NIH planned to keep testing on beagles through 2026 before halting experiments
After the story aired on WJLA TV, the Americans for Medical Progress reached to 7 News. We provided AMP with some of the same questions we asked other organizations that support animal research. AMP responded with the following answers:
Why did NIH use beagles for experiments? What were they studying?
Beagles, like other animal models, are sometimes used in research because of their size, temperament, and biological similarities to humans. This intramural lab at NIH was studying cardiovascular dysfunction during sepsis—a life-threatening condition that causes ~1.7 million hospitalizations per year. Heart dysfunction in sepsis patients is a very serious complication that increases mortality rates from 20% in those without cardiac dysfunction to 70-90% in those who do have cardiac problems.
Did it ever produce valuable/lifesaving results?
It’s important to remember that basic science research is essential because it uncovers foundational mechanisms of how a disease affects the body or how certain processes work in the body. We need this research to pave the way for clinical breakthroughs, but sometimes this can take many years.
In this case, NIH’s research deepens our understanding of what is going on with a patient’s heart and circulatory system when the body is experience what’s called “septic shock,” something that happens when an infection threatens the entire body and can cause low blood pressure and organs (like the heart) no longer functioning correctly. A lot of times, to help bring levels back to normal, epinephrine is used to help restore blood pressure and improve circulation, especially if their hearts are struggling to get enough blood. But to this day, we still don’t have a good understanding of what the best way to treat someone with these symptoms. Sometimes it’s epinephrine, sometimes it’s norepinephrine, or another type of vasopressor.
So what this study shows is that we need to be careful when using epinephrine in patients with cardiac dysfunction because it can cause harmful, long-lasting stress in other areas of the body, particularly at the tissue level, even after an infusion is given.
Studies like this and retrospective studies in children that were published just a couple of months ago looking at whether epinephrine vs. epinephrine is better for treating pediatric septic shock helps guide clinicians on how to not only potentially save their life but also improve the quality of their life long after discharge, to ensure they don’t have health problems later.
Ending animal experiments now that we can create such sophisticated modeling with AI seems cruel and unnecessary. But is it? Are there still things we need to know for which only living creatures, even cute ones, can effectively provide test results?
Emerging technologies like AI and organ-on-a-chip systems are incredibly exciting, and AMP is a strong advocate for advancing them. But at this stage, they don’t replace the complexity of a whole living organism. For example, the way a drug behaves in the bloodstream, interacts with different organs, or triggers an immune response can’t yet be fully replicated in a dish or on a computer. At least not yet–we still need a full-body system to understand how things are working and make sure these therapies and drugs are safe. It’s not about choosing one model over the other — it’s about using the right tool for the right question. An integrative, complementary approach is how we ensure research is both ethical and effective.
Is AMP a supporter of micro-organ chips as an alternative to animal experiments?
Absolutely. AMP supports innovation across the board — from microphysiological systems to advanced computer modeling — when they help us better understand diseases or predict how a treatment might work. But these models are best used alongside animal studies, not in isolation. Until alternative technologies can consistently answer the full range of biological questions, animal research remains a vital part of scientific progress.
What does AMP think about the recent successful work of citizens, federal lawmakers and organizations that have halted animal research at USDA, NIH and Dept of Veterans Affairs?
Public engagement and accountability are critical in science, and we respect the role of lawmakers and advocates. However, we are concerned that some of these decisions are being made based on optics or pressure campaigns rather than on what’s truly needed to responsibly advance medical knowledge. Scientific progress doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If we prematurely cut off certain types of research without having equally robust alternatives ready, we risk slowing down the development of lifesaving treatments. The goal should be to improve the system — not dismantle it.
Published June 9, 2025 by Scott Taylor, ABC 7 News
University must hand over names of anonymous animal committee members, court rules
Sullivan says she and her co-plaintiffs didn’t see a legal path forward, so they agreed to have the case dismissed this week.
“It’s a total victory,” says Asher Smith, director of litigation at the PETA Foundation, which represents the animal rights group. “It sets an incredibly important legal precedent,” he says. “It’s going to make it much harder for any IACUC to make legal arguments for anonymity.”
That concerns Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress, which defends the need for animal research. Like jurors, she says, IACUC members should be able to do their jobs without fear of exposure or harassment. She worries the decision will make it harder to fill these committees—a sentiment echoed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Such actions may affect recruitment of IACUC members in certain situations,” an agency spokesperson tells Science. “We take very seriously the humane care and use of laboratory animals used in NIH-funded research and recognize the importance of having IACUCs being fully involved throughout these activities.”
Charalambakis says without IACUCs, critical animal research can’t move forward. “If they’re disrupted, it throws everything off balance.”
Published May 2, 2025 by David Grimm, Science
Citizen Petition Objects To FDA’s Call For Animal Testing Alternatives
But others cautioned against seeing the move as a major victory for animal rights advocacy. Naomi Charalambakis, director of science policy and communications at the organization Americans for Medical Progress, said the change in FDA’s policy isn’t sudden.
“It’s the latest step in a long, deliberate process driven by the scientific community’s ongoing commitment to implementing New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) where feasible, safe, and scientifically sound,” she wrote.
Charalambakis said regulators and scientists have worked for years on NAMs, and while advocates against animal testing are touting the move from FDA as a sweeping change, both animal testing and newer tools will continue to play a significant role in drug development.
“It’s also important to recognize that the FDA doesn’t dictate which data drug developers must submit — sponsors do,” she said. “Whether it’s animal data or NAM-based data, FDA evaluates what is provided. That’s why the real challenge lies in incentivizing and supporting sponsors to integrate NAMs into their workflows. Encouragingly, the FDA’s new roadmap begins to address this gap among other issues, though its timelines and goals don’t fully account for the hurdles scientists and developers still face in this space.”
FDA should remain in touch with the realities industry and scientists face in implementing NAMs, Charalambakis said, not move ahead of them.
Published May 1, 2025 by Jessica Karins, InsideHealthPolicy
New NIH office to reduce use of animals in research
NIH’s statement added that its grant review staff will “participate in mitigation training to address any possible bias towards animal studies.” The agency will also add experts on nonanimal research methods to its study sections—independent scientific panels that review grant proposals. The agency did not respond to questions from Science by publication time.
An office coordinating work on nonanimal methods across agencies will be useful, says Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at the nonprofit Americans for Medical Progress. But, “The devil is in the details in how this is going to be implemented.” And “however NIH proceeds … it’s important to preserve the quality and timeliness of grant reviews,” she says.
Published April 30, 2025 by Sara Reardon, Science
NIH plans to reduce animal testing in federally funded research
The NIH, in fact, began moving in this direction early last year when Monica Bertagnolli, the agency’s director at the time, accepted recommendations of an advisory committee working group that was convened in 2022. The group, which reported its findings in December 2023, recommended the NIH develop and promote alternative research methods, and also create and maintain infrastructure for that work. The working group was formed after Congress directed the NIH to assess alternative research methods, but also followed calls by some members of Congress to review animal-based research amid increasing concerns over the reliance on this form of testing.
A spokesperson for Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that advocates the continued use of animals in biomedical research, noted the new NIH posture builds on those recommendations, but argued that “real progress will require an integrated approach. The key here will be its implementation. Details like funding for the development, validation, and training of novel alternative methods remain unclear, particularly during these times of budget uncertainties.
“Furthermore, the field still faces challenges around shared definitions, reporting standards, and data-sharing — all of which must be resolved for initiatives like this to succeed. Overall, our hope is that this effort is truly complementary to ongoing work with animals. … Animal studies continue to play a critical role in protecting public health, and we must not see progress in one area come at the expense of another.”
Published April 30, 2025 by Ed Silverman, STAT
Lab Animals Face Being Euthanized as Trump Cuts Research
Excerpt:
Experts agree that these emerging technologies hold enormous promise. But some say that, for now at least, lab animals remain a critical part of biomedical research and that certain kinds of data can’t be gathered any other way.
“We want to drive ourselves out of this work,” said Naomi Charalambakis, the director of science policy and communications at Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that advocates the continued use of animals in biomedical research. “But we’re not quite there yet.”
Published April 29, 2025 by Emily Anthes, The New York Times
Lab Animals Are Being Euthanized as Trump Guts Research—And Scientists Are Devastated
Excerpt:
But researchers argue that mass culling—especially when data goes uncollected and lives go undocumented—is the worst of both worlds: unnecessary death and no scientific gain.
“We’re not quite at the point where we can replace all animal testing,” said Naomi Charalambakis of Americans for Medical Progress. “We want to get there—but not like this.”
Published April 29, 2025 by Ilse Méndez, CULTURA COLECTIVA
Phaseout of animal testing offers moment of truth for “organs-on-chips”
Bottom line: Many of these new approaches still are at a point where dynamic processes like disease progression can’t be adequately studied, Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy for Americans for Medical Progress, told Axios.
- We want to be able to get to a day where we don’t need to reply on animal models. when that day will be, we’re not sure because they provide such a valuable set of infomration because they are a whole living body system,” Charalambakis said.
Published April 17, 2025 by Tina Reed, Alison Snyder, AXIOS
The cost of cutting canine testing
Excerpt:
The American public benefits from animal testing as many researchers seek treatments for diseases that affect both humans and pets. The decision to use dogs is not made lightly, and they are used only when no other species can answer the proposed research questions. Though most dogs that are used as research subjects must ultimately be humanely euthanized, their contributions allow scientists to gather critical data that leads to lifesaving treatments and cures. Honoring these animals means ensuring their time in research is as comfortable as possible and recognizing the lasting impact they have on future generations.
The public deserves a more realistic outlook on the challenges we face in medicine and the resources we need to address them in the safest, most effective and timeliest ways possible. The assertion that dogs are “routinely mutilated” is not true. Studies must be necessary, ethical and conducted with the highest standards of care. Ethics committees composed of veterinarians and nonscientists assess the scientific justifications for using animals while governing the veterinary oversight needed to uphold their health and care. This includes using analgesics, anesthetics and tranquilizers whenever possible to minimize and alleviate discomfort. Researchers are committed to considering alternatives to animals such as computer modeling, cell cultures and artificial intelligence.
Welfare violations of any kind are taken seriously and warrant thorough review. But when these incidents occur, they do not represent the practices and beliefs of the broader biomedical research community, which remains committed to the people and animals in its care. Sweeping decisions to eliminate certain species in research would be irresponsible and shortsighted, as this work not only improves animal health but also holds promise for millions of Americans.
Discussions about animal research should be grounded in a complete understanding of both ethical considerations and the medical advances it allows. We owe it to the public — and to the animals — to ensure the conversation is driven by facts and realistic expectations rather than emotion and examples devoid of context.
Eliminating studies on dogs might seem like a noble goal, but we must ask: What is the cost? Naomi Charalambakis, Washington The writer is a neuroscientist and is director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress.
Letter to the Editor by Naomi Charalambakis Published in the Washington Post on April 14, 2025
Scientists fear big cuts to animal research under Trump 2.0
Excerpt:
“After the U.S. elections last month, 27 scientific societies and academic institutions sent a letter to Congress, calling for “robust investments” in animal studies and arguing against any legislation that would phase out such research. “We need to be proactive,” says Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress, which spearheaded the effort. “We’re fighting battles from multiple angles.”
She says the biomedical community needs to speak in terms that can grab the attention of the politicians in power. If the goal is to challenge China, for example, “we need to talk about how they’re ramping up their biomedical research,” she says. Cuts to animal studies, Charalambakis says, make the U.S. less competitive.”
Published December 10, 2024 by David Grimm, Science