23. Pimentel, D., Andow, D., Dyson-Hudson, R., et al., "Environmental and Social Costs of Pesticides: A Preliminary Assessment," Oikos 34:127-140, 1980. 24. Rey-Bellet v. Englehardt, 493 F.2d 1380, 181 USPQ 453 (1974).

25. Rowan, A.N., Of Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984).

26. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, 104 S.Ct. 2862 (1984). 27. Stock Market Survey for Hazelton Labs (New York, NY: Silverberg, Rosenthal, and Company, Apr. 9, 1984).

28. Turner, J., Reckoning With the Beast: Animals, Pain and Humanity in the Victorian Mind (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).

29. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982 Census of Manufactures, Drugs (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985).

30. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Admninistration, National Toxicology Program, Board of Scientific Counselors, Draft Report-Ad Hoc Panel on Chemical Carcinogenesis Testing and Evaluation (Bethesda, MD: Feb. 15, 1984).

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Data Requirements for Registering Pesticides Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, EPA 540/9-82-013 (Washington, DC: 1982).

32. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Toxic Substances Strategy Committee, Toxic Chemicals and Public Protection (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980).

Attempts to find alternatives to using animals in research, testing, and education are so diverse that it is difficult to cite firm figures on funding levels. An investigation of public and private funding practices does make it clear, however, that no single policy covers such research and development (R&D). Much of the work that could lead to the replacement, reduction, or refinement of animal use is not even considered R&D of alternatives by the body that funds it.

Research is seldom targeted toward alternatives as ends in themselves. Few projects are initiated with this specific goal. Consequently, confining the inquiry to only those cases where development of an alternative method is the desired result, such as programs to find in vitro substitutes for the Draize eye irritancy test, drastically narrows the category of funding classified as supporting alter

natives. In addition, it is especially difficult to examine funding policies related to reductions and refinements, because these considerations generally enter into the construction of any protocol.

This chapter covers targeted as well as incidental cases of research into alternatives-investigations directed toward the development of alternatives as well as those pursued for other reasons but that lead to or use alternatives. Also considered are research into laboratory-animal health and some types of pain research that may increase knowledge about the mechanisms of pain and improve methods of alleviating distress. Resources allocated to upgrading animal facilities are closely related, since inadequate facilities may skew experimental results, thereby requiring that more animals be used.

Developing replacements for the use of animals in research is far more likely to be incidental than targeted. Refinements and reductions may be incidental developments as well, but they are more likely to result from conscious efforts on the part of the investigator. Areas in which alternatives, especially replacements, are discovered will often be those in which animals are not used at all. This type of development is exemplified by basic research in cell biology that resulted in improved cell culture capabilities, and work in basic physics that led to noninvasive imaging techniques. Identifying funding in this area is particularly difficult: Few agencies view these projects as alternatives to animal use or label them as such, even though the methods may yield techniques and systems that could replace animals, reduce the numbers used, or refine the protocols. (Most testing-related research has been deliberately excluded from this category.)

In an attempt to obtain a rough indication of expenditures on alternatives, OTA examined the range of models in use, identifying the number of projects and amount of research money in each system area. Of course, not every nonanimal method evolves into an alternative to animal use. Yet research in specific techniques, such as biostatistics, may have broad or unanticipated applications across many areas of research and testing.

Public Funding

Two major granting agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), account for most of the basic biomedical research sponsored by the Federal Government. Neither agency currently funds alternatives as a targeted goal. In few cases is the development of a replacement a major objective of the research that produces one. However, considera