Sent J.D. Whittaker to A.H. Reed, 27th March, 1958 (DO 35/8640).
27 Mar 1958
Description:

'Dear Reed,

I must apologise for the delay in writing to Miss Simmons on the monkey problem. We have been trying to analyse imports over the last six months, and this has taken longer than was anticipated. We have also had to consult Dr. Lane-Petter, who you will remember visited India on our behalf in 1955.

Our comments on Signal 322 of 28th February are as follows:

We appreciate that there is a body of public opinion in India against the export of monkeys, but we believe that the benefits to be gained from medical research work are sufficient justification for seeking to continue the exportation of essential supplies of monkeys for such projects as the production of poliomyelitis vaccines. We feel certain that supplies of monkeys will be adversely affected by the new regulations, but of course we cannot as yet provide proof. We have heard that one manufacturer is already having difficulty in getting the numbers of monkeys required and that the cost will be considerably greater.

2. It is impossible from retrospective analysis to give actual figures, but information available on importations over the last six months suggests that of all the monkeys imported -

(a) 15% were under 4 lbs

(b) 75% were between 4 and 6 lbs

(c) 10% were over 6 lbs.

3. As stated above we have as yet no concrete evidence but believe that maintenance of the 6 lb rule will adversely affect supplies.

4. We think that the figures given above bear out our contention that monkeys below 6 lbs in weight are useful for medical research purposes. We still do not accept the claim of the Indian Government that monkeys under 6 lbs are useless for medical research purposes (see Signal 313 of 25th February). All of the monkeys referred to above were used for medical research purposes.

5. We believe that the existing standard cage which has been in use since Dr. Lane-Petter's visit to India has proved perfectly satisfactory for its purpose, and we know of no instances of monkeys in transit to the United Kingdom suffering any harm due to the cages being too small.

With regard to the reference to the R.S.P.C.A., we have not ourselves been in touch with them on this matter recently. but you may wish to know that at a Conference called by Council in July-August 1955, the Society's Chief Veterinary Officer pointed out that unnecessarily large cages (i.e. in relation to the number of occupants) were actually less humane than smaller cages. The present standard cage was discussed and agreed at the Conference in 1955, but at the Society's request we did not mention their participation in the Report of the Proceedings, and it may be better not to refer to it in any approach to them.

For what it is worth, I may add that the late scientific Attaché at the Indian Government High Commissioners Office in London (Colonel Pasricha [sic]) was present at London Airport on more than one occasion to see plane loads of monkeys arriving from India, and expressed himself as very well satisfied with the conditions in which the monkeys had travelled.

I hope that the foregoing gives you sufficient information for your purpose, but if there is any further information required please let me know.'

Sent J.D. Whittaker to C.C. Long, 24th June, 1957 (DO 35/8639).
24 Jun 1957
Description:

'Dear Long,

We are worried by a report which has reached us about the alleged lack of proper facilities for humane treatment of monkeys in transit from India to the U.S.S.R. The report come from the French press which has commented adversely on arrangements at Berlin airport.

The export of monkeys from India to the U.S.S.R. and arrangements en route are, of course, in no way our concern, but we feel that if this report should reach India, the Government of India may well make all suffer for the sins of a few and once more ban the export of monkeys which we so badly need for our poliomyelitis programme. Is it possible for your staff in Delhi to be warned of this danger and, if necessary, to take steps to ensure that the export of monkeys to this country is not stopped?

We have, incidentally, had some difficulty recently in getting as many monkeys as we wanted, when we wanted them. Could you find out for us if the supply position has deteriorated?'

Sent J.D. Whittaker to M.L. Simmons, 14th May, 1958 (DO 35/8640).
14 May 1958
Description:

'Dear Miss Simmons,

I am writing to confirm the verbal information I gave you recently in respect of telegrams 558 and 559.

As regards the former, I have consulted our own people at the Biological Standards Control Laboratory and they in turn have spoken to the manufacturing laboratories. All are agreed that on scientific grounds monkeys weighing between 4 and 6 lbs are better than monkeys weighing over 6 lbs for polio vaccine purposes. In other words we support the view put forward by the German Embassy. We did not think it necessary to make this point before as we were more concerned with refuting the Indian Government's statement that monkeys under 6 lbs were useless for medical research.

...'

Sent J.D. Whittaker to M.R. Simmons, 4th March, 1958 (DO 35/8639).
4 Mar 1958
Description:

'Dear Miss Simmons,

I am writing, as promised, to confirm my telephone conversation with you regarding the ban by the Government of India on the export of monkeys under six pounds in weight.

We are afraid that this ban will lead to a great decrease in the numbers of monkeys exported, and will therefore cause considerable disruption in the production of poliomyelitis vaccines in this and other countries. We doubt whether the Indian Government could be persuaded to rescind the ban, but we do think it should be modified to the extent that the minimum weight should be reduced to four pounds. As far as we are concerned, four pound monkeys are just as suitable for medical research purposes as six pound monkeys, provided of course that they are otherwise in good health. We shall be grateful if representations on these lines can be made to the Government of India.

We have heard that in addition to this weight ban the Government of India propose to amend their existing regulations governing the numbers of monkeys which may be put in the standard export cage, and that in future only five monkeys will be allowed in a cage very slightly smaller than the present standard cage. We think that such an amendment if introduced would not benefit the monkeys but would in fact be to their disadvantage. The present cage sizes and numbers per cage were worked out on the basis of long experience, and we know of no evidence which might suggest that a change is desirable. In addition, of course, such a change would mean a great increase in the demand for air freight space (which B.O.A.C. might well not be able to meet), and a very great increase in price. Here again we shall be grateful if representations can be made to the Government of India that no change should be made in the existing regulations.'

Sent J.D. Whittaker to R.L.D. Jasper, 31st March, 1958 (DO 35/8640).
31 Mar 1958
Description:

'Dear Jasper,

Thank you for your letter (ref. EC.1601/5/1) of the 28th March. I am sorry my letter of the 27th March did not give you all the information you require in the form in which it was wanted. Here is a second attempt at answers to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4:-

Para.2 We estimate that during the six month period commencing 1st October 1957, about 16,000 Rhesus monkeys were exported from India to the United Kingdom. The distribution by weights of this total is -

(a) Weighing below 4 lbs. 2,400

(b) " 4 to 6 lbs. 12,000

(c) " more than 6 lbs. 1,600

Para.3 The short answer here is "No". We think the pattern of previous imports sufficient guide to what may be expected to happen in the future.

Para.4 We assume that what is required here is information on the uses of monkeys 4 to 6 lbs in weight in support of our refusal to accept the Indian Government's statement that monkeys under 6 lbs in weight are useless for medical research purposes. In giving the following examples I must make it clear that we are not claiming that monkeys over 6 lbs in weight would be useless for the work indicated. We are concerned only to show that there is a use for monkeys 4 to 6 lbs in weight. Monkeys in this weight range are perfectly suitable for work on -

(i) Production of poliomyelitis vaccines.

(ii) Safety testing and antigenicity testing of poliomyelitis vaccines.

(Practically all of the 12,000 monkeys mentioned in 2(b) above were used for these two purposes).

(iii) For work on other virus diseases.

(iv) Pharmacological research and testing of new drugs e.g. antimalarial compounds.

(v) Experimental behaviour and neurological study.

(vi) Anatomical research.

(vii) Ophthalmological research.

Examples (iii) to (vii) inclusive are taken from current work and have not been "thought up" for the occasion!

I hope that this is the information you require, but please do not hesitate to come back at me if more is required.'

Sent J.D. Whittaker [MRC] to J. Thomson [CRO], 9th June, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
Description:

'Dear Thomson,

I have just heard by telephone from B.O.A.C. some information which if correct is rather disturbing for it may mean that our monkey problem could become more difficult. The gist of the information is that:

(1) In future only the National Poliomyelitis Foundation in the United States will import monkeys for research purposes in the United States.

(2) Distribution of monkeys within the United States will be arranged by the Foundation.

(3) Patterson has been appointed sole agent of the Foundation in India.

(4) Patterson is present in Canada trying to secure a similar appointment as far as Canadian requirements are concerned.

(5) Three officials of the U.S. State Department (Mr. Ryan, Mr. Bramble and another) are now on their way to Delhi to negotiate with the Government of India on future arrangements for the export of monkeys to the United States.

If this information is correct it would seem that Patterson has succeeded in selling his scheme, in part at least, to the American authorities. This may be an advantage in some ways, but I fear that questions of licenses apart it might make our position more difficult.

...'