The congressmen, researchers, activists and federal administrators who are convened this week in Washington might find their task a bit easier of they could, as Dr. Doolittle put it, "talk to the animals."

They are participating in hearing before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology to explore issues surrounding the use of live animals in biomedical research. The hearings represent a first step toward legislation that could result in tighter controls on animal experimentation.

At stake for the scientists are millions of dollars in federal grants and the restriction of what they consider some of the best existing methods for research.

Animal rights activists and humanists hope to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of live animals in experimentation. They seek federal mandates restricting the use of animals and redirecting funds to expedite the development of new methods.

The most comprehensive, and controversial, of the several bills introduced in Congress is the Research Modernization Act.

Sponsored by Rep. Robert A. Roe (D-N.J.), and since cosponsored by 80 representatives, the bill proposes to establish a center within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to gather and disseminate information on non-animal research and testing methods such as mathematical models, isolated organisms, and computer simulations.

The Roe Act has aroused concern among academics, because it would prohibit the use of federal funds for animal experimentation when an alternative method is deemed appropriate, or when the research or testing is duplicative of work performed elsewhere.

Furthermore, it would redirect between 30 and 50 per cent of federal funds for animal research to the development of alternative methods. The NIH, the principal government agency administering funds for biomedical research, granted $2 billion to more than 500 institutions for such research in 1980. An estimated three-quarters of this involved animal research.

"We are not trying to eliminate animal research in this country," Ken Rinzler, Roe's chief legislative assistant said. Most animal rights activists seek in the immediate future to economize on the numbers of animals used and reduce pain and suffering in experimentation; the long-term goal of many is preventing any form of animal research.

At issue is who should determine when it is necessary to use animals, or whether present experimental systems ensure adequate well-being for animals; the bottom line is, of course, the money.

Doubtful of the potential for devising alternative methods, many biomedical specialists, including several at Harvard, fear a reallocation of funds would curtail their research.

"Animal research that we consider necessary is not going to get done," Dr. Ronald Hunt, director Animal Resources and professor of Comparative Zoology, said. Faculty at the Medical School received $28 million in NIH funds for animal research last year.

Researchers are skeptical about the feasibility of many alternative methods, claiming many artificial models cannot satisfactorily approximate human conditions.

"Alternatives are something that should be studied," Paul Lenz, staff assistant in the NIH Office of Extramural Research and Training, said, "but they cannot replace studies in a whole living animal." He noted that the NIH has worked on developing alternative approaches for as long as it has been in existence, but added, "Right now those alternatives are in the dear distant future."

Another issue animal-rights activists raise involves judging whether a certain aspect of animal research is necessary, and who should have the final authority for allowing it to proceed.