Archive: Animals in Laboratories

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is pleased to announce the 2024 winners of the Refinement Research Award, which funds research projects that develop or test novel refinement methods, and the Implementing Refinement Grant, which funds the purchase of equipment or training meant to improve the welfare of animals used in research.

Since its founding in 1951, AWI has encouraged laboratory personnel to provide animals with comfortable housing and the opportunity to engage in species-typical behaviors, while sparing them needless suffering. AWI awards individual grants of up to $15,000 to develop and demonstrate innovative methods of refinement to the housing or care of animals in research to better their lives, and grants of up to $8,000 toward the purchase of equipment or staff training.

For the first time, two funded projects focus on insect welfare. The 10 grantees are:

Refinement Research Award Winners:

• Dr. Michael Brunt of MWB Research Consulting Services to survey public attitudes about current research practices involving insects, including live dissection.
• Dr. Samuel Olutunde Durosaro, a postdoctoral scholar at Indiana University, to develop species-specific protocols to safely and humanely anesthetize insects, such as cockroaches, crickets, and yellow mealworms.

Implementing Refinement Grant Winners:

• Dr. Diana Coulon, director of Comparative Biology Core and attending veterinarian at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, to purchase materials that allow rodents to climb and perch, encouraging species-specific behaviors and providing new places to explore and hide.
• Ioan Cozma, animal health technician and coordinator of the marmoset project at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre to purchase tree branches for marmoset cages to promote natural wood-gnawing behaviors.
• Joshua Ejdelman, manager of the Animal Resources Division at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, to purchase quieter and lower-vibration wheels for carts to reduce animal stress as they are transported within facilities.
• Tania Liboiron, animal user training technician at the University of Saskatchewan, to purchase large, double-decker cages with interlinking tubes and enrichment tools, such as activity wheels and huts, to offer rats social housing without overcrowding.
• Dr. Kerith Luchins, associate professor and director of rodent clinical services at the University of Chicago, to purchase handling tunnels for mice and expand their use campus-wide to reduce animal anxiety and improve welfare.
• Dr. Carly Moody, assistant professor of animal welfare epidemiology at the University of California, Davis, to purchase elevated platforms and shelters for mice and create educational infographics about the benefits of these enrichment items.
• Dr. Vanessa Oliver, adjunct assistant professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Calgary, to purchase pens, toys, and shelters to implement an exercise program for rabbits institution-wide that will improve their physical and mental health.
• Jenna Owens, research assistant and monkey enrichment specialist at Texas Biomedical Research Institute, to build cooperative enrichment items for singly housed primates, including tug-of-war units, puzzle feeders, and interactive touchscreen tablets, to encourage social interaction and play between animals housed next to each other.

“AWI is proud to support these innovative projects to improve the quality of life for animals used in research,” said Dr. Joanna Makowska, director and senior scientist for AWI’s Animals in Laboratories Program. “We recognize that laboratory personnel play a crucial role in contributing to the well-being of animals in laboratories. This grant program promotes the creation, exchange, and dissemination of ideas and information about the highest standards of care for these animals.”

Last year, AWI awarded an Implementing Refinement Grant to Anna Jimenez and Dr. Marie-Chantal Giroux of McGill University to purchase transparent handling tunnels as a less-stressful alternative to picking up mice by their tails.

“We are so grateful to AWI for this opportunity,” the researchers wrote. “The grant was exactly the motivation we needed to help us get the trials off the ground and develop our training resources.”

Applications for the 2025 Refinement funding cycle will be available in late summer/early fall.

Last month, both the National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration announced plans to phase out the use of animals in scientific research. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) strongly supports transitioning away from experiments on animals to cutting-edge non-animal models, but proper planning is essential to ensure the best outcomes for animals and science.

Moreover, AWI is deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s recent moves to gut funding for scientific research more broadly.

“Drastic, sudden, and arbitrary cuts to scientific research, coupled with federal workforce layoffs, are harmful to animals, people, and science,” said Dr. Joanna Makowska, director of AWI’s Animals in Laboratories Program. “In the short term, broad cuts to research on animals without allocating funding for rehoming eligible animals used in experimentation will result in compromised welfare or mass euthanasia for the millions of animals currently housed in laboratories. In the long run, research using animals will be reduced, but so will research on public health, medicine, and species and ecosystem conservation, which will affect an untold number of people and animals. This administration is taking a wrecking ball to science.”

Earlier this week, the NIH announced a new initiative to “prioritize human-based research technologies” and “reduce [the] use of animals in NIH-funded research.” While the agency provided no comprehensive roadmap for achieving its goals, it did announce plans for a new Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to coordinate agencywide efforts and expand infrastructure for non-animal research approaches.

This initiative will face an uphill battle and additional funding for non-animal alternatives will be critical. Nevertheless, the administration appears to be working at cross purposes. Its recent decision to freeze more than $2.2 billion in federal funds to Harvard University, for instance, also affects Harvard’s Wyss Institute, which has pioneered the most promising non-animal research alternative: organ-on-a-chip technology.

Most NIH-funded studies involve “basic” research, studies of an exploratory nature meant to advance general scientific knowledge or uncover the progression of disease, among other objectives. Unfortunately, non-animal models are still in the early phases of development for this type of research.

Animal testing, by contrast, involves testing drugs or products to ensure their safety before they are used on humans. Non-animal methodologies are much more readily able to replace animals for regulatory testing requirements, such as those overseen by the FDA. On April 10, the FDA announced detailed plans to phase out its animal testing requirement for certain drug safety studies.

The FDA’s roadmap, unlike the scant information provided by the NIH, outlines a six-prong approach to reduce toxicity testing in animals over the next three years and details six scientific and technical steps for the agency to adopt non-animal research models. AWI applauds the attention to detail evident in the FDA’s announcement and will closely follow how these plans move forward, given mass funding cuts at the agency.

Importantly, neither the NIH nor the FDA have announced plans to retire existing laboratory animals. AWI urges the administration to allocate sufficient resources to guarantee humane outcomes for these animals while developing and advancing alternatives to their use.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) applauds recent announcements by the National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration about their plans to reduce the use of animals in research and testing.

At the same time, however, the Trump administration has moved to cut funding for a wide swath of research—including innovative nonanimal alternatives—and dramatically reduce the number of scientists, veterinarians, and others in the federal workforce who have a role in protecting animal welfare. These moves call into question the feasibility of proposals by the NIH and the FDA to reduce animal use, and raise serious concerns about the potential impacts on animal welfare and science more generally. Indeed, the administration’s actions appear to be at cross-purposes with its purported goals. Replacing animal models with nonanimal ones requires robust funding for research and a sufficient number of scientists to carry out the work.

The administration’s actions are more consistent with an anti-science agenda than a pro-animal one. A government dedicated to alleviating animal suffering would increase funding for nonanimal alternatives, not halt progress at labs advancing those technologies. It would form plans to rehome the animals currently in the system and increase protections, oversight, and regulations at the federal level. And it would allocate more—not fewer—resources for research aimed at managing and preserving threatened and endangered species. Instead, animals and some research into animal-replacing technologies have become collateral damage in the administration’s larger assault on science.

In recent months, the administration has engaged in a multipronged strategy to drastically cut funding for scientific research by capping, canceling, or delaying funds provided by national funding agencies, including the NIH—the largest funder of biomedical research in the world. The administration has canceled research grants on specific topics it deems controversial. In addition, it announced that dozens of universities are currently “under investigation,” and it has already frozen or canceled billions of dollars in federal funding to several of those universities for failing to comply with the administration’s demands, which vary from institution to institution. Among the current casualties of this funding freeze is research at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute, which pioneered the most promising technology for replacing animals in tests and experiments: organ-on-a-chip. Much of that research relied on federal funding.

All told, the administration has terminated at least $9.5 billion in research grants, and many of these actions remain embroiled in litigation. Further research cuts are included in the administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, such as slashing scientific funding across the board and reducing the budgets of the NIH and the National Science Foundation by roughly 40% and 55%, respectively. Already, the administration has fired or pushed out significant portions of the federal scientific workforce, including an estimated one-eighth of employees at the NIH and nearly 20% at the FDA. International toxicology experts have declared that the administration’s actions will “throw public health and safety back to the stone age of safety science,” and could significantly impede the advancement of nonanimal models.

Replacing animals in laboratories entirely will require more innovative research, not less. This is because nonanimal models are still in the early phases of development, especially for “basic” research. This includes exploratory studies meant to advance general scientific knowledge, such as understanding the progression of disease, which comprise the bulk of research funded by the NIH. Nonanimal models are further along in regulatory testing programs, including those overseen by the FDA.

In the meantime, millions of animals remain in laboratories across the country, their welfare and lives hanging in the balance. The administration has threatened to drastically reduce the amount of funds provided for “indirect costs” at universities. Indirect costs cover, in part, animal welfare-related expenses such as enrichment programs, facility upgrades, ethical reviews and approval of study protocols, semiannual inspections, and salaries for animal care staff. Hundreds of animals have already been euthanized in laboratories, and many more remain at risk. Animals who are not euthanized will likely face lower standards of care and oversight.

For instance, the administration has already drastically reduced the US Department of Agriculture’s workforce, including employees tasked with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) via its Deferred Resignation Program; further workforce reductions are anticipated. The USDA has a long history of failing to adequately enforce the AWA, due in part to insufficient staff. Continued loss of personnel and a renewed emphasis on deregulation will only exacerbate the situation, further diminishing the scant protections in place for animals in laboratories. This could result in even more violations of animal welfare laws and regulations—with less accountability.

AWI strongly supports a thoughtful, science-based transition to nonanimal methodologies, both to advance science and reduce animal suffering. However, it is difficult to celebrate perceived wins for animals in laboratories in this uncertain climate—when the administration’s evolving plans could jeopardize their welfare, and public health and environmental protection research that may benefit all animals (human and nonhuman) screeches to a halt.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) welcomes the action taken by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in filing a second complaint against one of the world’s largest research antibody suppliers, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (SCBT). The complaint, filed November 4, alleges additional violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) from September 26, 2012, through April 22, 2014. Importantly, the complaint also requests the suspension or revocation of SCBT’s dealer license, a serious potential consequence given that USDA policy requires both a research registration and a dealer license for such labs to sell animal-derived antibodies.

“We commend USDA for taking this historic step, as it is almost unprecedented for the Department to file multiple complaints against a registered research facility,” said Cathy Liss, president of AWI. “According to USDA inspection reports, there is a longstanding pattern by SCBT of Animal Welfare Act violations, which must not go unpunished. This second complaint—though delayed in our view—should serve as a warning to all regulated entities.”

AWI, along with its supporters, has been urging USDA for years to take action against SCBT. Moreover, prompted by reports of the ongoing apparent serious violations of the AWA, US Representative James P. Moran sent a letter to USDA on October 30, 2014, expressing concern about the “allegations of serious, ongoing violations” of the AWA and SCBT’s alleged “intentional concealment of an entire facility.” Rep. Moran counseled USDA to take enforcement action “as expeditiously as possible.”

The additional violations outlined in the complaint include repeated failure to provide adequate veterinary care—resulting in needless animal suffering—and repeated research oversight violations. The citations also include failure to provide fresh, nutritive food and ensure that procedures avoid or minimize animal pain and distress.

At the heart of USDA’s latest complaint is the grave charge that SCBT willfully refused to allow USDA inspectors access to an entire site housing over 800 goats “from at least March 6, 2012, through October 30, 2012.” When USDA inspectors were finally allowed access to the site, they reported finding goats suffering and in need of veterinary care. The inspection report from October 31, 2012, states that “[t]he existence of the site was denied even when directly asked” during multiple prior inspections.

The November 4 complaint marks the third AWA enforcement action against SCBT since 2005. It comes more than two years after USDA filed a pending complaint against SCBT, alleging multiple veterinary care and research oversight citations from 2007 to mid-2012, and nine years after SCBT was fined $4,600 in 2005 for similar alleged violations spanning a two-year period. Multiple inspections conducted by USDA since May 2010 cite SCBT for using goats suffering from chronic health conditions in antibody production.

“These are serious allegations that warrant a severe response. No facility can be allowed to repeatedly violate the Animal Welfare Act with impunity,” said Liss. “We once again call for USDA to seek revocation of SCBT’s dealer license and the largest fine allowed under the Animal Welfare Act. We also urge all researchers to seriously consider a supplier’s animal welfare record and make an informed, ethical choice before purchasing any antibodies from the hundreds of suppliers worldwide.”

To learn more about this latest complaint, as well as AWI’s actions surrounding SCBT, please visit http://awionline.org/scbt.

The US Department of Agriculture’s case against Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (SCBT), one of the world’s largest research antibody suppliers, is scheduled to be heard by an administrative law judge beginning Tuesday, August 18. The USDA case against SCBT is unprecedented:  it is the first time that three separate complaints for willful violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) have been filed and are pending against a research laboratory.

Over more than a decade, USDA inspectors have cited SCBT for numerous glaring violations of the AWA, including the facility’s apparent repeated denial of the existence of a huge additional location housing more than 800 goats used in antibody production, which should have been subject to federal oversight and inspection.

USDA inspection reports and complaints filed against SCBT can be found here. Of particular note are the most recent inspection reports from July 2015 and the third complaint filed August 7, 2015, which demonstrate the continued appalling conduct by this facility.

The most recent complaint alleges that SCBT has “willfully violated” the AWA and “demonstrated bad faith by misleading” USDA personnel. This complaint also documents extreme suffering of goats, including one who suffered and was eventually euthanized with a captive bolt gun by veterinary tech personnel because no veterinarian was available.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), which has led a hard-hitting campaign calling for the USDA to take firm action against SCBT, will provide daily updates on the hearing. AWI’s efforts have resulted in thousands of letters to USDA officials, most notably Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

“We are hopeful that the USDA will put on a solid case utilizing the extensive documentation it has gathered and that the judge will recognize the grave nature of the alleged violations at SCBT, which have caused needless animal suffering,” said Cathy Liss, president of AWI. “We strongly believe that these USDA citations warrant severe penalties, including license revocation or suspension.”

A recently released United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection report from January 2016 discloses that Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (SCBT), one of the world’s largest producers of animal-derived research antibodies, has eliminated its entire inventory of goats and rabbits.

An inspection conducted by the USDA just six months prior revealed an inventory of 3,202 goats and 2,471 rabbits. The dramatic exodus of the facility’s goat and rabbit inventories coincides with an unprecedented series of enforcement actions by the USDA against SCBT. These actions are tied to numerous citations issued against the company by USDA veterinary inspectors, alleging serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including concealing an entire barn housing over 800 goats who had been used in antibody production.

“SCBT has been repeatedly cited by the USDA for failing to meet the modest requirements under the law,” said Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), which has brought public scrutiny to the allegations against SCBT. Since 2012, AWI has repeatedly called for the USDA to take action, including seeking revocation of SCBT’s dealer license and issuing a substantial fine against the facility. “This company has been on the USDA’s enforcement radar for more than a decade. It appears that its misdeeds have finally caught up with it. We applaud the department for its diligence and will continue our efforts to ensure that no animals will ever suffer at SCBT again.”

Three separate complaints filed by the USDA against SCBT are currently pending. The most recent complaint, issued in August 2015, alleged SCBT had “willfully violated” the AWA and “demonstrated bad faith by misleading” USDA personnel. An August 2015 hearing on the first two complaints was abruptly suspended, at SCBT’s request, after the presentation of a damning case by the government. Resumption of the hearing is scheduled for April 5, 2016, and a hearing on the third complaint is scheduled to follow immediately thereafter. No other registered research facility has faced a hearing of this magnitude since the AWA became law nearly 50 years ago.

The USDA is seeking a judicial order imposing a fine and suspending or revoking SCBT’s dealer license. The company must have such a license to sell antibodies derived from species that are covered under the Animal Welfare Act, such as goats and rabbits. As allegations against the company have surfaced, prominent individuals in the research community—including Alice Ra’anan and Bill Yates of the American Physiological Society—have advocated for researchers to reconsider purchasing antibodies from SCBT.

To view the latest inspection report and learn about AWI’s actions surrounding SCBT, please visit http://awionline.org/scbt.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) lauds the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reaching a settlement agreement in its multiple cases against Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. (SCBT)—one of the world’s largest research antibody suppliers—resulting in the cancellation of the facility’s research registration, revocation of its dealer license and payment of a historic $3.5 million civil penalty.

“On this 50^th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act, the USDA has at long last secured a penalty that is commensurate with the allegations,” said Cathy Liss, president of AWI. Since 2012, AWI has brought public scrutiny to the allegations against SCBT and called for the USDA to take action. “It should serve as a loud and clear message to all research facilities, animal dealers, exhibitors and airlines regulated under this law. Previously, the highest penalties paid to the USDA were less than $300,000, demonstrating the monumental nature of this settlement.”

The settlement requires SCBT to pay the fine and cancel its research registration by May 31, 2016. The facility’s dealer license will also be revoked by December 31, 2016. Although the December deadline allows the company to continue selling antibodies through the remainder of the year, it can only sell such products derived from live animals on or before August 21, 2015. After that, the company is permanently banned in the U.S. from selling antibodies derived from species covered under the Animal Welfare Act. Additionally, the USDA’s hearing against SCBT—which had been postponed to August 2016 from April 2016—has been cancelled.

Over a period of years, USDA inspectors have cited SCBT for countless violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The USDA’s allegations included numerous animals found to be suffering and the facility’s repeated denial of the existence of a huge additional location housing more than 800 goats used in antibody production—a facility that should have been subject to federal oversight and inspection.

To view the recent settlement agreement, USDA inspection reports and complaints filed against SCBT, and learn about AWI’s actions surrounding the facility, please visit http://awionline.org/scbt.