26 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
the full text (minus figures and images) of a 
few dozen scientific journals is available on- 
line.) The greatest obstacle to the successful 
creation of a database of this size is catering 
to the diverse needs of animal users. In its 
fullest incarnation, this would cost hundreds 
of millions of dollars to start and maintain. 
Most important, the extent to which any of these 
databases would be used is unknown. Within the 
Federal Government, the NLM has the greatest ex- 
pertise in establishing and operating large data- 
bases, and implementation of any form of this op- 
tion is likely to build on the experience and existing 
resources of that library. 
Option 6: Facilitate the use of foreign data by pro- 
viding translations of foreign journals. 
An often-overlooked source of published data 
is foreign-language literature, although most im- 
portant scientific work is routinely published in 
or translated into English. The advantages of pro- 
viding translations of additional work are thought 
by many experts to be quite limited and economi- 
cally unjustifiable. English translation costs for the 
four principal languages of science (French, Ger- 
man, Russian, and Japanese) range from $40 to 
$88 per thousand words. An estimated $4 billion 
to $5 billion would be required, for example, to 
translate the current foreign -language holdings of 
the NLM into English, with an ongoing yearly trans- 
lation cost of $150 million (see ch. 10). Copyright 
protections might involve costly inconvenience as 
well. The impact of this option is uncertain, as Eng- 
lish abstracts are today available for most foreign 
journals, and translations can be obtained on an 
ad hoc basis by those interested in a particular 
report. 
ISSUE: Should animal use in research, testing, 
or education be restricted? 
The use of animals for research, testing, and 
educational purposes is not closely restricted in 
the United States. Only four types of constraints 
can be identified. The Animal Welfare Act requires 
humane handling, care, and treatment of nonhu- 
man primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and 
hamsters. However, any regulation of these ani- 
mals within an actual experimental protocol is spe- 
cifically excepted by the Animal Welfare Act (see 
ch. 13). Second, at the State and local levels, cru- 
elty to animals is generally proscribed, although 
such statutes are generally not applied to animal 
use during experimentation (see ch. 14). Third, self- 
regulation takes place at individual institutions and 
facilities through the implementation of Federal 
policies. These call for assessment of animal care, 
treatment, and practices in experimentation by 
institutional animal care and use committees. 
Fourth , the Department of Defense was prohibited 
in fiscal years 1984 and 1985 from expending any 
funds for training surgical personnel by treating 
in dogs and cats wounds that had been produced 
by weapons (see app. B). 
The few existing restrictions on animal use illus- 
trate two phenomena. First, they show that pri- 
mates and pets have a privileged position in pub- 
lic policy . The Animal Welfare Act names only six 
kinds of animals, omitting the rats and mice that 
together constitute approximately 75 percent of 
the animals used in research, testing, and educa- 
tion. It requires exercise for dogs and a physical 
environment adequate to promote the psychologi- 
cal well-being of primates. In the case of the DOD 
appropriation, dogs and cats were named, while 
goats and pigs (also used in surgical wound train- 
ing) were not. 
Second, the restrictions demarcate the long- 
standing frontier of legislative province over ani- 
mal use— the laboratory door. The actual conduct 
of experiments stands largely outside of any spe- 
cific mandatory provisions of law. (In contrast, Brit- 
ish investigators are licensed to carry out speci- 
fied procedures using specified animals and face 
inspection visits to the laboratory bench by gov- 
ernment officials; see ch. 16.) Solely in the case 
of the prohibition of DOD expenditures is one use 
of two particular species addressed. 
Considering the issue of restriction of animal use 
may require the resolution of four difficult 
questions: 
• Are there some kinds of animals on which 
experimentation is inherently inappropriate? 
• Are some methods or procedures beyond 
the realm of societal acceptability? 
• Should some sources of animals be deemed 
off limits for animal use in research, testing, 
or education? 
• Should licensed investigators alone be per- 
mitted to engage in animal experimentation? 
The resolution of these questions turns on sci- 
ence, law, politics, and, to a large degree, ethics. 
