Created by William Lane-Petter
Jan 1956
Description:

'CONFIDENTIAL

Report of a Visit to India in Connection with the Supply of Rhesus Monkeys for Medical Research

1. Diary

I left London by air on the 27th September, 1955, and arrived in Delhi very early on the morning of the 29th.

On the 31st October I went to Lucknow and spent a day at the Central Drug Research Instiutute.

On the 2nd November I left Lucknow for Bareilly and a visit to the Indian Veterinary Research Institute at Izatnagar [sic]. On the night of the 2nd November I returned to Delhi.

On the night of the 6th November I left for Bombay by air and from there travelled to Poons to visit the Virus Research Centre. While in Poons I also visited the Armed Forces Medical College at the National Chemical Laboratory. On the 8th November I returned to Bombay. I spent a day at the Indian Cancer Research Centre, and I also visited the Raffkine Institute and the Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., and called on the Controller of Drugs, Bombay State. I returned to Delhi on the night of 10th November.

On the 4th December I travelled by air to Dacca in East Pakistan. On the evening of the 6th December I returned to Calcutta; while there I visited the School of Tropical Medicine, where I spent some time. I returned to Delhi on the 10th December.

On the night of the 11th December I went by air to Nagpur where I had been invited to attend the meetings of the Advisory Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research; I returned to Delhi on the night of the 18th December.

I left India on the 22nd December arriving in London on the evening of the 23rd December.

2. Purpose of Visit

The main purpose of my visit was to make what arrangements appeared appropriate to insure [sic] a regular supply of good quality Rhesus monkeys from India, or from Pakistan, or from both countries. At the time of my departure there was a good deal of uncertainty as to whether a continuing supply of monkeys would be available from India in view of certain Indian Government regulations either in force or about to be imposed. There was an equal amount of uncertainty as to whether it was possible to develop an alternative source in East Pakistan.

3. Historical Background.

The accidental suffocation of 394 monkeys at London Airport in the small hours of New Years' Day 1955, had made a profound impression upon Indian opinion. This, rather than the unsatisfactory conditions of many shipments to this country and more especially to the United States, has been responsible for the Indian Government placing quite severe restrictions on the export of monkeys.

Shortly after this disaster a deputation led by Mr. Peter Freeman, M.P. had been to see the Indian High Commissioner in London. Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit. It appeared that Mrs. Pandit had reported the existence of grave public disquiet in this country about the monkey traffic, and the Indian government had in fact imposed a total ban which lasted for one day. This decision was revived at Indian Cabinet level and overruled at the instigation of the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, himself.

The decision to continue export of monkeys from India for legitimate medical research had, therefore, been taken at the very highest level, and it may be regarded as a lasting decision, all the more so in view of the fact that the poliomyelitis problem, previously negligible in India, is now showing signs of becoming quite severe within the next five to ten years.

About March 1953 a high level American deputation flew to India in order to persuade the Indian Government to relax restrictions it had already imposed on the export of monkeys. This deputation made various practical suggestions about the method of shipment, and suggested certain cage sizes for air shipment which were acceptable to the airlines, and which were considered to be proper and humane; they were based on existing methods. It appears the Americans believed they had persuaded the Indians to their way of thinking, but on September 7th, the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry published a public notice specifying the future conditions for the export of monkeys. This public notice reproduced in many parts word for word the American recommendations, but on the vital question of cage size they had departed from these recommendations and established cage dimensions of their own. These cage dimensions were obtained from old regulations governing the shipment of monkeys by sea and, if they had been enforced they would have had the effect of approximately doubling the freight charge of monkeys to this country and to the United States.

I received a copy of this Public Notice just before I left England. One of my first visits on arrival in India was to see the appropriate official in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and explain these facts to him. He had already been given a copy of the M.R.C. recommendations on the Humane Shipment of Monkeys, but he was not inclined at that time to alter his Public Notice on the strength of these recommendations. As he pointed out, the details of his own Public Notice rested on the recommendations of his own experts and it was up to me to persuade these experts to have second thoughts on the matter. He would not, at that time, tell me who these experts were.

This, therefore, was the position when I arrived in India.

4. First Impressions

I realised from the beginning that my first duty was to gain the confidence of the Indian Authorities. This confidence had been badly shaken by the London Airport incident, and the American negotiations had not done anything to improve matters, nor had any actions taken by our own Trade Commission had any effect in influencing the decision of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

From the beginning I considered that the "old boy" approach was likely to be more effective than normal diplomatic methods. My previous service in the Indian Army was of some help to me in this respect. Event proved this view to be quite correct.

I made contact with Dr. C.G. Pandit, Secretary of the Indian Council of Medical Research, to whom I had an introduction from Dr. Green. Dr. Pandit was of enormous help to me in putting me in touch with the right people, but for all that it was rather slow work getting to know the many Indian authorities involved in this matter.

Any suggestion of bargaining with the Indian Government was ruled out. They were not open to persuasion, but only to conviction. The economic aspect of monkey export was of far less importance to them than the political. At the same time, I found that officials were very willing to listen to my arguments, for they valued British goodwill, perhaps more than than they had done in the past.

I discovered that Mr. Peter Freeman, M.P., and Dr. Bayly, both prominent British antivivisectionists, had been supplying the Indian opposition with much propaganda material with the purpose of influencing the Indians against the export of monkeys, and that Mr. Freeman intended to visit India to drive home his points. For this and for other reasons sufficiently apparent in this report, my presence in India was very timely, for I was able to deal personally with this one-sided lobbying.

5. Negotiations.

I had several meetings with the Under Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry who was concerned with the export of monkeys. This official was extremely helpful. He urged me to examine personally the facilities provided by the main exporters in the business. Of these there were two or possibly three. (i) T.E. Patterson (no present connection with Shamrock Farms). (ii) Vita Ltd., and (iii) The Hindustan Bird and Animal Suppliers Ltd.

...

The large number of monkeys being exported are trapped in the jungle from various parts of India, particularly U.P. (Uttar Pradesh). The trappers are mostly Moslems, and trapping animals is a family occupation, often going back for several generations. It is not infrequent for the trappers to meet with violent hostility from some of the villagers, and some have even lost their lives at the hands of villagers.

However, it is easy to exaggerate the importance of this particular feeling, which is not entirely religious in sentiment. The same villagers who have offered violence to professional trappers have themselves caught and killed monkeys at a time when the State Government was offering a reward for the destruction of monkeys.

The procurement of monkeys from professional trappers was shared almost exclusively between Patterson and Vita, and for many months past there had been a price war going on between these two dealers. This had resulted in the price per monkey paid by the dealers to the trappers rising from about 6 rupees to as much as 27 rupees, and both companies were dipping deeply into their capital in order to be able to obtain monkeys and ship them from Delhi at a maximum price of 25 rupees.

...

I was able to make contact eventually with the experts who had advised the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on the size of shipping cage and other details of air shipment. One of these was an Assistant Director General in the Health Ministry, and the other the Animal Husbandry Commissioner of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. I took the former gentleman to see Mr. Patterson's compound and to satisfy himself that the cage at present in use, namely the standard 19" cage, was humane and satisfactory. He subsequently paid a second visit to Patterson in company with the Animal Husbandry Commissioner, and I had a verbal assurance that they were both entirely satisfied with the standard cage and were recommending its official adoption to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

...

At the time that the Government decided to allow the export of monkeys from India for medical research the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to appoint a committee under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to consider the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Chairman on this Committee is Krishna Menon and the Vice Chairman is Rukmini Devi Arundale M.P. Mrs. Arundale is a very outspoken antivivisectionist and has a great interest in banning the export of monkeys.

Through the interest of Dr. Pandit and others I was invited to give evidence before the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Committee, partly on the question of export of monkeys for medical research and partly on the legal control of animal experiments generally. It is the intention of the Indian Government to introduce an Act for this latter purpose. The others who were interested in getting me to give ecidence, were Dr M[anchersha] D.D. Gilder, M.P., at one time a research assistant of Sir Thomas Lewis; and Dr. K. Gitra[? - blurred] the Assistant Director General of Health Services already referred to. Also concerned with getting me before the committee was a Mr. Patel. the Chief Controller of Drugs in Bombay State.

On the 30th November I gave my evidence to the committee, and had nearly two hours close questioning; I was told subsequently that I had succeeded in persuading the committee that monkeys were used in this country for genuine medical research even by the Ministry of Supply and that any assurances that were given by British scientists that they would not be used for purely war purposes for which the Indian Government strongly disapprove[d] would be adopted in good faith.

I also had the opportunity of meeting a senior official in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and brought up the question with him about the use of monkeys in defence research. The result of this interview was reported separately in a confidential memorandum sent by diplomatic channels.

...

To sum up, we can feel confidant that we may obtain whatever monkeys we require from India for medical research provided no further incidents such as the London Airport disaster occur.

6. Supplies of Monkeys from East Pakistan

Recently the Anglo Scottish Cattle Company have appointed an agent, Major W.C. Hughes, in Dacca, East Pakistan, for the purpose of collecting monkeys in that province and exporting them for medical research. I visited Major Hughes, saw his compound, and examined the arrangements that he was making for this purpose.

The standard of his compound is not very good and I did not find the quality of his monkeys as high as that of Patterson's in Delhi. My impression was that although Hughes was able to obtain a reasonable number of monkeys in East Pakistan the quality of these monkeys was likely to be inferior to the best Indian monkeys.

The cost of monkeys in Dacca was nearly 50 per cent higher than the cost in Delhi, and of course the freightage was additionally higher from Dacca than from Delhi. Moreover there was no certainty that if Hughes succeeded in establishing a regular trade in monkeys from Dacca local officials and others would not place difficulties in his way, and even seek to drive him out of business. There appeared to be a xenophobia in East Pakistan which was not evident in India.

Once again B.O.A.C. were very cooperative, but normally freight services do not go through Dacca and when there are animals to be shipped from there, a plane has to be diverted specially for the purpose.

I consider that the East Pakistani source to be [sic] unreliable.

7. Desiderata

The problem of obtaining healthy monkeys for British laboratories depends upon the best possible treatment at all stages of their journey from jungle to laboratory. Until they are properly acclimatised in British laboratories, monkeys are extremely delicate animals and the following proposals have in mind the insurance of the best possible treatment during this revolutionary change in their environment.

...

Their reception in this country could be improved on the lines suggested below; all this should have the effect of cutting down losses after arrival. In addition to this the Indian authorities undoubtedly take the humanitarian aspect very seriously, as we should ourselves.

In a visit to the Malaria Institute if India, Delhi, I found monkeys in superb condition. It was considered vitally important to cage the incoming monkeys in twos or threes, to given them four separate meals a day, and between meals to remove the trays from the cages so that droppings fell out of reach of the monkeys.

...

8. Recommendations

...

(iii) The monkeys should be taken from the plane to the laboratory with the minimum of delay. It may not always be possible for them to be loaded from the plane into a van and so direct to the laboratory. ,but this should be the aim wherever possible. IF it is unavoidable the monkeys may be detained for a few hours only in the R.S.P.C.A. hostel, but even this delay is inadvisable. B.O.A.C. might be asked to assist with deliveries in the London area.

The vans must be properly heated and ventilated. The practice of sending the monkeys to Shamrock Farms in Brighton for holding is thoroughly unsound, and should no longer be tolerated.

...

(v) The possibility of importing kidney cell suspensions rather than live monkeys for growing poliomyelitis virus should be borne in mind.

Dr. D.D. Banker, previously of the G.S. Medical College, Bombay, but now with Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., has shown that it is possible to send suspensions of live kidney cells from India to U.K., on which the poliomyelitis virus can be grown satisfactorily. He has provided a note on the technique, and it might prove an economy to use this method in preference to importing whole monkeys for growing the virus. it was not considered impossible to overcome any reluctance on the part of Indian opinion to sanction the killing of monkeys in India for this purpose, and I formed the definite view that this difficulty had been exaggerated.

...

9.Other Visits

...

c) Malaria Institute of India, Delhi. At this Institute a great deal is known about the care of laboratory monkeys. I arranged with the Director that if Patterson required and technical help or advice in the care of his monkeys he might seek it from this Institute.

...

m) Indian Council of Medical Research. I had many meetings with Dr. C.G. Pandit and at his request prepared a note on "The Provision of Laboratory Animals for Research". Although I had not seen Dr. Khanolkar's memorandum when I wrote this note, it was gratifying to find that my suggestions were very largely complementary to Dr. Khanolkar's. My note has been published as Appendix IV in the memorandum "Medical Research and the Second Five-year Plan".

Dr. Pandit invited me to attend the Annual Meeting of the Advisory Committees of the Indian Council of Medical Research at Nagpur Medical College. These committee meetings are open to visitors who may take part in the various discussions, although they do not of course have any vote in the decisions of the committee. I was in fact invited to contribute to several discussions.

n) Committee for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition to giving evidence before this committee, I was also invited to prepare a detailed memorandum on the working of the British Act of 1876, together with my comments and recommendations. It is the intention of this committee to recommend some sort of legal control of animal experiments in India.

It was a fortunate coincidence that the member of the committee who asked me for this memorandum was the same member of the Health Ministry who was one of the advisors on the conditions in which monkeys should be exported; no doubt he will be favourably disposed towards our interests in obtaining monkeys from India.

o) Rotary Club of Delhi. In 24th November I was the guest speaker at the Delhi Rotary Club. The title of my address was "Medical Science, Animals and Humanity". A lively discussion followed my address, in which it was apparent that educated Indian opinion was by no means opposed to the export of monkeys for medical research, provided the business was managed in a humane way. Such opinion was not impressed by the religious-emotional appeal. My address received short but sympathetic notice in the Indian press.

10. Acknowledgements.

I received a tremendous amount of help from very many people in India. I found the attitude of Indian Government officials very reasonable. I would particularly like to mention among those who helped me, Mr. Keith Roy of Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd.; Mr. Ram Dass, the Delhi agent for Glaxo who provided me for the duration of my visit with office accommodation and facilities, for which he declined to make any chargel Commander Glapin and Mr. Jackson of B.O.A.C.; Mr. Cross of the British Trade Commission; Dr. Pandit, Secretary of the Indian Council of Medical Research. Dr. Pandit kindly arranged for me to meet Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the Health Minister whose sympathetic interest in our requirements for monkeys is of great influence; and General Sir Douglas Gracey of the Anglo Scottish Cattle Breeding Company who gave me an introduction to the Health Department in East Pakistan.

...

Appendix

When I was in India I learnt that some criticism had been voiced about the negotiations I was then carrying out. I did not have an opportunity of answering these criticisms at the time, although had I been asked I would naturally have done so. In particular I believe that my suggestion of placing a sample order with the Hindustan Bird and Animal Suppliers was regarded as unsuitable. The reasons for this suggestion have already been given.

Secondly there was some difference of opinion as to whether the travelling vages should have a height of 19" or 22". The M.R.C. Conference on the Humane Shipment of Monkeys examined the 19" cage in current use, and in general approved of it. However, as a result of very strong opinion voiced by the representative of the Research Defence Society, Dr. F. Eckstein, who was deputising for Professor Zuckerman, it was agreed that the height of the cage should be increased to 22". Even a 22" cage did not entirely satisfy Dr. Eckstein, but it was felt to be a compromise on which we could all agree.

In the subsequent memorandum published by this conference the description of the cage gave the height as 22", but the diagram of the cage showed it as it was, namely 19".

As secretary of the conference I felt compelled to support the decision of the conference in recommending a 22" cage. Subsequent correspondence between certain individuals in India and another member of the M.R.C. conference confirmed that this particular member, representing the R.S.P.C.A., was quite happy about a 19" cage.

The point of this is that aircraft normally used can take four tiers of 19" cages, but only three tiers of 22" cages, and thus the comparative small difference of 3" in the height of cages would mean a disproportionate difference in the cost of cage freightage.

I therefore, took it upon myself to give way on this question and agree to recommend to the Indian authorities the use of the 19" cage. But I still think I may have exceeded my authority as secretary of the M.R.C. conference. However, the Indian advisors like myself were entirely satisfied that the 19" cage satisfied humane requirements for the shipping of monkeys up to 8lbs. in weight.'