Ch. 13— Federal Regulation of Animal Use • 291 
of the cases involved registered research facilities 
(11,21,27). One case is nevertheless germane be- 
cause it is the only time the courts have had to 
examine the language and the intent of Congress 
in passing the act. In a 1976 decision denying a 
professional dog-and-pony-show owner’s claim 
that he was not covered by the act, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia indicated 
the likelihood of a favorable judicial response to 
attacks on the act and of a liberal interpretation 
of the legislation. Quoting from the House report, 
the Court stated that (11): 
As the evolution of the Animal Welfare Act 
manifests, Congress has chosen a cautious ap- 
proach to regulation in this area, increasing gov- 
ernmental intervention as the national interest 
seemed to warrant. . . .From the small beginning 
in 1966 — confined to a few animals, and only 
when they were devoted to research purposes— 
the present legislation further, though still mod- 
estly, "implementls] a statutory mandate that 
small helpless creatures deserve the care and pro- 
tection of a strong and enlightened public.” We 
perceive nothing in the Constitution outlawing 
this commendable “effort to demonstrate Ameri- 
ca’s humanity to lesser creatures.” 
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the de- 
cision (11). Thus, the case’s value rests in using 
it to support the notion that the highest court re- 
fused to disturb a lower court's decision uphold- 
ing the reasonableness of Congress’ effort to pro- 
tect animals from inhumane treatment, including 
in research. The D.C. Federal appeals court has 
cited provisions of the act on three other occasions, 
once in support of judicial review of the delegated 
powers of the Secretary of Agriculture (29) and 
twice without comment (1,28). 
At the district court level (the Federal system’s 
usual courts of first resort, or "trial” courts), sev- 
eral cases have been brought in which the act’s 
provisions have been raised (3,5,9,10), but no court 
has fully considered or decided any case invoking 
the act against a research facility. 
A review of reported and unreported cases in- 
volving the Animal Welfare Act indicates that what- 
ever case law has been developed bears little rela- 
tion to the act's regulation of research activities. 
This can be traced to a single major factor. Con- 
gress-very deliberately, it appears, fearing harass- 
ment of research facilities— gave no party other 
than APHIS any statutory right to enforce the act 
or regulations promulgated pursuant to it. The de- 
gree of circumspection toward research evident 
in Congress’ consideration of the act and its amend- 
ments must be seen as an obstacle to private en- 
forcement of its standards through the courts, 
since at least one Federal court has held that hu- 
mane groups have standing to sue on behalf of 
animals under another law enacted for humane 
objectives, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (2). 
Lack of standing— i.e., proof to a court that a claim- 
ant’s stake in the accomplishment of the policy ob- 
jectives of a statute is significant and the effect 
on the claimant’s interests is real if those objec- 
tives are frustrated (seech. 14)— makes it impossi- 
ble to attain enforcement of laws from the bench . 
The Health Research Extension Act 
of 1985 
In 1985, Congress amended the Public Health 
Service Act (Public Law 78-184) by enacting the 
Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-158), which contained provisions for the care 
and treatment of animals in research funded by 
the Public Health Service (PHS), including the Na- 
tional Institutes of Health (NIH). The act provided 
statutory authority for and recognition of certain 
elements of the PHS Policy on Humane Care and 
Use of Laboratory Animals by Awardee Institutions 
(see app. C). 
The act also contained provisions for the devel- 
opment of alternative research methods. Thus, the 
concept of alternatives to animal use was explicitly 
described for the first time in Federal law in 1985 . 
(The concept of alternatives first appeared in Fed- 
eral law earlier in 1985, in fact. Public Law 99- 
129, The Health Professions Educational Assistance 
Amendments of 1985, also mentions the develop- 
ment of curriculum for veterinary students on 
alternatives to the use of animals. It is described 
in ch. 12.) 
Care and Treatment of 
Animals in Research 
The act requires that each entity receiving PHS 
support for research with animals establish a com- 
mittee to monitor care and treatment of animals 
