Correspondence, 1959-1960

other people to write as possible - Let me know if there in anything more we can do as the bill progresses.

Sincerely (Ms. Willard) Dorothy [Heddin?]7- Reservoir AveDover N. J.

The NSMR has been responsible for the propagation of a great deal of wrong information about the Cooper Bill for the humane treatment of experimental animals. Some of this wrong information has found its way into the Minneapolis Star in the article, 'Animal Bill Again Perils Research.'

The Cooper Bill is based on a law which has been in effect in Great Britain sonce 1876. The British scientific community was responsible for the passage of this law, and is still content to abide by it. British scientists do not feel that legislation regulating animal experimentation hampers their research, and indeed, British research is in the front rank. The Cooper bill is in many respects less stringent than the British law. And yet we hear that the Cooper bill would 'stifle research.' Some of this protest is no doubt due to misunderstanding of the language of the bill as it was last session. For instance many scientists wrongly construed Section III to mean that it would be necessary for scientists to obtain prior approval of research plans. What the Cooper Bill does require is that every scientist in federally finanved research should submit a research plan to the Secretary of HEW before undertaing experiments on animals. As soon as the scientist has submitted his research plan he is at liberty to proceed, and should he wish to change the direction of his research he has only to submit a further research plan, and he is again at liberty to proceed. It is a quest on whether a scientist who is so impetuous that he cannot sit down and write what he is going to do on a piece of paper and mail it before he begins an experiment has any place in government financed research.

Animals used for research do not at present have adequate protection under law. It is not the case that 'all 50 states have laws prohibiting cruelty to animals, and in every instance these laws apply to scientists. Many states specifically exempt scientific research from the provisions of the anti-cruelty laws. In the remainder there is no adequate provision for enforcement, because of the special nature of the situation. A paralel situation existed before the passage of the fedearl humane slaughter law: slaughter house cruelty was almost universal but it was not in practice possible to stop it by use of the state anti-cruelty statutes.

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE 22 EAST 17th STREET NEW YORK 3, N.Y.

OREGON 5-1069

In a recent letter criticizing the Cooper bill for the humane treatment of laboratory animals, a correspondent of the Monitor stated: "The C.B. + the H.M.A. are identical in that both leave enforcement up to medical research itself —

The Sec of HEW, which necessarily means the NIH + the State Commissioner of Health: This is [crossed out] characteristic [crossed out] of [crossed out] the [crossed out] emotional [crossed out] thinking [crossed out] of [crossed out] the [crossed out] the [crossed out] antivivisectionist, [crossed out] and [crossed out] recalls the catchword of the NAVS, that the Cooper Bell would be "vivisectors regulators themselves." The Secretary of HEW is not " research itself" but a member of the Cabinet. He has never been a medical man, and the jurisdiction of his department is wide. There is no foundation for the statement that the Secretary of H.E.W. "means" the NIH + the S.C. of H, as the is no such provision in the Cooper bill, and the Dept of HEW has not yet made any reports on how it would administer the bill

So far from being "identical," [the?] CB [of?] the HMA represent diametrically opposite approaches to the use of laboratory animals. The H.M.A is a pound seizure