Ch. 3— Patterns of Animal Use • 59 
Table 3-4— Estimates of Rat and Mouse Usage in Laboratories, 1978, 1982, 1983 
Mice Rats 
(millions) (millions) 
Confidence 
Basis of estimation 
1978 
1982 
1983 
1978 
1982 
1983 
rating 
Indirect means— NIH funding . . . 
— 
— 
43.1 
— 
— 
23.6 
Poor 
Corrected ILAR data: 
Nonprofit funding share 
16.0 
— 
— 
5.6 
— 
— 
Fair 
Corrected APHIS data: 
Regression 
— 
8.5 
8.5 
— 
3.4 
3.7 
Good 
Average 
— 
10.2 
11.2 
— 
4.1 
4.6 
Good 
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment. 
ities, 40 percent were not registered and so would 
not file a report. Any animals used in those facil- 
ities would not be reported in the APHIS data. The 
1978 ILAR National Survey of Laboratory Animal 
Facilities and Resources stated that 35 percent of 
mice and 19 percent of rats acquired for research 
were bred in-house by the researchers (22), so 
these too might not appear on the the APHIS data 
sheets. Thus, all these limitations mean the APHIS 
data may be underestimations of total animal use, 
but it is impossible to estimate if the difference 
is significant. Ideally, the results based on APHIS 
data could be compared with estimates based on 
animal breeder numbers. However, since informa- 
tion on distribution of costs per animal is proprie- 
tary, such an analysis is impossible. Therefore, al- 
though the data contained in the APHIS reports 
are the most reliable, they do not include all possi- 
ble users of laboratory animals. 
Inspection of some 150 institutional Annual Re- 
port of Research Facility forms raises several other 
doubts as to the accuracy of the data collected by 
APHIS. In general, the form seems to lack any in- 
struction to the individual institutions on how it 
should be filled out. As a result, there is no con- 
sistency in the ways in which forms are completed . 
The reliability of the data on the forms today is 
in question. Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4, which exem- 
plify the reporting problems, are actual forms re- 
turned to APHIS for 1983, although the institution 
names have been deleted. For example: 
• Some forms have an error that can lead to 
miscalculations of the number of animals used: 
Column F asks for the addition of columns 
B+C+D+E. The actual number desired 
is C +D + E. Thus, some reports have dou- 
bled the number of animals used (since 
B =C +D +E) (see fig. 3-2). These types of mis- 
calculations, along with normal mathemati- 
cal errors, were corrected in the OTA esti- 
mate of animal use in the Federal Government. 
Thus, the numbers for Federal agencies in 
these two sections are different for the same 
APHIS institutional reports. (For Federal agen- 
cies, this difference is fairly small.) 
• In many cases, respondents did not seem to 
understand how to classify the animals used 
in the different experimental categories. If 
the APHIS form is read literally, any animal 
given drugs to avoid pain or distress is also 
an animal that experiences no pain or dis- 
tress and could be counted in both catego- 
ries (see fig. 3-3). 
• The answers to the category “wild animals” 
differed greatly. Some forms listed legitimate 
wild animals, such as seals, while others in- 
cluded as wild such animals as gerbils, cattle, 
sheep, and pigs (see fig. 3-4). In fact, the "wild 
animals’’ line was often filled in with farm ani- 
mals, which are exempt from being reported. 
• The forms are now improperly labeled in 
that rats and mice are included under col- 
umn A, “Animals Covered by the Act,” yet 
they are specifically exempted by USDA 
regulation from coverage by the Animal 
Welfare Act. Many institutions that filled out 
APHIS forms may have been unaware that re- 
porting rats and mice was voluntary. 
These examples serve to characterize the present 
system as lacking clarity and uniformity in def- 
inition and accurate reporting. Redesign and en- 
hanced explanation of the APHIS form would lead 
to collection of more accurate data on animal use. 
