- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Created A.S. Parkes, 'Memorandum on the Proposal to Breed Monkeys (Macacus Rhesus) at the New Building,' [December, 1946] (FD 1/1076).
Dec 1946
Description:'Memorandum on the Proposal to Breed Monkeys (Macacus Rhesus) at the New Building
--------
Necessity for breeding monkeys
Breeding colonies of macaques have long been established in the U.S.A., and there is no doubt about the possibility of the idea. It is not anticipated that it would be worth while, in the immediate future, to breed and rear monkeys for ordinary experimentation; this requirement is at present met more easily by importation of half-grown specimens. There is, however, a demand for pregnant and newborn monkeys which can only be met by the establishment of a breeding colony in this country. If the M.R.C. do not intend to establish a breeding colony elsewhere, then I think that they could arrange for the establishment of one at Mill Hill.'
-
Created A.S. Parkes, Supply of Monkeys, [1947] (FD 1/383).
From May to Oct 1947
Description:'SUPPLY OF MONKEYS
The present arrangement whereby monkeys are stored at the Institute for allocation and issue to other centres arises, I believe, from the fact that during the War only the Medical Research Council was able to import monkeys. The arrangement causes a good deal of work and worry and has gradually led to the idea that it is the duty of the Institute to provide monkeys whether or not it has, in fact, any available for issue, and whether or not animals are available through ordinary dealers. Moreover, the Medical Research Council no longer has a monopoly of import and the arrangement has, in any case, been made obsolete by the establishment of the Council's Laboratory Animals Bureau.
I raised this matter previously in March, and it was agreed, in principle, that the organisation and allocation of the monkey supply should be taken over by the Laboratory Animals Bureau.
Recent events have again shown up the imperfections of the existing machinery.
I suggest:
a) That all reguests for monkeys coming to the M.R.C. should be passed to the Laboratory Animals Bureau (as requests for other animals certainly will be).
b) That the Laboratory Animals Bureau should also beopen to recieve requests for monkeys directly from individuals or institutions, including Hampstead.
c) That the Laboratory Animals Bureau should be open to receive notifications of surplus or turn-out monkeys, and should ascertain from time to time what animals are available from dealers.
d) That the Laboratory Animals Bureau should co-ordinate supply and demand, and should be responsible for arranging importations as necessary, preferably through dealers, or through the M.R.C. if an official route is necessary.
e) That where the supply obtainable by the Laboratory Animals Bureau is inadequate the Bureau should allocate the available animals.'
-
Recipient of A.L. Bacharach to A.S. Parkes, 8th April 1947 (FD 1/383).
8 Apr 1947
Description:'My dear Parkes,
I don't know when the Advisory Committee of the new Bureau is going to meet, but here are two points, addressed to you as its Chairman, for consideration, one of them relatively unimportant and the other affecting general policy.
First, about the name of the Bureau. The more I think of the phrase "experimental animals", the less I like it. Apart from anything else, it is not logically correct, because the animals are not strictly speaking experimental, except in so far as they carry out experiments on the unfortunate people who try to produce and tend them! I don't think the expression can possibly bear that interpretation in the minds of most people. Further, even if the phrase were a correct one, it is much too wide, because it must include pigs and goats and sheep and cattle, in so far as experiments are carried out on them. I believe that problems connected with the larger mammals fall specifically into Nichols's province at Aberystwyth and that the Bureau will have nothing directly to do with them. In these circumstances, is not the phrase "laboratory animals" more accurate than the suggested one? Admittedly the present suggested one comes from the Conference and Standing Committee, but it was adopted somewhat hurriedly, and that is no reason for keeping it if we think we can find a better one.
... I am more and more impressed with the need for having these central foundation stocks kept in at least two different centres where fully qualified geneticists would be responsible for maintaining not merely the strains, but their purity.'