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
OP-ED: Promising technologies are not yet ready to replace animal research
A recent op-ed in The Hill praising the National Institutes of Health’s new initiative to promote human-based technologies as a “major victory for animal ethics in science” oversimplifies a far more complex research landscape. While the piece correctly identifies growing support and development of innovative, non-animal approaches, it is misleading in its framing and overstates what this federal initiative actually signals about the future of animal research.
Animal studies remain essential to both basic and translational science. From mapping brain circuitry to developing life-saving vaccines, the use of animal models has helped scientists uncover core biological mechanisms and test therapies with a degree of whole-organism complexity that no alternative system can yet match. Research involving animals has been directly responsible for major advances in treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and countless other diseases.
To suggest that NIH is ready to “leave outdated animal experiments behind” is to paint an unrealistic picture of the current scientific landscape. It implies that non-animal alternatives are fully capable of replacing animal studies across the board. In reality, these technologies — while exciting and valuable — are still evolving and have significant limitations. This kind of oversimplification does a disservice not only to the scientific community but also to public understanding.
Published July 13, 2025 By Alissa Hatfield and Naomi Charalambakis, Opinon Contributors,The Hill
E.P.A. Employees Are Invited to Adopt Soon-to-Be Homeless Lab Rats
Excerpt:
Lab animals are also used to establish lethal doses, a basic measure that determines concentrations at which a toxic chemical is lethal to 50 percent of a test population.
Still, most rats up for adoption at the E.P.A. are sentinel rats, which are used to test for contaminants in the environment. “They just hang out,” said Paula Clifford, executive director of Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that advocates the responsible use of animals in research. “Researchers might check their fecal matter,” she said, or “they might take some blood, and then they test that to see, are there any contaminants in the environment?”
Shutting that research down without developing alternatives could not only risk public health, she said, but could also make E.P.A. scientists more dependent on industry research and less able to verify the safety of chemicals.
Despite E.P.A. staff members’ efforts, some lab animals may not be suitable for adoption. Ones that have been genetically modified or have certain diseases aren’t up for grabs, a person with knowledge of the adoption program said.
Ms. Hirsch, the E.P.A. press secretary, said that animals “ineligible for adoption due to their exposure to harmful pollutants will be given humane end-of-life care.”
As for eligible rats, they make great companions, according to Ms. Clifford, who said she had adopted many former lab residents. “If you can convince people to have rodents in their homes, they’re wonderful pets.”
Published July 3, 2025 By Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times
Open Record: Beyond Animals
This podcast episode features a scientist in Wisconsin who explains his work using adult stem cells to create organoids to study the brain and disseases like Alzheimer’s, epilepsy and glioblastoma. AMP’s executive director, Paula Clifford, participated in the episode answering questions about why animal are still needed, how they are cared for and what recent policy announcements mean to the involvement of animals in medical progress.
Published June 26, 2025 by Bryan Polcyn and Jenna Sachs, Open Record – FOX6 Milwaukee
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