Ch. 1— Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 21 
of these statements. Also, members of the soap 
and detergent industry have implemented modifi- 
cations of the LD 50 test. Noteworthy, too, is the 
important role of institutional animal care and use 
committees in all phases of animal experimenta- 
tion. In education, medical schools are conduct- 
ing some laboratory exercises with computer simu- 
lations or video demonstrations in lieu of live 
animals. Medical students in some instances by- 
pass experiments and training involving animals, 
proceeding from cadavers to people. Activities such 
as these are likely to continue without new con- 
gressional action. 
Additional congressional steps may be deemed 
inappropriate because implementation of alterna- 
tives may be judged unimportant. Some people do 
not object to animal use, for example, in toxico- 
logical testing. They believe the status quo brings 
the comforts and health benefits of new products 
and technology and protects them from hazards. 
Option 2: Require a new or existing Federal en- 
tity to coordinate the validation and im- 
plementation of alternatives. 
This action is based on the assumption that vali- 
dation and implementation of alternatives would 
occur more rapidly with enhanced Federal coordi- 
nation. Along this line, an information service at 
the National Agricultural Library on improved 
methods of animal experimentation was mandated 
by Congress in 1985 (Public Law 99-198). A clear- 
inghouse for resources required to implement 
alternatives would further hasten their adoption. 
This entity might, for example, be a central source 
for computer software or cell culture material. 
Existing Federal entities that might be assigned 
such responsibilities include some component of 
the National Institutes of Health (e.g., the Division 
of Research Resources), the National Toxicology 
Program, or the National Center for Toxicological 
Research. Coordinating activities could include 
symposia, workshops, newsletters, scholarships, 
grants, and the issuance of model protocols or 
guidelines. The coordinating body could monitor 
both public and private initiatives. In 1985, Con- 
gress took a step toward coordination of the use 
of alternatives in biomedical research conducted 
by or through NIH. It directed NIH to disseminate 
information about alternatives found to be valid 
and reliable to those involved in animal experimen- 
tation (Public Law 99-158). 
Educational programs play a central role in this 
type of effort. Training scientists in replacement 
methods and raising awareness about reductions 
and refinements is likely to increase the implemen- 
tation of alternatives. This type of education is 
closely allied with the teaching of principles of hu- 
mane care and use (see ch. 9). 
Animal care and use committees at individual 
institutions might function as a relay between Fed- 
eral coordination efforts and individual investiga- 
tors (see ch. 15). The institutional animal care and 
use committee might be required to suggest alter- 
native methods as part of its review of animal care 
and use . Linked in this way to a Federal implemen- 
tation effort, these committees would both feed 
into and draw on the resources of the Federal 
entity. 
A different type of coordination, particularly in 
research, would be the attachment of provisions 
to Federal grants regarding the implementation 
of alternatives. Research grant applications using 
alternative methods could be awarded higher pri- 
ority scores in the grant evaluation process or be 
otherwise favored. This strategy would require 
sufficient flexibility to ensure that valuable, state- 
of-the-art scientific proposals that may not involve 
alternatives are not handicapped. Funding mech- 
anisms could also be used to encourage coordina- 
tion between laboratories. The responsibility for 
overseeing the implementation of alternatives via 
funding mechanisms could be borne bv each source 
of Federal funding (see ch. 12). 
Option 3: Encourage regulatory agencies to re- 
view existing testing guidelines and re- 
quirements and to substitute alterna- 
tives whenever scientifically feasible. 
Through oversight or legislation, Congress could 
encourage or require Federal agencies to evalu- 
ate existing alternatives in testing, to participate 
in their validation, to adopt them where appro- 
priate, and to report to Congress on their prog- 
ress in implementing alternatives, as the NIH has 
been asked to do (Public Law 99-158). Such agency 
review would have to be a periodic or continuing 
effort, given rapid advances in the state of the art. 
Some review of testing guidelines now occurs in 
keeping requirements up to date, although the pur- 
pose of that review is to improve the science rather 
than to protect animals per se. Formal agency re- 
view of international testing guidelines, such as 
