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.”

Read more

Published April 29, 2025 by Ilse Méndez, CULTURA COLECTIVA

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.

Read more.

Published April 17, 2025 by Tina Reed, Alison Snyder, AXIOS

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

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.”

Read more.

Published December 10, 2024 by David Grimm, Science

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.”

Read more.

Published November 9, 2024 by Mitchell Black, Jessica Wade, tony Kukulich and Jason Cato, Post and Courier

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.”

Read more.

Published November 8, 2024 by David Grimm, Science

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.”

Read more.

Published October 28, 2024 by Meredith Wadman, Science

Excerpt:

“A new generation of science writers visited campus on July 18. The aptly named Curious Science Writers visited with researchers, science writers and staff from the Office of Animal Care and Use (OACU) and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).”

Read more.

Published August 20, 2024 by Amber Snyder, NIH Record

Excerpt:

“If you think about how long it takes to develop technology, and ensure that it works appropriately, we’re sort of in the infancy of this technology,” said Jim Newman, director of strategic communications for Americans for Medical Progress. “But that’s not to say there isn’t tremendous promise.”

Read more.

Published August 14, 2024 by Gino Fanelli, WXXI News NPR

Excerpt:  

“If you’ve received a flu vaccine, or given your child cold medicine, you have directly benefited from animal research. If you’ve taken insulin for diabetes, received the polio vaccine, undergone chemotherapy, underwent coronary bypass surgery, had kidney dialysis, or taken medications for psychiatric illnesses, research in nonhuman primates played a big part in those treatments.”

“Critics often argue that computer models or organs-on-a-chip can replace animal research. And while these technologies help reduce the number of animals that need to be studied, they are still in their infancy and cannot fully replicate the intricate workings of the human body. “

Read more

Op-ed by Paula Clifford Published in the Tallahassee Democrat on April 11, 2024