It, too, ranks as an alternative. Some in the animal protection movement would like to restrict the word alternative only to those methods that replace animal use. I fear that such a narrow definition may distract the public's attention from reduction and refinement techniques, which offer very real improvements in animal welfare and in the quality of information derived from necessary animal research and testing. When I chose the Center's name, I was very careful to distinguish between toxicological testing, which is routine, and biomedical and behavioral research or experimentation, which involves the development of new knowledge. Toxicological testing requires identifiable endpoints, biological events that indicate poisoning has begun.
Scientists can use known endpoints to develop in vitro alternatives to animal tests.
But in research, scientists must continue to use some animals for the foreseeable future, treating the animals with care and consideration. Although some of CAAT's studies may produce methods that reduce animal use in research, the Center emphasizes development of alternatives in testing. This emphasis is critical to the advancement of animal welfare. An estimated 15 million animals are used for testing in the United States each year. Appropriate in vitro alternative can greatly reduce, and someday may even eliminate, this animal use.