14 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
1985, the statute also contains provisions for the 
care and treatment of certain animals used in ex- 
periments. The act defines “animal” as: 
. . . any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman 
primate animal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or 
such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secre- 
tary [of the Department of Agriculture] may de- 
termine is being used, or is intended for use, for 
research, testing, experimentation or exhibition 
purposes . . . 
USDA, empowered to identify other mammals 
and birds to be regulated, has done so only for 
marine mammals. In fact, in 1977, USDA promul- 
gated a regulation excluding birds, rats, mice, and 
horses and other farm animals from coverage by 
the Animal Welfare Act. The use of rats and mice, 
the most common laboratory animals, is therefore 
not regulated. 
The act does not cover facilities that use none 
of the regulated species. Facilities that use regu- 
lated species but that receive no Federal funds and 
maintain their own breeding colonies also fall out- 
side the act’s coverage. 
The Animal Welfare Act regulates housing, 
feeding, and other aspects of animal care but bars 
USDA from regulating the design or performance 
of actual research or testing. A facility need only 
report annually that the provisions of the act are 
being followed and that professionally acceptable 
standards are being followed during actual experi- 
mentation. Facilities must also describe procedures 
likely to produce animal pain or distress and pro- 
vide assurances that alternatives to those proce- 
dures were considered. 
The Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99- 
198) amended the Animal Welfare Act (amend- 
ments effective December 1986) to strengthen 
standards for laboratory animal care, increase en- 
forcement of the Animal Welfare Act, provide for 
the dissemination of information to reduce unin- 
tended duplication of animal experiments, and 
mandate training for personnel who handle ani- 
mals. For the first time, the Department of Health 
and Human Services is brought into the enforce- 
ment of the Animal Welfare Act, as the Secretary 
of Agriculture is directed to “consult with the Sec- 
retary of Health and Human Services prior to the 
issuance of regulations” under the act. 
Each research facility covered by the Animal 
Welfare Act— including Federal facilities— is re- 
quired to appoint an institutional animal commit- 
tee that includes at least one doctor of veterinary 
medicine and one member not affiliated with the 
facility. The committee shall assess animal care, 
treatment, and practices in experimental research 
and shall inspect all animal study areas at least twice 
a year. 
Many groups concerned about animal welfare 
want the act and its enforcement strengthened. 
They criticize USDA’s exclusion of rats and mice, 
the level of funding for enforcement, and the choice 
of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv- 
ice as the enforcement agency . Inspectors, whose 
primary concern is preventing interstate transport 
of disease-carrying livestock and plants, spend 
about 6 percent of their time enforcing the re- 
search provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Ad- 
ditional criticism is leveled at the act’s failure to 
offer guidance in research practices during experi- 
mentation. A 1982 report by the Humane Society 
of the United States indicates that USDA regula- 
tions and guidelines failed to provide "information 
sufficient to demonstrate that researchers have used 
pain-relieving drugs ‘appropriately’ and in accord- 
ance with ‘professionally acceptable standards’.” 
The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 
mandates the establishment of animal care com- 
mittees at all entities that conduct biomedical and 
behavioral research with PHS funds. It requires 
all applicants for NIH funding to submit assurances 
that they are in compliance with the law’s provi- 
sions for the operation of animal care committees 
and that all personnel involved with animals have 
available to them training in the humane practice 
of animal maintenance and experimentation. The 
NIH Director is empowered to suspend or revoke 
funding if violations of the act are found and not 
corrected. In essence, the act puts the force of 
Federal law behind certain elements of the PHS 
Policy. 
The act also directs the NIH Director to estab- 
lish a plan for research into methods of biomedi- 
cal research and experimentation that do not re- 
quire the use of animals, that reduce the number 
of animals used, or that produce less pain and dis- 
tress in experimental animals than methods cur- 
rently in use. 
