Q. Is it possible in some fields of medical research that experimentation or investigation on animals would be inadequate? A. Yes. The experiment on trench fever is a very good example. Q. How would you investigate the danger of the experiment prior to resorting to the use of human beings? A. The hazard would have to be determined by a careful study of the natural history of the disease. Q. Does malaria also fall into that category? A. We can use animals to some extent in malarial studies, canaries and ducks, for example, develop malaria; and in research designed to discover a better drug for the treatment of malaria we can use Avian Malaria as a sort of screen method to detect which compounds might be employed with some assurance and might be effective in human malaria. In that way we decrease the random and unnecessary experimentation on man. Q. To your knowledge have any experiments been conducted in the United States wherein these requirements which you set forth were not met? A. Not to my knowledge. MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have no further questions concerning medical ethics to put to Dr. Ivy; however, I do have one question concerning the high-altitude experiments which I wish to go back to at the conclusion of that complex, in high altitude, and I will have completed my direct examination. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal has no questions of the witness. Do I understand that you have completed your examination of the witness? MR. HARDY: No. I have not; I have a further question to put to him, but I was going to leave the case of medical ethics. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We have no questions on that subject; you may proceed. MR. HARDY: Dr. Ivy, in medical science and research is the use of human subjects necessary? WITNESS DR. IVY: Yes, in a number of instances. Q. Is it frequently necessary and does it perform great good to humanity? A. Yes. That is right. Q. Do you have an opinion that the state, for instance, the United States of America, could assume the responsibility of a physician to his patient or experimental subject, or is that responsibility solely the moral responsibility of the physician or scientist? A. I do not believe the state can assume the moral responsibility that a physician has for his patient or experimental subject. DR. SEIDL: I object to this question in that it is a purely legal question which the Court has to answer. DR. SAUTER (for the defendants Ruff and Romberg): If I am not mistaken, a document was read this morning which said that the state assumes the responsibility. I believe that I am not mistaken in this. I also want to point out something else, gentlemen, in order to supplement what Dr. Seidl just said.