250 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
der $1,000. An LD S0 test can be performed for 
less than $2,000. Subchronic toxicity tests can cost 
under $100,000, and those for long-term toxic- 
ity or carcinogenicity for two species can be done 
for less than $1 million, and perhaps for under 
$500,000 (10,31). As a rule, the cheaper tests re- 
quire fewer animals, but more importantly they 
take far less time at each of three stages— plan- 
ning, execution, and analysis. Another reason for 
large variations in testing costs is the species used, 
with maintenance costs approximating $0.05 per 
day for a mouse, $4 for a dog, and $11 for a chim- 
panzee. Most of the cost of maintaining animals 
is attributable to labor expenses. 
Various short-term in vitro tests for mutagenic- 
ity have been developed over the past 15 years 
in an effort to replace the more costly and time- 
consuming carcinogenicity test (see ch. 8). The 
most popular mutagenicity test, and one of the 
first to be introduced, is the Salmonella typhimu- 
rium /microsome plate mutation assay (the Ames 
test), costing $1,000 to $2,000 (10). This assay has 
the most extensive database thus far (1). Used 
alone, it does not appear to be as predictive of 
human carcinogenicity as are animal tests. 
If the Ames test, some yet -to-be-developed test, 
or a battery of tests proves to be more predic- 
tive of carcinogenicity than testing with animals, 
the savings could be enormous. A battery of tests 
that might indicate carcinogenicity has been sug- 
gested by the National Toxicology Program (30) 
and has shown some promise in preliminary 
evaluations (see ch. 8). Most testing laboratories 
could conduct this particular battery of tests for 
under $50,000, and costs would probably decline 
as the tests become more commonplace (10). 
NATIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR RESEARCH AND TESTING 
Research and testing in the United States are 
financed and conducted in a variety of ways. The 
sources of research funding are Government and 
industry. Some Government research funds sup- 
port Government laboratories, but a larger share 
support research in academia. Industry research 
is done primarily at in-house industry labora- 
tories, with some funds contracted to other lab- 
oratories and to academia. 
Most testing is conducted by industry. The 
chemical industry is the sector most directly af- 
fected by regulatory policies concerning toxico- 
logical testing. In 1982, this industry (Standard 
Industrial Classification Code 28) had shipments 
worth over $170 billion and employed 866,000 
people, which represented 8.7 percent of all in- 
dustry shipments in the United States and 4.5 per- 
cent of the employees. 
Drugs, soaps and toilet goods, and agricultural 
chemicals account for the greatest use of animals 
in testing, and constitute almost a third of their 
use by the chemical industry . The rest of the chem- 
ical industry, in order to satisfy transportation, 
disposal, and occupational health requirements, 
does simple tests such as the LD 50 for substances 
for which the potential exposure is high (see ch. 7). 
Corporate research and development (R&D) in 
the chemical industry is large and concentrated 
in the industrial chemicals and drug sectors. Ex- 
penditures by the industry totaled $7.6 billion in 
1984 (8), a figure that includes in-house toxico- 
logical testing, research involving the use of ani- 
mals, and many other activities. It has been esti- 
mated that the toxicological testing industry 
accounts for just under 10 percent of the R&D 
expenditures in the chemical industry (27), mak- 
ing testing an estimated $700 million expenditure 
in 1984. An unknown percentage is spent on re- 
search involving animals. 
In the past 10 years, industry’s R&D expendi- 
tures have grown at about 13 percent per year, 
following a slight decline in the early 1970s. R&D 
expenditures for drugs, as a percentage of sales, 
are twice as high as the industry average, and 
have grown at a slightly higher rate (8). Animal 
use could be growing at a similar rate, although 
survey estimates (see ch. 3) and other factors (see 
ch. 8) do not support this notion. 
The Federal Government also plays a major role 
in animal research and testing, with almost $6 bil- 
lion obligated for research in life sciences for 
1985. University research in the life sciences, 
which is funded largely by Government and some- 
