Recipient of 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.'

Recipient of M.R. Simmons to A.H. Reed, 7th May, 1958 (DO 35/8640).
7 May 1958
Description:

'Mr. Reed,

My minute above has been overtaken by the two telegrams from Delhi at (217) & (219). I attach a draft reply, after consultation with the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Whittaker MRC informed me that Shamrock Farms Ltd. are their holding agents and always receive their consignments of monkeys which are taken to the Shamrock Farms Monkey Hotel at Brighton. He said that MRC were satisfied with the way the monkeys were housed & looked after, although there was room for improvement. Normally monkeys sent from Delhi were consigned to MRC. The ones now referred to had come from Calcutta & had been consigned to Shamrock Farms. This was a mistake as the permits were in the name of MRC.

...'

Recipient of M.R. Simmons to A.H. Reed, 9th January, 1959 (DO 35/8640).
9 Jan 1959
Description:

'Mr. Reed

Please see (2 & 8) of my draft letter to Delhi & Karachi. I expect the M.R.C. would be interested in this, but I am not sure of the ethics of passing it on to them.

Note

Mr. Whittaker - Medical Research Council rang. He said that:-

(1) There had been certain undesirable publicity recently about the way monkeys were treated at Shamrock Farms & owned by Lonsdale Ltd. This had been started by a disgruntled ex-employee of Lonsdales who had taken some misleading photos.

In fact part of Shamrock Farms was owned and controlled by Burroughs Wellcome, although it is not intended that this fact should be public knowledge. There was a complete answer to all the charges made & very little harm had been done, but there might be some P.Q.'s on this in the next session.

(2) RSPCA had told Burroughs Wellcome that they thought arrangements should be made for -

(a) examination in India, before embarkation, and painless destruction of all monkeys found unfit to travel,

(b) a vet to accompany each consignment of monkeys in transit

(c) use of monkeys within a few days of arrival in U.K. - i.e. no holding in monkey farms.

...'

Recipient of R.G. Beer to A.H. Reed, 28th March, 1958 (DO 35/8640).
28 Mar 1958
Description:

'MR. REED

I submit a draft telegram in reply to (192). [see DO 35/8640: [Draft letter:] A.H. Reed [CRO] to R.S.P.C.A., [March 1958].]

I doubt whether we shall be able to get a statement from the R.S.P.C.A. in time for it to be of use - if indeed we can get one from them at all. Having regard to the R.S.P.C.A.'s objections to the use of animals for vivisection purposes, it is very unlikely that they will be willing to commit themselves on the question of travelling conditions - they are well aware of the reason for which the monkeys are being imported. I have, however, prepared a skeleton draft letter asking them for the information required; but my personal opinion is that we would do better to let this point go by default rather than run the risk of getting a reply from them which we do not want but may have to make public if our hand is forced.'