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
1 escaped monkey returned to Lowcountry research facility, 42 still play at large
Excerpt:
“An expert with scientific animal studies advocacy group Americans for Medical Progress said generally the wellbeing of the animal would be the first priority. Caretakers would evaluate the monkeys and then proceed depending on the results, said Naomi Charalambakis, science policy and communications director of the nonprofit.
Charalambakis called the narratives from anti-animal testing advocacy groups “unfortunate.” She said eliminating primate medical research would do significant damage to public and animal health.”
Published November 9, 2024 by Mitchell Black, Jessica Wade, tony Kukulich and Jason Cato, Post and Courier
Former research chimps will move to sanctuary, after NIH reverses course
Excerpt:
“Cindy Buckmaster, spokesperson for Americans for Medical Progress, a biomedical advocacy group that has opposed moving chimpanzees away from the facilities and staff they have known for most of their lives, worries about the future of the Alamogordo chimps. “It is a gut-wrenching outcome for them and the caregivers who love them.”
Still, she applauds the thoughtfulness that went into NIH’s decision. “This directive will allow the time needed for everyone involved to get these frail chimps transferred and settled in as carefully and compassionately as possible.”
Published November 8, 2024 by David Grimm, Science
Key research beagle breeder faces potential criminal probe
Excerpt:
“Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the responsible use of animals in research, defends the facility, saying its staff “put animal welfare first. They really abide by all of the strict regulations—everything that is in place.”
She argues that because Ridglan often supplies dogs for veterinary research, the shuttering of the facility “would be a huge setback for veterinary medicine, especially if we are hoping to have improved medications and treatments for dogs themselves.”
Published October 28, 2024 by Meredith Wadman, Science