Capt. Robert Fennessy, who works in theenforcement division of the Massachusetts Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA)said he would rather see the carbon dioxidemethod, if only because it is "more aestheticallypleasing."

Stephen B. Ronan '72 of the Cambridge Committeefor Responsible Research says all the research hehas seen supports the use of carbon dioxidechambers instead of cervical dislocation.

And Donna Bishop '81 of the Alliance forAnimals says "the dislocation method obviously isgoing to be painful and traumatizing."

Bishop, like Wiles, says cervical dislocationis too dependent on the skill of the executioner."One person may screw it up and cause unspeakabletrauma," Bishop says.

Yet while Harvard has stopped killing rates andmice in Cambridge by cervical dislocation, itcontinues to use the method in some facilities atthe Harvard Medical Area. The medical area, homeof Harvard Medical School, the School of PublicHealth, the Dental School and a number of Harvardteaching hospitals, is located in Boston--outsideWiles's jurisdiction.

Arthur L. Lage, a veterinarian who is directorof the Animal Resources center at the MedicalSchool and director of animal resources in theFaculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), defends theuse of cervical dislocation in some facilities atthe medical area.

Lage says that both the carbon dioxide andcervical dislocation methods are "perfectlyhumane."

"Dr Wiles does not have the last word on this,"Lage says.

Such tension over specific procedures, such aswho to kill a mouse, is symptomatic of greatertensions between the research institutions and thegovernment agencies that regulate them.

Harvard animal facilities must comply withfederal, state and, in the case of Cambridge,local regulations. They are inspected by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the MSPCA and, forCambridge, the lab animals commissioner.

Lage says all of these inspections are gettingto be a bit much. He particularly takes to taskthe Cambridge laboratory animals commissioner,whose salary and office budget this year total$40,000.

"I don't think it's worthwhile. I think it'sredundant...I think it's a waste of money," Lagesays of the Cambridge commissioner ordinance.

Lage compares the current Cambridge regulatorysituation, with inspections coming from threelevels, to a street corner with four policeofficers directing traffic. If one officer can dothe job, why pay four, Lage asks.

The Cambridge laboratory animals ordinance andthe commissioner have plenty of defenders,however.

Fennessy of the MSPCA says cumbersomeregulations and inspections are simply the priceresearchers have to pay for running largeanimal-research facilities that are in many casestaxpayer-funded.