24 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
ble, unintentional duplication may occur. Such 
unnecessary repetition of experiments must be 
distinguished from replication of experiments to 
demonstrate the reproducibility of a method or 
to confirm the validity of results. 
The amount of unintentional, largely duplica- 
tive research and testing that occurs today is un- 
known. Investigations into the amount and cir- 
cumstances of unintentional duplication would be 
valuable in determining whether it results in sub- 
stantial waste of animals or funds. Moreover, 
consultations with potential users of any new in- 
formation resources would be essential in imple- 
menting certain options addressing this issue. 
Although the storage and retrieval of data are 
costly, there are clear benefits to making infor- 
mation that reduces unintentional duplication 
readily available. Among these benefits are sav- 
ings in the expense and time associated with ani- 
mal research and testing. Other benefits are sav- 
ings in animal lives and the additional work that 
might be done if resources are not wasted (see ch. 
11 ). 
Option 1: Take no action. 
By making the National Agricultural Library the 
focus of a service to provide information on im- 
proved methods of animal experimentation (Pub- 
lic Law 99-198), Congress in 1985 indicated its 
intention to facilitate the dissemination of infor- 
mation about alternatives and to prevent unin- 
tended duplication of animal experimentation. 
Even if no further improvements in information 
resources are made specifically for the sake of 
avoiding unintentionally duplicative animal use, 
general improvements in information resources 
will proceed as a matter of course. Many resources 
already exist. The National Library of Medicine, 
the National Toxicology Program, and other Fed- 
eral entities maintain large databases that contain 
information or citations to published sources. Ma- 
jor commercial databases exist as well. National 
libraries and information centers provide the full 
text of articles and reports. The National Techni- 
cal Information Service (NTIS) catalogs, stores, and 
distributes on request many unpublished Federal 
reports. Improvements in these resources can be 
expected, either to fill needs for which the bene- 
fits justify the costs or to achieve other informa- 
tion policy goals, such as openness in government 
or advancement of science. 
Option 2: Require that results of all federally 
funded research and testing be conven- 
iently accessible. 
By means of oversight authority or legislation, 
all Federal entities could be required to provide 
convenient access to the results of all federally 
funded animal research and testing. Implementa- 
tion could be largely through mechanisms already 
available— publishing in the scientific literature; 
circulating published reports or depositing them 
with NTIS, NLM, the National Agricultural Library, 
or other entity; or entering the results in a pub- 
licly available database. New databases might also 
be established. Requirements that results be made 
conveniently accessible could apply to Federal em- 
ployees, contractors (through contract terms), and 
grantees (as a condition of awards). Contractors 
and grantees, however, may not be enthusiastic 
about assuming the burden of publicizing their 
results and responding to requests for information. 
This option recognizes that much research and 
some testing using animals is federally funded, that 
dissemination of research and testing results could 
be more comprehensive, and that better dissemi- 
nation might reduce any unintentional duplication. 
Because publication and information dissemina- 
tion are normally much less costly than obtaining 
original data, the benefits of enhanced communi- 
cation extend beyond saving animal lives. 
It is important to note that most federally funded 
work, indeed the vast majority of significant work, 
is already accessible, although access comes with 
different levels of convenience. And the results 
of federally funded work (except some grants) are 
available under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA). Requiring that all results be conveniently 
accessible may burden databases and libraries with 
inconclusive results or other information that will 
not be used. 
Option 3: Promote greater use of animal testing 
data submitted bv industry to Federal 
agencies , except where confidentiality 
protections apply. 
Industry must submit data to regulatory agen- 
cies before it can market certain products or some- 
times in response to reporting requirements. Stat- 
utory and regulatory provisions already exist that 
make some of this information publicly available, 
thus theoretically avoiding unintentional duplica- 
tion. In addition, information that is voluntarily 
