The costs of cutting canine testing

Washington Post

14-04-2025

Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff called for a moratorium on federal funding of and an eventual ban on research using dogs in their March 26 Wednesday Opinion essay, 'This is no way to treat a best friend.' Public support for research on companion animals has historically been mixed, but that's probably because of a misunderstanding about research with dogs.
Though dogs represent less than 1 percent of animals used in science, their contributions have an outsize impact on human and pet lives. In fact, 18 Nobel laureates worked with dogs for their research.
The field of human and canine comparative oncology, in which researchers study the similarities of cancers in humans and pets, is in its infancy. Many cancers present in similar ways in dogs and humans, including bone, prostate, breast, skin, and head and neck. Research with dogs has also contributed to scientists' understanding of cardiovascular diseases. Cardiac pacemakers and stents, developed with the help of dogs, are also placed in pet dogs with heart disease. Some of the most prescribed drugs and medical devices have been developed with dogs and also benefit dogs, including lisinopril, glucometers and blood pressure monitors. And, dogs were instrumental test subjects in the early experiments that led to the discovery of insulin. Not only did this work save the lives of countless diabetic humans over the past century, but it also benefited diabetic dogs.
Scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians are committed to advancing knowledge and improving both human and animal health while upholding the highest standards of care. These professionals replace dogs with other research models whenever scientifically possible. But in many areas of research, including comparative oncology, using dogs is necessary.
When considering the ethical implications of conducting research with dogs, we should also consider the ethical implications of depriving millions of animal and human patients of treatments if a moratorium on canine research is put in place. Instead of painting a target on the backs of scientists who work with dogs to advance knowledge and treatments, we should understand and respect the necessity of their work for the sake of human and animal health.
Matthew R. Bailey, Washington
The writer is president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research.
Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff painted a deeply troubling picture of animal testing. But the truth is more balanced: Goodall and Bekoff omitted critical context about why animal research occurs and how these animals are cared for.
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 deplorable 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.
I was so grateful as I read Jane Goodall and Marc Bekoff's essay detailing the cruel treatment of dogs in some U.S. laboratories. Most of us feel immense compassion for dogs, but let's also remember that other animals used in testing are just as sentient. Many animals, however, are still used for trivial purposes, including testing household products such as oven cleaner. Let's end product testing on animals now, and work to phase out medical testing on animals in favor of more ethical methods.
Karen Dawn, Santa Barbara, California
The writer is founder and director of DawnWatch, an animal advocacy organization.
Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Matt Pottinger, in their March 25 Tuesday Opinion essay, 'R&D funding isn't a gift to academia,' were right to call for renewed federal investment in science and technology. Public funding for research and development is not a charitable gesture. It's the beating heart of U.S. technological leadership.
History proves this. The internet wasn't invented in a garage; it was born out of the Defense Department's ARPANET, a Cold War-era federal project designed to secure military communications. As Mariana Mazzucato wrote in her book 'The Entrepreneurial State,' nearly every component of the iPhone, including GPS, touch-screen and voice-recognition software, was made possible by decades of public investment.
Yet we've allowed a dangerous myth to take root: that only private markets innovate. In fact, private capital rarely steps in until the government has de-risked basic science. As Annie Jacobsen documented in her book 'The Pentagon's Brain,' the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested in ideas far too speculative for the private sector.
Today, as China escalates its own R&D investment, the stakes are no longer just economic. This is about national security. Science and innovation aren't luxuries; they're important tools in our arsenal. If we want to stay ahead, we must fund bold, mission-driven science and ensure that the American people, who foot the bill, share in the rewards. That means not just commercialization but also reinvestment in public goods.
Let's stop pretending R&D is a handout. It's a strategy, and it's one we pioneered.
Joseph Frusci, New York
What happened to President Donald Trump's visionary commitment to ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic?
Hundreds of the foremost HIV scholars around the country recently received letters terminating their research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health. And NIH funding for the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network, which since 2001 has focused on preventing HIV among adolescents and saving children living with HIV, was also abruptly terminated. Many of the termination letters noted that 'so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion ('DEI') studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans. Therefore, it is the policy of NIH not to prioritize such research programs.'
The Trump administration is also considering closing the Division of HIV Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which funds more than $1 billion in lifesaving programs around the country. Thousands of federal public health workers recently had their employment abruptly terminated or reassigned, many of them in the HIV field. HHS also announced its intention to remove all current members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, which provides the presidents' policy counsel about HIV issues. This is all a major reversal from Trump's 2019 State of the Union address, in which he announced a goal of ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030.
The programs that followed Trump's strategy worked. More people have access to HIV prevention and treatment than at any time in history. HIV infections are down overall, with approximately 32,000 new HIV infections in 2022, which is a 12 percent decline from 2018. Trump's plan compelled government agencies to coordinate with churches, nonprofit organizations and researchers to ensure that everyone has access to the HIV prevention and care services they need. Thanks to NIH research investments, most HIV cases can now be both prevented and treated with as little as one pill a day.
One big public health challenge is delivering lifesaving medications to the people who need them most. This is easier said than done and requires important research in real-world clinical settings. Our approach to engaging and retaining Black men in HIV prevention services has proved highly effective in pilot studies and was cited as an evidence-based best-practice intervention by the CDC in 2023. However, our larger study exploring how to scale that successful program to clinics across the United States, including in the Deep South, was terminated last month.
Many people need help accessing lifesaving medications, transportation to their appointments, and special support to pay for and adhere to their HIV medications. Thanks to Trump's 2019 plan to end the HIV epidemic, for the first time, most people who needed HIV medications could get them at no or low cost, even in rural communities. Red states benefited handsomely from this initiative, which pumped millions of dollars of resources into rural communities with high HIV rates, few physicians and few clinics. Our own research with African American clergy in the South demonstrated that this strategy really works.
Mr. President, you had an incredible plan to end the HIV epidemic. It saved lives. Please bring it back.
Amy Nunn and Philip A. Chan, Providence, Rhode Island
Amy Nunn is a professor of public health at Brown University and is chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Public Health Institute. Philip A. Chan is an associate professor of medicine and public health at Brown, chief medical officer of the Rhode Island Public Health Institute and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.
Do you have a grievance with our grammar? Are you irked with our omissions? Do you crave different coverage? Or do you just wonder how The Post does our work? You're in luck. On April 23 at 1 p.m., the letters team will be answering your questions in a live chat, so submit them now for the best chance of a detailed answer: wapo.st/freeforallchat.