Ch. 1 —Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 23 
development of alternatives in biomedical re- 
search, the development of alternatives will con- 
tinue to be a function of ethical, political, economic, 
and scientific factors. 
That alternatives are being developed in the ab- 
sence of direct legislation is best illustrated by re- 
search centers at Rockefeller University and The 
Johns Hopkins University funded by corporate and 
private donations (see ch. 12). In addition, corpo- 
rations are undertaking work in-house or sponsor- 
ing it in universities, often in response to scien- 
tific, economic, animal welfare, and public relations 
considerations. 
An uncertain pace of development marks the 
chief disadvantage of this option. Although alter- 
natives may emerge, changing research priorities 
in both the public and private sectors will affect 
the rate of development. From another perspec- 
tive, this is an advantage: It permits researchers 
to respond to changing needs and priorities with 
„ minimal Federal interference. 
Option 2: Require a new or existing Federal en- 
tity to coordinate the development of 
alternatives. 
Implementation of this option would have great 
symbolic value within the scientific and animal wel- 
fare communities and could lead to more rapid 
development of alternatives. A central clearing- 
house for the development of alternatives could 
compile and maintain records of all federally 
funded research and development (R&D) on alter- 
natives. Information on R&D in the private sector 
would be a valuable component of the coordina- 
tion effort, though it may prove difficult to obtain. 
Coordination could involve identifying research 
areas likely to lead to new alternatives and review- 
ing Federal support for those areas across agency 
lines. The latter responsibility might preclude hous- 
ing this entity within an existing Federal agency 
involved in funding R&D on alternatives to avoid 
either a real or apparent conflict of interest. 
As in the implementation of alternatives (see pre- 
ceding issue), education plays a central role in the 
development of such approaches. Coordination of 
efforts aimed at informing investigators and stu- 
dents about animal research (see ch. 9) could be 
among the responsibilities of this Federal entity. 
Option 3: Provide intramural and extramural Fed- 
eral funding for the development of 
alternatives. 
An effective mechanism for encouraging R&D 
on alternatives is funding. Small pilot programs 
might assess whether or not targeted development 
is effective. 
Development of alternatives in testing within the 
Federal Government is a natural offshoot of and 
closely allied with toxicological research. The agen- 
cies most likely to produce alternatives in response 
to new Federal funding are the National Cancer 
Institute and NIH. Because testing is so closely tied 
to regulation, funding could also be directed to 
FDA, EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commis- 
sion, and the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health. Regulatory agencies could be 
required to develop alternatives to specified tests 
or to spend funds generally toward their devel- 
opment. 
To stimulate extramural R&D, granting agencies 
reviewing applications could be required to assign 
priority to those that contain research with prom- 
ise for the development of new alternatives. Post- 
doctoral training programs could be established, 
along the lines of NIH’s National Research Service 
Awards, to ensure a steady supply of young re- 
searchers schooled in traditional disciplines, rang- 
ing from molecular biology to animal behavior, 
with applications in the development of alter- 
natives. 
Financial incentives to private groups develop- 
ing alternatives could take the form of tax incen- 
tives— perhaps tax credits in addition to those al- 
ready in place for R&D. Such groups could also 
be eligible for a new program (analogous to the 
Small Business Innovation Research program) that 
would target the development of alternatives (see 
ch. 12). 
ISSUE: Should improvements be made in infor- 
mation resources to reduce any unin- 
tentionally duplicative use of animals 
in research and testing? 
Science is able to advance rapidly because infor- 
mation about what has been done is disseminated 
(see ch. 10). If attempts to find prior work are in- 
adequate or prior work is not sufficiently accessi- 
