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