Ch. 1— Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 13 
FUNDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 
The Federal Government does not explicitly 
fund the development of alternatives to animal 
use per se. Because research on and development 
of alternatives is founded on a broad base of disci- 
plines, it is difficult to ascertain the dimensions 
of the effective level of support. No category of 
research funds, for example, distributed by the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National 
Science Foundation is earmarked for the develop- 
ment of alternatives. Yet despite this lack of iden- 
tifiable, targeted funding, Federal dollars do sup- 
port areas of testing and research that generate 
alternatives. 
In biomedical and behavioral research, it is not 
clear whether targeted funding efforts would pro- 
duce alternatives faster than they are already being 
devised. The research areas most likely to result 
in useful alternatives include computer simu- 
lation of living systems; cell, tissue, and organ 
culture technology; animal care and health; 
and mechanisms of pain and pain perception. 
Funding to improve animal facilities can result 
in healthier, less stressed animals and can free 
research from confounding variables bred by 
a less well defined or inferior environment. 
Some Federal agencies, notably the National Toxi- 
cology Program and FDA, conduct in-house re- 
search on alternatives to animal testing, as do some 
corporations. Industry has also committed funds 
to university researchers seeking alternatives. Rev- 
lon has given $1.25 million to the Rockefeller 
University to support research on alternatives to 
the Draize eye irritancy test. The Cosmetic, Toi- 
letry, and Fragrance Association and Bristol Myers 
Company have given $2.1 million to the Center for 
Alternatives to Animal Testing at The Johns Hop- 
kins University, which funds research into test- 
ing alternatives, especially in vitro methods. 
Alternatives to animal use in education gener- 
ally build on techniques developed in research and 
funded by research monies. Some Federal support 
for research in science education addresses the 
development of alternatives, particularly in the 
area of computer simulation. In 1985, the enact- 
ment of Public Law 99-129 authorized the Secre- 
tary of the Department of Health and Human Serv- 
ices to make grants to veterinary schools for the 
development of curriculum for training in the care 
of animals used in research, the treatment of ani- 
mals while being used in research, and the devel- 
opment of alternatives to the use of animals in re- 
search. 
Colleges and universities may offer courses re- 
lated to humane principles or principles of experi- 
mentation. In addition, animal welfare groups are 
active sponsors in the areas of humane education 
and attitudes about animals. 
A number of humane societies and animal welfare 
groups fund research on alternatives in research, 
testing, or education. Several private foundations, 
notably the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, des- 
ignate support for research in animal welfare as 
among their funding missions. 
REGULATION OF ANIMAL USE 
Several Federal and State laws, regulations, 
guidelines, and institutional and professional so- 
cieties’ policies affect the use of animals in research 
and testing (see chs. 13, 14, and 15; app. B). Chief 
among these are the Animal Welfare Act, the Health 
Research Extension Act of 1985 (Public Law 99- 
158), rules on good laboratory practices established 
by FDA and EPA, the NIH Guide for the Care and 
Use of Laboratory Animals (revised in 1985), and 
the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane 
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by Awardee 
Institutions (revised in 1985; see app. C). 
Federal Regulation 
Prompted by publicity about pet dogs used in 
research, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act 
to halt the use of stolen pets in experimentation. 
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 
