By: Naomi Wilkerson, PhD, Neuroscientist and Science Policy Advisor

In 2018, the Pew Research Center released a poll that asked Americans a simple question: do you agree or disagree with the use of animals in scientific research? Results showed that 52 percent of U.S. adults oppose animal research and 47 percent are in favor. A closer look at the data revealed gender and educational differences, with more women (62 percent) and those with low science knowledge (62 percent) firmly opposed. Comparing these results to the same poll issued in 2009 and 2014—where 43 and 50 percent of respondents, respectively, indicated opposition to animal research—we’re witnessing a dramatic shift of public opinion towards anti-animal research in the last several years. Should this trend continue, the U.S. risks losing its position as a leader in science and technology.

The relentless efforts of animal rights groups are a major reason we’re observing this transformation in public consensus on animal research. Over the last decade, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), White Coat Waste Project (WCWP), the Humane Society of the United States, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, have fundamentally changed the narrative on science and the utilization of animal models. These groups seek to persuade individuals that animal research is an ineffective method scientists use to torture innocent animals while wasting limited taxpayer dollars. Not only is this simply incorrect, but of greater concern is the fact that these assertions—ones the public enthusiastically accepts as truth—are made by unqualified individuals without any science or research background.

Investments in biomedical research with animals are not only scientifically necessary for improving public health, but an essential ingredient to national security and securing our nation’s competitive edge on the global stage. Consider the COVID-19 pandemic and the speed at which scientists collaborated to develop various vaccines. Research with hamsters and non-human primates—two species whose respiratory systems are nearly identical to humans—allowed investigators to better understand how the virus infects the lungs and spreads from person to person. But the primary reason researchers were able to swiftly formulate the COVID-19 vaccines is because of the medical research that occurred decades before. Studies on messenger RNA (mRNA), virology, and the immune system—work that exclusively relied on animals—paved the way for present-day researchers to optimize and effectively apply existing knowledge to current needs.

Apart from the direct impact on human health, the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated numerous economic shortcomings within the biomedical research enterprise. This became particularly evident when China, the leading supplier of nonhuman primates around the world, announced at the height of the pandemic that it was halting all exports. Suddenly, U.S. researchers were scrambling to find the laboratory animals needed for critical COVID-19 work. Amid growing demand, numerous scientific projects were paused to protect the limited supply of nonhuman primates, including studies on Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury, and cancer.

Recognizing the sweeping consequences of this dilemma and the reality of China’s control on essential supplies, President Biden requested 30 million dollars in his budget request (pg. 68) to support robust expansion of nonhuman primate infrastructure. This includes funding for additional breeding colonies, larger housing, and environmental enrichment. Because each of these elements in primate research are time-intensive and costly, they are commonly overlooked and underfunded. These constraints are increasingly forcing researchers to forgo specific primate research projects, and in many cases, scientific research altogether. While the Biden Administration funding recommendation is an encouraging step forward, as with all policy proposals in Washington, the House and Senate must approve it.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. Over the last several years, the views of animal rights activists have penetrated the halls of Capitol Hill. Equipped with talking points fraught with inaccuracies, several members of Congress now serve as PETA and WCWP champions by introducing legislation that prohibits the use of animals in research. When a bill fails to accumulate enough co-sponsors for House and Senate Floor consideration, animal rights groups quietly turn to another “backdoor” strategy: appropriations. Because the federal budget must pass every fiscal year, animal rights groups lobby Congressional allies to include language from anti-animal research bills into the final funding package that is eventually signed into law. For example, through this backdoor strategy, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is banned from conducting research with canines, felines, and nonhuman primates unless the VA Secretary approves the studies in writing. Requiring additional red tape for animal research, an already heavily reviewed and regulated process, is simply the first step in these groups’ attempt to eliminate scientific research with animals altogether. In the case of VA research, this would mean fewer therapies for diseases and conditions that afflict millions of Veterans, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

To achieve their overwhelming support, animal rights groups weaponize misinformation. Pictures are manufactured and key details are omitted to evoke a specific, emotional response from the public. As a result, scientists are harassed, intimidated, and threatened. A recent Washington Post article outlines how one misleading image—beagle dogs trapped in mesh cages with sand flies—went viral and led to vicious attacks on Anthony Fauci, MD, PhD, Biden’s chief science advisor and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). However, NIAID did not fund the study portrayed in the picture, one that wrongly attributed NIAID in a journal publication earlier this year. Despite the journal issuing a correction last month, the ship had sailed: headlines depicting “evil scientists” and “senseless beagle experiments” were firmly entrenched in the news.

Animal rights groups contend that non-animal models such as organ-on-a-chip and organoids are sufficient enough to study complex biological processes. But the truth is, these approaches do not address critical aspects of animal or human physiology and behavior. For example, the research referenced in the aforementioned Washington Post article requires dogs because they are a natural reservoir for the tropical diseases in question, leishmaniasis and lymphatic filariasis. Furthermore, according to laws from the Food and Drug Administration, before proceeding with human clinical trials, non-animal methods must be validated in animal models to ensure safety and efficacy. Therefore, the scientific consensus remains that for the foreseeable future, non-animal models can only supplement—not replace—ongoing biomedical work.

As competing nations progressively increase investments in biomedical research, it is critical to leverage and expand ongoing research with animals to advance clinical breakthroughs and revitalize economic return on investments. Understanding the advantages and limitations of animal and non-animal models is essential to establish evidence-based policies governing the research enterprise and effective stewardship of taxpayer funds. To do so requires a concerted effort from scientists, science investors, and policymakers.

If we continue to let animal rights groups dictate the narrative on Capitol Hill, we run the risk of jeopardizing future scientific and technological advancements. We owe it to the next generation to forge a sustainable path forward—a path rooted in facts, not fear.