Nearly one hundred people crowded into the small State House hearing room yesterday to hear testimony presented to the Committee on Natural Resources on the repeal of the Pound Seizure Law-a controversial bill which permits research institutions to requisition unclaimed dogs from pounds for use in research laboratories.

In recent years, repeal of pound seizure has been the focal point of the mounting controversy over use of animals in laboratories. Although few of the animal welfare organizations who oppose pound seizure are completely anti-vivisectionist, repeal of pound seizure is seen as the most effective way to force researchers to justify their use of animals for certain experiments.

Harvard researchers originally lobbied for passage of pound seizure in 1957 in an attempt to curb anti-vivisectionist sentiment stemming from the marked increase in dog-nappings. Pound seizure laws permit researchers to purchase dogs for three dollars apiece from public pounds. In states without pound seizure laws, stealing dogs and then selling them to researchers is an extremely lucrative business. In addition, pound seizure laws reduce the costs of research--researchers would otherwise pay $200-$300 for farm-bred dogs. To date, there are only nine states which still have pound seizure laws.

At present, Harvard is the single largest user of pound dogs in the Boston area. Although over 85 per cent of the dogs used for research came from animal dealers, last year over 2000 of the almost 3000 dogs used for research at Harvard were pound dogs. If pound seizure is repealed, Harvard officials estimate the cost of breeding dogs at $100-$150 per animal.

Many Harvard researchers fear repeal of the pound seizure law is the first step in an outright ban on the use of animals in research experiments. This year, bills to repeal pound seizure are being heard in the Massachusetts legislature, in both the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Counties. Last year the Committee on Counties voted to repeal pound seizure but the proposal was defeated in the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Last year, New York repealed its version of the pound seizure law, the Metcalf-Hatch Act.

"I don't think the Pound Seizure Law will be repealed," Dr. Ronald Hunt, director of Harvard's Animal Resource Center (ARC) says, "but in politics anything is possible. It is an emotionally charged issue, and I know the people in the State House would love to see it go away. However, the use of animals in medical research is necessary for the elimination of diseases. This research translates directly into the lessening of suffering of millions of humans. And the use of pound dogs translates into lessening of spiraling medical costs."

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), one of the Pound Seizure Law's most vocal opponents, claims the low cost of pound dogs encourages researchers to use dogs where alternative methods (such as computer modeling or tissue cultures) might be applicable.

"The MSPCA feels animals coming through pounds are pets, and pets should not wind up in research labs. No matter how valid the research," Nancy Payton, humane issues analyst for the MSPCA, says. "Most research experiments require dogs the investigator has a history on. Pound dogs have no such history. And they are cheap. So pound dogs are used in frivolous experiments. They are more expendable."

In practice, however, repeal of pound seizure, in itself, would have little effect on the use of dogs, or other animals, in research institutions. Legally, animal dealers could still purchase dogs from pounds--selling them to research institutions for around $50. Harvard, which owns and operates its own dealership, could purchase dogs directly.

"If pound seizure were repealed we could still get dogs, but we could only operate normally for a year or so," Dr. Hunt says. "If Harvard continued to get dogs from pounds they would be going against the intent of the law. If there is a strong enough sentiment against the use of pound dogs to get the pound law repealed, then the next step would be to outlaw dealerships," he adds.

In anticipation of a marked increase in the market for dealer dogs, MSPCA is lobbying to link repeal of pound seizure with bills to prohibit sale of pound dogs to dealers and to extend the authority of humane societies to inspect animal care facilities which presently exist under pound seizure. In addition, the MSPCA advocates a ban on the interstate traffic in dogs.

"But I don't think our job stops when we get pets out of the labs," Payton says. "Then we have to go on and ask if the experiments are valid. But I think it's premature to try and do that with pound seizure. I think bringing in the whole anti-vivisection question is introducing a whole battlefront we don't have to fight."

But the issue of the use of dogs in research experiments can not be divorced from the larger question of the use of animals in research. Each year, over 60 million animals die in experiments--the majority in the multiple toxicity experiments performed by industries to test cosmetics and new food additives. Research institutions, however, account for over 9 million deaths. Harvard alone uses almost 240,000 animals a year.

"One thing about anti-vivisectionists is at least they're aiming towards something concrete," Ralph Charlwood, assistant director of the ARC, says, walking along the endless corridors of Harvard's Animal Resource Center. "This is where I differ with the MSPCA," he continues. "What's bad for a dog is bad for mice and rats as well. I don't care what kind of animal it is. What's good for one is good for them all."

The ARC, a four-building complex in the medical area, houses over 40,000 animals on any given day. The air is antiseptic clean and only occasional patches of sawdust interrupt the endless whiteness of the corridors. Over 225,000 mice and rats pass through the ARC in a year. Most are used in "acute" experiments--operations where the animal is killed. Although Charlwood is responsible for the well-being of all the animals in ARC, the final responsibility, he says, lies with the investigator.