Ch. 1— Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 31 
Fundamental changes could be made in the ways 
animals are counted. An animal census could be 
periodic— e.g., occurring every 2, 5, or 10 years. 
An organization other than APHIS, such as the pri- 
vate Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources 
(ILAR) of the National Research Council, could do 
the counting. In 1986, ILAR will undertake another 
in its series of surveys of laboratory -animal facil- 
ities and resources in the United States. (The last 
survey was conducted in 1978.) ILAR will survey 
the use of two classes of vertebrates— mammals 
and birds— at approximately 3,000 facilities. 
Another approach to gathering information on 
the kinds and numbers of animals used would be 
to conduct a comprehensive, one-time study of re- 
search, testing, and education. Such a study could 
survey all species acquired or bred for research, 
testing, and education; count the number of ani- 
mals actually used in experimentation; record the 
length of stay in animals in the facility; and catego- 
rize the purposes of the experimental -animal use . 
Such a comprehensive survey would not merit 
repetition every year— the purposes of animal use 
in research, for instance, do not change that 
quickly. 
A different way to count animals used would 
be to obtain figures from breeders on the num- 
ber of animals bred for experimentation. This 
would not take into account the percentage of ani- 
mals bred that are never used in experimentation, 
or animals bred within a laboratory, but it would 
yield a valuable index of animal use. Yet another 
source of information would be to count the num- 
ber of facilities or individuals using animals for 
specified activities. 
It is noteworthy that the revised PHS Policy on 
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by 
Awardee Institutions (effective Dec. 31, 1985) re- 
quires listing the average daily inventory, by spe- 
cies (with none excepted), of each animal facility, 
as part of each institution’s annual report to the 
NIH Office for Protection from Research Risks. 
Thus, PHS-supported facilities are now required 
to report more complete census data to NIH than 
facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act re- 
port to APHIS. Consequently, a portion of animal 
use in research (e.g., NIH-supported animal re- 
search) and testing (e.g., FDA-supported animal 
testing) is about to become more closely censused . 
The choice among census types under this op- 
tion will depend on the ways in which the infor- 
mation is to be used, the resources available for 
obtaining it, and the utility of the new census re- 
quired by PHS. 
ISSUE: Should Federal departments and agen- 
cies be subject to minimum standards 
for animal use? 
The Federal Government has six cabinet depart- 
ments and four independent agencies involved in 
intramural animal research or testing (see ch. 13 
and app. B). These departments and agencies ac- 
count for at least 1.6 million animals for intramural 
research (see ch. 3). Federal agencies have gener- 
ally followed the existing PHS policy and as of De- 
cember 1986 will be required to operate institu- 
tional animal committees (Public Law 99-198). 
Many departments and agencies also follow the 
NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Ani- 
mals. Yet there is no stated, detailed policy of min- 
imum standards for animal use within the Fed- 
eral Government. Therefore, this issue has just two 
options: either maintaining the present system or 
establishing a minimum policy for intramural ani- 
mal use. Financial considerations are not a major 
factor because funds will be needed either to con- 
tinue the present system of variable policies or to 
implement and enforce a minimum, government- 
wide policy. 
Option 1: Take no action. 
The advantages of the present system are its flex- 
ibility and minimal bureaucratic structure. The 
policies mentioned previously, along with the In- 
teragency Research Animal Committee's Principles 
for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals 
Used in Testing, Research, and Training, allow each 
agency or department to have policies and mech- 
anisms unique to its situation. The disadvantages 
are the potential for conflicting policies and the 
lack of a neutral enforcement authority. 
Option 2: Establish minimum standards for all in - 
tramural animal use in Federal depart- 
ments and agencies. 
This option would require that a policy be de- 
veloped and perhaps that an organizational entity 
be established to oversee its implementation and 
enforcement. This could be accomplished by an 
interagency committee or by a designated agency. 
