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.

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.