Ch. 12— Public and Private Funding Toward the Development of Alternatives • 271 
Three types of grants can augment the develop- 
ment of alternatives. Funding to improve animal 
facilities can result in healthier, less stressed ani- 
mals and can free research from the confounding 
variables bred by a less well defined or inferior 
environment. Grants to investigate improvements 
in animal health in general can have the same ef- 
fect. And research into the mechanisms govern- 
ing pain may spare animals some measure of suf- 
fering when the techniques are incorporated into 
other protocols. 
The development of alternatives in research is 
funded largely by incidental means through the 
support of basic biomedical research by the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health and the National Science 
Foundation plus a few targeted efforts that are 
supported privately . In a climate of finite research 
resources, research and development of alterna- 
tives to animal use take their place in the competi- 
tion among research priorities. A noteworthy ef- 
fort by NIH was the creation of the Biological 
Models and Materials Resources Section within the 
Division of Research Resources. With funding, this 
office may serve as a focal point for the exchange 
of both nonvertebrate biological materials and in- 
formation about the use of model systems in bio- 
medical research. 
In testing, a solid organizational structure for 
R&D of alternatives is in place, best illustrated by 
the National Toxicology Program and the Food and 
Drug Administration in the public sector and by 
the Rockefeller Laboratory for In Vitro Toxicol- 
ogy Assay and The Johns Hopkins Center for Alter- 
natives to Animal Testing in the private sector. Any 
strong indication that an alternative test method 
would be superior to a comparable conventional 
animal assay is likely to attract funding readily. 
CHAPTER 12 REFERENCES 
1. American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Re- 
search, "Presentation of Grant Awards by AFAAR 
at the Center for Advanced Training in Cell and Mo- 
lecular Biology,” Washington, DC, June 1985. 
2. Animal Protection Institute, "The Product Testing 
Update: Who’s Using Animals and Who’s Not,” re- 
sponse to "A Day That Counts” program, Sacramen- 
to, CA, January 1985. 
3. Balls, M., Chairman of Trustees, Fund for the 
Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, 
Nottingham, UK, personal communication, Mar. 4, 
1985. 
4. Borsetti, A.P., Staff Scientist, Office of Science Co- 
ordination, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. De- 
partment of Health and Human Services, Rockville, 
MD, personal communication, 1985. 
5. Brauer, E.W., Vice-President, Revlon Research Cen- 
ter, Inc., Edison, NJ, personal communication, Jan- 
uary 1985. 
6. Fed. Proc.j "NIH’s McCarthy Discusses New Animal 
Policy” 44(10):10a-12a, 1985. 
7. Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, "Annual Reports,” 
Morristown, NJ, 1981-85. 
8. Hart, L.G., Assistant to the Director, National Toxi- 
cology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC, per- 
sonal communication, July 1985. 
9. Holman, J., Director, Laboratory Animal Sciences 
Program, Division of Research Resources, National 
Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. De- 
partment of Health and Human Services, personal 
communication, July 1985. 
10. McKinney, P., Administrative Officer, Toxicology 
Research and Testing Program, National Institute 
of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Tri- 
angle Park, NC, personal communication, July 1985. 
11. Millenium Guild, "Half Million Dollar Rewards to 
Get Rid of Lab Animal Suffering,” press release, New 
York, Apr. 13, 1982. 
12. National Research Council, Models for Biomedical 
Research: A New Perspective (Washington, DC: Na- 
tional Academy Press, 1985). 
13. National Science Board, Science Indicators 1982 
(Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 
1983). 
14. Nethery, L.B., and McArdle, J.E., Animals in Prod- 
uct Development and Safety Testing: A Survey 
(Washington, DC : The Institute for the Study of Ani- 
mal Problems, Humane Society of the United States, 
1985). 
15. Resovsky, E.M., Director of Development, Univer- 
sity of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 
Philadelphia, PA, personal communication, Oct. 1, 
1985. 
16. Sabourin, T.D., Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Co- 
lumbus, OH, personal communication, February 
1985. 
17. Shadduck, J.A., "Alternative Testing Methods: A 
Proposal for the Development of Alternatives to 
Ocular Irritancy Tests,” Grants and Contracts Of- 
fice, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, 
Nov. 24, 1982. 
18. Shapley, W., "Special Analyses,” AAAS Report X: Re- 
