Open Record: Ridglan Farms beagles freed; 1,500 dogs bought by rescues
FOX6’s Bryan Polcyn, Carl Deffenbaugh and Sara Smith discuss the extraordinary events of the past six weeks that led up to the high-stakes negotiation, what a pharmaceutical industry group says about the future of animal testing, and how the Wisconsin Humane Society plans to get 150 of the dogs ready for fostering and adoption.
AMP’s executive director, Paula Clifford, participated in the episode, answering questions about the involvement of dogs in research, the “90%” failure claim and how the FDA Moderization Act 3.0 will impact research.
May 1, 2026, Fox6 Milwaukee
Animal Testing Still Exists – Why?
April 14, 2026
Director of Communications and Science Policy at Americans for Medical Progress Dr. Naomi Charalambakis talks about why animals are still needed for medical research and testing to make medicine and vaccines for other animals. Have any advances been made so animals don’t have to be used? Is this an area where AI can help?
Wisconsin’s Midday News, 620 WTMJ Radio
AMP Publishes Op-Ed in TheScientist
Why Animal Research Needs a New Communication Strategy
Public accountability in animal research is essential, but oversight records are increasingly used to fuel political campaigns built on misleading narratives.
As animal research becomes a more visible political issue, publicly available oversight records are increasingly being used to shape inaccurate narratives about essential biomedical studies. When these technical documents are presented without context, they can drive media coverage and policy proposals that misrepresent how animal research oversight actually functions. The research community must respond by communicating more proactively about regulatory systems, animal welfare protections, and the continued role of animal studies in biomedical discovery.
The Anatomy of a Modern Activist Campaign
Biomedical research with animals operates within one of the most heavily regulated environments in modern science. Facilities are routinely inspected, protocols are reviewed by independent oversight committees, and compliance documentation is publicly available. This framework reflects careful stewardship of public resources and a broad commitment to animal welfare.
Yet increasingly, the accountability that underpins this system is being repurposed as a political weapon.
Antianimal-research organizations have long relied on publicly available documents—United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection reports, federal grant records, and regulatory correspondence—to misrepresent research programs and target institutions, scientists, and veterinarians. But the strategy is also evolving in an alarming way. Today, these groups not only mine public records for citations and violations, but they also watch for the political moment that will generate the greatest attention among policymakers.
Written by Naomi Charalambakis, Americans for Medical Progress
Published: March 23, 2026 in TheScientist
FDA and NIH announce more initiatives to reduce animal testing in drug development
The agencies released new industry guidance and research grants
March 18, 2026
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON — The Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday announced several initiatives to try to reduce reliance on animal testing in drug development.
The Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance meant to help drug companies explore new ways to assess the safety and efficacy of their products without using animals. And the National Institutes of Health said it has offered more than $150 million to institutions working on new research methods that better simulate human biology.
HHS has made reducing animal testing a priority over the past year. In April 2025, the FDA announced it would phase out the animal testing requirement for monoclonal antibodies. A few months later, the NIH said it would no longer fund research projects that rely solely on animal testing.
Researchers have historically tested their products in animals before moving onto human clinical trials, but recent studies have shown that the majority of drugs that work on animals are ultimately not proven to work on humans. This can lead to increased research costs, and unnecessary cruelty towards animals, activists say.
Scientists have slowly started transitioning towards other types of preclinical tests, testing products with artificial intelligence or lab-grown cell structures intended to mimic certain organs. But HHS wants to jumpstart the process.
….
Biomedical research group Americans for Medical Progress said the FDA and NIH should not discount animal testing in cases where such research is necessary.
“A balanced approach that integrates new tools without prematurely sidelining established models will be critical to maintaining both scientific rigor and patient safety,” said Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at AMP.
Lizzy Lawrence, FDA Reporter, STAT
OHSU board votes to negotiate with NIH and possibly transform its primate center into an animal sanctuary
February 9, 2026
Excerpt:
…
Nonetheless, some researchers maintain that newer technologies should be used to complement rather than replace animal models. In their view, animal research remains important for understanding complex biological interactions that are affected by illnesses and diseases and, therefore, is essential for science and drug discovery.
For instance, Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit advocacy group that supports the use of animal testing in biomedical research, objected for several reasons, such as what it called a “rapid” 180-day negotiating period and “inconsistency” with the intent of Congress and the NIH. The group cited a 2024 report from the NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs projecting increasing demand for nonhuman primates through at least 2028.
“As discussions move forward, it will be essential that the perspectives of the scientific and veterinary communities are included alongside advocacy viewpoints so that decisions reflect both animal welfare realities and the nation’s biomedical research needs,” the group wrote in a statement.
“Modernizing research through non-animal models is important, but changes to nationally supported infrastructure must be grounded in evidence, expertise, and a clear understanding of what alternatives can and cannot currently replace.”
Ed Silverman, STAT
NIH looks to turn primate research center into a sanctuary
February 4, 2026
Excerpt:
The National Institutes of Health wants to transition at least one of seven national primate research centers into an animal sanctuary, aiming to move away from animal testing in favor of alternative methods.
…
But some researchers worry that moving away from animal testing too quickly could mean stalled progress on treatments that could cure disease and save lives.
Naomi Charalambakis, who directs science policy and communications at Americans for Medical Progress, an advocacy group that supports responsible animal testing in biomedical research, cautioned that certain fields of study do not yet have viable alternatives to animal testing.
“What we don’t want to do is prematurely eliminate a model that we really need, and then we run into issues in clinical trials that inevitably hurt patients or delay progress in public health,” Charalambakis said.
Sophie Gardner, Politico
Monkeys to be spared in some US drug trials
December 2, 2025
Excerpt:
The US’s drug regulator said it would stop requiring pharmaceutical companies to use lab monkeys for some safety studies, in a move that will yield substantial savings for the industry.
…
Last month, the UK announced a new strategy for replacing animals in drug testing, pledging £30mn in government funding to promote the use of artificial intelligence and other tools.
Naomi Charalambakis, an official with the non-profit Americans for Medical Progress, said the FDA would probably continue to require animal testing for complicated treatment developments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer.
“We have to ensure that any new approach that we use maintains or improves the safety and efficacy standards that we are already using rather than simply reducing animal use for the sake of reducing animal use,” Charalambakis said.
Patrick Temple-West, New York, The Financial Times Limited
AMP Publishes Letter to the Editor in STAT
October 27, 2025
In response to an excerpt from the book, “Lab Dog: A Beagle and His Human Investigate the Surprising World of Animal Research,” published in STAT on October 14, AMP emphasizes that specific terminology used in science and research protocols is embedded in a regulatory framework designed to protect animals and ensure consistent care. Read the full response here and below.
Melanie Kaplan’s recent opinion piece, an excerpt from her new book, “Lab Dog: A Beagle
and His Human Investigate the Surprising World of Animal Research,” raises an
important truth: Language shapes how the public understands science. The research
community hasn’t always done enough to explain the words we use or the safeguards
behind them.
However, the excerpt’s claim that this language “hides” reality to be secretive overlooks
important context and may lead readers to misunderstand its true purpose. In animal
research, terminology is not about softening or “soothing” reality; it’s about precision and
accountability. Words like “euthanasia” and “animal model” have specific scientific and
legal meanings that trigger defined welfare standards, training requirements, and
oversight mechanisms. For instance, when a protocol lists “euthanasia,” it activates a chain
of mandated veterinary review, approved methods, and public documentation.
Far from being euphemisms, these are terms embedded in a regulatory framework
designed to protect animals and ensure consistent, humane care. Animal research is
among the most scrutinized areas of science in the U.S. Institutions using regulated
species are inspected by the Department of Agriculture — often unannounced — and those
reports are posted publicly. Federal agencies publish annual counts by species and pain
category, and most major programs also undergo voluntary Association for Assessment
and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care accreditation, adding yet another
independent welfare audit beyond what the law requires.
Specialized language isn’t unique to research or animal-related fields. In aviation, for
example, a pilot might use terms like “controlled descent” or “runway incursion” — not to
downplay a problem or avoid plain words like “crash” or “near miss,” but because those
phrases are standardized codes that precisely define the risk and corrective process. They
enable experts, inspectors, and regulators to communicate effectively, allowing every event
to be traced, measured, and corrected under federal oversight, ensuring the issue doesn’t
happen again. Animal research terminology works the same way: it ensures that welfare
and procedural standards are met, not masked.
Nonetheless, the research community can and must do more to communicate
transparently. Scientists, veterinarians, animal care professionals, and compliance experts
share a duty to proactively explain their work and the compassion behind it. Clearer
dialogue that is grounded in facts, not fear, will strengthen public trust and safeguard the
scientific progress that benefits both human and animal health.
— Naomi Charalambakis, Americans for Medical Progress
Published: October 25, 2025
1,200 monkeys held in Maryland for years released from quarantine
Excerpts:
The 7News I-Team has learned 1,296 monkeys, some being held in Frederick, Maryland, are being released to Charles River Labs after more than 2 and a half years in federal custody.
In its second-quarter financial report, Charles River, which purchased the monkeys – valued at $ 27 million – for drug research, states that the Department of the Interior has cleared the way for the monkeys to enter the U.S. legally.
…
Charles River Labs statement:
“Charles River has been caring for the animals since they were imported to the United States.. Over the past several years, the US Department of Justice has been investigating the NHP supply trade. As a result, we have been unable to use certain shipments of NHPs from Cambodia in late 2022 and early 2023 for their intended regulatory-required drug development purposes. In July, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cleared for legal entry into the United States all of the NHP shipments from Cambodia from late 2022 and early 2023 that were under investigation. In addition, we have been informed that the U.S. Department of Justice is no longer conducting investigations into these shipments. These positive developments validate our unwavering commitment to compliance and ethics in all that we do. It also demonstrates our steadfast commitment to animal welfare.”
…
Americans for Medical Progress, an animal research advocacy group, tells 7News:
“The welfare of these animals must remain the top priority. Nonhuman primates are essential to countless areas of lifesaving medical research. We are encouraged by this decision because it helps restore some much-needed stability.”
Published August 29, 2025 By Scott Taylor, ABC 7 News
Facing ‘impossible’ workload, USDA struggles to oversee lab animal welfare
Excerpts:
Employees terrified of being laid off. Shrinking resources combined with unprecedented workloads. The loss of a tool critical to enforcing its mission. Such conditions would strain any organization. But for an already overburdened division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responsible for overseeing the welfare of nearly 800,000 lab animals, they could spell disaster.
…
In the past several years, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has lost more than one-third of its inspectors, witnessed a doubling in the number of entities it has to oversee, and added an entirely new class of animal to its purview. Now, actions by President Donald Trump’s administration threaten to reduce APHIS’s workforce even further, and a recent U.S. Supreme Court case has handicapped the agency’s ability to punish those who violate the federal Animal Welfare Act, which mandates the humane treatment of animals housed in everything from labs to zoos.
“It’s the most challenging time I’ve ever seen for animal care,” says Kevin Shea, a former APHIS administrator who spent more than 4 decades at the agency before retiring in January. If APHIS can’t do its job, he says, “animals will suffer.”
…
In light of these challenges, Kleiman is concerned APHIS will seek to outsource its responsibilities to third-party organizations. A 2021 Science investigation revealed the agency had begun an apparently clandestine policy of conducting more limited inspections of labs accredited by AAALAC International, a private organization of veterinarians and scientists.
…
…Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress, a biomedical research advocacy group, argues that the Rise for Animals analysis exaggerates the appearance of severe infractions at AAALAC-accredited entities by counting less serious violations in the total and by focusing on percentages instead of raw numbers. “Labs also often self-report issues to APHIS that they have already corrected,” she notes, “yet these issues still show up as citations.” Charalambakis acknowledges that AAALAC accreditation is “not a magic guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong,” but she says the analysis “paints a misleading picture of how animal research oversight works in practice.”
Sally Thompson-Iritani, the assistant vice provost responsible for the University of Washington’s animal care program—one of the largest in the United States—says she hasn’t noticed a decrease in the quality of APHIS inspections at her university. “We still get inspected, and they’re still thorough and thoughtful.”
Even if APHIS falters, Thompson-Iritani says universities like hers have long had their own mechanisms to ensure proper animal welfare. Every U.S. institution that receives federal funding for animal research must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, for example. Still, she says, APHIS provides a valuable service. “I like the idea of holding ourselves accountable and getting outside eyes on things.”
Published August 19, 2025 By David Grimm, Science