Ch. 1 —Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 19 
changes. The order in which the options are pre- 
sented should not imply their priority. Further- 
more, the options are not, for the most part, mutu- 
ally exclusive: Adopting one does not necessarily 
disqualify others in the same category or within 
any other category. A careful combination of op- 
tions might produce the most desirable effects. 
In some cases, an option may suggest alterations 
in more than one aspect of alternatives to using 
animals. It is important to keep in mind that 
changes in one area have repercussions in others. 
Some of the options involve direct legislative ac- 
tion. Others are oriented to the actions of the ex- 
ecutive branch but involve congressional oversight 
or encouragement. Congress can promote alterna- 
tives in at least three ways. It can provide incen- 
tives through tax policies, grants, or educational 
assistance. It can mandate the adoption or devel- 
opment of alternatives by means of appropriations 
or legislation. And it can provide encouragement 
via oversight or resolutions. Table 1-3 summarizes 
the seven policy issues and associated options de- 
rived from this assessment. 
ISSUE: Should steps be taken to encourage the 
use of available alternatives in research, 
testing, or education? 
Alternatives to animals become accepted prac- 
tice in the research, testing, and educational com- 
munities as methods are developed through re- 
search, validated by independent measurements, 
gradually accepted by the scientific community, 
and implemented as they come to be relied on or 
required. Several alternatives to the use of animals 
are in the validation or implementation phase to- 
day; for the most part, these methods are based 
on reductions and refinements. Approaches that 
replace the use of animals have generally not been 
completely validated and accepted. Instead, these 
represent possibilities for the longer term. (An ex- 
ception may be educational simulations of living 
systems where an adequate range of physiologi- 
cal variables is known.) The processes of valida- 
tion and gradual implementation are certain to con- 
tinue, and they could be accelerated. 
Analysis of alternatives in research (see ch. 6), 
testing (see ch. 8), and education (see ch. 9) dem- 
onstrates differing availability both among and 
within these three areas. In research, for exam- 
ple, animal methods can be complemented by com- 
puter models, and experiments may be designed 
to provide the desired information with fewer ani- 
mals. Dissemination of information within the re- 
search community may reduce any instances of 
unintentional duplication, thereby lowering the 
number of animals used. In testing, the LD S0 pro- 
tocol has in many cases been modified to use fewer 
animals. And eye irritancy can be assumed— with- 
out testing— for substances exhibiting strong skin 
irritation or having a strongly acid or alkaline pH. 
In educational settings, exercises not involving ani- 
mals may be substituted to teach the scientific 
method or to introduce biological concepts. In 
other instances, animals are destroyed humanely 
following a single surgery in a teaching session, 
rather than experiencing multiple recovery pro- 
cedures . Four options address the implementation 
of alternatives such as these. 
Option 1: Take no action. 
As alternatives are developed and validated, they 
are likely to continue being implemented at an un- 
even pace, influenced by factors largely external 
to Congress. Science and technologies will continue 
to evolve, and as nonanimal methods emerge from 
research and validation, they may or may not be 
accepted and implemented by the scientific com- 
munity. 
This course does not necessarily pass judgment 
on the value of adopting alternatives per se. Nor 
does it mean that alternatives will not be imple- 
mented. It would merely indicate that Congress 
has decided against encouraging or forcing the im- 
plementation of alternatives beyond its direction 
in 1985 to NIH to establish a plan to develop and 
assess alternatives in biomedical research (Public 
Law 99-158). This option might illustrate the be- 
lief that external political, ethical, economic, and 
scientific factors are sufficient to govern the im- 
plementation of alternatives. 
Further congressional action toward implemen- 
tation might be judged unnecessary because vari- 
ous other sources are already acting to implement 
alternatives. For example, EPA has defined circum- 
stances where the LD S0 test can be replaced by 
a limit test (see ch. 8), and FDA has stated that it 
does not require data derived from the LD S0 test; 
industry is watching to gauge the practical effects 
