264 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
natives to animal experimentation in medical re- 
search (15). 
Several foundations have animal welfare as their 
primary mission or included as a principal goal. 
Since 1981, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation has 
disbursed over $450,000 in grants related to alter- 
natives (7). The foundation awards grants in sev- 
eral categories, including that of animal welfare. 
Research grants include a 2-year contribution of 
$115,409 to the Raker Institute for Animal Health 
of Cornell University for the development of a cell 
hybridization laboratory to enhance diagnostic, 
therapeutic, and disease prevention capabilities. 
Dodge has also contributed $63,000 to the Center 
for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at The 
Johns Hopkins University to help cover the costs 
of publishing the center’s newsletter. Additionally, 
the Scientists’ Center for Animal Welfare (Bethesda, 
MD) has received over $90,000 to date. 
FUNDING TOWARD ALTERNATIVES IN TESTING 
Funding of R&D on alternatives in testing is in 
many ways the support most easily identified, espe- 
cially when the alternative is intended to replace 
a test that currently uses animals . This applied R&D 
draws on basic research from other areas, incor- 
porates it into a testing methodology, and then vali- 
dates the new test. Developing an alternative re- 
quires that the alternative system be shown to 
correlate with the effect that is of interest. Nar- 
row efforts such as these contrast markedly with 
the broader goals of basic research, and the de- 
velopment of alternatives is correspondingly easier. 
Public Funding 
Public funding of research toward alternatives 
in testing stems from the Federal Government’s 
role as regulator and guardian of safety. Federal 
agencies conduct toxicological and other tests on 
many substances and devices in order to estab- 
lish effects as well as standards for safety (see ch. 
7). The greatest impetus for Federal funding of 
replacements for animal tests would be a strong 
indication that an alternative could be found that 
would be superior to the comparable conventional 
assay with animals. This has not yet occurred in 
terms of technologies that would totally replace 
the use of animals, nor is it likely to in the near 
future, although promising areas like in vitro as- 
says may someday replace some whole-animal 
tests. It is more likely that short-term in vitro tests, 
functioning primarily as screens, will reduce the 
number of substances run through the complete 
battery of tests with animals (see ch. 8). 
Toxicological Testing 
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) was 
chartered in 1978 as a cooperative effort by the 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 
involving four principal groups— the National Can- 
cer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Envi- 
ronmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), both of which 
are part of NIH; the National Center for Toxico- 
logical Research (NCTR) of the Food and Drug Ad- 
ministration (FDA); and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Cen- 
ters for Disease Control (CDC). Fiscal year 1985 
funding for the NTP totaled $76.7 million, drawn 
from contributions by the DHHS member agen- 
cies that were negotiated after each agency re- 
ceived its congressional appropriation. NIEHS pro- 
vides approximately 86 percent of the program’s 
resources (8). 
The stated goals of the NTP include the expan- 
sion of toxicological information obtained on chem- 
icals nominated, selected, and tested; the expan- 
sion of the number of chemicals to be tested, within 
the constraints of funding; the development, vali- 
dation, and coordination of tests and protocols to 
match regulatory needs; and the communication 
