logo
NIH under fire for funding dog tests despite vow to cut animal research

NIH under fire for funding dog tests despite vow to cut animal research

The Guardian16-07-2025
The US National Institute of Health (NIH) is continuing to fund 'cruel and wasteful' animal experiments involving dogs and cats, despite their recent announcement to reduce animal research.
The NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, announced in April the launch of a new initiative to 'reduce testing in animals' and prioritise 'human-based technologies' such as organ-on-a-chip and real-world data, in a 'new era of innovation' in biomedical research. The move seeks to address longstanding translational failures of animal research to predict human outcomes in diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's, 'due to differences in anatomy, physiology, lifespan, and disease characteristics'.
However, information obtained by the animal rights NGO White Coat Waste (WCW) shows that the NIH has in fact funded millions of dollars' worth of new animal experiments.
Analysis of project documents and those obtained through Freedom of Information Act (Foia) requests reveal that the NIH has approved nine new grants for dog research since their April announcement, costing the taxpayer over $12m, as well as extending about nine already active, with total study costs of $42m. WCW says these are in addition to the approximately 193 ongoing NIH-funded dog and cat studies, costing about $1.3bn.
New experiments uncovered by WCW include toxicology testing of an investigational drug to treat methamphetamine addiction. Toxicology tests often involve force-feeding or injecting dogs with increasingly large doses of a compound daily for up to a year.
Extended research includes a cocaine experiment to study cardiovascular effects. This involves beagles being strapped into jackets that inject them with cocaine as well as being force-fed an experimental drug to see how the two drugs interact. Another vaccine experiment involves infecting beagle puppies with viruses by strapping containers full of 'mutant' ticks to their bare skin, sometimes with pain relief intentionally withheld.
White Coat Waste, a watchdog to end US taxpayer-funded animal experiments, says the NIH should shut down these laboratories.
'Animal tests are bad spending and bad science, 95% of drugs tested on animals fail in human trials. The NIH's April announcement does not include any spending cuts, deadlines or benchmarks. The rhetoric doesn't match reality right now,' said WCW's senior vice-president, Justin Goodman.
The NIH is the primary medical research authority in the US and the world's biggest funder of animal research, spending an estimated $20bn annually. Yet Donald Trump proposes to slash the NIH budget by 40% to $27bn next year.
'Trump hates waste and animal experimentation is the poster child for wasteful spending. The best place to start would be to cut funding for animal labs which make up 40% of the NIH budget. It's outdated, expensive, there's little return for taxpayers and the American people don't want pets tortured,' Goodman says.
Despite the cuts, in a move welcomed by Goodman as 'encouraging', the acting NIH deputy director, Dr Nicole Kleinstreuer, said in an NIH podcast last week that dog and cat tests were 'unconscionable' and has pledged to phase them out.
'I don't think we should do research on dogs and cats. Absolutely not. We are constrained under the law to leave those existing grants in place, for now, but to phase them out, we are working tirelessly behind the scenes,' Kleinstreuer said.
An NIH spokesperson told the Guardian that to support the organization's 'shift toward human-focused research, all future funding announcements will emphasize human-relevant data such as clinical trials and real-world data, and new approach methods (NAMs) such as advanced laboratory-based methods and AI-driven tools'.
'NIH will no longer issue Notice of Funding announcements exclusively for animal models, and some may exclude animal use entirely advancing science that directly benefits human health,' they continued.
The NIH plans to reduce animal research by establishing a new office of research innovation, validation and application (Oriva) to develop and expand NAMs. The NIH have also taken other significant steps away from animal research recently, including 'terminating funding at Harvard University for studies that included sewing the eyes of young monkeys shut' and closing NIH campus beagle labs.
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which supports animal experimentation, has written to the NIH urging 'caution against prematurely removing animal research from the scientific toolkit in lieu of approaches not yet ready to address important biomedical inquiries in full'.
Notably, the recent NIH announcements have been welcomed by many as 'historic'.
Jarrod Bailey, the director of medical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine told the Guardian that the NIH is 'now leading the way in making research more humane and human-relevant, which will save millions of animal and human lives.
'Changing the way the NIH has operated for decades will take some time. We want to see the NIH delivering more in the coming months, but the significant shift away from animal experiments are unprecedented and very encouraging,' he said.
Oriva is part of a broader federal trend in the US. The FDA has also published a roadmap to end animal experiments in preclinical safety studies.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Top medical body concerned over RFK Jr's reported plans to cut preventive health panel
Top medical body concerned over RFK Jr's reported plans to cut preventive health panel

The Guardian

time5 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Top medical body concerned over RFK Jr's reported plans to cut preventive health panel

A top US medical body has expressed 'deep concern' to Robert F Kennedy Jr over news reports that the health secretary plans to overhaul a panel that determines which preventive health measures including cancer screenings should be covered by insurance companies. The letter from the the American Medical Association comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Kennedy plans to overhaul the 40-year old US Preventive Services Task Force because he regards them as too 'woke', according to sources familiar with the matter. During his second term, Donald Trump has frequently raged against organizations and government departments that he considers too liberal – often without any evidence. The US president, and his cabinet members such as Kennedy, have also overseen huge cuts and job losses across the US government. The taskforce is made up of a 16-member panel appointed by health and human services secretaries to serve four-year terms. In addition to cancer screenings, the taskforce issues recommendations for a variety of other screenings including osteoporosis, intimate partner violence, HIV prevention, as well as depression in children. Writing in its letter to Kennedy on Sunday, the AMA defended the panel, saying: 'As you know, USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians' efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services.' 'As such, we urge you to retain the previously appointed members of the USPSTF and commit to the long-standing process of regular meetings to ensure their important work can be continued without disruption,' it added. Citing Kennedy's own slogan of 'Making America healthy again,' the AMA went on to say: 'USPSTF members have been selected through an open, public nomination process and are nationally recognized experts in primary care, prevention and evidence-based medicine. They serve on a volunteer basis, dedicating their time to help reduce disease and improve the health of all Americans – a mission well-aligned with the Make America Healthy Again initiative.' According to the Affordable Care Act, public and private insurance companies must cover any services recommended by the Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing. In a statement to MedPage Today, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon did not confirm the reports, instead saying: 'No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Reports of Kennedy's alleged decision to overhaul the taskforce come after the American Conservative published an essay earlier this month that described the taskforce as advocating for 'leftwing ideological orthodoxy'. It went on to accuse the panel of being 'packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine', warning that the 'continued occupation of an important advisory body in HHS – one that has the capacity to force private health insurers to cover services and procedures – by leftwing activists would be a grave oversight by the Trump administration'. In response to the essay, 104 health organizations, including the American Medical Association, issued a separate letter to multiple congressional health committees in which they urged the committees to 'protect the integrity' of the taskforce. 'The loss of trustworthiness in the rigorous and nonpartisan work of the Task Force would devastate patients, hospital systems, and payers as misinformation creates barriers to accessing lifesaving and cost effective care,' the organizations said. In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts. Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he accused the committee of having too many conflicts of interest. Kennedy's decision to overhaul the immunization panel was met with widespread criticism from health experts, with the American Public Health Association executive director Georges Benjamin calling the ouster 'a coup'. 'It's not how democracies work. It's not good for the health of the nation,' Benjamin said.

If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop spraying pesticides
If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop spraying pesticides

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop spraying pesticides

As a biochemist trained in environmental health, I was relieved to see coverage of pesticide exposure and pregnancy risk (Exposure to a mix of pesticides raises risk of pregnancy complications, study suggests, 19 July). But one key detail is missing: food is not the main route of exposure for most women, especially in urban environments. While dietary pesticide levels are regulated, many studies – including urine biomonitoring – have shown less difference in pesticide load between children eating organic and conventional diets in cities than we would expect. Why? Because exposure is happening elsewhere. Pesticides are being sprayed by building managers, neighbours, city governments and businesses – on sidewalks, in apartment hallways, in parks, and even indoors. Many women are exposed without ever handling these chemicals themselves. In fact, a 2020 study found that urban women who used pesticides at home had the same increased risk of birth defects as women exposed to farm drift: a threefold increase in holoprosencephaly, one of the most common birth defects in the US. We must shift the conversation beyond food. These chemicals are in the air women breathe and the homes they live in – often without their knowledge or consent. If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop the ShaveOlympia, Washington, US

Wanna get away? Sorry, there's no destination safe from seasonal allergies
Wanna get away? Sorry, there's no destination safe from seasonal allergies

The Independent

time7 hours ago

  • The Independent

Wanna get away? Sorry, there's no destination safe from seasonal allergies

There's no escape from it — pollen is in every U.S. state, ready to torment your nostrils. The seeds rain down from the trees in a strange yellow haze and ascends to the skies from the flowers and grasses. Even if you could easily pack up and move, nowhere is safe to avoid the dreaded, sniffling effects of seasonal allergies. 'It's a little bit like playing Russian Roulette,' Hannah Jaffee, the director of research at the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, told The Independent. 'If you already have allergies, you can be exposed to an entirely different set of allergens if you relocate.' 'Worst case scenario: you may live in a place and either not have allergy symptoms or have mild allergy symptoms. Then, you move somewhere else and start developing significant symptoms,' she added. Everyone is going to respond differently to a new location. 'If you already have allergies, you can be exposed to an entirely different set of allergens if you relocate. So, you might be trading some symptoms for others.' 'And then, in some cases, your symptoms might improve by relocating,' Jaffee said. More than 100 million Americans live with various types of allergies and over 81 million have seasonal pollen allergies. Some are genetically predisposed to develop allergies, which can factor into what they're allergic to and potentially how severe their symptoms would be. Many people develop allergies as they age and their immune system weakens. Seasonal allergies, which are also commonly known as 'allergic rhinitis' or hay fever, occur when people are exposed to pollen. The inflammatory response can cause sneezing, congestion, a runny nose, or red, watery, and itchy eyes. For people with asthma, it can lead to an asthma attack. For tens of thousands of people, it may even result in a trip to the emergency room. The severity of allergy symptoms also depends on where you live. There are three main types of pollen, including tree, grass, and weed. This year, the highest tree pollen levels were forecast across a wide swath stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the Southeast. The highest weed pollen levels were expected around the Plains states, the Carolinas, and along the Gulf Coast. The foundation also released what it named the nation's top 10 cities for seasonal allergies, with most located in the South and Southeast. Historically, the worst cities are in those regions, Jaffee noted. 'That's because these are climates that tend to be more humid and warmer, so they kind of favor that growth of pollen and mold,' she explained. Wichita, Kansas, led the rankings as the worst city for allergy sufferers. 'Since allergies are so different for everyone, you can thrive in the Southeast part of the U.S. and not have any allergies or still experience significant allergy symptoms elsewhere,' Jaffee said. 'It's kind of a mixed bag.' So, what do you do if you are moving — or want to? Generally, experts recommend that you visit the location for about two to four weeks ahead of time to get a sense of how your body responds, or to visit during different seasons. Talking to an allergist will also be useful for more personalized recommendations. Still, pollen seasons are getting longer and stronger for everyone. Human-caused climate change is resulting in earlier seasons, as well, with warmer temperature trapping heat around urban areas, increasing air pollution, and stimulating pollen production. The amount of pollen released by trees is higher and the strength of the allergic response to the tree pollen appears to be stronger. 'There's no question [that] as there's global warming, the pollen season is increasing,' Dr, Sanjiv Sur, director and professor of Allergy and Immunology at Baylor College of Medicine, said earlier this year. What may help ease the pain, if only for right now? Dr. Neelu Tummala, a clinical assistant professor of otolaryngology at NYU Langone Health, advises that people time taking medications so they are optimally effective, change clothes and take off shoes after spending time outside, and bathe pets. Jaffee recommends a pollen tracking app, in addition to personalized allergy testing. But, ultimately, there needs to be a wider response. 'Long-term, we should be looking at policy change to reduce the impact of climate change,' said the foundation's chief mission officer Melanie Carver.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store