Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to measure progress in the sheer numbers of animals currently being used, since, under the current provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, scientists are not required to count rodents, the most commonly used species in research.

While we cannot necessarily quantify progress in these numbers, we can point to other numbers that are encouraging.

Consider that a decade ago, most scientists hardly ever addressed the ethics of using animals in research, believing that animals were incapable of suffering because they were not “self-aware.” Today, however, the ethics involving animal research is a frequent topic of articles in scientific journals.

Anti-vivisectionists were once dismissed as “anti-science” and misguided zealots who cared more about animals than people. Today, there are more animal advocacy organizations than ever before, as well as increasing numbers of people who support them. What’s more, animal issues are receiving greater visibility in the media.

Perhaps the most significant beacon of progress has been the development and implementation of non-animal alternatives. In 1985—four years before James B. Wyngaarden, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, was quoted as saying that “research should not be hampered by moral considerations”—NAVS took the extraordinary step of joining with some remarkable scientists from academia, industry and government to initiate a revolutionary solution to end the use of animals in science and education.

Frustrated with the inadequacies of animal models as a scientific methodology and building on the compelling ethical objections to exploiting animals, these leaders had the foresight to establish the International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) based on a simple premise: there had to be a better way.

Building on what had been a little recognized book, Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, published in 1959 by two British scientists, William Russell and Rex Burch, NAVS found the common language that facilitated communication between scientists and animal advocates. IFER adopted what has become known as the 3 R’s approach – Replacement of animals as a model with a scientifically valid substitute for current live animal methodologies, Reduction in the number of animals used while enhancing the yield of information, and Refinement of the experimental procedures to improve the optimal well-being of animals used in research.

IFER has set the replacement of animal use as its area of priority and from its beginnings in 1985 incorporated a 4th R to its mission – Responsibility. This 4th R is what has distinguished IFER from other funding and advocacy groups concerned with alternatives. Responsibility has meant the re-evaluation of the course science is taking with animal models; the recognition of society’s heightened awareness of the use of animals in research, product testing and education; the development of new methodologies; the implementation of new technologies; and the furthering of personal accountability.

Thanks in large part to the generous support of NAVS, the investment in promoting scientifically viable alternatives to the use of animals has contributed to important progress. In the two decades since its founding, IFER has provided critical financial support for the development, validation and implementation of alternatives and sponsored conferences to disseminate information on these scientific innovations.

The grants that IFER has provided to scientists have funded a wide array of scientific advancements and dramatically reduced and/or replaced the use of animals. In just over 20 years, an important milestone has been reached—IFER has invested over one million dollars in this endeavor. To ensure that grant monies are put to the best possible use, IFER has assembled a distinguished group of dedicated scientists to serve on its Scientific Advisory Board.

Grants have been used to make advancements in in vitro toxicology that have helped to replace the Draize eye and skin irritation tests. Replacing these tests has saved countless rabbits and other animals from exposure to these painful practices. These advancements also laid the basis for the development of artificial skin that has been used as a successful treatment for burn victims.

IFER has also supported the development of computer technology to simulate kidney structure and function for training medical students, an in vitro project for studying spinal cord injuries, and the creation of an artificial stomach for teaching suturing skills for surgeons. IFER contributed funds to a study that demonstrated the impressive performance of graduate students using interactive videos instead of live animals in a lab and to the development of non-invasive methodologies to study wildlife.

IFER’s grant recipients have conducted research on numerous diseases from cancer to Leishmaniasis (a disfiguring disease found in tropical and subtropical areas of the world, which is especially devastating to children). In addition to funding development of these alternatives, IFER has sponsored numerous conferences and workshops to advance awareness of these scientific innovations and to promote standard best practices of new methodologies for validation by regulatory agencies and implementation by the relevant industries.

It is important to note, however, that while these achievements have demonstrated that scientifically viable alternatives to the use of animals are possible, IFER’s ability to fund such projects is a readily acknowledged “drop in the bucket” compared with the funding resources of government, university and private research laboratories. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for 2006, for example, is $28.6 billion. For reasons such as this, while progress is being made, it is at a painfully slow pace.

In Europe, where the promotion of alternative methods has been more successful than in the U.S., the number of animals used in research actually rose by 2.1% from 2003 to 2004, due primarily to the use of genetically engineered animals. Thankfully, the European Commission and industry associations agreed to reduce the number of animals used for research, toxicology and quality control of health products from 11 million a year to 9 million by 2007.

Additional hurdles such as getting governmental regulatory bodies to commit to developing and validating alternative methods or even to agree to implement existing alternatives have made changes come at glacial speed. Another fundamental problem has been determining the standards that alternatives have to meet to be validated. This is a frustrating reality when the currently used animal tests have never been validated and are known to be inadequate

To meet these challenges, IFER has recently proposed the addition of 3 A’s to be considered along with Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. The 3 R’s have addressed the animal welfare concerns with vivisection. To better ensure that the development, validation and implementation of alternatives contribute to the progress of scientific endeavors, IFER has proposed Accuracy, Accountability, and Advancement.

Building on its 4th R of Responsibility, IFER will advance alternatives that are accurate in predicting human response and that are useful for medical research and drug testing, not that simply duplicate the responses from animal tests. IFER will continue to work with NAVS and organizations like Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) to hold those who continue to defend the reliability of animal models accountable. And IFER will continue to support the innovations and technologies that advance science and will lead to cures for human health problems.

In the continuing debate between those who defend vivisection and those who promote science without the use of animals, we have often been asked, “Who would you save on a sinking ship – your child or your dog?” IFER will continue to challenge the establishment to stop throwing dogs and other animals overboard and start developing real “life jackets” for people by advancing better, more humane science.