Torricelli's own staff holds out little hope for the bill's passage. The bill's provisions are based on the assumption that animal use could be reduced by eliminating duplication in research. The legislation, among other things, would require a comprehensive search of the world's scientific literature and deliberations by a presidential panel before approval of any federal funding for research involving live animals. Torricelli Bill Called Costly, Unnecessary Opponents claim that the bill would cost too much and that the research community itself is best equipped to decide which research projects are worthy of funding. This added expense would come at a time when federal deficit is threatening the nation's ability to continue the current level of support for biomedical research.
Research involves duplication to verify earlier research.
It is better for researchers to make the decision on what is and isn't necessary duplication than to trust a formula approach. She says there already are safeguards in place to ensure that unnecessary duplication does not occur. The research community believes the current system of peer review ensures that researchers are aware of the literature. In peer review, a scientist's research proposal is reviewed by the top researchers in his or her specialty before the funding institution decides whether to give the scientist a grant. Scientists view the peer-review process as the best way to insure that each new project generates new and useful information.