268 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
Both the Animal Protection Institute and the In- 
stitute for the Study of Animal Problems have sur- 
veyed corporations that do animal research and 
testing (2,14). Many companies indicated that they 
were taking steps to promote alternatives. Sup- 
port often took the form of membership in a trade 
association (e.g., CTFA) that sponsors research into 
alternatives. Others indicated that investigations 
were being undertaken within their own research 
programs. Responses and levels of commitment 
varied greatly among corporations. 
Animal Welfare Groups 
Groups such as the American Fund for Alterna- 
tives to Animal Research (AFAAR), the American 
Anti-Vivisection Society, the New England Anti- 
Vivisection Society, the Animal Welfare Founda- 
tion of Canada, the Lord Dowding Fund in Great 
Britain, the Millennium Guild, and the Muriel Low- 
rie Memorial Fund have supported research in the 
United States aimed at replacing animals in test- 
ing protocols. These grants range in size from a 
few thousand to several hundred thousand dollars . 
AFAAR, for example, has provided some $130,000 
in grants between 1977, when it was founded, and 
1985 (1). Included among these are a grant of 
$25,905 to develop a test system to determine the 
nutritive value of protein in foodstuffs, using Tet- 
rahymena (ciliate protozoans) in place of wean- 
ling mammals. This test enables food producers 
to provide correct diet supplements or therapeutic 
diets . In addition, a grant of $45,000 was awarded 
to develop a replacement for the Draize eye ir- 
ritancy test using the chorioallantoic membrane 
of the chick embryo. Additional funding for this 
project has been supplied by other animal welfare 
groups (a total of $148,500 from the Lord Dowd- 
ing Fund, the American Anti-Vivisection Society, 
the Muriel Lowrie Memorial Fund, and the Ani- 
mal Welfare Foundation of Canada) and by the Col- 
gate-Palmolive Company. In 1985, AFAAR joined 
three other animal welfare groups in awarding 
an additional $133,987 to develop procedures for 
toxicology testing using monolayer cell cultures 
in gradients of oxygen tension and temperature (1). 
The Millennium Guild has offered $500,000 to 
encourage the development and implementation 
of testing methods that will replace or significandy 
reduce the use of animals (11). There is a break- 
through award of $250,000 for nonanimal replace- 
ments for the Draize eye, the Draize skin, or the 
LD 50 tests for any scientist or team of scientists 
who develops a cost-effective test or battery of tests 
that can be validated and accepted by a U.S . regu- 
latory agency. An equal sum is available to pro- 
mote innovation and to reward the rapid reduc- 
tion of widely used animal tests. These incentive 
awards have been granted in areas such as uses 
of liver culture, quantitative structure activity rela- 
tionships, cell culture bioassays, and the use of pro- 
tozoans as indicators of eye irritancy. 
Foundations and Research Institutes 
Foundations and research institutes often de- 
vote in-house and other private funds to research 
into alternate testing methodologies and systems. 
Battelle Columbus Laboratories (Columbus, OH), 
for example, is pursuing the development of many 
alternatives. Its efforts fall into two major divisions, 
mammalian and nonmammalian systems. The ba- 
sic areas of system development include cell and 
organ culture, in vitro teratology, and neurotoxi- 
city . A figure of $500,000 has been conservatively 
estimated as the investment in this area. The fund- 
ing comes primarily from private sources and in- 
cludes both internal and external funds. Some of 
the projects now under way are cell culture initi- 
atives, including macrophage work, and teratolo- 
gy research using rat embryo and frog embryo 
cultures (16). 
FUNDING TOWARD ALTERNATIVES IN EDUCATION 
Funding of research toward alternatives in edu- 
cation, especially within the public sector, stems 
more from a renewed emphasis on science and 
math education and on computers than from sub- 
stantial concerns with methods of animal use in 
education. Alternatives in education also often orig- 
inate as research simulations, and then move back 
into the classroom. Exceptions to this are projects 
undertaken for the express purpose of develop- 
ing replacements for animals in the classroom, or 
