mrs. Spencer Cosbie? STATEMENT OF MRS. SPENCER COSBIE, WASHINGTON ANIMAL RESCUE LEAGUE Mrs. Cosbie. I am Mrs. Spencer Cosbie, representing the Washing- ton Animal Rescue League. First of all, I would like to pick up one point that was mentioned by Dr. Ruhland, or rather, it was Dr. Cullom, who said that there were many abuses in the. pound, and described them all. If that is really the case, it seems to me that the Health Department should IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 121 have been aware of this fact, and should have inspected those premises and checked up on the abuses. This leads me to believe that the Health Department is not the best agency for inspecting the labora- tories and the medical schools, which is required under this bill. Then the second point which was made by Dr. Ruhland was that human guinea pigs could be used and that it was great cruelty because one woman had offered herself to have her legs beautified and ended with both legs being amputated. I maintain that if any person, for reasons of vanity or other reasons, submits to such an experiment, they are free agents, therefore, they brought it on themselves. Animals are not free agents, and that is why we have to establish a protectorate and try to save them as much as we possibly can. This was not a part of the prepared statement, which I am now going into. The Chairman. Will you keep it as brief as you can? Mrs. Cosbie. I will keep it very brief. I want to quote from a statement in the North American Veter- inarian, the October 1947 issue. That is the official handbook of the veterinaries and it cannot be accused of biasing in our favor, in favor of the people against too much medical research. After commenting upon the advent of the National Society for Medical Research, which is perhaps the most voluble and militant spokesman for the other side, and commending the advocacy by that organization of the utilization of dogs from municipal pounds for medical experimentation, it makes these significant admissions, and I quote: We have no patience at all with the professional do-gooder. We also realize that there are zealots in the humane field, but we would invite attention to the fact that some proponents of the National Society for Medical Research might clean their own houses. Housecleaning in this instance is not altogether a figure of speech. We have seen dogs kept for acute and chronic experiments — chronic experiments because these experiments are repeated — - in medical colleges where cruelty could be charged because of the manner in which dogs were housed, fed, and neglected. The physician’s training does not qualify him as an animal husbandman, and his judgment regarding the housing and gen- eral care of dogs is not remarkable. Physicians are interested in the subject under study and animals used in con- nection with such work are incidental beyond serving the purpose which is neces- sary. Moreover, for some peculiar reason, medical men generally dislike the use of preanesthetic sedatives in dogs, even where barbiturate, for example, would not have the least influence on the character of the demonstration in which dogs are to be employed. When defending the uses of animals for demonstrations in teaching and for experimental work, physicians and others emphasized the fact that such animals are fully anesthetized before any surgery is attempted, but they carefully avoid referring to some facts that are well known to humane workers, which makes their defense weak. Now, admissions such as these emanating from such a source are sufficient proof that not all opponents of the pending bill are senti- mentalists; and we also object to this bill on four more counts, which are very brief. First. By providing medical schools and other institutions with a virtually unlimited supply of animals for practically nothing, it would encourage their wasteful and improvident use and thereby multiply existing abuses. 91703 — 19 9 122 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Second. Even though it be conceded that under certain circum-. stances the seizure and destruction of a dog might be a proper exercise of the police powers of the District, there is a serious question as to whether the proposal here involved might not amount to confiscation of private property without due process of law. Third. The dog owners of the District who number approximately 35,000, and who pay for licenses upward of $100,000 per annum, have a right to continue to expect that if their dogs find their way to the District pound, they either will be returned to their rightful owners or humanely destroyed, not used for experimentation. Fourth. If animal experimentation is an indispensable part of progress in medical science, lower forms of animal life than dogs and cats, which through long and intimate association with human beings have become thoroughly domesticated, should be used, or if some dogs must be so used, a special type, as distinguished from those which have been household pets, should be bred for that purpose. The Chairman. Will you provide us with the number of dogs that your league picks up and finds homes for? Mrs. Cosbie. It does not pick up some dogs because some of them go to the pound. However, we received a total of 13,137 animals last year; 1,908 dogs; 1,260 puppies; 2,953 cats; 6,823 kittens; and 2,193 miscellaneous — which is pigeons, possums, a skunk or two, pigs, all sorts of things, over 2,000 of those. The Chairman. Do you find homes for many of them? Mrs. Cosbie. Of the 611 lost animals, 181 were returned to their owners, and 533 animals were placed in homes. The Chairman. Will you prepare that for the reporter, for the record, so that we can have it? Mrs. Cosbie. Yes. I would like to say this: that this looks like a very unimpressive total, but we have at least educated the slum neighborhood of bringing in litters of newborn cats and dogs to be put out instead of letting them grow up and roam the streets and become a health menace. The Chairman. Senator Hunt? Senator Hunt. I have no questions. The Chairman. Thank you, very much, Mrs. Cosbie. Dr. Hewitt, will you please give your name? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. HEWITT, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Dr. Hewitt. My name is William F. Hewitt. I am assistant pro- fessor of physiology in Howard University School of Medicine, and I am here also in the capacity of Executive Secretary of Medical Health and Research of this city. The Chairman. Will you keep your statement as brief as you can? Dr. Hewitt. That is what I hope to do by passing out this tre- mendous mass of literature. I would like to testify briefly in three capacities: first of all as representing the Committee for Health and Research for which I have helped to collect information which I think is of interest to this Committee. \ IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 123 Part of that is presented to you. I will not bother to read it, since there are many data presented there. I would like to point out, however, a few very short generalizations from those date. What happens to dogs entering the pound of the District of Colum- bia for the last four reported years is tabulated in the cover graph. It has been given to you. I think you cannot escape the conclusion from that graph that the bulk of animals, amounting to approximately three-quarters, are slaughtered. Contrast that with the percentage returned to the owner — — Senator Hunt. Doctor, may I ask you a question? You do not quite mean that word “slaughtered,” do you? Would not a better word be “destroyed”? Dr. Hewitt. You can call it anything you please. Senator Hunt. I connect the word slaughtering with death by other means than carbon monoxide. Dr. Hewitt. All right. Slaughtered to me means mass killing by any method. The second graph, or second accumulation of data, is an attempt on the part of this committee to estimate the number of animals used for research and teaching in the area of the District of Columbia for the past several years. Those figures are incomplete : in some cases they represent estimates on the parts of administrative staffs of the institutions; in some cases they are accurate to the individual animal. The generalization there for oral presentation is simply that for the most recent 4 years, the average annual number of dogs has been approximately 1,100. That is for the three medical schools, for the United States Army Medical Center, United States Navy Medical Center, and the United States Public Health Service, National Insti- tute of Health. Senator Hunt. Madam Chairman, would the doctor give us the source of the supply? Dr. Hewitt. These were reported by each institution — on the source of supply I do not know in every case. That has been testified to for several of these institutions, already, however. I know of my own knowledge only Howard University School of Medicine. The other is hearsay. Senator Hunt. Testify on the one you know, then, Doctor. Dr. Hewitt. That again has been testified to. I will repeat. Senator Hunt. Doctor, I do not especially appreciate your com- ments on everything I say. I ask you a question. You do not need to tell me it has been testified to heretofore. If I had been here and heard it I would not have asked you the question. Dr. Hewitt. I am sorry. I did not intend to quarrel. What I wanted to imply was this testimony is not necessarily a repetition. This is another person testifying to the same point, and the testimony may be slightly different. But to my knowledge, Howard University imports the animals used for teaching and research, from various places in Pennsylvania. Those are animal dealers of a type described. Is that satisfactory? Senator Hunt. That is satisfactory. Dr. Hewitt. The third accumulation of data was an attempt on my part to estimate what proportion of all animals used at a fairly 124 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES typical medical school were represented by dogs. Through the coop- eration of Howard University’s medical school, animal section, I obtained a rather accurate and complete report of the numbers of all species of animals used for teaching and research there for the last 10 years. Those are tabulated year by year and species by species. The only point I wish to make there is that dog purchases represent approximately one-tenth of the total purchases — pardon me; they represent a sixth of the total purchases. They probably represent about a tenth, although it is hard to estimate, of usage, since purchased rodents have a habit of multiplying during the period of their use. Also, in behalf of the Committee for Health and Research, I should like to present some statements which have been forwarded to us for that purpose. There are two or three of those. I do not intend to read them. 1 would like to quote two paragraphs from one. This is a letter written to the Times-Herald by Airs. Elizabeth AlcSherry, who rep- resents herself as a mother who has four children, four horses, and three dogs. This is a quotation from the letter: All dearly loved and tenderly cared for. The doctors can take every animal I own and can lay my hands on if it will save one child, mine or others, from suffer- ing. It is my belief that the One who sees the sparrows put animals on earth for that very purpose. The other quotation from her letter is: I would infinitely rather have one of my family pets fall into the hands of medical men than into the hands of the average city pound employee. The second statement which this committee was asked to present is a letter to Senator Smith signed by Marie Schwartz, of 1823 Six- teenth Street NW.: Dear Senator Smith: Though I cannot say I like the idea of dogs suffering, I like less the idea of dogs dying and people suffering. I love dogs dearly. My present beloved pet, Fritzie, has just given birth to a litter of seven pups. Since they are Fritizie’s pups, I know they are good dogs, and they should not die. We already have stocked our neighborhood with Fritizie’s pups as pets. I do not want to turn the dogs over to any pound or shelter. I am aware of how many dogs they kill, and not always in the kindest way. Besides, these dogs deserve to live. I have been assured they will be given this chance to live in a research laboratory. I cannot help but trust people who are dedicated to improving health and saving life more than those who are dedicated to destroying dogs, which, by their own figures, is the chief occupation of our animal pounds and shelters. I will not take up the committee’s time with any further testimony in behalf of the committee, but I should like to state briefly my posi- tion on this bill as a father and animal owner. Somewhat like Airs. AlcSherry, 1 have children, three, and eight dogs and a cat. I love all of them dearly, but if I were ever faced IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 125 with the choice of saving the life of one of the dogs or the cat and saving my daughter’s life, I don’t think there can be any hestitation either in my mind or anyone else’s as to what the choice would be. The only other testimony I should like to make is in answer to a question I have been asked very frequently in connection with publicity associated with this bill. I have received letters from antivivisec- tionists all over the country. Some of them threaten bodily violence, including death, and others a cut above those, asking why do not medical scientists use men, preferably medical scientists, for their animal experiments. I do not quote that at all humorously, because the answer to it is quite sober and factual. The answer is, we do. Medical scientists have frequently used themselves as experimental subjects. I should like to point out only two or three of those of local interest, that is, Dr. Pabst, a woman employed at the National Institute of Health, died of meningitis in the 1930’s in studying the meningococcus, the causing organism of that condition. Dr. Edward Francis, also of the National Institute of Health, in studying tularemia and undulant fever suffered those diseases, although he did not die. Dr. Alice Evans also suffered undulant fever, it is my understand- ing, repeatedly, from studying the organisms at the National Institute of Health; and Dr. Richard Henderson died approximately 4 years ago in studying scrub typhus. I should like to cite one more thing in connection with that condi- tion. It is very similar to Rocky Mountain spotted fever in trying to find a preventive for which Dr. T. B. McGlintock died of that condition. I was reminded of this particular collection of diseases and of the men who gave — and women — who gave their lives in studying it, because my family, all five of us, recently got injections of a preventive vaccine against tick fever, a disease which I have heard repeatedly is endemic in this locality. I cannot escape the conclusion that these men and women gave their lives, some of them, others their health, in behalf of my children. Also, in behalf of my dog. I would be failing in gratitude were I not to use every effort I could to advance the cause for which these people gave much more than their efforts. That concludes my statement. The Chairman. Any questions, Senator? Senator Hunt. No. The Chairman. Thank you very much. If you have any other testimony please provide it for the record. Dr. Hewitt. Thank you. 126 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES (Charts mentioned above are as follows:) •Data taken from the Report of the government of the District of Columbia for the years listed. Pound- master’s report missing therefrom for year ending June 30, 1947. Dogs acquired for teaching, teaching and research, or research by institutions in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia, 1944 to 1949 Institution 1944 1945 1946 1747 1948 1949 Total Mean (4 yrs.) 1 Georgetown University School of Medicine 271 288 292 308 326 2 325 1,214 304 George Washington University School of Medicine .. . __ (3) 265 38 35 67 71 70 281 56 Howard University School of Medicine . _ 223 247 331 305 239 1,345 350 336 U. S. Army Medical Center _ 2 50 2 50 2 50 2 50 2 150 (3) 126 75 U. S. Navy Medical Center (3) 238 no 146 56 298 736 184 USPHS (National Institutes of Health) 159 68 56 81 (3) 602 151 Total 868 838 868 1,231 4,528 1,132 1 The 4 most recent years were used in each case. 2 Estimate. 3 Data not obtainable. Note. — (1) The Health Department of the District of Columbia used no dogs in the period studied, for the purposes listed in the heading. (2) The Food and Drug Administration of the Federal Security Agency reported only that as of February 1947, it had 1,090 dogs on hand; these were being used mostly for feeding studies and for drug control work. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 127 CO r*o © co O © X o • co i§ s** © v2 tel ICOOOOOOIOOCOOOO 1 'd INOOHOOINlOOO'l'OlO 1 03 O '* ^a 03 is o. w> co h 10 th ib co oi (M €/3- CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 io»oomoooioo6»coo OcDCOHOOHdiOOC^ rt< 1 1 l 1 ^ i~ t-xi 1 a>$* O 1-i 10 f—i c5 1 1 u 0 >>o 1 ft 1 rH 1 1 QOHIMiOOOOhCOIMOMCH h Tt^ 05 00 10 ^(NOON s 10 rH rH d 1 © 2 rH miOCDCCONHOOlOrtMM CM r- rH lO 00 HWH05 10H eS 05 rH ^f1 05 00 ^(NOON © OI »0 th tH d H rH O O 05 10 00 O O Tf CO rP CQ 0 h CO (N CO ^ 00 d CO 00 l 1 1 O CM CO h l 1 O 1 rH 1 1 1 COOiOOCMOCMcOcOCMiOO O CM 1> O Nht^N CO ^ CM H f 1 1 00 1 Tt< 1 05 1 rH 1 1 1 l OOHiOffloMOWHiOO 1 1 CO CO to h h CM CM 00 1 CO d tH CM rH 1 1 05 1 CO rH l 1 © rj 1 l 3 Hi OON^OHiOOCOOJNO d 05 co L- L— rH 00 CO CM IO rH tH rH 1 1 1 tuO CO l .3 05 1 1 a rH l d © 1 i- l c3 i0OC0O05O^ONO(NO 1 © rH CM CO CO 05 NHCON 1 >> © 1945 CD t-I rH 1 1 1 1 CO a 1 ,2 CMOiOiOHH(NCOOO^O^ 1 CM CO CO !>• L- OOCO^— IN 1 © Tt< 05 CM £>• h 1 1 1 d CO 73 tH 1 1 I 1 a OiqhO^OcOONOOOO CM N iO N 05 CO H CO 1 1 £j CO rH tQ rH 1 03 d 05 1 1 <4-1 O 1 Sh 1 © a 3 CO CO rH 00 1 1 1 CO CO H 1 05 rH 1 1 I 1 1 l *0©COOC00050CMt£CMCM rH C5 0 Tf» 10 © CM Tft zo 1 1 1 5 05 rH CO rH rH CM 1 1 1 tH 1 1 1 1 05 CO 05 CM©tH©^o»O©C0I^00C0 © CM CO © 00 CO CO CM © 1 1 1 H r*5 H CO CO 1 1 1 rH 1 1 1 l © © a m bn © S.s r; ox) H S~i O > . .|^ S' §3*2 ■stf S’ £ 'Silk’S 'Sts 3 o Eh Q* © © x © c3 PI >» co £ d CO 03 co-d 2 ° a u H >J C3 03 o3 2 s - © © Sx w c3 O ° 2 w fl © £©3 oEh © m . 05 w © o *2 o d c3 co © da .3.3 £ fe g1 3 >» 3 a .3 o3 rd Safe'S aa-l - O pj m ■'•<3'^ 03 03 'd OT i d > a3 i2 2 .5 os co ; 2 c3 ^ ’S - CO s ® £ "2 5-a .XJ 03 Ph co l- 03 a • 03 Td h 03 a 2 <03 c3 O o3 • a . .03 feo>— i a co O 03 C. 03 g « S-, C3 .X 3 C3 03 H ft CO ft - 2cs d^ a 3 g pq o 03 "d Cd X3 03 g^1 > u 03 S-. • > „_,u_ O 03 «*— I t— © ° da d ^_g'd+-i aa ,2 o d cq gQE-<0 ” d” " ^ d *» d 03 a CO c3 © M © rC £ C3 ©3 © "d © bfi o d © a © Jh a bjo © CO I © ^ d c3 °3 d4" O.S 4- .9 l§ 03 X H b0 ad Sts co rl © M 22 © a^ 03 Td ^ CO g>8 ■d 3 +J 03 c3 tn a ft 03 03a M © c5 © jc % :jt Page ,108: “* * * Although the present report is concerned only with ob- servations on 30 animals, it should be stated that subsequent investigations carried out in this laboratory on many other traumatized dogs have confirmed in every way the descriptions given above.” sfs s|s sjc >f: Page 111 : “The supine position in which dogs were maintainc d upon the animal board is admittedly unnatural. In this laboratory we have seen 3 dogs which survived shock suddenly expire the following day when they were again placed upon the animal board. We do not know how great a role this may play in our experiments.” Page 115: “* * * In splenectomized dogs muscle trauma produces little or no change in the hemocratic values * * *.” Page 121: “* * * Although ether was administered only for a short period, this does not rule out the possibility that it modified the results of the experi- ments. * * * With a view to eliminating the ether factor altogether, . we carried out several experiments on chronic spinal dogs (level of tenth to twelfth thoracic segments) in some of which the lumbar sympathetic chains had also been removed. In these animals the thigh muscles were traumatized without general anesthesia * * *.” (The “bullet wounds” .part of the above paper was brief with few details. Quotations given below.) Page 111: “In dogs under ether anesthesia, 5 shots (0.22 long hollow point cartridges), placed in the flexor muscles of each hind limb, were apparently as effective in causing shock as the muscle bruising technique. * * * The bullets leave small clean holes in the skin * * * considerable swelling, however, appears at once, accompanied by discoloration of the skin similar to that seen after severe bruising. Autopsy reveals extensive lacerations of the muscle surrounding the path of the bullet and leaving cavities the size of a large egg, filled with bloody fluid.” Beginning on page 69 of this same January issue is the account by other authors, of severe operations upon 11 dogs and a later beating of them into shock, as de- scribed above. Beginning on page 134, is an account of the poisoning to death of unanesthetized dogs, including a pregnant dog. And there are of course many other kinds of tortures in the various papers. 180 IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR PRODUCING EXPERIMENTAL PERITONITIS OF INTESTINAL ORIGIN IN DOGS3 By Sanford Rothenberg, M. I)., Henry Silvani, M. D., and H. J. McCorkle, M. D., San Francisco, California (From the Division of Experimental Surgery of the University of California Medical School) Page 550: “A procedure that consists of dividing the blood supply and ligating the base of the appendix, followed by a dose of 54 cubic centimeters of castor oil, has been described as a suitable method of producing experimental peritonitis in the dog * * *” Page 551 : “In an attempt to improve this method a series of dogs was subjected to the following procedure: The vascular supply of the appendix was divided and ligated; a flat cotton tape % inch in width was tied firmly about the base of the appendix; the entire wall of the appendix was crushed by repeated clamping * * * the omentum was excised and the spleen removed; the animals were given 50 cubic centimeters of castor oil by gavage. This procedure uniformly produced fulminating diffuse peritonitis in all of a series of 56 dogs. The average period of survival in untreated animals was 39 hours. Summary “A fatal, fulminating, diffuse peritonitis of appendical origin may be uniformly produced in dogs by a series of procedures including ligation of the appendical vessels, placing a tape ligature about the base of the appendix, crushing the wall of the appendix, excising the spleen and omentum, and administering castor oil post operatively.” No mention of anesthesia in operations. FLUID, PROTEIN, AND ELECTROLYTE ALTERATIONS IN EXPERIMENTAL INTESTINAL- OBSTRUCTION 4 By W. E. Abbot, M. D., R. C. Mellors, M. D., and E. Muntwvler, Ph. D., Cleveland, Ohio (From the Departments of Surgery and Biochemistry, Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio) Page 39 and 40: “The obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract of dogs was produced, under anesthesia, by taping a surgical tape 1 centimeter in width about the desired portion in such a manner as to occlude the lumen and yet not to pro- duce ischemic necrosis and perforation. The degree of interference with the vascular supply in such a preparation depends subsequently upon the magnitude of the distention of the intestine proximal to the obstruction. In some animals * * * the interference with the vascular supply to the part was minimal; in others, with the great distention of the preoccluded portion, the role of a de- crease in circulation to the segment was more prominent.” ******* “In some cases before the abdomen was closed, physiologic saline was given intraperitoneally to combat dehydration due solely to the operative procedure. * * * Water and food were either given or withheld from the animals in the postoperative period.” ******* “Pyloric obstruction was produced in eight dogs. * * *” “All of these animals were permitted to eat and drink and the magnitude of the loss of body water was found to parallel fairly well the amount and frequency of vomiting.” ******* Page 42: “In table III the results are shown in seven dogs ileal obstruction.” An example of these cruelties as shown in table III, page 42, reads as follows: “Dog No. * * * 42-13 * * * Given no food and very little water. Dog consumed own vomitus * * * Postoperative day 10 * * * Dog allowed to go on to death.” ******* 3 Surgery, vol. 22, September 1947, pp. 550-551. 4 Annals of Surgery, vol. 117, January 1943, pp. 39-51. IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 181 “The findings in animals with colonic obstruction are presented in table IV.” Table IV on page 43 shows, as example: Page 43: “Dog No. 345 * * * Food and water permitted. Vomited last 6 days and refused feedings * * * Postoperative day 13 * * * Dog allowed to go on to death.” ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM OF CATS SUBJECTED T