254 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
in the price range of the cheaper, currently avail- 
able in vitro and nonanimal replacements. 
Most research and testing in the United States 
is financed by Government or industry. The 
chemical industry, including the production of 
drugs, has annual sales of over $170 billion and 
spends over $7 billion on research and develop- 
ment. An unknown fraction is spent on research 
involving animals and about $700 million is spent 
on toxicity testing. 
The Federal Government sponsors much bio- 
medical research and testing involving animals 
(see ch. 12). An unknown amount leads to the de- 
velopment or use of alternatives. The Government 
also has many programs related to testing, includ- 
ing the evaluation of testing data generated in 
other sectors. Agencies with significant budgets 
for such activities include the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency, the Food and Drug Administra- 
tion, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health. 
The Federal Government also has a special role 
in the sharing of data derived from animal use, 
as the data have proprietary value. First, antitrust 
laws and policies affect industry’s ability to share 
data and the costs of generating it. Such sharing 
is facilitated by the passage of the National Co- 
operative Research Act of 1984. It is also facili- 
tated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances 
Control Act. 
CHAPTER 11 REFERENCES 
1. Auletta, A., Genetic Toxicologist, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, per- 
sonal communication, 1984. 
2. Baily, M.N., "Research and Development Costs and 
Returns, the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry," J. Polit. 
Econ. (Jan.-Feb.):70-85, 1972. 
3. Baxter, W.F., “Antitrust Law and Technological In- 
novation,” Iss. Sci. Tech. 1(2):80-91, 1985. 
4. Berk, A., and Paringer, L.C., Economic Costs of Ill- 
ness, 1930-1975 (Washington, DC: Public Services 
Laboratory, Georgetown University, May 1977). 
5. Bishop, F., Chief, Registration Support and Emer- 
gency Response Branch, Office of Pesticide Pro- 
grams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, personal communication, 1985. 
6. Brusick, D.J., Director, Molecular Sciences Direc- 
torate, Litton Bionetics, Kensington, MD, personal 
communication, 1984. 
7. Cross v. Izuka, 224 USPQ 745, 1985. 
8. Chem. Engin. News, “Facts and Figures for Chemi- 
cal R&D,” 53(29):28, 1985. 
9. Gibson, R.M., Levit, K.R., Lazenby, H., et al., “Na- 
tional Health Expenditures, 1983,” Health Care Fi- 
nan. Rev. 6(2):l-29, 1984. 
10. Hertzfeld, H.R., and Myers, T.D., "Economic and 
Policy Considerations,” contract report prepared 
for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con- 
gress, 1985. 
11. In re Anthony, 56 CCPA 1443, 414 F.2d 1383, 162 
USPQ 594 (1969). 
12. InreBergel, 48 CCPA 1102, 292 F. 2d 955, 130 USPQ 
206 (1961). 
13. In re Chilowsky, 43 CCPA 775, 229 F. 2d 457, 108 
USPQ 321 (1956). 
14. In re Irons, 52 CCPA 938, 340 F.2d 974, 144 USPQ 
351 (1965). 
15. in re Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 
1980). 
16. In re Krimmel , 48 CCPA 1116, 292 F.2d 948, 130 
USPQ 215 (1961). 
17. In re Watson, 517 F.2d 465, 186 USPQ 11 ([Cust. 
and Pat. App.] 1975). 
18. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National 
Survey of Laboratory Animal Facilities and Re- 
sources (Washington, DC: National Academy of 
Sciences, 1980). 
19. McGrath, J.P., Remarks at the 18th Annual New Eng- 
land Antitrust Conference, Boston, MA, Nov. 2, 
1984. 
20. Mushkin, S .3 ., Biomedical Research: Costs and Bene- 
fits (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1979). 
21. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 595 
F.Supp. 1255 (S.D.N.Y., 1984). 
22. Payton, N., Massachusetts Society for the Preven- 
tion of Cruelty to Animals, Testimony in Support 
of H1245, Boston, MA, February 1981. 
