[1]

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.

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 founs among research scientists as any other group.