Ch. 1 — Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 25 
submitted and not claimed as confidential is avail- 
able under FOIA. 
Using oversight authority or legislation, greater 
use of nonconfidential information could be pro- 
moted, for example, by requiring that it be put 
into databases, compiled in reports, or summarized 
in newsletters. Industry could bear the cost of in- 
formation dissemination, and any data submission 
to the Federal Government would have to be ac- 
companied by evidence of intent to publish non- 
confidential testing data. Industry may be unen- 
thusiastic about such a procedure, because in some 
cases nonconfidential data provide direct clues to 
confidential data. Nevertheless, greater availabil- 
ity of nonconfidential data could aid in avoiding 
unintentionally duplicative testing. 
The extent to which researchers who need such 
data already know how to obtain them is not 
known. The needs of those engaged in animal test- 
ing must be carefully gauged prior to considera- 
tion of this option. A further consideration is the 
willingness of those who generate the data to en- 
courage others to benefit from their investment. 
Option 4: Require comprehensive literature searches 
to ensure that federally funded research or 
testing involving animals is not duplicative. 
A literature review is normally conducted by an 
investigator in the course of preparing a grant ap- 
plication, contract proposal, or data submission. 
In addition, the reviewers of such proposals are 
expected to be familiar with work that has already 
been done. Implementation of this option would 
require proof of a literature search through, for 
example, a companion document in any proposal 
to conduct federally funded research or testing. 
The funding entity would presumably have to 
judge the appropriateness of the literature search. 
Both the investigator's act of searching the litera- 
ture and the funding agency’s certification of the 
search may reduce any unintentional duplication. 
To make a mandatory literature search palatable 
to investigators, free access to some or all of the 
necessary information resources may have to be 
provided. 
An alternative strategy is to require a literature 
search by the funding agency, or other entity, prior 
to the release of any funds. The disadvantages of 
requiring a comprehensive literature search be- 
fore work could be funded include the delay that 
an additional step would cause, the cost of the 
search itself to the Federal Government, and pos- 
sibly part of the cost of developing new informa- 
tion resources. 
Option 5: Create new databases designed to re- 
duce unintentional duplication of ani- 
mal use in research and testing. 
New computerized databases might play an 
important role in reducing any unintentionally 
duplicative animal use. There are at least three 
types that could contribute to this end: 
• Unpublished Results, Including Negative 
Results. Such a database would disseminate 
results that are otherwise distributed narrow- 
ly or not at all. The major problem with un- 
published information is that its quality is dif- 
ficult to evaluate because it is rarely subjected 
to peer review. Another problem is that the 
most useful unpublished data are owned by 
industry and would not be disclosed because 
of their proprietary value (although provision 
could be made for voluntary submissions). A 
category of special interest, particularly from 
the standpoint of duplicative testing, is nega- 
tive results (e.g., showing the absence of toxic 
effects). Few journals are willing to publish 
negative testing results. Dissemination of neg- 
ative results could spare any unintentional 
duplication, direct investigators away from 
fruitless paths, or suggest improvements in 
methodologies. 
• Data From Untreated, or Control, Animals. 
Data pertaining to the health or behavior of 
animals not given a test substance could be 
used in choosing the best species for experi- 
mentation (e.g., a species most likely to yield 
unambiguous results). This information might 
obviate the need to use more than one species 
or might allow smaller control groups in some 
experiments (see ch. 7). Compiling the data- 
base could be both difficult and costly because 
the necessary data are often not published (see 
ch. 10). 
• Experimental Protocols and Results. This 
database could be as narrow as abbreviated 
listings of methods and results, perhaps ar- 
ranged by species, or as comprehensive as the 
on-line full text of all published scientific liter- 
ature. (The full text of a scientific report in- 
cludes not only protocol and results, but also 
discussion and interpretation of the results, 
tables, figures, and bibliography. At present, 
