On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) and our more than 8 million supporters nationwide, we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on our top funding priority for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in Fiscal Year 2005.

Pain and Distress Research

An estimated 40% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget—or currently more than $11 billion—is devoted to some aspect of animal research. At this time, no funding is set aside specifically for research into alternatives that replace or reduce the use of vertebrate animals in research or that reduce the amount of pain and distress to which research animals are subjected. NIH may receive $28.8 billion in FY 2005 if Congress fulfills the president's budget request. Out of this funding, we seek $2.5 million (0.009%) for research and development focused on identifying and alleviating animal pain and distress. We recommend that this R & D be conducted under the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR, responsible for NIH extramural funding). We also urge the committee to specify in report language that NCRR should conduct this research in conjunction with, or "piggy-backed" onto, ongoing research that already causes pain and distress. No pain and distress should be inflicted solely for the purpose of this research, given the volume of existing research (we estimate a minimum of 20-25% of all animal research) that is believed to involve moderate to significant pain and/or distress.

In 1987, NIH announced a program to award grants for "research into methods of research that do not use vertebrate animals, use fewer vertebrate animals, or produce less pain and distress in vertebrate animals used in research." Many of the 17 program awards made from 1987 to 1989, totaling approximately $2.4 million, involved research on non-mammalian models, including projects on frogs, mollusks, and insects. Other awards included mathematical modeling and computer studies. This program, which was managed out of the Division for Research Resources (the precursor to NCRR), no longer exists at NIH, and it has not been replaced by any similar program.

A 2001 survey conducted by an independent polling firm indicates that concern about animal pain and distress strongly influences public opinion about animal research in general. Public support for animal research declines dramatically when pain and distress are involved: 62% support animal research when pain and distress are minimal, only 34% when moderate, and an even smaller 21% when animal suffering is severe. Despite this public concern, NIH has not continued to sponsor R & D, exploring how to minimize animal suffering and distress in the laboratory.

During the past several years, our organization has been reviewing institutional policies and practices with respect to pain and distress in animal research. We have found that research institutions have inconsistent policies due to the lack of information on this subject, and that standards vary greatly from one institution to another. Painful techniques, such as the use of carbon dioxide to euthanize rats and mice, are widely practiced and approved even though studies indicate that carbon dioxide exposure for only a few seconds causes acute distress to humans. The federal standard for determining laboratory animal pain specifies that, if a procedure causes pain or distress to humans, it should be assumed to cause pain and distress to animals. Furthermore, while human experience can and should provide a useful guide in some cases, there are others in which humans are never subjected to the conditions facing laboratory animals. Information on pain and distress that animals themselves actually experience is important. For many accepted laboratory practices there are no scientific data regarding their painful or distressing effects on either people or animals.

A lack of data on the recognition, assessment, alleviation, and prevention of pain and distress in laboratory animals is commonly cited by scientists as a rationale for either not reporting pain and distress or not acting to mitigate it. This lack of data is obviously detrimental to the welfare of animals used in research, but it is also detrimental to the quality of science produced. Uncontrolled, undetected, and unalleviated pain, physical distress, or psychological distress result in alterations in physiologic and behavioral states, and confound the outcome of scientific research. Ultimately, the lack of information on pain and distress leads to misinterpretation of research results that could result in harmful effects in human beings when pre-clinical animal research results are applied to humans in clinical trials. It is worth noting that researchers themselves often comment publicly at scientific meetings about the urgent need for funding in order to properly understand and mitigate pain and distress in research animals.

Our nation takes pride in leading the world in biomedical research, yet we lag behind many other countries in our efforts to minimize pain and distress in animal subjects. For example, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and the European Union all have committed funds specifically for the "three R's" (replacing the use of animals, reducing their use, and refining research techniques to minimize animal suffering).

We urge the committee to make this small investment of $2.5 million to promote animal welfare and enhance the integrity of scientific research. We also respectfully request this accompanying committee report language:

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and top priority for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriation Act of Fiscal Year 2005. We hope the committee will be able to accommodate this modest request that will benefit animals in research and the quality of the research. Thank you for your consideration.