On April 1, the Trump administration initiated its budget cuts, impacting Morgantown, W.Va. Federal scientists were focusing on health and safety concerns for American workers. That morning, hundreds of staff members at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health learned they had been laid off and would lose building access.
More than 900 lab animals remained on site. The institute managed to transfer approximately two-thirds (mainly mice) to a university lab, as reported by two recently terminated employees. Unfortunately, the remaining 300 animals were euthanized last week.
In recent months, the Trump administration aimed to reformat American research, resulting in mass firings of federal scientists, withdrawal of active research grants, and proposals to fund essential laboratory operations.
These actions have disbanded various research initiatives and significantly affected lab animals, crucial for much of the nation’s biomedical research.
“Many animals will face sacrifice—they will be terminated,” remarked a researcher on the potential use of non-animal alternatives at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Experts indicate that predicting the total impact is challenging, as much of the administration’s actions are embroiled in legal disputes. Furthermore, animal research is often discreet, leaving no clear count of animals in U.S. laboratories.
Numerous scientists are hesitant to discuss the fate of lab animals due to fears of backlash from animal rights activists or retaliation from employers or the administration. Many requests for interviews with research facilities remain unanswered.
“It’s a terrible situation for them,” Dr. Rock stated. “Retaining animals can incur high costs, while sacrificing them can provoke public outrage.”
Some animal rights advocates welcome the uncertainty, even if it leads to euthanasia. However, many researchers feel devastated by the dual loss—many animals could perish without contributing to scientific knowledge.
“We don’t engage with animals lightly,” said pulmonary toxicologist Kyle Mandler, recently laid off from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, part of the CDC. He was in the midst of research on harmful dust generated in certain construction materials. About 20 of his mice were euthanized last week, leaving his study incomplete and without data.
“Knowing that their lives and sacrifices were completely wasted is both depressing and infuriating,” he expressed.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not directly respond to inquiries regarding the seized Morgantown animals. However, an unnamed HHS official stated via email that changes at NIOSH are part of a “broader reorganization,” integrating multiple programs for a healthier U.S.
“Staffing and operational adjustments occur in phases,” the statement noted. “Animal care operations are ongoing, and HHS is committed to upholding all federal animal welfare standards throughout this transition.”
Sudden halt
In recent years, many countries, including the U.S., have shifted away from animal research due to its costs and ethical concerns, often poor relevance to human outcomes. This month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revealed plans to phase out animal testing requirements for certain drugs, favoring three-dimensional human organ models made from lab-grown cells, like organoids and “organs on a chip.”
Experts agree these emerging technologies show great promise. However, for the time being, lab animals remain vital to biomedical research, with some arguing that certain data can only be gathered through animal studies.
“We aim to exit this realm,” stated Naomi Charalanbakis, director of science policy at a nonprofit advocating for the continuation of animal use in biomedical research. “But we’re not there yet.”
Research involving lab animals requires careful planning over years, stable funding, and skilled veterinarians and technicians for daily care. The Trump administration’s actions jeopardize all of this.
At the NIOSH facility in Morgantown, initial budget cuts encompassed animal care staff. “But they resisted, insisting they couldn’t leave while animals remained on site,” said a former lab technician.
After the Trump administration froze funding at Harvard this month, researchers developing a new tuberculosis vaccine faced the grim prospect of euthanizing rhesus macaques. This study and the monkeys were saved only after private donors stepped in to provide funding.
Animals involved in halted projects might be relocated to different labs, but others may be undergoing experimental treatments or exposure to pathogens or toxins. Many are retained to illustrate specific behavioral or health vulnerabilities, and lab animals, not being wild, cannot simply be released. Experts noted that the sudden influx of surplus lab animals may overwhelm the nation’s animal sanctuaries.
Anne Linder, associate director of the Animal Law and Policy Program at Harvard Law School, expressed concern that the fate of many lab animals would hinge on the “whims and temperament” of individual researchers and lab staff.
“In the absence of oversight, some decisions may be misguided, driven by harsh needs rather than the welfare of the animals involved,” she said in an email.
Cost reduction
Many researchers have expressed concerns regarding the National Institutes of Health’s attempts to impose severe caps on “indirect costs” related to scientific research, including those tied to maintaining animal care facilities.
A federal judge halted the NIH from implementing these funding caps, but the agency has appealed. Should these policies pass, the repercussions could be disastrous for institutions utilizing non-human primates in their research.
The Washington National Center for Research on Primates, located at the University of Washington, houses over 800 non-human primates. The indirect funding cap represents a loss of around $5 million annually, forcing the colony’s size to shrink, according to director Deborah Fuller.
“This could shatter the entire infrastructure we’ve established,” she cautioned.
If that occurs, the center will strive to find new homes for the animals, yet other research facilities share similar issues, and primate sanctuaries may struggle to accommodate the influx.
As a last resort, primates may have to be euthanized. “This is the worst-case scenario,” warned Sally Thompson Iritani, assistant deputy director of the university’s research department. “Even if it’s uncomfortable to consider, it’s a possibility.”
For some animal rights advocates, the reduction of federal animal research facilities is a cause for celebration. “For many of these animals, euthanasia before experimentation may be the best scenario,” noted Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project, a nonprofit advocating for the cessation of federally funded animal research. (He did stress that finding new homes for lab animals would be preferable.)
Deluciana Winder, director of the Institute for Animal Law and Policy at Vermont Law School, hopes that these cuts could lead to the closure of the National Primate Center. Nevertheless, she expressed concern that reductions at the USDA could weaken already lax oversight of lab animal welfare.
Dr. Locke believes the crisis could serve as a “wake-up call” for the nation to pursue alternatives to animal research, albeit in a thoughtful manner.
“I don’t find it acceptable to cull millions of animals from research,” Dr. Locke stated. “It’s not socially or scientifically acceptable. We need to acknowledge that it’s a likely outcome.”
Source: www.nytimes.com
