Correspondence, 1959-1960

43 NEW YORK POST, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1960

Scientists Van Be Heedless As Well as the Next Man By WILLIAM H. A. CARR

YOU'D EXPECT THE WIFE OF Roger L. Stevens, the Democrats' national fundraiser, to be embroiled in controversy. But Christine Stevens' enemies have nothing to do with politics. She's won their enmity on her own.

Mrs. Stevens really doesn't look like a woman who'd have an enemy in the world. She's slim, pretty, and very feminine, and there's an air of youthfulness about her that belies the gray creeping into her hair. People who meet her for the first time are impressed especially by the gentleness of her features and the shyness of her smile.

It's all very deceptive, for Christine Stevens is a fighter, and she has an unexpected toughness when the going gets rough.

* * *

The going often is rough for Christine Stevens, for she is fighting a war on two fronts. Her opponents are numerous, vocal, and sometimes powerful, and her allies are few. Nevertheless, most people who have come in contact with her would put their bets on Mrs. Stevens to win in the long run.

The controversy surrounding Mrs. Stevens stems from her activities as president of the Animal Welfare Institute, 22 E. 17th St. The Institute played a large part in the enactment of the federal Humane Slaughter Law and it is now campaigning for passage of the Laboratory Animals Bill.

When Christine Stevens opens her mail in the morning, she knows what to expect: scurrilous attacks on her character from anti-vivisectionists ("Dirty woman!" one recent letter began) and scarcely more temperate crticisms of her activities from research scientists. The anti-vivisectionists accuse her of encouraging cruelty to animals used in laboratory experiments; the scientists, ironically, accuse her of espousing the anti-vivisectionist cause.

But Mrs. Stevens is no antivivisectionist. And she comes from a scientific background. her uncle is the famous Dr. Arnold Gesell of the Yale University Clinic for Child Development and author of several bestellers on infant and child behavior (Mrs. Stevens concedes somewhat sheepishly that she did not raise her daughter, Christabel, now 21, by the book).

Her father was the late Dr. Robert Gesell, a prominent physiologist at the University of Michigan. He used animals in his laboratory, so she has a good idea of how much scientific knowledge has been gained from animal experimentation.

She wants to make sure, however, that the experiments are conducted as humanely as possible and that no unnecessary suffering is inflicted on the animals. She knows this is an attainable ideal, for her father was a humanitarian who loved animals and often brought laboratory animals home as pets to their home in Ann Arbor.

In 1938 Christine married Stevens, then an up-and-coming real estate dealer who has since become not only a tycoon in that field but a top Broadway producer as well. He liked animals, too.

About a decade ago, after the Stevenses had moved permanently to New York, Mrs. Stevens' father suggested that she organize what has become the Animal Welfare Institute. He served with other scientists on its advisory committee until his death in 1953.

The Institute supports humane legislation, acts as a clearing house for information on animal welfare, sponsors some research, and awards a Schweitzer Medal each year to the person who has done the most for animal welfare (Dr. Albert Schweitzer, physician, clergyman and philosopher, has been a friend of the Institute almost from its start).

* * *

Mrs. Stevens' big effort now is in support of the Laboratory Animals Bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Cooper (R.Ky.)—and co-sponsored by 10 liberal Democratic Senators—and in the House by Reps. Griffiths (d-Mich) and Bailey (D-W. Va.).

The bill would force scientists working under government grants to observe minimum standards of care for the animals in their laboratories and would prevent unnecessary suffering. Such a law has been in effect in Great Britain sinche 1876, when it was enacted at the behest of Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley and other leading scientists of the time. The British law has not hampered legitimate, humane experimentation, but it has prevented needless cruelty.

Is such a law needed here? Mrs. Stevens thinks there's no doubt of it. She has plenty of arguments to back up her stand—live pigs deliberately burned to death without anesthesia in a Boston laboratory, rabbits and dogs tormented in a clumsy experiment by tobacco companies, animals neglected in scores of laboratories.

She cites the British medical journal, the Lancet, which commented not long ago:

"There's every reason to suppose that individual research workers in America impose upon themselves a code of humane regard for animals...Regulations are designed not for the well-doers, however, but for the aberrant; and, mankind being what it is, these are as likely to be found among research scientists as any other group.

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

OREGON 5-1069

August 29, 1961

Morgan Gauranty Trust Company P.O. Box 495, Church Street Station New York 15, N.Y.

Gentlemen:

We wish to close our account and have the balance of $335.33 transferred to the Irving Trust Company, 51st & Rockefeller Plaza.

Sincerely, Roger L Stevens ROGER L. STEVENS

2

In both the above-mentioned documents there is an attempt to discredit the Cooper-Griffith Bill by lumping it together with the Moulder Bill. In fact, between these two bills there is a wide gulf. The principles of the Griffith Bill were taken from the British Act regulatory animal experimentation. They have listed and found satisfactory to British scientists + humanitarians alike. On the other hand, a number of provisions in the Moulder Bill are very much more stringent than the British law, or any other such law we know. For instance, under the Moulder Bill (but not [underlined] under the Griffith Bill) a scientist could be subpoenaed to appear at a public hearing and permanently debarred from receiving federal grants if he allowed a technician who did not have an M.D. or a D.V.M to administer an anesthetic to an animal. Such extreme provisions prevent the A.W.I from supporting the Moulder Bill; we consider that the Cooper-Griffith Bill, whose moderate provisions have been proved effective, is a better bill because it is fair to the research worker as well as to the animal.

Dr. Pfeffers "news release" containts three futher untrue statemnts about the Cooper-Griffith Bill:

3

I. That [underlined] the [underlined] bill [underlined] requires [underlined] prior [underlined] approval [underlined] of [underlined] research [underlined] plans; [underlined] (The Cooper Griffiths Bill requires that research plans be submitted to the Secretary of H.E.W. but does not [underlined] require [illegible] [crossed out] the scientist [illegible] [crossed out] wait for approval of his plan before proceeding with the experiments.)

II That [underlined] the [underlined] record [underlined] - keeping [underlined required [underlined] by [underlined] the [underlined] bill [underlined] would [underlined] be [underlined] a [underlined] "drain"; [underlined] (Record-keeping in the Cooper-Griffiths bill is the necessary minimum. As Dr. Bradley Scheer, Chairman of the Department of [illegible] [crossed out] Zoology (?) at the University of Oregon, remarked on a recent letter to Science [underlined], it is to be hoped that any scientist who publishes his results keeps at least the records required by this bill.)

III. [That?] [underlined] government [underlined] inspectors [underlined] would [underlined] have [underlined] the [underlined] authority [underlined] to [underlined] order [underlined] an [underlined] animal [underlined] destroyed [underlined] if [underlined] it [underlined] was [underlined] found [underlined] to [underlined] have [underlined] been [underlined] used [underlined] in [underlined] a [underlined] way [underlined] not [underlined] specified [underlined] in [underlined] the [underlined] research [underlined] plan; [underlined] (There is no such provision in the bill)

It is a sorry commentary that legislation which the major American medical societies now fight with untrue allegations [illegible] the enthusiatic support of the major British medical societies in 1876 [illegible] it was passed in England.

4

However, not content with opposing regulation. Dr. Moore and Dr. Pfeiffer suggest that public concern aroused by the debate over the Cooper bill could be utilized to procure multimillion dollar grants for such institutions as the Animal Care Panel. It begins to seem that Money Raising is superseding Medical Research in their Society.

or [underlined]

Not content with opposing regulation, Dr. M and Dr. D suggest that public concern aroused by the debate over the Cooper Bill could be utilized to procure multimillion dollat grants for such institutions as the Animal Care Panel. It is a sorry commentary that legislation which the major American medical societies now fight with untrue allegations won the enthusiastic support of the major British medical societies in 1876 when it was passed in England.