298 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
eral years will have absolutely no protection under 
this law” (31). Subsequent amendments added 
more specific requirements but left the intra- 
research exemption undisturbed, retaining a post- 
hoc, audit-style enforcement system. 
Second, creating an agency whose sole purpose 
is to regulate experimentation, or infusing more 
authority and funds into APHIS, are options that 
Congress has not chosen to exercise, even in the 
face of a lukewarm commitment to enforcement 
by existing executive agencies. Third, these choices 
have not been made because a consensus on the 
preferable mode and extent of control has never 
been apparent. Some regulation advocates, it ap- 
pears, will settle for some degree of tinkering with 
the act; others will not rest until research on ani- 
mals is done away with (27). Those differences have 
strong roots and are likely to persist. 
There are important statutory and regulatory 
considerations regarding any attempt to modify 
existing law in order to effect replacements, re- 
ductions, or refinements of animal use. Statutory 
changes would reflect judgments on: 
• whether the jurisdiction of enforcing agen- 
cies should be expanded to enforcement of 
adequate care, treatment, and use standards 
during actual conduct of experimentation; 
• whether the scheme of regulation of ex- 
perimentation should be scaled to a higher 
level of compliance responsibility, as is now 
the case for dealers and exhibitors; 
• whether penalties for violations of research 
standards should be enacted that are commen- 
surate with those assessed against other reg- 
ulated parties; 
• whether voluntary assurances or simple cer- 
tifications of compliance are adequate; 
• whether coverage of existing classes of ani- 
mals is statutorily adequate to achieve even 
existing policy objectives; and 
• whether proposed changes take into account 
the operation of other, overlapping laws that 
have different policy objectives. 
Regulatory changes would involve judgments of: 
• whether existing enforcement agencies are 
appropriate (and willing) to continue to fulfill 
current responsibilities and assume others; 
• whether enforcement agencies should be 
given increased discretion in formulating and 
enforcing professionally acceptable standards 
of care, handling, treatment, and use of re- 
search animals; 
• whether additional requirements for research 
regulation will be susceptible to consistent 
interpretation by inspection and enforcement 
agents in the field, in light of existing avail- 
ability of training resources and aids for field 
inspectors; and 
• whether efficient assignment of funds and en- 
forcement resources on a state -to -state basis 
is likely to occur. 
In addition, statutory or regulatory change would 
reflect a judgment of: 
• whether funds authorized and appropriated 
will be adequate in relation to contemplated 
enforcement duties; 
• whether regulated research institutions have 
sufficient financial resources and institutional 
and independent veterinary resources to ef- 
fect meaningful compliance with a strength- 
ened law, while avoiding any compromise of 
research or testing objectives; and 
• whether strengthening existing laws will pro- 
mote resolution of or enhance differences be- 
tween the research and animal welfare com- 
munities. 
Finally, the Animal Welfare Act is often criti- 
cized— inappropriately— for excluding mice and 
rats from its coverage. In fact, the act, as amended 
in 1970, covers all warm-blooded animals that the 
Secretary of Agriculture determines are being used 
or intended for use in research or for another 
named purpose. The Secretary does not appear 
to have the discretion to determine whether or 
not mice and rats are wajrm -blooded animals, only 
whether or not they are used in research. No 
amendment to the act is therefore necessary to 
bring mice and rats under its scope. The exclu- 
sion of mice and rats (and birds) from the defini- 
tion of "animal” by USD A regulation in 1977 (9 CFR 
1.1 (n),(o)) appears to frustrate the intent of Con- 
gress and to be beyond the Secretary of Agricul- 
> ture's statutory authority (6). 
