50 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Table 3-1.— Research-Animal Use in the Federal Government, by Major Department and Division for 
Fiscal Year 1983 
Animals used 
USDA 
Commerce 
Misc. 
Department of Defense 
Air Force Army Navy 
Total 
Department of 
Health and 
Human Services 
FDA NIDA 
Facilities reporting 
11 
1 
3 
6 
20 
10 
39 
1 
1 
Dogs 
25 
0 
994 
635 
827 
344 
2,800 
113 
51 
% row 
<1 
0 
11 
7 
9 
4 
31 
1 
<1 
Cats 
39 
0 
491 
61 
214 
36 
802 
0 
84 
% row 
1 
0 
18 
2 
8 
1 
29 
0 
3 
Guinea pigs 
... 6,105 
0 
1,601 
586 
26,695 
609 
29,491 
0 
98 
% row 
9 
0 
2 
1 
41 
1 
46 
0 
<1 
Hamsters 
... 7,487 
0 
627 
1,352 
4,822 
417 
7,218 
0 
0 
% row 
21 
0 
2 
4 
14 
1 
21 
0 
0 
Rabbits 
. ... 1,047 
0 
1,863 
703 
3,731 
264 
6,561 
0 
0 
% row 
4 
0 
6 
2 
13 
1 
23 
0 
0 
Primates 
0 
0 
418 
527 
676 
219 
1,840 
0 
0 
% row 
0 
0 
6 
7 
9 
3 
25 
0 
0 
Rats 
... 7,862 
0 
25,259 
10,570 
55,057 
4,243 
95,129 
0 
312 
% row 
2 
0 
6 
2 
13 
1 
22 
0 
<1 
Mice 
. ... 30,625 
0 
72,085 
6,140 
143,503 
42,094 
263,822 
0 
600 
% row 
3 
0 
7 
1 
14 
4 
26 
0 
<1 
Wild animals 
24 
43 
1,377 
34 
2,762 
479 
4,652 
0 
0 
% row 
<1 
<1 
10 
<1 
19 
3 
32 
0 
0 
Total 
. . . 53,214 
43 
104,715 
20,608 
238,287 
48,705 
412,315 
113 
1145 
% row 
3 
<1 
6 
1 
15 
3 
25 
<1 
<1 
KEY: USDA-United States Department of Agriculture; FDA-Food and Drug Administration; NIDA-National Institute on Drug Abuse; NIH-National Institutes of Health; 
CDC-Centers for Disease Control; NIOSH-National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; DOT-Department of Transportation; EPA-Environmental Protec- 
tion Agency; NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration; VA-Veterans' Administration; CPSC-Consumer Product Safety Commission. 
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, from 1983 APHIS Annual Reports of Research Facilities (Form 18-23); CPSC data from K.C. Gupta, Deputy Director, Divi- 
sion of Health Sciences Laboratory, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC, personal communica- 
tion, Sept. 24, 1985. 
nual animal use in the United States. The purpose 
of this exercise was to examine numbers on ani- 
mal use and compare the reliability of estimates 
from different data sources. 
The figures published in this assessment 
on the number of animals used are not abso- 
lute. They are only as accurate as the data 
from which they were obtained. All publicly 
available information on past and current animal 
use was collected from a variety of sources, often 
through personal contacts. Data from the two most 
reliable sources, the Institute of Laboratory Ani- 
mal Resources (ILAR) of the National Research 
Council and the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, were corrected to take into ac- 
count the actual years of reporting and the omis- 
sion of certain data that were not received before 
a deadline. 
Laboratory -animal use was then estimated and 
projected using statistical techniques where appro- 
priate. For this purpose, the corrected ILAR and 
APHIS data were used, as well as more indirect 
means based on National Institutes of Health fund- 
ing, National Cancer Institute (NCI) usage, and NIH 
total usage as a function of NIH intramural use. 
Although the number of animals bred should lead 
to good estimates of animals used in the labora- 
tory, the larger laboratory -animal breeders would 
not confirm or deny sales figures that had appeared 
in the news media and literature. Therefore, esti- 
mates based on such reports are of uncertain relia- 
bility. 
Limitations of Animal-Use Study 
Two types of limits on this study exist: intrinsic 
and extrinsic. The major intrinsic limitations were 
funding constraints and a limited time span dur- 
ing which the study could be performed. This pro- 
hibited the collection of raw data and required that 
OTA rely on existing data sources. The extrinsic 
