The New England Anti-vivisection Society recently awarded $250,000 to the Tufts Medical School for studying alternatives to the Draize Test, which entails applying cosmetics to the eyes of rabbits.

Nancy Payton, humane issues analyst for the Massachusetts Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), who is testifying at the hearings today, said she hopes to amend the federal Animal Welfare Act to make scientists more accountable for their research. Under current law and regulations, applicants for NIH funds must submit a proposal that specifies what research will be done for review by the organization. Additionally, universities and research centers are subject to state and local animal cruelty laws and to reviews within their own institutions.

At Harvard, a researcher must submit a research proposal to a University animal committee and, in accordance with state law, must submit the experiment to inspection by the Massachusetts SPCA.

"There is a large number of safeguards built into the system. I think they are adequate," said Dr. A. Clifford Barger, Pfeiffer Professor of Physiology, noting that scientific journals often inquire into the methods of experimentation used when considering research for publication.

Barger believes further controls will inhibit creative research. "One cannot advance science by dictation," he said. While, as Barger points out, "in any society there are going to be one or two culprits," the animal activists look at any single case of apparent animal abuse as proof that more controls are needed.

But Payton responds. "I think it's about time that scientists felt a little repressed," asking, "Don't we have a right to ask what they do with our money?"

She finds fault in the current law because it prescribes only standards of care in handling, housing, feeding and watering and does not specifically deal with types of research allowable.

Researchers must, however, report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on what animals were used in the course of a year, and whether any animals were subjected to pain or distress. In 1980, the USDA reports, out of 1.6 million animals used in experimentation, more than 120,000 experienced pain or distress.

The 81 sponsors of the Roe bill, who include such liberals as Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.), as well as conservatives such as Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), share the distrust for academics.

"There is a growing public concern over the suffering of large numbers of animals used in research and testing," the bill reads. "The continued reliance on animal experimentation delays the development of new, more effective procedures."

But the scientific community stands opposed. As one subcommittee staffer said, it views the measure as akin to treating a mosquito bite with acid.