European governments have invested some resources to find alternatives to the use of animals in testing. For the past two decades, Germany gave out about $6 million a year in research grants alone and the Netherlands had spent $2 million a year. The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods, a body set up in 1992 by the European Commission, required another $9 million annually. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) offered $1.5 million worth of grants a year, for three years. And industry provided the $1 million a year that the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins University allocates in-grants (3).

The European Union (E.U.) requires in its Directive 86/609 that "an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available." (4) However, the notion of "scientifically satisfactory method" is vague and scientists can always claim that alternatives are not available to replace a whole animal organism.

In 1993, the first director for the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods was hired, the first World Congress on Alternatives was held in Baltimore.

Few organizations such as the American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (AFAAR) and the Johns Hopkins University provide funding for different projects aiming to develop non-animal models. Barbara F. Orlans investigated the National Institute of Health-targeted programs by using the Freedom of Information Act and noticed that between 1987 and 1989, only seventeen awards have been made totaling less than 2,500,000 dollars.(5) Despite this effort, little has been done to support new alternatives. There is no formal funding available in Canada.